• by RetGuvvie98

  Rating:

  Understanding the theory of the opening you choose to play is going to give you better games (more wins) as well as helping you improve as a player.  this is a classic.

• by bernieg1968

  A good opening leads you to a good midle and end game  I always look to form a barrier and safely castle the king alway wait for the oponent to get a agresive move  sometime you have to sacrifice good pieces but at the end is all payback

  good luck 

  
  

• by rigamagician

  Rating:

  Although this book is outdated on concrete lines, it still provides the best explanation of how to form or undermine a pawn centre, and the general ideas that go into sound opening play.  A classic.

• by AllogenicMan

  Rating:

  One of the best and most comprehensive 'non-specific'-type opening books ever written that still stands the test of time among similar works published to date.  True, although the book may be a tad outdated by today's standards towards new opening theory, its spectrum of basic ideas remain largely unchallenged towards the ideology behind key opening/defensive fundamentals for both the novice- and intermediate-level player, laid out not so much as a 'repertoire' for either Black or White, but leaning more towards practicality in lines based on descriptions for all the most common openings of which are generally held to be acceptably sound in practice.

  Despite the well-known fact for the author's limited time constraints during perhaps the peak/turning point of his career [change], the book's coverage was an achievement in itself, taking into account that Fine was as well in the midst of studies towards a degree in psychoanalysis.  This can [or may?] be documented in at least one account - the perusal of such indicating chapter 2, p.7 [from the revised 1989 ed.] (dealing with the particular instance within the line from the Center Game: 1.e4 e5; 2.d4) - whereupon Fine states: " ... in which event White must recapture with the queen or play a [the] gambit.  The gambit will be considered separately." (implicating, after 2...exd4; 3.Nf3 [and/or{?} 3.c3, 3.Bc4, 3.f4 et al]) - although his discussion of the gambit/line is nowhere to be found, nor mentioned about, afterwards. (Whether the text of 'that' was mistakenly left out from an earlier edition, or simply forgotten to be expatiated on by Fine[?], it only leaves the reader to wonder ... )

  On another note, although the book does not [nor was intended to] cover every conceivable [sound] opening variation known up to the time (the first ed. being published in 1943), what it does cover is not only a broad [and somewhat historical account] synopsis of all the tried and true classic openings, but of the more important aspect in understanding the rationale behind opening move choices - or, the 'ideas' which govern and lead to precise [notably, pawn/-structure] play.  What Fine does not discuss, nor attribute to in any way, is the debate over advocacy between dichotomic opinion, within the game's approach towards assimilating [i.e. via memorization or comprehension] opening theory.  However, though Fine does initially hint on the subject briefly [on principle], upon finishing the book, this [perhaps, still biased] 'school of thought' faculty of chess education may only serve to [still] leave the reader in doubt as well, in retrospect to [learning] the oodles of opening variations throughout.

  Overall, Fine has nonetheless contributed a concisely-written and legible single-vol. reference work, encapsulating the many sound academic principles, fundamental workings, systematic classification types, including didactic pawn configurations/diagrams, and above all - the ideas of, through proven analyses - behind recent modern opening theory, all for the chess community to enjoy, for many years yet to come.

  Reuben Fine was not only a well-respected GM who was also one of those few who never quite made the World Champion cycle, but was a renowned authority on every phase of the game.  He will always be remembered as one of the true giants of recent chess theory.

Post your reply: