I have Yusopov's book on the Petroff. Naturally, it is not completely up-to-date, but it is well-written and thorough. It is a model for how opening monographs can be constructed.
Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly
Sort:
Dunno if it's been mentioned in this thread, but there's a fairly new repertoire book based on the Petroff.
Chicken_Monster wrote:
Something to add to the old toolbox! Thanks.
I understand that Yusupov's well-known series of nine books hits on essentially every aspect of chess, and blends in opening study, but changes the openings as one becomes more advanced. Even his most basic books are well above my current level, however.
I can play the Petroff though :-)
Yes! The books are good though I like his books with Dvoretsky's School of Future Champions Series. Dvoretsky also has School of Chess Excellence and both are great a part from some odd typos (calling two piece positions a "middlegame" or calling a five piece per side position an "endgame" occasionally)
School of Future Champions 2 focuses on the opening and how to develop a repertoire as well as going over various principles, what to do when out of book, etc.
Well, different people have different definitions of "endgame." Just like some people say don't study opening until you are at least 2000.
Some consider it an endgame when Queens have been traded. I think he knows what he is talking about. He could just be sloppy but I doubt it.
School of Future Champions Series sounds great (and advanced).
The Vigorous book has been on my radar for some time. Hear about it a lot.
@Optimissed: Two out of three aint bad.
@Optimissed: I'll buy that definition. Apparently my Queen comment was ambiguous. I think those people who consider you to be in an endgame when Queens are traded probably would have other threshhold considerations as well (I didn't feel the need to state the obvious, although I almost did). Now I see I should have. For example: fewer than X number pieces after Queens have been traded...thus making it sensible to bring out your King and not castle if you have not already done so. I don't know what their definition is, but that would be pretty ridiculous to consider it an endgame if Queens were traded at the inception of a game or fairly early. I know in Chess Mentor that there is a lesson in which one of the IMs or GMs states that whether Queens have been traded is a factor in determining if you are in an endgame (at least to some).
What is X? Who knows. I don't think there is a bright line dichotomy for many people. My point is, there are different definitions of "endgame." ... and a million other things experts disagree on insofar as chess is concerned.
Feb 19, 2015
0
#307
Lev Alburt's Just the Facts! (my personal favorite fundamental book on endgames), sums up what an endgame is quite nicely. He doesn't define it with how many or which pieces are still on the board, but with the 3 the prominent characteristics that most endgames have:
- The position favors an aggressive King
- Passed pawns become increasingly more important
- Zugzwang is a common and critical element (especially K+P endgames) and is not found in other stages of the game
These are rather similar to what Optimissed previously mentioned.
Optimissed wrote:
Since you can have an ending with queens and pawns, the IMs, GMs or whatever are wrong. Talking through their bonnets.
He didn't say Queen trade was a pre-condition thereto....
v3rb4lkiNt wrote:
Lev Alburt's Just the Facts! (my personal favorite fundamental book on endgames), sums up what an endgame is quite nicely. He doesn't define it with how many or which pieces are still on the board, but with the 3 the prominent characteristics that most endgames have:
The position favors an aggressive King Passed pawns become increasingly more important Zugzwang is a common and critical element (especially K+P endgames) and is not found in other stages of the gameThese are rather similar to what Optimissed previously mentioned.
IM pfren and others told us in these forums there are many holes in Lev's book on endgames for Black (which I own). IM pfren was referring to the first edition and had not analyzed the second ed. Take it with a grain of salt brah.
Feb 19, 2015
0
#310
Chicken_Monster wrote:
IM pfren and others told us in these forums there are many holes in Lev's book on endgames for Black (which I own). IM pfren was referring to the first edition and had not analyzed the second ed. Take it with a grain of salt brah.
"brah" ha. haven't heard that in quite some time. so, ya, I was just expanding on the definition. Not sure bout that grain of salt.
Also, are we talking about the same book? Just the Facts! runs through many of the basic endgames and positions that a player will encounter. It is not a highly technical or advanced book, but is an excellent "survey" of some of most common situations and concepts associated with the endgame. All of the concepts apply equally to White as they do Black.
Basic stuff: K vs. K+P (opposition, triagulation, corresponding squares), Rook endings (Philidors defense, Lucena Position, Longside defense), Bishop vs. Knight, Opposite colored bishops and so on....
In either case, I like his definition of an endgame. :/
Sawy....everyone things i u stoopid SoCAl serfer dewd...
Then what are the holes, specifically?
Chicken: I did a little checking on the web. I didn't find much but GM Aagaard said in a one-to-many internet chat:
Just the Facts is an awful book with lots of mistakes.
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=916#comment-4421
When pressed for examples of these mistakes, Aagaard doubled down unhelpfully:
There are just too many stupid mistakes. I know it is popular, but I am allowed my own opinion.
I have "Just the Facts" and like it. Assuming there are mistakes in some of the analysis, I still doubt it will much hurt endgame novices reading the book, since their main takeaway will be general principles, not rote lines.
I had a chess club friend who methodically worked his way through Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" with a chess program. He found plenty of holes in that old classic too.
"Just the Facts!" is mainly the work of GM Krogius, a former top Soviet GM and chess trainer, who helped coach Spassky for his 1972 match against Fischer.
I'd be surprised if "Just the Facts" is that terrible. It may not be a good book for the likes of Aagaard and pfren, but then it's not written for them.
Its main virtue is providing players new to endgame study a concise survey of the endgame in an unintimidating format.
Thanks. Noted.
Does it focus on 1.e4 e5?
Chicken: Thoroughly!
ipcress12 wrote:
Chicken: Thoroughly!
lol
Feb 20, 2015
0
#319
ipcress12 wrote:
Chicken: I did a little checking on the web. I didn't find much but GM Aagaard said in a one-to-many internet chat:
Just the Facts is an awful book with lots of mistakes.
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=916#comment-4421
When pressed for examples of these mistakes, Aagaard doubled down unhelpfully:
There are just too many stupid mistakes. I know it is popular, but I am allowed my own opinion.
I have "Just the Facts" and like it. Assuming there are mistakes in some of the analysis, I still doubt it will much hurt endgame novices reading the book, since their main takeaway will be general principles, not rote lines.
I had a chess club friend who methodically worked his way through Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" with a chess program. He found plenty of holes in that old classic too.
I recall Dvoretsky pointing out at least one case of bad analysis by someone else being repeated in Just the Facts! Dvoretsky is good at spotting errors.
Something to add to the old toolbox! Thanks.
I understand that Yusupov's well-known series of nine books hits on essentially every aspect of chess, and blends in opening study, but changes the openings as one becomes more advanced. Even his most basic books are well above my current level, however.
I can play the Petroff though :-)