Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly

F.I.N.E. (F***ed up, Insane, Neurotic, Egotistical)

I agree. If you can tolerate Kevin's twenty-something lingo, thechesswebsite is very good for beginning to mid-level class players. You won't get a thorough understanding, but you'll get a good foundation.

The buggest weakness, however, is that he concentrates on the lines that you are most likely to see playing sub-1400 opponents. For many viewers, this weakness is a strength.

Kinda like English grammar, such as the difference between a plural and a possessive.

Play 1. e4 e5! has a lot of explanation, including a paragraph explaining the assessment in every game, and a paragraph introducing the new move in the model game.

Play 1. e4 e5!'s problems are: (1) it is already 10 years old and badly dated in some places; (2) 11...Nd7 12. Nbd2 exd4 13. cxd4 Nc6 is the deep end of opening theory and requires some work to repair (work that I have not personally done, but check out the chess pub forums); (3) the book was too small in the first place and has omissions like an early d5 in the Worrel Attack, the entire structure with Black pawns on d6, c5 and e5 versus White pawns on e4, d5, and c3 is rather poorly covered for a book that recommends the Chigorin.

So you are right, the book is not for beginners. But then again the alternative is Marin's two volume work, which is also rather advanced.

While I am on the subject I should mention that The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black also throws the reader into the deep end of the opening pool with the Zaitsev. The Marshall attack is also not suitable for club players, so any books that recommends it also suffers from the same problem.

Thanks for the info. Maybe the 1 e4 e5 book will be updated?

That being said, what is the best option(s) available in your opinion?

Amateurs dont have unlimited time for chess study so its better if they make decisions that decrease , rather than increase , their work/study load .  I started off ( in the 70s ) playing 1... e5  against  1 e4 and for a long time most of the games were in the Ruy Lopez ( Spanish Opening in Europe )  . I played the breyer defense of the closed Ruy for years but then more people started playing other things ,  scotch , kings gambit , vienna ...etc and the work load to be prepared for all these openings was too much , since I also had a job and family to deal with . I switched to the french for years and later added the sicilian as well and this decreased my work load and meant that I was usually better prepared than my peers . At the time I was strictly an 1 e4 player as white so ofcourse had to have lines ready for all the most common responses to 1 e4 .  The 4 most common responses to 1 e4 are sicilian , french , 1... e5  and caro kann , so I concentrated on these and spent little time on other , less popular defenses . 

I'm reading this whole thread this morning. While thinking that I might suggest Philip Sergeant's collection of Morphy's games, I find a single post that shines as a dull beacon in a dreary swamp.

These are good recommendations.

White makes that choice. Black must be prepared for either.

Probably the two Marin books. I have to admit that I tapered off on buying chess books four or five years ago, so I am not really familiar with Slay the Spanish or The Berlin Wall.

Hell, it might just be Play 1. e4 e5! anyways, because Marin offers saner lines, but writes for more advanced players. Davise's lines are more offbeat and ambitious, which is probably something the club player needs to improve.

That's two useful posts from the man with a bad college experience.

Study classic games.

If you are unfamiliar with the Chessimo training system, you might want to take a look.

This morning with Chessimo for the iPad, I went through a short lesson that covered elementary ideas in the QGD--Tarrasch and then directed me to half a dozen reference games from the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century.

The app covers all opening the same way. Hence, it could meet your purpose. The app was free, the full set of training materials was about $8.

Chessimo also has a website. One need not drink Apple's Kool-Aid to use these training materials.

Was. In the 1970s. Some books are now hard to find. Check AbeBooks.com if you're in North America.

He didn't create it. He was the first to anaylze it, or any opening, systematically. I wrote a few words about Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez (1561) at http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/06/damianos-gambit.html.

@ziryab and jlconn:

yes, those posts are very helpful. thank you guys.

jlconn--notice you took up donald's offer to play. I'm getting out the popcorn. Your rating is pretty high, but he says thinks he can take you.

@Chicken_Monster

good decision. FCO will all-around serve you very well. I'm glad you decide to obtain it.

Just throwing this one in: I own the Nigel Davies "Play 1. e4 e5" as well. Although I have barely looked at it, which really is more about me having not enough time for everything, than an negative opinion of its quality or presentation or anything. Also at this time I'm a bit married to the Emms book I mentioned earlier (because I obtained it before the Davies one), and in my opinion and level of play the one is as good or bad as the other. Both Davies and Emms are dated. But I think for us non-master players it is still more than adequate.

You can always look for the latest trends in databases. OTOH, any learning has to start SOMEWHERE and no learning curve will be perfect and smooth and flawless, no matter how efficient you want to be during the planning phase... It will come down to learning, playing and re-learning. 

Anyways, Davies is a book for the *Black* side, and it *does* cover the Ruy Lopez. But he recommends that Black should not aim for the Marshall Attack starting with 7...0-0, but should play mainline 7...d6 and after 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 play 9...Na5 going for the Chigorin variation.

The Marshall Attack is quite extensively covered in FCO, by the way. Certainly well enough to let you play it if you get a chance.

Sorry. I didn't know who you were with.

The Ruy Lopez was not invented by Ruy Lopez de Segura, and Ruy is not English, it is a shortened form of Rodrigo, like Bob instead of Robert, and was the name Rodrigo signed his book with, iirc.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 was in books before Lopez's, in the same way that Damiano didn't invent 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6, but actually was the first to conclusively refute the move.

I've read that Lopez thought that 3.Bb5 was so strong that he considered 2...Nc6 an error, and preferred instead 2...d6. I don't get that same conclusion from reading Lewis's work on Damiano, Lopez, and Salvio, but then that was rather a butchered presentation of their work. Lopez was the first to investigate 2...d6, though, from what I can tell, but that move bears Philidor's name, though we don't have a single game example showing that Philidor played it. And having come this far, it may as well be mentioned that Philidor's Legacy (the famous smothered mate) was known since at least Lucena, and Lucena's Position doesn't seem to have been known until Salvio.

In short, the names given to positions, openings, or maneuvers in chess rarely have anything to do with actual history.

@Chicken_Monster: Personally, I don't place much stock in ratings. Among amateurs, we still all lose our games in the same way ... blunders. On a good day, any one of us can beat any other one of us. I'm certainly no master, and never claim to be - yet.

@jlconn

+infinity

Good synopsis.

Great to find that I'm not the only one who has looked at Lewis's book.

Chess Openings are like the Bible.  Names have changed so many times that they've been bastardized.

What many know as the "Ruy Lopez" was really discovered by the Spaniards, not Ruy Lopez himself.  The more "proper" name is the Spanish, not the Ruy Lopez.

There are other openings with names given because someone in today's time can't find older stuff, and so name it after said person.

For example, the Philidor was NOT invented by the person it's named after.  He wasn't born until 1726.  1.e4 e5 has been around since the new rules were in place in 1475.  G da Cutri vs Ruy Lopez, 1575 was a Philidor, as were a few games by Greco vs No Name players in 1620.  White won all of them very easily, and Philidor got the first win with it amongst games recorded, but he didn't originate it by any stretch.

Petroff wasn't the sole inventor of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6.  A better name for it is the Russian Game as the Russians came up with the Defense.

Alekhine was not the first to play 1.e4 Nf6 like some sources claim in 1921.  A game was played by Delmar in 1893 (lost in 54 moves), Chatard in 1900 (lost in 16 moves), and Albin in 1905 (lost in 38 moves), whereas Alekhine got the first draw in 1921.

Outside of games involving Greco, I can't find a game played before 1834 in the French.  Supposedly it was a correspondence game between the French and English in 1834 (the English were White) where 1.e4 e6 was first played.  There are a couple of old games with Greco (one with him as White, one with him as Black, in the Advance French), but otherwise, this does appear to be original at that time.

Many other names are just names, but not the originality of the opening.

Some opening names actually are true.