Fundamental Chess Openings basically gives you everything you need to know as a club player. Everything else is optional.
Despite covering all openings in a single book and being low on tree-variations, if you know and fully understand everything in FCO you could answer and often destroy 99%+ of the threads here with your knowledge.
Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition is one I would recommend.
Neither of the books mentioned can be recommended. They are reference books. They do not teach you the opening at all.
What you should do is determine which openings you want to learn, or even better, to limit your options and not overwhelm yourself, go to www.everymanchess.com, click on the magnifying glass in the upper right, and enter "First Steps". It will show 21 results, but something like the first 10 or 11 are in the First Steps series. You need to go to each of them to read the descriptions for which side it covers, and invest in a couple of them.
They will FAR BETTER EXPLAIN than the reference books mentioned above.
Think of it like this: The "First Steps" series by Everyman is like reading a Cooking for Dummies book. The reference books in posts 2 and 3 are like reading Webster's Dictionary or World Book Encyclopedia.
FCO is not a reference in any sense. It teaches the openings completely from a very basic level and up to a nice level that is sufficient for quality play, which I told you recently ThrillerFan.
FCO is not a reference in any sense. It teaches the openings completely from a very basic level and up to a nice level that is sufficient for quality play, which I told you recently ThrillerFan.
Yes, absolutely. MCO is indeed inappropriate for the reasons mentioned. But FCO is nothing like it -- the lines are brief, rarely going past move ten, and the emphasis is on the explanations. It's a great true first step into any opening you care to sample -- after which one might indeed want to continue on to books of the "first steps" variety.
There are no good books to learn about openings.
To learn about openings, study annotated grandmaster games from a data base.
FCO is not a reference in any sense. It teaches the openings completely from a very basic level and up to a nice level that is sufficient for quality play, which I told you recently ThrillerFan.
Yes, absolutely. MCO is indeed inappropriate for the reasons mentioned. But FCO is nothing like it -- the lines are brief, rarely going past move ten, and the emphasis is on the explanations. It's a great true first step into any opening you care to sample -- after which one might indeed want to continue on to books of the "first steps" variety.
But then it stops, like you say, at move 10.
For a beginner at openings, you need something that will go deeper, not for theoretical reasons, but to understand subsequent play from the positions specific to the opening at hand. This is why the Starting Out series, which is dated now, and ones like First Steps or Move by Move (MBM being more complex) that use a complete game approach, is better.
When you get to be significantly stronger, only then do books that use the tree structure work better than complete games. Like in my case, I could easily go thru a tree structure book on the French, but for say, the Benoni, I'd be better off going thru thru book with complete games.
You should be doing the same, and is why I say FCO is still a mistake. A mistake in a different way than MCO, but still a mistake.
I think it helps to have both though - FCO for breath and something else for what you want to work on in depth. How do you know what openings appeal to you without something that outlines the range of plans for a whole lot of options? And it’s not just one opening you need to know. Even if you were pursuing the narrowest of repertoires (London System - ugh! - as white, something against e4, and KID against d4/c4/Nf3 (and I wouldn’t really recommend the KID to a beginner - I just mention it because it’s one of the few things you can play against everything other than e4)), you’re still looking at 600 pages worth of Starting Out books to study. Maybe you have time for that, but even studying - and understanding - the 60 pages of FCO on those openings takes a lot of time. Or better, you can study 100 pages of FCO and not find yourself limited to the bloody London.
I think it helps to have both though - FCO for breath and something else for what you want to work on in depth. How do you know what openings appeal to you without something that outlines the range of plans for a whole lot of options? And it’s not just one opening you need to know. Even if you were pursuing the narrowest of repertoires (London System - ugh! - as white, something against e4, and KID against d4/c4/Nf3 (and I wouldn’t really recommend the KID to a beginner - I just mention it because it’s one of the few things you can play against everything other than e4)), you’re still looking at 600 pages worth of Starting Out books to study. Maybe you have time for that, but even studying - and understanding - the 60 pages of FCO on those openings takes a lot of time. Or better, you can study 100 pages of FCO and not find yourself limited to the bloody London.
I never said one single book would cut it. You want to be good, you've got to put up the money!
Yes, to start, you need something for White, which might entail multiple books, and then something for Black against 1.e4 and something for Black against 1.d4.
You actually do not need a book to figure out what appeals to you. Actually, you are best off going thru random master games and playing blitz games not even knowing what an opening is.
In 1995, I picked up my first 3 books - Winning Chess Tactics, Winning Chess Strategies, and How to Win in the Chess Endings.
I proceeded to play many blitz games, trying out different opening moves that followed principles. Control and fight for the center. Do not move the Queen out early. Do not repeatedly move the same piece. I knew nothing otherwise about openings.
I play various lines, and one of them struck a cord. I had a better idea what I was doing. My King was safe. So I am playing for d5, to contest e4, and precede it by adding extra coverage to d5 first with the move 1...e6. I proceeded to ask someone that knew a little more than me, one of the other guys that played (I was in college at the time) and I was informed it was the French Defense. Combine that with the fact that 2 other guys talked a lot about the Queen's Gambit, and books 4 and 5 that I purchased were "Winning With the French" (Uhlmann) and "Play the Queen's Gambit" (Marovic), both of which books that featured complete games. I also proceeded, at the time, to play the QGD as Black.
You do not want to get FCO for the following reasons:
1) You are swimming in decisions with likely no idea what meshes well together. Just imagine playing the Modern Benoni and Petroff, or Old Indian and Latvian Gambit! Let the decisions come to you naturally, like a baby becoming left or right handed.
2) It takes you to move 10 or so and then what? Studying complete games of the opening you are studying, and not just wins, sure, if you are studying the Black side of the French, a bunch of 0-1's is nice, but you learn most from losses. You need to see how Black gets beaten too with 1-0 games. Studying a book that only covers thru move 10 or 15 encourages memorization and not understanding.
Take the following position:
This position comes from 9 moves of the Closed Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.f4 e6 7.Nf3 Nge7 8.O-O O-O 9.Be3 b6). Of course, this is not the only line, but I am going to illustrate a point.
It is White to move. In game 30 on page 180 of "The Closed Sicilian: Move by Move", White played 10.d4. It then gives 3 alternatives for White. The third of those, Line C, begins with 10.Bf2 and leads to a level position. It gives a couple of additional lines within the line on 10.Bf2, but not a ton of explanation. Any person that just flips thru an opening book will likely not understand the reason for 10.Bf2, but actually, earlier in the book, many ideas are explained, and also occur thru repetition throughout games. If you have gone thru games 1 thru 29 already, you probably would have a clearer picture what 10.Bf2 is a legitimate move and what the idea is, and the author is relying on that rather than rehashing an idea that you ought to have already known from studying all the previous games.
It turns out, if you look at the position, Black does not want to sit with his pawns on d6 and e6 for ever. He is looking for a break with e5 or d5. The move ...e5 does not look appealing at all with the Knight on c3, pawn on e4, clamping down on the now very weak d5-square, creating what is called a hole.
Therefore, Black wants to get in ...d5. With a Bishop on e3 and a Knight on c3, White's reply options would be limited. Trade on d5 and then move the Bishop or Knight to avoid the fork, or do not trade and move one of them, allowing Black to trade on e4.
By playing 10.Bf2, you are discouraging ...d5 from Black because now you have the added option of blocking the g7-Bishop with e5 in response to ...d5. With ...g6 pushed, an ...f6 move by Black will give a weak pawn on e6. White can play exf6 and Black must recapture with a piece, making the e5-square and e6-pawn weak for Black, so ...f6 isn't that easy. So ...d5 might be a little less attractive now with the Bishop on f2 instead of e3.
So why the Bishop and not the Knight? Well, Ne2 removes pressure from d5, making ...e5 possibly ok. With a Knight on e2, Black wants a pawn on e5. Also, do we really know yet where we want the Knight? If we get in say, Rae1 first, then Ne2 or Nd1 can be an option if say, Qd2 has been played. From e2, the Knight can get to f4 or g3. From d1, it can get to f2 or e3, leading to g4 or f5. With all of those options, why commit the Knight if you do not have to? With f4 already played, there is no Be3-Qd2-Bh6 idea, so just retreat the Bishop to f2 and see what Black does.
If all you do is go thru the first 10 moves, even explained, of a bunch of random openings, it would be like going into the real world with a 2nd grade education across all subjects rather than a masters degree in one area.
A GM can understand every opening. I make no claim to understand every opening, hence why I am an Expert, not a GM. But I understand (not memorize) enough openings to lay out a complete repertoire, and that is what is important.
I have over 400 books on chess on many different openings, but the important thing is that I master just enough to have a complete repertoire, and this is the approach you should be taking.
I know a lot about the French, Closed Sicilian, Italian Game, Queen's Gambit, etc. I know almost nothing beyond sheer basics about the Grunfeld, Benoni, Dragon, etc. But you know what? At 46 and not going to be a GM any time soon, I have no need to know those.
I hope this gets the point across that shallow, generic opening books with little substance and a lack of complete games is NOT the way for a person to go when first learning openings!
For a general idea on different openings, FCO, UCO, or MCO (Mastering not Modern) are a fine place to start.
Of course, if you're a little more experienced and have a simple repertoire, a couple (maybe a few more depending on your goals) of opening specific books (like starting out series) are going to help you more. You'll likely never need 200 opening specific books, that's where the repertoire books come in handy.
Everyman, Gambit, and Quality Chess are all good publishers imo.
None of this is bad advice exactly, and I'm glad you posted it. But it's worth listening to the question being asked. What book is a good overview of a lot of openings? FCO is a good answer to that question. You can make your point about its limitations without trying to paint a radioactive waste symbol on it.
I spend a lot more time reading other opening books than that one, but on occasions when I want to get a quick overview of some opening I barely know, FCO is a good book to turn to.
Good Chess Openings Books For Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-openings-books-for-beginners-and-beyond
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
None of this is bad advice exactly, and I'm glad you posted it. But it's worth listening to the question being asked. What book is a good overview of a lot of openings? FCO is a good answer to that question. You can make your point about its limitations without trying to paint a radioactive waste symbol on it.
I spend a lot more time reading other opening books than that one, but on occasions when I want to get a quick overview of some opening I barely know, FCO is a good book to turn to.
Maybe you need to work on reading skills.
Where in the title or in post number 1 do you see the words "a lot of"?
Actually, he asks about openings AND OPENING THEORY!
Those encyclopedic tombs do not talk theory - they are reams of lines, and FCO, based on what others are saying, may better "explain" the opening moves, but from what others are saying, it cuts off around move 10. "Theory" means more than 10 moves!
"a book"
That's what was asked for.
Are you always so aggressive and rude?
Did you get the pull and play version?
Making your argument is one thing, but attacking people like an internet bully is old stuff.
Thrillerfan, "a lot of" is implicit in "a good book on openings and opening theory." No ordinary reading of that phrase would take it to refer to a book on a single opening -- or even on two or three. The request is for a book on a range of openings. These books exist, whether you you like them or not, and the OP wants a recommendation from among the many that have been published.
If I'm reading your last post correctly ("based on what others are saying"), you've acknowledging that you've spent scarcely any time getting to know FCO and perhaps never even so much as opened it. I don't fault you for that, but if that's the case, you have no business dumping on other people's recommendations of the book.
I know you have a point you want to make, and it's not a crazy one. But by no means is it absurd to offer a book called "Fundamental Chess Openings" as a book on opening theory. (Is there a single other person here who would join you in defining that term in such a way as to exclude FCO?!?) It's one thing to suggest that he might do better to try a different sort of book than what he's asking about. But the twisting of "I am looking for suggestions for a good book on openings and opening theory" into a request for a book on middlegame plans ensuing from particular openings is . . . peculiar.
Guys learn the fried liver it is goooood ish
Hi,
As the title says, I am looking for suggestions for a good book on openings and opening theory.
Thanks in advance.