1.e4 book with expanations. Please suggest

no Ziryab, you did not cite that you were the author. You quoted this 'author' twice, in two separate posts, and provided a link to the blog, and did not even once note that you were the author. If it was 'naked self-promotion' I recommend that you repair the misdeed; you were only promoting yourself as a cheat. And no, quoting yourself without noting that you are quoting yourself is certainly plagiarism. It is a strange twist on plagiarism, but it is definitely plagiarism. It is doubly-deceptive plagiarism. You are quoting someone who is merely you, and you are hiding that it is you.  It is purporting to provide a source to bolster the credibility of a claim, but the source is merely yourself.

If you don't get that that is plagiarism...I don't know what else to say. 

no, not self-promotion. He did not cite himself as the author of the review which he quoted in support of his own views. He falsified data, which is a form of plagiarism. It was not self-promotion because he hid the fact that it was himself he was quoting. It was naked deception, not self-promotion. 

for e4 games and ideas i tend to read or look at Tal games and Fischer games 

here is the first link on plagiarism that came up on google from a university guideline. Everything after the end of this sentence is copied from the university guideline and the link to the site is provided below.

<So let’s start with a definition—plagiarism is the use of someone else’s words or ideas as your own without giving appropriate credit or without the person’s consent to use his or her words or ideas without acknowledgment.  This can be somewhat confusing, because at its core, plagiarism isn’t just about stealing someone else’s words or ideas, but also about claiming to have done work you actually haven’t.  Thus, many professors, me included, would see using a paper or research you have done for one course in fulfillment of an assignment in another as plagiarism, even though you are the paper’s author.  You can plagiarize yourself!

Different professors and instructors have different interpretations of these standards, of course.  Nonetheless, there are several things that everyone seems to agree constitute a violation of them.  Among these are:

	Submitting a paper in fulfillment of an assignment that was written by another person, such as a paper obtained from an internet paper mill.
	Submitting a paper which contains deliberately uncited sources with the intention of “passing off” the quotation as your own writing.
	Falsifying data or research for any reason.
	Repeated occurrences of “Academic Dishonesty”.

These are also considered among the more grievous examples of “Academic Dishonesty” and are usually prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.  At LSSU, this can mean dismissal from the University.>

http://www.lssu.edu/faculty/lrivers/faqs/plagiarism_faq.htm

Like Bronstien's 200 I hear "500 Master Games of Chess" is also good. It has closed games too but all the games are sorted by the opening move.

yes, richie and Oprah, this page you provide doesn't describe falsification of data. 

It's not  someone else’s words or ideas. It is not plagiarism.

My "crime" is that I presented my own words as my own words, but in a manner that implied they were someone else's. I'm not gonna defend the error (I've corrected the first post). I appreciate the criticism.

Until three days ago, my photo here and my photo on my blog were identical. Having changed my photo here, I should be careful to point out that I'm quoting from my blog when I do so.

well, Riche and Oprah, we can agree on it being 'dishonest' and 'deceptive' and 'wrong' then. We don't have to agree on everything.

So what do you think the OP should consult for his e4 education? My suggestions were Bronstein's 200 open games for a light, eccentric, unsystematic and instructive presentation of themes, and Watson's first volume of Mastering the openings for lines and more recent games.

I'll grant the dishonest, etc., although it wasn't intended to be so. I can see how it came across that way.

I hit the like button on your Bronstein recommendation. Sadly, Facebook, I mean Chess.com has disabled this button. 

Thanks.

I'm angling for readers, always. At the current rate, I could get my first bank deposit from Google Ads next August. There's money in blogging! I've only been doing it since 2007, and I could get paid as early as 2014!

ziryab, if you read the quote I presented above  "even though you are the paper’s author.  You can plagiarize yourself! "  you will read that plagiarism can include quoting yourself without citing the source.  The bold and italics are not mine, they come from the university document. 

And Richie and Oprah, it is falsification of data because Ziryab was providing a purported outside source as corroborating Ziryab's claim; he fabricated data (the review he had written) to support his claim (I guess the claim that Chernev's Logical Chess would be a good book for the OP to learn 1.e4 openings from...). The data he supplied was written by himself, and it purported to be an outside source of data. He copied from the blog with formatting intact, making it look like it was from an outside source, when in fact it was an inside source, i.e., self-fabricated. In research circles that would be considered falsified data. 

umm, I made it clear it was his own work. fyi. He only owned up after I pointed it out. I followed the link because I wanted to see what idiot would publish that kind of tautological drivel about Chernev these days (e.g. that Nunn is 'evidence of Chernev's timelessness'!!!---if you know about the Nunn-Chernev spat you will understand why I wanted to look up that source!!) , and I saw that the author of the blog was the same person as Ziryab quite by accident. (e.g. Ziryab wrote "Chernev's influence upon these two more recent books reveals the timelessness of his work. "

alright, we're friends now. Just trying to keep everyone honest here. Friends. Friends. Btw I wasn't saying above that Ziryab is an idiot...I was saying that that quote struck me as idiotic when I read it, that Nunn supports the timelessness of Chernev, and I wanted to see who wrote it. I have no knowledge of Ziryab or his alter ego, and have nothing against him. actually, you, and ophrah etc., sound quite nice. I'm new here. 

@Somebodysson. You are reading definitions without understanding. The "plagiariz[ing] yourself" that is referenced in the description you gathered from the highly esteemed Lake Superior State University bears no relation to a quasi-anonymous character on a chess site who claims on his profile page to be the author of a popular chess blog offering excerpts from said blog in a forum post without clearly identifying the relationship between his two cyber-selves.

Heck, most of the time, I'm the only cat here who bothers to cite anything he says, and I'm friggin' anal about citations on my blog--even more so on my history blog. 

I've actually nailed college students for turning in the same paper in multiple courses, as well as the more common forms of plagiarism. I helped write the rules concerning academic dishonesty at a school that cannot compare to LSSU inasmuch as my school had better faculty, better libraries, and most important, a football team that almost won the Rose Bowl.

I appreciate your criticism. You made your point. I made a correction. Now, you're arguing stuff that's only gonna make you look foolish.

It was naked self-promotion with a bit of important information withheld. Dishonest? Okay. I have no credible defense against that charge. Plagiarism? I'm sorry, your honor, the prosecuter needs to return to law school and bone up on the meaning of the term.

what's fame balling? Never heard the term. 

If I were pimping Schiller, I would gouge out my own eyeballs. Please look at my blog carefully. In the right-rand column there are some chess links. One of them is to Edward Winter's Chess Notes. That's in a small list, suggesting that I actually endorse the linked sites. Endorsements of Winter are wholly incompatible with pimping Schiller or Raymond Keene. 

If my adversary would like to understand plagiarism, I can commend to him a close study of the works of Raymond Keene and Eric Schiller and their sources.

Here a link to one of my posts on the topic: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2008/07/posers-and-provocateurs.html (more naked self-promotion).

Ziryab wrote "I've actually nailed college students for...plagiarism". 

So have I, and I just nailed you. Alright, you're nailed. 

Sorry prosecutor. You can send me to prison, but not for plagiarism.

I thought about that. But. half the box of wine is gone and it's late here.

For the record, I was thinking of coffins, not that other stuff.

I don't like the "Attacking with 1e4" because it doesn't give variations for the most openings. Instead, he gives you only ONE way to fight against the french, the caro can etc !