1.e4 book with expanations. Please suggest

thank you fburton. Does a repertoire book imply memorization?

Yes, it does - a repertoire book is intended more for training than a general survey book, although you could use the latter for training/memorization too and a repertoire book for general information (albeit with gaps).

No, not at all. How you use a book depends on you and is not a difference between repertoire books and more general books. The only difference is that repertoire books give you only a repertoire (one line against each of black's options) and non-repertoire books try to give you all of the lines.

For instance, Carsten Hansen's book on the 4.e3 Nimzo-Indian treats all lines after it, all of the options for both black and white. And Watson's "A strategic opening repertoire for white" gives answers against 1.d4, including 4.e3 against the Nimzo-Indian, but he only covers one line against each of black's methods after 4.e3.

Repertoire books have more space per line, because they don't have to cover everything, but if say you don't like Watson's lines against the Nimzo-Indian, you'll have to find another book for a line against it.

All of this though is only relevant at the levels where opening theory (not just playing openings well) starts to become relevant, and that's above 2200 or so. Or if you happen to like studying opening theory :-)

ahh, that explains a lot. I won't be needing any reportoire books in this lifetime. The question remains, does OP look for a repertoire book, or a survey of 1. e4 openings. If the latter, I think Bronstein's 200 open games might be a useful addition to Watsons, Khalifman's and Essential openings, if OP still finds those important. At risk of being a know it all who actually knows nothing (look at my rating...I regularly lose to approc 1000chess.com players)...I think at this level Bronsteins book may be more instructive than the detail of a repertoire book or the useluess generallity of a survey. In the case of the latter, I tend to agree with Carsten's negative review of Essentials. 

I don't really like Bronstein's 200 open games. There's only one paragraph per game, and then the game, in descriptive notation. Sometimes it's a story, sometimes it's about the game, but all in all I'd say that much much better books have come out since that one.

Has anyone read Batsford Chess Openings 2? I was thinking about getting that book.

Volumes 6 and 7 cover the French. 

http://www.amazon.com/Opening-White-according-Volume-Repertoire/dp/9548782472/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1383337283&sr=8-15&keywords=openings+according+to+anand

http://www.amazon.com/Opening-White-according-Volume-Repertoire/dp/9548782464/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_4

It's ancient and contains only tables of moves and a tiny bit of overview text. I've actually thrown out my copy with the trash a few years ago.

Sorry to hear that. Thank you.

hehe, that just about ends that discussion! Someone throwing out a chess book means its useless!

if OP needs up to date novelties, then I'm totally out of my league and you should listen to other posters. If OP is looking for themes of mainlines, most won't change drastically. What do people think of John Watson's three (?) tomes on the openings?

chernev's logical chess is recommended if you want to study fossils and bible in order to understand darwin and evolution. 

That's funny. Wrong, but funny. Everything Chernev writes about chess positions and ideas should be received skeptically, but can be useful if that attitude characterizes the reading. Everything that he says about history should be regarded as emanating from his imagination and almost certainly false.

I offer more detail at:

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/02/chernevs-errors.html

Irving Chernev's texts draw from the era of Wilhelm Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker, contain several games by Akiba Rubinstein, and also include games by the likes of Jose R. Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine, and even players who were active at the time Chernev was writing. As works of history, his texts are worse than useless: he makes up stories that cannot be verified through reference to primary texts. "My First Chess Book" was Chernev's The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955), which makes frequent claims of checkmate being announced over the board before a forced sequence was played. There should be no doubt that such conversations have taken place in the annuls of chess history, but Chernev's claims are often suspect.

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-small-library.html

Definitely.  6 covers non-Winawer, 7 covers Winawer.  3.Nc3 is presented as the main move of the repertoire naturally, as that is what Anand's main move against the French is.  

I'm quite sure chessmicky was being sarcastic. I don't think this is what OP is looking for. Chernev's Logical Chess, too, is definitely not what OP is looking for. He asked for help with the open games, themes, targets, lines, in the open games. 

OP, go to your local library and look for John Watson's Mastering The Chess Openings volume 1. See if it answers your prayers. I think it may. Watson explains well, thinks well, teaches well. 

The first half of Logical Chess is focused on  themes, targets, lines, in the open games

I would highly recomment "Attacking With 1. e4", by GM John Emms. It gives several unorthodox methods of attacking common Black defenses to 1. e4 that I have found very useful. 

Ziryab quotes himself as a source reference! He writes a positive review of Chernev's Logical Chess on his blog, and then quotes and links to his blog on this thread, without noting that he wrote the blog!! That is a new kind of cheating! It is both plagiarism and arrogance!

Didn't I mention that I was the author? I meant to. It's certainly not plagiarism if I'm quoting myself. It may smack of naked self-promotion, though.

In any case, the review is not wholly positive. Generally positive, yes, but with some caveats.

The OP is looking for "a lot" of lines against 1.e4, and there Logical Chess falls short.

My comment on what was covered in the french was directed more at fburton, but yes I didn't catch chessmicky's sarcasm, if thats what it was.  Those books are usable for intermediate players I think; I am intermediate and I don't feel the material is over my head in either the Anand or Kramnik series.