The reason I ask is because I bouht the book but except the Bishop´s Opening, I must confess thatI am not very convinced.
I must confess this is an interesting repertoire with "offbeat" in mind, excluding the Bishop's opening, which is harmless as a kitten.
same opinion than Pfren.
Very interesting and practical repertoire.
I dont like bishop opening but why not.
Emms already wrote a (good) book on king's indian attack, so he knows what he is talking about.
I'm sure the Bishop's Opening in not going to set the world on fire, but GM Tiviakov used it for several years, usually as a way to get into Italian Game-type positions withought having to cope with the Petroff. I believe IM John Watson also recommended the Bishop's opening (with the same ideas in mind) in his video series on building an opening repertoire. I don't think the Bishops Opening is going to replace the Ruy any time soon, but it's a safe, sound system.
Not allowing the Petroff is one thing, and alowing the (rather easy) equalizer 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6! is another.
The (modern) Italian with d2-d3 is a fine strategical opening, but you will never achieve it starting with 2.Bc4.
What do people think about the Closed Sicilian recommendation? A lot of Sicilian players seem not to worry about it, or at worst regard it as boring. Also for some reason I don't feel comfortable in the positions where Black doesn't play ...g6 (which Emms spends less time, and considers less good than ...g6 lines). Recent example:
i think the bishops opening is a choice that gms tend to respect a bit more than ims...heh not even really kidding about that. i remember even decades ago people like polgar and leko found the opening to be quite reasonable while ims i knew would pretend it was ?!
I think the Bishop's Opening tends to be popular in books written by Everyman in the 2000's decade because every book was cookie cut to 144 or 176 pages, and the Bishop's Opening was a cheap way out because it could be covered in a few pages.
It wasn't until the 2010's that Everyman realized that theory is more dense today and larger books are necessary.
All the Bishop's Opening lines besides (1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3) 3...c6 looked pretty comfortable for White, regardless of theoretical outlook. After 3...c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. exd5 seems still alive, at least at lower level.
My concern with the Closed Sicilian was the positions like the one posted, where White is just sitting on a pretty terrible pawn structure waiting for Black to castle (and even then, pushing all those pawns seems kind of sketchy).
I have had the book for some years and most of it is probably playable if you feel like playing that stuff. The best takeaway from it is the 150 attack, though many Pirc players will delay 0-0 sometimes permanently in order to not allow the Bh6 move with pressure against the castled King.
I played the Closed Sicilian for a few years and gave up on it for the Open Sicilian. Previously I played Bb5(+) lines, but had problems with 2...e6, 2...a6, 2...Nf6 etc that avoided all that.
The Bishops Opening is lame and boring.
The rest I'm indifferent to or had other lines already.
What do people think about the Closed Sicilian recommendation? A lot of Sicilian players seem not to worry about it, or at worst regard it as boring. Also for some reason I don't feel comfortable in the positions where Black doesn't play ...g6 (which Emms spends less time, and considers less good than ...g6 lines). Recent example:
I have won two games in that line recently as Black- one OTB, one correspondence. I can confidenty say that
1. it is a RICH strategical position, with mutual chances.
2. the move 6...d5?! in your example is inaccurate- 6...Be7 or 6...Nf6 should be played (I have played 6...Be7 in both games). Black seems to be in some trouble after the thematic 7.f5! This has been played in several recent correspondence games, as well as a GM OTB game where Black got in earely trouble after 7...exf5- but neither 7...b4 8.fxe6! fxe6 9.Na4, nor 7...d4 8.fxe6 fxe6 (accepting the piece is very dangerous) 9.Nb1! seem to entirely solve Black's positional problems.
Regarding the Bishop's opening after 3...c6: True, the position is interesting after 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 Bd6, but the accurate 5...Bb4+ (provoking a pawn at c3) spoils the fun. Here is a game where a random patzer tried too hard to keep it interesting:
6.c3 is probably not best, but Black is fine after the more refined 6.Bd2 Bxd2 7.Qxd2(!) as well.
Well i guess magnus is a patzer who doesnt understand how weak and boring 2 bc4 is
Suffice to say he did not play 2.Bc4 again , even in a short time control game.
You see, Black having FULL equality as early as move seven doesn't appeal to anybody- Magnus included.
Perhaps the Bishop Opening isn't the most indicated for high levels. However for Club level is perfectly playable.
I think the book is good or very good for the level and aspirations of the OP.
Thanks pfren. I guess now I can reconsider giving up Closed Sicilian because I don't have to play e5 automatically and apparently the positions aren't all dead.
No one ever plays ...e5 against me OTB and online I guess no one knows what it is and just plays Nc6. Even in the chess.com master's database 3...c6 isn't most common which was a little surprising.
Previously I played Bb5(+) lines, but had problems with 2...e6, 2...a6, 2...Nf6 etc that avoided all that.
For what it's worth 2...a6/2...Nf6 are pretty suspect (3. c3 with a better version of the Alapin; 2...Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. Nc3). 2...e6 while perfectly sound doesn't seem to have the killer theory problems (e.g. one-mistake-dooms-you) that some of the other Sicilians have.
The problem with 2... Nf6 against the Bishops opening is more that Black has to be prepared for the dangerous Boden-Kieseritzky-Gambit.
3.Nf3 Nxe4, 4.Nc3 Nxc3, 5.dxc3 f6? (considered best but imo dubious, why weaken that diagonal, much safer is 5...c6 followed by d5)
6.Nh4 g6, 7.f4 Qe7,8.f5 Qg5 for Black its difficult to find a safe place for the king.
@ luvavum : if this line is so strong, why nobody plays it at high level?
Why nobody plays it on Petroff after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 transposing?
Black can just go into 2 knights defence if he wants with 3...Nc6.
And this variation anyway is dubious theorically.
Here is the line proposed by Bologan :
Ok this line will be rarely played, u can forget playing OTB, but then, black will play 3...Nc6.
I dont find black's moves difficult to find, much more difficult on Evans gambit for example.
If someone plays me this kind of stuff, i have a smile, very much easier to handle than big lines like Ruy Lopez or Giuoco Pianissimo.
I am going it give it a chance, thanks
Where are all the post of Fiveofswords? that were so usefull, they have dessapeared
Hello,
I do not know if somene has read this book. What John Emms tells is that he deliberately avoid recommending and sounded variations, which requires massive memorization, (no Dragons, Najdorfs, Spanish..) but openig systems wher ideas are more important tha , variations. He says that although he steered away from main lines, this openings have some pedegree and what is important for me he says are easy to learn.
The reason I ask is because I bouht the book but except the Bishop´s Opening, I must confess thatI am not very convinced.
An important point is that my expectatives are not of being a supercompetitive player, just to get an accpetable medium level in the long term, I will never get 2000 Elo for sure. And another poing is that I prefer tactical, attacking games rather than positional games, as a general idea.
This is the repertoire:
Thanks