Excelling at calculation by Aargard - Don't buy it

That book is nearly 2000 rating points over your head.

lol

The book is written for players rated Class A and above.  So don't buy it if you're rated 900.  It would be like trying to read a calculus book when you have not yet learned arithmetic.

Improving chess amateurs would be better served by choosing a book from the following...

Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond

Yeah yeah, i figured our myself, that it is way above my level. Nevertheless, the calculations are wrong. My rating points doesn't change the fact

+1

Very doubtful that at your level you are qualified to make that judgement on this particular book.  When you reach Class A you will understand this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_rating_system

Just return the book. A 5 year old who just learned what a soccer ball is isn't qualified to be critiquing Ronaldo.

If we trashed every book that Stockfish disagreed with there would be no chess book industry.  Indeed there would be no chess training industry, as any advice offered by a human would be subject to being overridden by a computer.  The point is to first understand what those who are experts at chess are teaching you.  If you can do that then you won't have to rely on a computer to guide you - at least if you are playing against human opponents.  If you can't or won't do that, then don't waste your money to buy a chess book or take advice from any human - learn from Stockfish instead.  And if you are rated 900, good luck with that!

2500 human analysis in 40 years ago vs 3600 engine + analysis in 2021, you know whom to trust. 

However, you need to know that those guys in 40 years ago did not have access to engines running depth 30, depth 40 instantly!

Indeed he wrote in the preface, that all lines a Stockfish checked. I wonder how this can be?! And it wasn't written 40 years ago. Let it be 15 years

@Phillipp1985 -

The point behind my remarks is that your critique of the book would hold more weight if the critique were based on your own analysis of the position in which you explain, without the help of Stockfish, why Aagaard's suggestions are either incorrect or at least not optimum on the basis of violating chess principles.  But to trash Aagaard's book simply because there are instances where Stockfish disagrees with some of his analysis, does not invalidate its usefulness.

@sound67 -

I suggest you avoid the foul language in these forums.  Not only might you be muted, but it doesn't enhance your image (at least to more mature subscribers).  And the juvenile attempt to mask it won't help.

What was Aagaard's explanation for avoiding gxf6 in that line?

Because Aagaard is a Grandmaster whose rating hovers close to 2500 FIDE. It seems odd that he would make a basic calculation error that even a 1600 could spot.

No doubt, he would've looked at gxf6 extensively, examined all possible lines, then looked at other moves, to compare.

So ... perhaps there's something in his explanation that might shed light on his suggestion?

(Also, I echo the other posters who've said that Aagaard might be above your level. I wouldn't recommend his books to anyone below 2100 FIDE.)

He doesn't give a concrete variation saying why gfx6 is bad. He just argues about, that the center could not be kept shut.

Instead, he gives a very short variation of the best play. But the reply for black according to Aargard (...Ba3) is again not the best reply and says, White should concentrate on development. It is 3.5! centipawns worth then the best move according to Fritz / Stockfish 12. That's not just a little bit off / human player. The best reply would be d4. A move even me as the 900 rating points would have chosen. But maybe this is to easy for the so and so advanced players

I am only a very basic chess player. I am no where near 2500. I am probably more like 900-1000 despite my games on chess.com so take my opinion with a grain of salt. My opinion on the matter is that it isn't so much a right or wrong thing. Stockfish is a computer program that runs an algorithm created by a human being. It has to follow rules in its calculation and these rules determine the outcome. The principals being taught by the author might conflict with the rules Stockfish was programmed to use to perform its calculation. I think it is important to know what Stockfish thinks. However, I also think it is important to understand what the author is trying to teach me so that I can apply that to my chess analysis process and thinking.

The goal shouldn't be to think like a chess engine and do exactly as Stockfish would. The goal should be to learn how to evaluate positions and make educated and calculated decisions about the situation. The better one gets at this the closer the moves will match what Stockfish thinks. However, sometimes these calculated decisions will differ from Stockfish. Just use Stockfish to analyze any great player's games. I am sure there will be some discrepancy between what Stockfish thinks and what someone like Kasparov thinks. I just spent extensive time looking at the Kasparov-Rebelo game on page 142 of Discovering Chess Openings. Stockfish agreed with most of Kasparov's moves but not all. Just because it differs doesn't mean it is not good. Also, Stockfish can calculate at very high depths. Most humans cannot. As a result, most humans will not come to the same conclusion as Stockfish. I think it is best for each player to learn general principals and learn to apply them based upon what each can see. Again I am a 900 player. Take this with a grain of salt.

Aagard's books are some of the best on the market. All authors, including Kasparov, have errors in their variants. It doesn't matter, it depends on explanations and on learning to understand certain patterns and structures, the mindset of a good player. That's why everyone who criticizes Aagard has little knowledge of chess and should concentrate on collecting the chess pieces instead of telling nonsense.

Is One challenged example enough to throw out a good book? I’d understand if every game that Aagard analysis was refuted by Stockfish, Komodo or Houdini. 
But if someone were to run year 2021 chess engines against every example, and updated all the commentaries, I’d simply get the latest edition of the book!

I'm not strong enough to second guess an author as well-regarded as Aagard, but abstractly I wonder if this isn't an aspect of the same phenomenon in chess streams where Stockfish suggests lines that humans wouldn't play or where the evaluations are based on lines that at some point down the line are not human, thus the desire by commentators and players to avoid talking about the computer line most of the time. Stockfish might be seeing tactical points there are ultimately outweighed by the human positional concerns and realities of human-human play.

I also wonder if you've considered asking Aagard? Or asking in a place where you are likely to have the question considered by more high-rated players?