> However, I think we are two poles of what chess is: > you are teaching people the orthodoxy and I am trying to make them aware > that real chess is quite more complicated than what the books (and indeed > your pages!) say. I think that's absolutely right. I was reading things on your pages which said more or less the opposite of what I was saying and yet were completely correct! e.g. on romantic openings. Hence my salty comments. But of course, I am a 1900 player writing for juniors, and you are a master writing for me. That's actually a better way to put it, and I might tweak the link accordingly. I'm sure you know your style and comments are widely appreciated, by me also.
"Nimzovitch became then for me more or less the author of the only book which could help me get away from these Euwe books, which, I admit, are very good for the ordinary club player. But once you've reached a certain strength you get the impression that everything that Euwe writes is a lie."-- Bent LARSEN, in KEENE, Nimzowitsch: a reappraisal.