Best books to learn the "classical" approach for Black against the flank openings

Just as a reminder, I think it is often a good idea to look at a sample of a book at a publisher's site, in order to get an idea about whether or not a book is something you are likely to want to work on at this point.

@Kindaspongey, Amazon.com usually uses exactly the same sample that the publisher provides them in the site's "Look Inside" feature. Occasionally, there's a difference, but not often.

 

Of course, the publisher's site gives other information as well, but Amazon really does help the reader to decide for him or her self.

 

Yes, in reading book reviews and sampling some of the free pages on Amazon, you can get a sense of what these books aim to teach, but most of the reviews are not helpful and several have conflicting opinions.  For instance, I own all of the books that I mentioned in my last post, including the ones I haven't read, but I have certainly perused them and set them aside before because they seemed too difficult for my level.  

 

I can't speak for others, but when I ask specific advice regarding particular books, it is usually not regarding a single particular book, but rather a group of books, looking for guidance as to a more optimal order to read and study these books.  Most of these books cover material that, by chapter titles, seems appropriate, but by variation-length seems highly unlikely that I could easily intuit or calculate. But every now and then someone gives a personal insight that I can relate to that makes perfect sense... for instance, something along the lines of "I know this book is typically recommended for more advanced players, but I read it at x level, and it provided a strong basis for future learning" or "I believe this book is best read before this other highly recommended book and after this other highly recommended book."  A great number of books come as highly recommended, and the rating ranges listed in reviews or even by the author are often ridiculous large (for instance, Silman's HTRYC gives a rating range of 1400-2100), which makes very little sense when you compare the skills of the players at the edges of these ranges.  So I appreciate more personal insights into what others wished they had read in whatever order as they were entering a post-beginner phase of chess development. 

 

 

Can this sometimes be avoided by careful examination of a sample of a book before buying it?

"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

Is it sometimes possible to use a book sample to get an idea about things like typical variation-length?

"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

I would agree about that particular range seeming large, but it is perhaps worthwhile to think of the usefulness of HTRYC as a matter of degree with the maximum being around 1750. I imagine that, as one goes to higher ratings, players are more likely to already know this or that, while, for lower ratings, there is a greater chance that various parts will seem excessively difficult.

We often see questions about reading order, but I suspect that one is better off with a focus on what is currently likely to be helpful. After reading currently helpful stuff, I would think that you would have a better idea about what you would want to read next. If a book is for later, that is probably the main thing to keep in mind about it. A review may well fail to have an accurate assessment of whether or not a book would be right for you now, but it may nevertheless have helpful information about the book, aiding you in coming to your own conclusion. Whether it is a person here or a review from somewhere else, it is well to remember that the writer does not really know what will happen when you work on the book.

"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf

 

I will answer because I think there are others who are in a similar boat.  My answer to your question is... only to a point.  Eventually, the nuances of choosing one book or resource over another become subtle.  It is easy to say that Sokolov's book on pawn structure is more advanced than Weapons of Chess by Pandolfini or that Dvoretsky's Endgame book is more advanced than Silman's.  But when comparing books like Sokolov to Kmoch to Pachman to Silman HTRYC, the distinction is far more difficult.  So yes, crudely, I can glance at several pages of a book and guess whether it seems too advanced, but when several books become highly recommended by a variety of players and "roughly" seem to correspond with respect to their target audiences, one needs more than just a sample of a few pages to decide the best way to read the book or best order to study it in the contexts of several books ... the experience of others is better, since a player can decide which set of recommendations more closely correspond to his/her learning situation.

 

In general, chess authors do not say "my book is best read before this classic and after that classic for optimal learning" ... they might say "beginner", "post-beginner" (which is anything up to CM or expert level), or "intermediate" (which seems to be Category 1-2 / expert going for master level, like Dvoretsky's, Aagard's books, opening repertoire books by Quality Chess, etc.) But when you are pressed for time and have to choose carefully, you like to hear from those who have had experience with this dilemma rather than waste months/years reading books in an incorrect or suboptimal order.

Again, instead of thinking about order, I suspect that you will be better off with a focus on what is currently likely to be helpful. If a sample is available and you do more than "glance" at it, it might help you to avoid buying a book that is too difficult for your current level. The idea is to get a feeling for whether or not you are currently likely to be comfortable reading hundreds of pages of the author's explanations. Nobody else is really in a position to know that.

"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf

By the way, I am not trying to talk you out of consulting others. I am just trying to encourage you to put some time into consideration of other available resources.

Understand ... I have reached a point where I lack confidence in my own research, which is rather inconclusive, and so I appreciate other’s perspectives on the particular resources that I have narrowed things down to (whether in openings or middlegame) because my chessic weaknesses cover every subject in chess, and I am already doing daily tactics and some simple endgames regularly.

What does a flank opening mean?

Is 1. c4 a flank opening and why so?

It would be wrong to call it like that, because it is actually more central than other openings, both in terms of importance and usual central control.

Many flank openings end up being non-flank, for example 1. g3 or the Reti.

So, it is all relative.

I would prefer studying general patterns to decide on my opening choices rather than endless reams of mostly wrong variations.

Btw., not to miss a good opportunity: 'Humans versus Machine' is now available for free reading with Kindle Unlimited: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Elaborate strategies to overwhelm the best chess engines.

You will not find those in any other chess book.

If you are fan of the KID or English Opening/Bird/Stonewall/Colle, this book is for you.

Btw., Bird, English, but also KID for black and the Dutch count as flank thrusts, right?

Again, I would not want to encourage you to ignore the experience of others, as long as you keep in mind the observation of NM Dan Heisman:

"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf

Also, regardless of what is "better", one is not obliged to use just one approach to judging whether or not a book is likely to be currently helpful. Here are some supplementary ways that you could use to get an idea about your current potential reaction to HTRYC:

1. Consider where your rating falls in the 1400-2100 range given by IM Silman. If your rating is near 1400, it seems like a good guess that the author himself would expect you to learn something from the book and nevertheless find many parts to be difficult. I can flesh out this idea by giving the rating ranges, provided by IM Silman, for each of the problems in the first set of exercises: 1200-1600, 1800-2000, 2000-2200, 1600-1800, 1900-2200, 1900-2200, 2000-2200, 1400-1800, 1800-2000. IM Silman says that the positions are, in part, intended to serve as extra instruction and that one can pick up the bits of knowledge that one is missing by looking up the provided answers, but, to some extent, it is up to you to decide whether or not you currently want to spend your time working on problems like that.

2. You can look at some of the HTRYC quotes that are provided in the review at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095832/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review769.pdf

3. You can read The Amateur's Mind and see if you subsequently want to try more advanced instruction from the same author.

If I understood you correctly, you already have this book, so it seems to me that the only immediate concern is whether or not you want to try to read it right now. The best way to determine that is for you to go at it for a few pages and see what happens.

The simple way to play is e6 d5 against basically everything.

This poses something of a problem, because I do not know of any online reviews. One can see a sample of the abridged version at:

http://store.doverpublications.com/0486202909.html

I can tell you, that, as best I can remember, the Pachman books were considered hot stuff about three decades ago, but they now seem to be largely forgotten.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever

Also, my impression is that they were thought to be appropriate for players over 1600. Could still be helpful now, but it appears that one would have to be willing to deal with descriptive notation (1 P-K4 P-K4 2 N-KB3 N-QB3). If you want to give Pachman a try now, you could get the abridged version or the first volume of the complete thing.

Perhaps so, kindaspongey... Pachman’s Modern Chess Strategy volumes I-III and Kmoch’s Pawn Power in Chess get very good reviews, and are often recommended for reading prior to any serious opening study (which I would not do, although the hype around Sadler’s QGD book makes it hard to ignore if I plan to play it). Pachman and Kmoch would require a serious commitment, which for me would have to be a very long and slow piecemeal project, but these books are also considered quite comprehensive regarding their subject matter, so the effort may be worthwhile to get an improved “big picture” view of chess that has been absent from just repetitive tactics/problem-solving (although that is most practical at my level for short-term improvement). RussBell has Pachman listed in his blog for good books on positional play and I have come across comments by several (including IM pfren, I am quite sure) giving the series high praise. The opening books recommended by others in my recent threads are good for either reference (repertoire books) or thematic introduction (“plans” and “ideas” books; Watson series), but the subject of strategy, as pointed out by Smyslovfan in an earlier post, logically ought to precede opening study, which is inherently a narrower and more specialized chess topic.

There is no need to study Ludek Pachman's 3-volume series.  That would be extremely laborious and time consuming.  Instead his single volume treatise, "Modern Chess Strategy", is a condensed version of the 3-volume series, and covers the same ground, just more "succinctly"...

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Chess-Strategy-Ludek-Pachman/dp/0486202909/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529125047&sr=8-1&keywords=ludek+pachman

 

It seems to me that the primary current question is whether or not they are good for you at this time.

"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever

If you do indeed have the Kmoch book, you can get an idea about that by trying to read some of it. As for Pachman, you can look at the online sample.

http://store.doverpublications.com/0486202909.html

Since you have apparently not yet read Pachman and Kmoch, I guess the current question here is whether or not to undertake to read something like the Sadler book at this time. I do not know who told you to read Kmoch and Pachman prior to any serious opening study, but you might want to ask them if they would count it as serious opening study to play over some of the games in the Sadler book. Beginners are often advised to play over sample games. Why not games in the Sadler book? At

https://www.chess.com/blog/pfren/playing-1-d5-d5-a-classical-repertoire ,

you can see IM pfren telling the chess world that Sadler's "Queen's gambit declined" is "the landmark book on the OGD" and "(still!) an awesome source of information". Do you see anything about Kmoch and Pachman being prerequisites? How about in this review of the Sadler book?

"... Sadler ... directly aims this book at those players who don't have a lot of experience with the QGD. ... the nature of the book makes it of course more useful for players who are not yet so strong, ..."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234438/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen15.txt

Does ANYONE advise you to stay with the Baltic Defense (or whatever it is you currently use) until after you have read Kmoch and Pachman? Before getting concerned about what someone here seems to indicate about reading Kmoch and Pachman before playing over some QGD games, it might be worthwhile to consider whether or not published authorities seem to manifest such an attitude.

"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov

i try to not be racist. there are good white authors as well.