Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly

Have you considered the Petroff?  That would cut down so much 2...Nc6 theory.  Also you may consider the Scotch or Four Knights as white. 

@TGOB: I have considered (and am still considering) all of those three.

I know form reading forum posts that Fiveofswords (seems to know his stuff) lives by the Petroff Defense. That probably cuts the Ruy Lopez theory in half. Do any of the pros play these openings? For example, I never see people (those GMs) playing the Petroff and I don't understand why that is -- not that I should base what I do on GM play...

Scotch as White gets out of theory quickly, and I have a repertoire for that.

The Petroff is popular among GMs. Before Kramnik converted the world to the Berlin Defense, he converted much of the world to the Petroff. It may have dropped off in popularity in the past fifteen years, but it does get played.

Yusupov handles the Petroff quite nicely too:

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 :-)

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.

Dunno if it's been mentioned in this thread, but there's a fairly new repertoire book based on the Petroff.

http://www.amazon.com/Vigorous-Chess-Opening-Repertoire-Black/dp/9056914391/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/183-8451703-8418454?ie=UTF8&qid=1424300670&sr=8-3

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.

Imo the ending is all about the flow of the game towards relative crystallisation of the position where the king can become an attacking force and pawn promotion is more of an issue. In my opinion, if the king cannot reasonably come into the game, it isn't an ending. Incidentally, people talk about queenless middlegames, whch sort of gives the lie to the artificial idea that any position without queens is an ending. Lazy thinking.

@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.

Since you can have an ending with queens and pawns, the IMs, GMs or whatever are wrong. Talking through their bonnets.

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:

1. The position favors an aggressive King
2. Passed pawns become increasingly more important
3. 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.

Thanks.

He didn't say Queen trade was a pre-condition thereto....

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...

The book may have some holes but that summary isnt one of them