In my opinion, Aagaard's books are much better than his DVD's. On his DVDs he's too dogmatic about the principles being explained, and I'm not crazy about some of the examples he chooses to illustrate his point.

Still, it's entirely untrue that he kept picking games he lost. Among the main games he shows, there is only one loss: Kasparov-Shirov. But he shows the game primarily to illustrate opening ideas because the opening of that game was very instructive (he doesn't even show the whole game). It is primarily an opening DVD after all. He chooses games that best illustrate how to play the Spanish Opening for both sides. If you don't want to learn about the opening, don't buy the DVD.

2)Wrong. He picked only ONE game that he lost among the main games, and that was to Kasparov. All the other main games were won and a couple were drawn. Of course, in the analysis of the main games he had to show why he picked one line over another, so he explained by showing how some inferior moves got him into trouble in other games. Those other games were part of the analysis of the main game, and the analysis would have been incomplete without them. And for an opening DVD, your best games don't have to be ones that you won. Since the purpose of the DVD is to explain the main ideas of the Spanish (watch the introduction or read the advertisement for the DVD since you don't seem to clear on this), it doesn't matter what the result of the games is. What matters is that the openings are instructive and relevant to the lines that he is explaining.

3) I didn't rewatch the DVD, but I remember the times that he says "I don't know enough about this line to talk about it in detail," and almost every time he also notes that it is not one of the main lines. If you would have payed attention during his DVD, you would have known that. Again, you can't expect an opening encyclopedia from video format.

4) I'd like to see you try.

I'll check, but I'm pretty sure there were two or more lost games. I don't care about "main" games vs. variations he posts, it doesn't make a difference, he choses to present his loses in a "Best Games in the Spanish" DVD. You're whining about how the DVD is meant to be an introduction, claims it's an introduction, etc. The title says, "My Best Games in the Spanish." I'm not going to let the title go just because Shirov is more or less just explaining reasons for certain moves.

I realize you're someone who argues for no reason, but you realize there can be only one main line, right? Everything else is a sideline, and sidelines can be just as playable or important. I don't expect you to understand this, or anything else though, so np.

Your best games really do have to be games you've won. I'm sorry, that's just how it works.

Anyway, re: beating you up, let's reveal your living situation.

<I don't care about "main" games vs. variations he posts, it doesn't make a difference, he choses to present his loses in a "Best Games in the Spanish" DVD> Wrong again. It makes a big difference, because if someone is presenting a winning game among his best games, there is nothing wrong with explaining the variations that could have occurred during that game. In fact it is necessary to do so. Some of those variations lead to worse positions which can result in losses, and they are important variations to discuss. That's why he includes them, as they are a necessary part of good analysis of the main game. If you think that a game (and especially an opening) can be thoroughly analyzed without ever examining inferior moves, it's time for you to wake up.

I know that you're not a master, but I assumed you'd have a somewhat more subtle understanding of chess openings than this. I guess not. Let me try to explain it to you, very slowly: Take the French Defense. In the French Defense there can be the Winawer, the Tarrasch, the Classical, the Advanced, etc. Those by themselves are main lines. Then, in each of those variations there is a main line, and sometimes more than one. For example in the Winawer, both 7.Qg4 and 7.Nf3 are considered main lines. In opening theory, main lines are simply lines that are very popular. Then there are some major sidelines. Then there are obscure sidelines, which may be important, but usually don't occur as often. If you expect a video DVD to cover all of the the sidelines, including the obscure ones that are hardly ever played, then what you really want is an opening encyclopedia. Looks like you should have bought an ECO rather than Shirov's DVD, since you're not looking for understanding but rather to see every possible variation and sub-variation in the opening. I don't expect you to understand this, or anything else though, so np.

Anyway, re: beating you up, I've already taught you a few chess lessons, but I'd be more than happy to teach you another kind of lesson if you really want to fight. Cheers :P

Anyway, draws aren't his best games either. To be honest, I didn't buy the DVD, I pirated it. So all I saw was, "Best Games in the Spanish," loaded it up, and got Shirov's take on various lines. Which would be fine if that's what I was interested in, but I really don't consider opening theory the most interesting part of Chess.

Sure, I'm not saying that discussing opening variations that lead to different, perhaps worse or better positions is wrong. I in fact, if you can recall, said that one of my complaints is that he didn't show a broad enough understanding of opening lines.

If there are more than one "main line," then chess players need to get together and figure out a better nomenclature. You get your panties in a bunch over my semantic disagreement with the term, "main line," while claiming that there are multiple interesting lines. Well, the many, (upwards of 10) times where he admitted to knowing nothing or too little of some line was disappointing. You, being a whiner, might argue that they're sidelines. Well, *shrug* perfectly playable means it has to get serious treatment.

You can e-mail me your living details and we can say hi to each other with bricks.

Re: Korchnoi's stupid chess ideas. Take one for instance: He offers exchange sacrifices as a way to beat computers. His opinion is that (in 2004) they do not understand them, and will play planlessly and lose.

Even in 2004 this was not the case, and if we take his idea (he did not limit it to "as of now," or anything like that) generally, he was saying that giving up the exchange against the strongest computer engines may be a way to beat them. This is funny ha-ha.

It's called ridicule. BTW, let me know when your rating reaches 2306. Only 700 points to go!

<To be honest, I didn't buy the DVD, I pirated it> Why am I not surprised? Way to steal from ChessBase, one of the only chess organizations in the world that is actually doing GOOD for chess. You should be proud of yourself.

<You, being a whiner, might argue that they're sidelines. Well, *shrug* perfectly playable means it has to get serious treatment.> So you're saying it's a crappy DVD because he didn't cover all the sidelines. Just to give you an idea: if he were to cover ALL the sidelines, there would be absolutely no way to fit the videos on one DVD. Aside from that, your computer would explode from too many gigabytes of pirated information. He states very plainly in the introduction (not that you bothered watching it, I see) that his intention is not to provide an opening encyclopedia but to cover some of the main ideas of the Spanish and provide a solid foundation of theory. I guess it didn't occur to you that when he explains some of the main ideas of one line, those same ideas also apply to many of the related sidelines, so it would be a waste of time and space (given the video format) to start spewing theory of those lines also.

<You can e-mail me your living details and we can say hi to each other with bricks.> I'd rather say hi to each other with fists. Let me know the next tournament you'll be playing at, and I'll make sure to look for you in the "Booster" section.

<Re: Korchnoi's stupid chess ideas. Take one for instance: He offers exchange sacrifices as a way to beat computers>

In fact, positional exchange sacrifices are one of the best ways to beat computers. Even the best computers today would "criticize" many of, say, Petrosian's positional exchange sacrifices -- but their evaluation only starts to change many moves down the line. As for his comment that computers play planlessly, he's right: they don't think in terms of plans, but rather brute force calculation. Besides, this is not really a "chess idea," but rather an opinion about the relative strength of computers. If you're going to criticize Korchnoi's DVD because he underestimates computer strength in chess ... you should find better things to do.

[Event "94th ch-GBR"]
[Site "Great Yarmouth ENG"]
[Date "2007.07.01"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Wu, L."]
[Black "Aagaard, J."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E10"]
[WhiteElo "2314"]
[BlackElo "2467"]
[PlyCount "78"]
[EventDate "2007.07.30"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5 b5 5. Bg5 exd5 6. cxd5 d6 7. e4 a6 8. a4 Be7 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. axb5 Nxd5 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. bxa6 Nb4 13. Be2 f5 14. exf5 Rxa6 15. Rxa6 Bxa6 16. Kf1 Bb7 17. g4 N8c6 18. Rg1 d5 19. Rg3 Ne5 20. Qb3 Ra8 21. Kg2 Ra1 22. Kh3 Nxg4 23. Rxg4 Qxe2 24. Re4 Qb5 25. Re7 Bc8 26. Qe3 Bxf5+ 27. Kg2 Nc6 28. Re8+ Kf7 29. Ng5+ Kg6 30. Ndf3 Qf1+ 31. Kg3 Qg1+ 32. Nxg1 Rxg1+ 33. Kf4 Rg4+ 34. Kf3 Nd4+ 35. Qxd4 cxd4 36. Nh3 Re4 37. Nf4+ Kg5 38. Rxe4 Bxe4+ 39. Kg3 d3 0-1

click for larger view

Even 28 Rb7 would have caused Aagaard's immediate resignation. But 28 Re8+ was also winning until he lost the thread of his attack. Eg 28 Re8+ Kf7 29 Ng5+ Kg6 with this position -

click for larger view

Instead of Wu's 30 Ndf3, he would win with 30 Re6+ Bxe6 31 Qxe6 and it's all over.