Books on openings

I might also add that if I were limited to just one openings book for all time, it would have to be Paul van der Sterren's "FCO: Fundamental Chess Openings"...

The Mammoth Book of Chess by Burgess goes into all of the important openings and gives some depth on the complicated variations. Kalinichenko's Entsiklopediya Shakhmatnykh Debyutov (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings) is quite extensive in its study of the Sicilian variations in particular.  I've also got another book of opening recognition and basic theory that I've got somewhere back home - I forget who wrote it or what it's called, but it's also very good even though it's from the 80s.  

If you can find a copy the old book "How to Open a Chess Game" by RHM press you'll find that it uniquely gives insights into how masters choose their openings, prepare them and find new ideas in them.

For beginners Michael Basman's 1987 book with the wildly original title of "Chess Openings" is hard to beat.  It has long been out of print, but is usually available second-hand on Amazon or eBay.

In the case of Mastering the Chess Openings, we are looking at a decision on the part of the author to not cover some of "the most significant variations". In the relevant sentence, we do not see a decision to not "cover in depth" and we do not see a decision to not "cover with the latest theory". The author's sentence (quoted in post #6) refers to a decision to not "cover". It seems to me to be worthwhile to try to prevent the experience of an unpleasant surprise for a person who has paid for four large volumes.

"[This book] could perhaps be said to precede [the usual opening manuals]. If it has the effect on the reader that it whets his appetite for these 'usual' opening books, or at least makes him understand them a little bit better, this book will have fulfilled its purpose." - GM Paul van der Sterren (2009)

It does not sound to me as though even the author thought of Fundamental Chess Openings as being the only openings book the reader would have for all time. FM Carsten Hansen referred to the idea of the book helping the reader to "pick openings", but he also noted that FCO "is not particularly suited for players who are just starting out".

For picking openings, I suspect that many would be better off with briefer coverage such as that found in the Mammoth book mentioned by KholmovDM above. Even there (or in some of the alternatives that I previously mentioned), I think that there is reason to fear that the reading task would be overwhelming. If I remember correctly, the above ModestandPolite suggestions represent an alternative approach - a book that selects some openings for the reader's attention - a book that only seeks to give the reader a relatively painless start.

To a large extent, various aspects of the reader's nature are what determine what book will work best, and, before any purchase, it is wise to seek available reviews and book samples (such as those mentioned in my posts #3 and #6).

People who buy databases are suckers. Pure waste of money. Get a good book or access to to one, and play over entire master games in the openings you want to learn. Don't just study those "your side" wins, either: the losses and draws will teach just as much. Make sure that you are seeing only master games 

Don't spend huge amounts of time on each game, 15-20 minutes is plenty with more to those you find most interesting and instructive. The idea is to learn not just moves but common plans and tactics for both sides, those that work and those that don't.

Don't waste money on databases, it is like heroin: once you get started it's an addiction that is hard to quit. It's not illegal or life-threatening, but it will make sure you have little extra money.

Databases are 

1- Free

2- A waste of money if you want to correctly learn an opening.

I doubt a database can explain moves...

So many people have suggested databases, that I can only assume that they do work well for some. For others, a book can be very helpful. There is a GM John Nunn quote in connection with all this. If I find it, I will post it later.

Of course it can workout well if you already understand the opening. Databases are great to sort trough games and see new ideas. But they are worthless if you dont have a good understanding of the opening you are studying.

Some people seem to be able to acquire understanding from work with a database. Not me, however.

Ok...this discussion on the merits of the various, what I refer to as general openings "reference" books is beginning to get tedious and tiresome, at least for me, and probably for others as well.  

Nevertheless, I have a few final comments which I believe need to be made.  I apologize to those who would like to see this conversation be brought to an end.  My participation relating to this specific discussion will be ending here.

The bottom line is that if one wants opening book(s) containing the most comprehensive coverage and theory (i.e.,variations), to include sample games, then I believe very few would disagree that the best way to achieve that would be to get a book devoted to the specific opening of interest.  I am not aware of any general openings "reference" (by which I mean a book or series which attempts to provide broad coverage of most if not all of the major openings), that provides the depth and breadth of coverage on any given opening that one generally finds in the better books whose treatment is limited to that opening.

I must also take issue with you, Spongey, on your repeated assertion that John Watson has stated that he "does not cover some of "the most significant variations"" in his "Mastering The Chess Openings".  You have taken his words (from the Introduction to Volume 1) out of context.  The following is the pertinent quote from that book (which you reproduced in your post #6):

"As I began work on this book it became obvious that even in two large volumes it wouldn't be possible to cover every opening, nor even the most significant variations of every opening, and still achieve the insights that I hoped to convey."

Reading this carefully, it simply says that IF the work were to be limited to 2 volumes (which it wasn't, since it eventually grew to 4 volumes), it would not be possible to cover every opening in the manner which he intended (to convey).  And since every opening could not be covered adequately (in 2 volumes, and to his standards), then by extension that would also apply to all the variations.  What he is NOT saying is that he has omitted coverage of significant variations (in the 4 volume series), only that it could not be done adequately, to his standards, wihin 2 volumes.

Finally, addressing another of your inferences from my posts, I never said that only one, or even four openings books would necessarily be adequate or sufficient to own for all time, by me or by anyone else.  If you go back and read my earlier posts I simply stipulated what my choices of openings book(s) would be if I were constrained to owning only one (FCO) or four (Mastering the Chess Openings) opening books.

We could debate ad infinitum about whether any opening book(s) provide sufficient, adequate or comprehensive coverage. Any opinions on the topic would necessarily be subjective and inconclusive.

Therefore, this is the last I will have to say regarding this issue in this thread.  I don't think there is any more value for me to add by continuing with this particular discussion.

Since there are those who may buy some of these books, it is perhaps worthwhile to mention that the fourth book has an assortment of topics. So, for example, if one wanted to read the Watson section on the Petroff, one should go to the fourth book instead of the first.

I gave the specific example of 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3. Do you see that covered in any of the four volumes? As you probably know, the third book is about the English and the fourth book purports to cover "a number of gaps from the first three", but I see no change in the decision to not cover some of "the most significant variations". By the way, the quote in your "continuing assertion" sentence is not a quote of me.

I did not say anything about a necessity claim by you. Since you brought up the idea of having the one opening book for all time, it seemed to me to be a good idea to consider whether or not that would be in accord with the author's own idea of the purpose of his book.

No.  I must admit, you got me me on that one Spongey!  Guess one would need to get a good book devoted to the Caro Kann for coverage of that line.  

(Interestingly, that line is covered in Paul van der Sterren's FCO, p.381).

Now can we put this to rest?

Indeed, about half of the 14 page FCO Caro-Kann section is relevant to 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3. It is a similar situation in the 7 page Caro-Kann section of the previously mentioned Collins reference book, Understanding the Chess Openings. In the previously mentioned MCO15, of the 26 Caro-Kann pages, somewhere close to 12 are for 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3. Of about seven Caro-Kann pages in Back to Basics: Openings, approximately three are for 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3. Since someone brought up the Mammoth book, it perhaps makes sense to look at the five Caro-Kann pages. Second trap: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 etc. Fourth trap: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3 etc. First example: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 dxe4 4 Nxd4 (thus transposing to the 3 Nc3 line) etc. First trap, third trap, and second example: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 etc.

Moving on to the database subject, here is the (2006) GM John Nunn quote that I previously mentioned:

"... In general, working by yourself with a database is probably more helpful than a poor opening book, but a good opening book can open up new vistas that you would probably not discover by yourself. ..."

I think this is a key sentence from the Watson introduction (apparently written at a time when the project was seen as consisting of only two volumes):
"As I began work on this book it became obvious that even in two large volumes it wouldn't be possible to cover every opening, nor even the most significant variations of every opening, and still achieve the insights that I hoped to convey."
An example of a consequence can be seen in the Caro-Kann section where IM Watson wrote, "I won't be dealing with the [1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5] 3 Nc3 main lines, although naturally they're full of wonderful ideas."
It wasn't an oversight. Despite the ultimate size of his project, Watson, as far as I can tell, was not attempting to write a general reference work like FCO. His goal was to convey various insights. As you probably know, the third book is about the English and the fourth book purports to cover "a number of gaps from the first three", but I see no decision to abandon the idea of sacrificing some coverage of "the most significant variations" for the sake of insights.

Even back in 2008, FM Carsten Hansen felt it appropriate to write that MCO15 "pretends to be up-to-date and relevant in all chapters, but it isn’t".
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626165820/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen110.pdf
"[The encyclopedic presentation of opening theory] uses tables of variations, and alternatives given in footnotes. For new players, I cannot recommend books that use type of presentation, because the explanatory prose that elaborates typical plans and ideas is usually absent, thus leaving the student without any clear idea why certain moves are played or even preferred over other apparently equivalent moves. Another problem is that encyclopedic works are often rather costly and do not get updated as regularly as monographs that concentrate on individual openings. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)