Starting Out v. Move by Move

Holy crap, I would have to throw this book into a burning dumpster.

This just isn't true of Lakdawala's Slav book. You quoted from "Larsen: Move by Move". Here is a review of the Slav book: "... This book is highly recommended for players from 1500 to 2300." - FM Carsten Hansen (2011)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627104306/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen151.pdf

Don't you think he would have said something about 200 pages of drivel? Anyway, I will have a review of Vigus and some other thoughts later today.

I have a number of Lakdawala's books.  Specifically:

• A Ferocious Opening Repertoire
• The Slav Move by Move
• 1...d6 Move by Move
• The Caro-Kann Move by Move
• The Modern Defense Move by Move

Just because he has a couple of one-liners to attempt to add humor that some will find funny and others not should not be used to determine the quality of the book.

There is only one error from a theoretical standpoint across those five books (can't speak whether if there are typographical errors).  In the book on the Slav, move 16 of game 16 (I think, if not, it's game 17), the move 16...e5 is actually a mistake(he gives it an ! ).  The guys at Quality Chess and their customers were going thru the issues with that idea, and how Black should instead play a rook move, I think one of the rooks to d8 but I don't totally recall.

However, outside of that one error, his books all are extremely solid, and even with that error, if you mimicked that game up through that point, unless you are facing some 2500 player, White would have no idea about how to gain the significant advantage that Quality Chess pointed out could be achieved for White.

I can't speak for some of his other ones like 1...b6 or Larsen's Opening or Bird's Opening as I don't play that garbage any more.

I would recommend "The Slav Move by Move" to the OP.  Just keep in mind when you get to game 16, do your homework on move 16.  Sure, continue through the game, but keep in mind White didn't play the best moves following Black's 16th move in that game!

Well, here is the long-awaited review of Vigus, followed by some more thoughts from an ~1500 player.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627113701/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen113.pdf

Sadler, Flear, and Lakdawala all used an exposition based on sample games, while the chapters of Vigus were (as he put it) "structured as a tree of variations, with complete games given only when the latter stages are particularly thematic or entertaining." However, Vigus did illustrate some of the ideas in a 34 page introduction with all or part of 18 games. I don't think Vigus wrote this explicitly, but I wonder if the idea was that the reader would read the introduction, start trying to use the Slav, and subsequently look up encountered variations. The results of such an approach would depend on the reader and the opponents of the reader.

If one already has some experience with the Slav, one might want to try to see if one would be happy with the repertoire choices made by Vigus and Lakdawala before buying either of their books. After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dc 5 a4 Bf5 6 e3 e6 7 Bxc4 Bb4 8 0-0 0-0 9 Qe2, Vigus only discussed 9 ... Bg4, whereas Lakdawala also discussed the more common 9 ... Nbd7. After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3, Vigus only discussed 3 ... dc, whereas Lakdawala also considered 3 ... Nf6 4 e3 a6. In order to learn about 3 ... Nf6 4 e3 g6, one has to go to a generalist writer like Sadler or Flear.

About two decades ago, around the time that Sadler was writing, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 a6 was in its early stages of acceptance. Since then, whole books have been written on the subject. Vigus and Lakdawala understandably took the attitude that a person with that sort of interest would go for one of the books on 4 ... a6. Sadler and Flear both devoted a section to it.

Sadler and Flear also discussed 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dc 5 a4 Bg4, mostly from the point of view of what White might do against it, whereas Vigus and Lakdawala took an as-Black-don't-play-it attitude.

Sadler, Vigus, and Lakdawala all discussed 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Qb3, but not (as far as I can tell) Flear. That may not be the most dangerous thing that White can play, but it might be a good idea to have some sort of preparation for it. Kaufman suggested 4 Qb3 (or 4 Qc2) for White in 2012. On the other hand, Flear, with his coverage of Slav and Semi-Slav ideas, has produced perhaps the best single book for someone who has not yet decided about playing "the Classical Slav or Meran" or whatever.

I can just imagine some participants here rolling their eyes at the thought of a player like me worrying about these sorts of issues at all. To some extent, I can understand their point of view. Where I am, at my level, it is perhaps far more important to be prepared for Colles, Londons, Veresovs, etc. When someone does go for 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6, I am just as likely to see the "quiet" 4 e3 as anything else. Still the books are some help with that sort of possibility even if it is far from being their main focus. Also, from time to time, I am paired with higher rated players, and even the not-so-high-rated sometimes give me a chance to try my own hand at the big-boy lines.

Thanks for that review, and thanks  for the suggestions from all. It sounds like these books can complement each other (if you have time to read them all). One thing a book such as Move by Move (or possibly others) may offer is midde game and endgame training.

Thanks for your review. I have the Lakdawala book, but now i want to take a look on that other books too, especially vigus. :)

My opinion is that you sometimes get also opponents who are equal well or better prepared for openings then you. There you could have 15 moves main line theory from their "grandmaster repertoire book". But okay, don't study the slav too much and forget to learn a line against the colle.

And one could also see the Lakdawala book as a collection of annoted slav games. Trainers often give the advice to go over annoted master games. Here you have some.

ylblai2 wrote:

".... Lakdawala and Vigus had more of a repertoire-for-White approach than Flear and Sadler."

Sorry, for that big goof. I should have written, "repertoire-for-Black approach".

ylblai2 wrote:

"... Lakdawala ... has something of a repertoire-for-White attitude, leaving out some possible White choices in order to provide more help on others. ..."

Good grief, I did it again. That should have been "repertoire-for-Black attitude" and "possible Black choices".

@ylblai2:

Huh? I'm tired and confused now. Would you mind rewriting the final correct sentences please? Thanks.

"... Lakdawala and Vigus had more of a repertoire-for-Black approach than Flear and Sadler."

"... Lakdawala ... has something of a repertoire-for-Black attitude, leaving out some possible Black choices in order to provide more help on others. ..."

Got it. Gracias.

Yes, Lakdawala is as good as any other chess author for the sub-candidate master.

Better players don't like his books because his analysis is slipshod, his evaluations are sometimes a bit extreme or, conversely, optimistic, and his descriptions and conclusions are over generalized and irrelevantly intellectual.

The chess content for lower rated players is still there, though, and his books often have better explanations of particular typical middlegame positions than any other source.

I neither play nor read about the Slav, but I bet if you investigate these books, you'll find that the recommended lines in each are different from the others. Therefore, the choice is less between the books and more between the suggested lines. A true connoisseur of the Slav would probably purchase all three books.

That's been my experience with these types of openings books, anyway.

I would agree, jlconn.

I was working on learning a Nimzo-Bogo complex, but a couple of advanced players thought my style might be better suited to the Slav (and possibly Semi-Slav too). I'm not sure. I probably need a coach to evaluate me.

With this context, I have to revert to what I'd told you early on.

If your goal is long term, overall improvement, then play - not read about, learn the lines of, etc., etc. - all of the openings, with an emphasis on open games, then over time adding in more and more semi open games, then 1.d4 d5, then 1.d4 other openings. Sufficient for this purpose is one general openings reference (eg, MCO, or Watson's Mastering the Openings series), to be consulted after your games to see how masters have played the positions that arose in your games.

If your goal is to improve your practical results in the short term and just to play chess as a hobby going forward, your best bet might be to choose what Ken Smith called a "forcing repertoire", and always play only that one opening for White and those few for Black.

In either case, the goal is to learn one position at a time. That means playing and analyzing, not learning exisiting variations.

Until we are over 2000 at least, and even then only if we've played a wide variety of openings (and thus types of position) up to that point, we have no style. We have blunders. Work on the openings should involve learning traps, typical middlegames and endings, and common pawn structures, and nothing else. Until that point, there is no basis for determining which openings suit our styles, of course, since we cannot possibly have a style. Lack of knowledge about how to defend does not equate to an attacking style.

That said, in general, I do think that the Slav is a much better recommendation than the Bogo-Indian for a novice/intermediate, and it works well as part of a forcing repertoire, as well (the other pieces of that repertoire would be: against 1.e4, the Caro Kann or Scandinavian, as White, 1.d4 and the Colle, Colle-Zukertort, London, and/or Hebden Torre), so you really cannot go wrong by simply following the advice given to you and going back to those sources and asking which of the books provides the most suitable lines.

"... many players will be happy with [Modern Chess Openings 15], but only because they don't know there are better ways to spend their money than investing in this volume." - FM Carsten Hansen (2008)

"... I do wonder how I would have found the experience as a junior player of ploughing through the latest volume of intense opening theory. A bit bewildering, perhaps?" - GM John Emms (2006)

As for consulting Watson's Mastering the Openings series after one's games to see how masters have played the positions, it might be as well to consider these 2007 comments of FM Carsten Hansen after the publication of the first two volumes:

"... these books are by no means encyclopedic in their coverage. Therefore, they should not be used as the final word in any of the variations being discussed."

The primary purpose of the 2006 book, Discovering Chess Openings, was to discuss basic opening principles, but, along the way, author, GM John Emms, did give some information about various specific openings. At one point, he wrote, "If you find an opening here that appeals to you and you wish to find out more about it, the next step would be to obtain an introductory text devoted entirely to that subject."

Flear wrote an introductory text about the Slav and Semi-Slav without a focus on a pre-selected and detailed repertoire.

"... a good opening book can open up new vistas that you would probably not discover for yourself. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

By the way, in connection with a Soltis book from the last centurry, CM Peppinu wrote, "...there has been an explosion in the 6.Ne5 main lines and the slow Slav with 4.e3 that barley get a mention in that book. Lots of club players have struggled to keep up with the slav in the last two decades and switched to other openings, in particular the QGD." Perhaps it would also be appropriate to think about that in connection with the possibility of buying the Sadler book.

My goal is long-term improvement, and I am playing a wide variety of openings...and will be for some time I suppose...at least online...if I get into OTB tourneys then I will probably stick with a more limited repertoire for those games...

This response seems to miss the entire point of my comment, which is to minimize opening study as much as possible by doing one of two things, neither of which involves learning opening lines by memory before playing them.

1. For long term improvement, at least early on, I believe the best course is breadth over depth; to play a variety of openings. In this case, your "repertoire" would consist of a few standard positions, sometimes referred to as tabiya - not of a memorized bunch of variations of set series of moves. The key is to learn how to handle a certain - few - common positions, and to learn how to play in different types of positions in general.
2. For someone looking to maximize their results in the short term, or the hobbyist who is content with a lifetime of competition at the class level (this would be most players), depth over breadth may be the way to go; in this case, a tightly limited, "forcing" repertoire should be adopted. In this case also, emphasis should be placed on learning standard positions, common traps, typical tactics, and likely pawn structures, with no effort at all spent on learning variations except after games.

I believe that the two biggest mistakes we amateurs tend to make is to equate repertoire with exact variations and to judge the quality of our repertoires by the completeness of those variations (ie, that there is no sensible move that an opponent could make against which we do not have a memorized rejoinder).

I've been trying to fix the results of making these two mistakes early on in my development, and I've been preaching the benefits of not having made them at all ever since I was set straight.

A repertoire is a set of positions. Most cases involve nondecisive positions, but even in the case of decisive positions, the closer to the beginning of the game a position in the repertoire is, the less value it has. As a matter of fact, two of the best opening books I own are Mastering the Endgame vol I and vol II by Shereshevsky and Slutsky.

I was not attempting to address your "entire point". I was attempting to focus on certain aspects of what you wrote such as

"..., then play - not read about, learn the lines of, etc., etc. ... one general openings reference (eg, MCO, or Watson's Mastering the Openings series) ..."

It appears that there are those who see potential value in reading from a non-encyclopedia.

A few days ago, you referred to "all of the openings". It is a relief if you are dialing that back a bit. I do not see that advice in writings such as those of FM Carsten Hansen and IM John Watson.

There are those who think reading can be helpful for such learning. Also, keeping to a "few" positions, is more difficult if one goes for too much "variety" and certainly lots more difficult if one goes for "all of the openings".

Non-encyclopedia books have been written to help with these sorts of things. You yourself previously seemed to approve of "asking which of the books provides the most suitable lines" for the Slav.

"... one simply cannot play the [Najdorf Sicilian] safely without studying the complications and remembering a lot of concrete variations. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

Couldn't one enhance this "feature" by doing without MCO altogether?

I have previously seen the advice to look up a line after a game, but I do not remember ever seeing any authority saying that one should only do that. In one of his books about an opening, GM Nigel Davies wrote (2005), "The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line."

And what about learning from the games of others?

"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

There seem to be those who think that one can avoid these mistakes while using a play-and-read philosophy instead of a "play - not read" philosophy.

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

tag for interests