Best White 1.d4 2. c4 player opening repertoire book

@Inch: I applaud your efforts of instantiating an epic post for the altruistic purpose of helping me steer clear of opening study. Actually, I am well aware of the policy behind everything you wrote. I spend 15-20% of my chess time on openings, usually learning as I play turn-based. I never said I wanted a Grandmaster repertoire in my head at this point in my chess development. I have no openings memorized completely -- only principles so far. However, the fact that pfren mentioned that the Schandorff book(s) were better than that one particur Watson opening book (1.d4 playing White book) because the Schandorff book(s) were "principled"....makes me think a read through them would be valuable....as long as it is not at the expense of looking into my own games, studying tactics, etc. I think something like that would help my chess. Am I wrong in thinking that?

I came across that Zebra book earlier today on Amazon. Are you recommending the book, or was that it in a nutshell?

C_Monster,

Actually that 'GM repertoire' bit was a gentle swipe at opening books in general (although as I said I have a fair few...including some real favorites!).

I'm a bit disturbed to hear Watson so completely dismissed.... :( I haven't looked at that repertoire book, but every other book I've seen by him quite literally sets the standard for quality opening repertoire books! A favorite author of mine.

Zebras is really interesting....but I think Rowson's first book "The Seven Deadly chess Sins" is better to start with. The sins he talks about are defects in us (the player)...he talks about problems like Egoism, Thonking (wrongly/badly),.Materialism, Looseness...etc

A great book to get you thinking about upgrading the HARDWARE (us!) as opposed to the SOFTWARE (our chess knowledge/skills).

AND...can you believe I typed all that shit out on my phone on a Sunday morning! :)

A LOT of stuff will be going down in Wild and Wilfulin the next couple of days so come check it out. Endgame skills thread should be up tomorrow. ;)

Too much coffee or amphetamines, Inch? Looking forward to checking out your site again (nice plug). I don't know if I have time for the Rowson books. I have to finish the Harry Potter series in 300 languages (sarcasm, but I'm on Klingon), then memorize all my GM lines 21 moves deep (Carlsen said he did 20-deep for this WCC 2014).

Not enough sleep and a little too much stress in my RL as it turns out.

Actually, I just got decoyed by the very real knowledge vs skill question. I'm a great believer in developing solid skills that will see people through tough situations. (Sounds like you're doing that too...good for you).

Can't remember where I read it, but saw a quote that stuck in my mind years back. "I don't have that fragile confidence that I will never make a mistake, I have that robust, resilient confidence, that when I DO make a mistake, I will be able to dig in and find resources and make a good fight of it!"

Sorry if this is a hijacking of your thread...I'll just go STFU for a while... ;)

IMO the trilogy by Kornev is best. Good Systems (the only systems I don't like very much, is the 4.e3 0-0 5.Nge2-Line against the Nimzo, but that's also the suggestion of Watson and Schandorff), good explanation, good analysis, good practical advice.

Palliser's 'Play 1.d4' is very good both in terms of analysis and explanations. However, the lines he recommends have a certain stylistic 'flavour' which won't suit everyone. He's going for easy to play positions rather than a straightforward advantage. 

I disagree about the Watson book: it does what it sets out to do and does it very well. (Incidentally, PTF4 is excellent.)

Silman says: "Watson’s A Strategic Opening Repertoire for White is a superb buy for any 1.d4 player who is rated 1800 to 2400. Complete one volume repertoire books just don’t get better than this." 

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Strategic-Chess-Opening-Repertoire-for-White-A-p3721.htm

@chyss, thank you for the link. It's just too bad Silman's chess theory books analyses are really mostly about himself.

He uses what he knows and his own experiences to make judgements in his reviews. Makes sense really. 

sure... Are you implying some don't? 

General rule in writing, except in autobiographies which in themselves are a vanity, is never use I, or my, nor me, and let others exist... Not Silman's style though..

Yes, but I won't mention his name because everyone shouts at me when I do. 

 let's see...

No.  Let's not.