Pet peeves with chess books?
A number of times former CFC President Eric Van Dusen remarked to myself and another chess friend that we are living in what he called a Golden Age of chess publishing, in that there are so many high quality chess books out there, it seems.
The topic of this thread is whether posters might have any pet peeves with chess books, whether new or old. My own pet peeve is a fairly general one, i.e. with chess opening books that give a repertoire for one side, especially for Black. When I get into the details of the author's analysis, I find disappointingly often that, at least once in the book, the author seems to have worked out that in some apparently important line(s), White can [at the least practically] force a draw (and I don't mean a 'living draw', i.e. with at least some hopes of winning, however few realistically, or not even necessarily a so-called 'dead draw', which is about as bad as a forced draw).
Many such books are on tactical defences, so one is not surprised that there are a fair number of forced draws that appear in various parts of a book that tries to be complete, but what I refer to is that it's as if an author makes no effort to try to provide a way(s) for Black to try to win in all cases. Maybe the author (especially if a grandmaster) wishes to hold back such critical Black winning attempt(s) for his own tournament or match play in future (is chess that tough for Black nowadays?). At least in my case, as a master I can pretty confidently fish around with an engine and/or database to look for something promising for Black, if it turns up eventually, but it can be rather annoying if one must bypass major recommended variation(s) by the author if one wishes to play without risking a forced draw being pounded out by a well-informed White opponent. The author might claim that, well, he's just giving what are considered the main lines, but as a player used to playing in a club or weekend Swiss event, who normally wants to not allow a forced draw, well, I'd like a break from that.
A few notable examples of what I refer to (good books otherwise) would include:
Jones' The Dragon Volume 1 & 2 (Quality Chess, 2015);
Marin's The Pirc Defence (Quality Chess, 2017).
In Jones' volume 1, for some (more) specific examples, in the Yugoslav Attack, the Topalov (9.Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Nxd4) and Burnett (10...Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.Kb1 Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.g4 b5) Variations are given, where White can, if he wishes, wind his way to forced draws deep in the author's analysis. Instead a repertoire based on, e.g., the Chinese Variation (10...Rb8) - or even the old main line (10...Qa5), if it can be fully rehabilitated - might have been possible to advocate as a way to play for a win at all costs. Then the author could still keep the Soltis Variation (10...Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4 h5) as a major alternative, if he's granted that the reader would then not so much mind an author's draw arising in the Burnett Variation, or, better still, [known] [older] winning attempt(s) may have been possible to give as playable alternative(s) to the Burnett Variation, in case of 12.Kb1.
In Marin's book there appears to be quite a few forced draws that Black apparently should swallow if forced to by White, if he's to agree with the author's assessments. Really though, the Pirc is not nearly as tactical as the Dragon, as a rule, so this seems even tougher to excuse. One example is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bf4, where deep in the author's analysis Black must settle for a draw. I find it hard to believe the Pirc has come to that already. Another case the author concentrates on is 4.f4 Bg7 5.a3 0-0 6.Nf3 c5!? where a draw can result if White steers for it - at least here there is a very minimal mention of a shallow line beginning with 6...Na6 as being playable.
On a positive note, I'd like to praise Pert's Playing the Ragozin (Quality Chess, 2016) precisely because the author notes that he went out of his way to find ways around any forced draws that otherwise would have been available to White. Pert is a British International Master, not so concerned with chess as a career (he has a real job), so maybe that's a lesson for those who hope for very revealing analysis from typical Grandmasters in their books - they might prefer more amateur authors' books at times, as they have less reason to hold anything back, plus nowadays every author can have an engine help with any tactical analysis.
