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

Lever!

Wow, lots of good stuff... I bit the bullet and decided to start with Kmoch, because what I hear about this book on all sides is intriguing (seems like folks either really love it or really hate it). Mainly, however, I want to read/play through it to get a general idea of the vast terrain of pawn play, to which my exposure has been rather elementary (I have read Pandofini’s Weapons of Chess 6 times and Silman’s Complete Book of Chess Strategy 3 times and don’t want to read them any more... diminishing educational returns and a lack of enthusiasm).

So far, I am really enjoying Kmoch’s book and his unique terminology (on p.56), though I have to keep backtracking to refresh my memory of some of his terms when he uses them in later pages. I understand that this book is a more difficult read and that other books are friendlier and easier to digest in terms of language, however I, as an eager novice, have grown tired of reading books that “talk friendly” but seem less impactful in terms of instructional content and density. I need to play through multiple good examples of themes related to pawn play, not just read and re-read linguistically oversimplified descriptions and examples of these concepts.

I don’t doubt that Sadler’s book might be a better read, but in general, I find myself more enthused to learn about concepts that are more GENERALLY applicable to chess (pawn play and strategy) rather than more specifically applicable (such as those that apply to a particular opening or even group of openings).

Pawn play and strategy most certainly apply to all of chess and ought to help with understanding the plans and themes of specific openings when I get to them. So even though Pawn Power is “more difficult” than Sadler, the concepts in Pawn Power seem more fundamental to chessic understanding than would even a fantastic book on the QGD. I could be wrong, but of course I will end up reading both sooner rather than later.

@dannyhume -

I'm pleased to see that you have decided to give Hans Kmoch's "Pawn Power In Chess" a try.  I believe that serious study of the book will pay dividends for the rest of your chess career.  

However, I would caution you against dismissing Mattew Sadler's QGD book as simply a book about an opening.  Although it is certainly that, it is also more than that.  In fact the book and Kmoch's book have one thing in common - they both are essentially about how to play positional, stategic chess.  Kmoch's book primarily within the context of pawn play, and Sadler's book in the context of chess games featuring the QGD opening (where pawn play also features prominently).  You can learn a great deal about how to play good chess from serious study of both.  And as I had suggested earlier in this forum, there shouldn't be any reason why you can't profitably study both books at the same time - that is, if you get tired of reading one, you can switch to the other for a while, going back and forth between them as your requirements and interest motivates you.

Thanks for the insight... I actually don't plan on reading Pachman for a while... I will supplement Kmoch with Hickl, while also slowly reading through Sadler's QGD book, then after those I may consider Hunt's Chess Strategy Move-by-Move, Larry Evans' New Ideas in Chess, and Mazeilis' Soviet Chess Primer. 

Regarding single volume Pachman versus the full 3 volumes... it seems that the vast majority of the high praise for Pachman is for his complete 3-volume series, not the abridged version.  Also, as a long-time novice, I have developed a bit of a distaste for books that describe a particular theme, then give only 1 or 2 examples.  For instance, Lev Alburt's most recent book "Chess for the Gifted and Busy" simply consists of selected excerpts and examples from his full Comprehensive Chess series, which makes it essentially useless except for maybe a strong player who is coming off a long layoff and wishing to get a quick and broad review of chess.  Now I am not sure in what particular way the single volume Pachman condenses the full version, whether it reduces the number of examples, reduces the amount of verbal instruction, or simply leaves out certain strategic themes considered less fundamental, but none of those alternatives are appealing to me... I'd rather struggle through 3 volumes that comprehensively expose me to the world of strategy and use as many examples as conceived by the original author, rather than feel like I got a bare-skeletal exposure to the concepts on my first go-round ... that is what I feel more introductory books like Weapons of Chess, Silman's Complete Book of Chess Strategy, and Seirawan's Winning Chess Strategy are good for... I already know the lingo and have repeatedly seen the oversimplified examples that illustrate basic strategic/positional themes at their lowest level.  

Thanks, kindaspongey, I appreciate you and quasimorphy's comments on this ... Sadler's book has received the highest praise I have seen for a book on an opening, and I likely will not delay much looking at it.  I still believe that learning fundamental concepts like pawn play and strategy should logically precede opening study in theory, but great books often cover multiple intertwined topics effectively, and the ones that receive high praise (such as Sadler) often do just that, even though they are given a title that seems to convey a very narrow topic.

I actually enjoy his wacky language.  I am actually surprised most of it didn't seem to catch on, because I haven't seen/heard much in terms of alternatives.  Maybe that will change with more exposure/experience to strategy and pawn play.  

I am using repertoire books as a reference to guide me what to play when I deviate, so that I can consistently play the same positions and learn more effectively from them (in theory).  Otherwise, I agree with you.  As far as the rest, you are right... tactics is what I do mostly simply because tactics are what is most readily available on a mobile device with limited time.  My interest in openings and strategy, though, is more because of my last few tournaments ... I did all right in them, but I was spending most of my clock ruling out obvious tactical errors (and did so fairly successfully compared to prior tournaments), yet had no clue where to proceed once I was quite confident I wasn't missing a tactical shot for myself or by my opponent.  Very frustrating feeling... at least tactical errors are simple and can be learned from.  Strategic-planning on the other hand... if you don't play very often, then how do you learn these subjects other than going through books on openings and strategy, subjects that by their nature are not as concrete and therefore more abstract than the more straightforward world of tactics and endgames, where answers are definite?    

Thanks RussBell for your insight/answers/wisdom into a lot of my questions... Because my time is limited, I am functionally reading books linearly.  In other words, if I have time to read a few pages of one book on a given day, then the next day I would rather keep reading the same book instead of spreading myself too thin with a few minutes devoted to another book.  This is why I am particular and repetitive about asking the order in which to read certain books... maybe this isn't an issue for many folks, in particular stronger players.    

Yeah, tactics have been the most effective in increasing my rating thus far given the low level of myself and my typical tournament opponents, but there are mixed messages regarding what an adult novice hears s/he needs to do to advance.  Most folks would agree that a guy in his forties who is a class E player for several years has no chance of becoming a master. Several stronger players say "tactics tactics tactics" advice is garbage and a balanced approach to learning is necessary (as well as playing and analysis) while also conceding that tactics can take you to a high club level, which many think would be a realistic lifetime goal for the no-talent adult learner anyway.  At this point, not sure what will do the trick, I am content to drill some tactics daily (I like problem-solving... simple ones, like the tactics I struggle to solve), but also would like to improve my all around knowledge of chess in all phases and feel like I have some sort of idea of what is going on and where things are going in games of a variety of styles and openings, rather than my current state of:

1. Make sure my opponent can't checkmate me or take a piece;

2. Don't miss my own opportunities for the above; and 

3. Oh, I don't know... put a rook on a half-open file?  Advance a pawn and see if that does something good?  Trade like hell so my opponent can't checkmate me as quickly?  

 

I am not sure, but I would imagine that, when dannyhume wrote "a balanced approach", he had it in mind to refer to an approach that included tactics practice as one part.

tactics for weaker players look way different than tactics for strong players. often tactics for strong players, are a whrilwind of divergent combinations, but other times, they resemble a "find waldo" secret resource 

Yes, I certainly agree fundamentally with a logical progression of learning simple, shorter, and concrete sequences (e.g., checkmate, profitable captures, and pawn promotions) and progressing to more complex, longer, and subtle positional advantages over time.  This would make the most sense, as this is how most folks learn anything. 

 

The biggest issues, however, are: 1) all players, regardless of playing strength, MUST play the early part of the game which often does not have these shorter big gain opportunities in the first several moves; and more importantly 2) simply learning to avoid and recognize only the big-gain lines doesn't help one learn the "big picture" in chess ... in other words, what are you trying to accomplish after you have ruled out the possibilities of an immediate win or material gain (if you don't know, you are merely shuffling pieces and hoping your opponent mistakes/blunders first)?  This is why I now believe openings and strategy can help even the novice, though it is not a short- or intermediate-term method of improvement, its practical value in terms of short-term increases in playing strength are obviously lesser for the novice. 

 

Take the poster-boy of tactics, Michael de la Maza, for instance ... I defend him often, but now only in general.  Even he admitted that he was comfortable with strategic knowledge, thus he probably had more general strategic knowledge than he led on in his epic little book (compared to the players at my level, for instance, who only want to train "tactics tactics tactics"), and he remedied his calculational/tactical deficiencies and quickly improved his playing strength, yet it seemed like a phenomenally rapid rise for a thirty year old class D player.  I doubt he would have improved as rapidly if he had no or very little knowledge of chess strategy.  People also forget that when he got to class A, he started studying openings ... specifically, looking up the next move after a book-deviation in a game. 

Perhaps I should have said the word "minor" rather than "flank" in the title of this thread... I wanted to say "against flank openings, the English, and the Reti", but the title of this thread would be too long and not include all of the letters... therefore I simply left out the English and the Reti, but included them in my first post.  My bad, thanks for catching it, Lyudmil.

I am unable to say for sure, but my guess would be that Lyudmil_Tsvetkov was complaining about the way "flank" is generally used, and indeed he may have a point. As I have noted many times, nobody seems to be generally recognized as being in charge of chess terminology, and, consequently, the development of common usage seems to have been somewhat haphazard and not overly logical. Nevertheless, if the goal is to use a single word and have others think of the Reti and the English, my guess is that "flank" would be a better word choice than "minor". Yes, I do know about that book with "Minor" in the title, but it seems to be something of an anomaly. In view of the current frequency of Reti and English usage by over-2400 players, I suspect that many would not think of them as "minor". "Flank", on the other hand, has been used many times in connection with the openings that do not traditionally start with 1 e4 or 1d4. At least for over-2400 players, the Reti and the English are the most common openings in that category. 

Man, Kmoch leads in the highest number of newly-coined terms that did not make it into official parlance.

With that, his book is intriguing.

I also have difficulty with the terminology but the book is interesting.

Concerning chess validity, well, he was a second of Alekhine, but I think "My System", although obviously deficient in parts, possesses more chess validity.

Kmoch mainly hinted at the availability of endless chess features, although he mostly did not select the most appropriate ones.

Yeah, yeah, it makes Americans more open-minded.

I occasionally mention duo, always lever, and never ram.

Blocked pawns makes much more sence, of course, and is more generic.

There is another problem with Kmoch.

he came up with some 50-60 different subterms for lever pawns.

Problem is, most of those will hardly ever work, practically.

 

Here is another index, for comparison: http://www.secretofchess.com/files/17772/ckfinder/images/indexofterms.pdf

Who the hell can actually make out what all those terms mean?

See the difference:

Kmoch: pair of bishops are stronger than 2 enemy minors and even stronger when the enemy minors are both knights.

My assessment: pair of bishops are worth 1/3 of a pawn in the middlegame, 1/2 in the endgame, 1/5 over that in case the opponent has not bishop.

See the evolution of chess theory?

Game phases are added, precise values are added, the BB vs NN rule is generalised to BB vs No-Bishop, which would include a configuration like BBR vs RRN, for example.

No pair of knights, but the rule still holds true.

 

Hi Danny.

Studying openings mainly makes not much sense.

There 50-100 theoretical books on the English and Reti, and most of them would differ on specific points, or even totally contradict each other.

So, instead of reading all of them, I would simply replay Fischer games.

What does later Fischer pick on 1. c4? 1...c5

What does he pick on 1. Nf3?  Again 1...c5

If Fischer says those are the right moves, then those they are.

Fortunately, my understanding and theories completely agree with Fischer's opening choices.

My book says c4 attacking the empty d5 square and c5, respectively attacking the empty d4 square, are a major and very frequent strategic asset, valid almost exlusively in the opening.

Look at it: Fischer's moves do precisely that.

The linear historical approach is: getting familiar with the game(the Romantics), firstlings of chess theory/generalisation(Steinitz and Nimzovich), the concrete approach then, followed by most moderns, based on statistics derived from large databases of games, and the, at some point, you need to generalise again, but at a higher level.

If you want the game to develop, of course...

Minor openings are a waste of time.

On 1. b3, g3, Nc3, simply take the center with pawns and you get large advantage.