Playing 1. e4 as White

"Chess Opening Essentials: The Complete 1. e4" is vol 1
  by Djuric, Komarov, Pantaleoni

click [Here] and view the "Look Inside" feature to get an idea if it is for you. The colors used in the book are not the hot pink you see there but more of a tan color.

8-1/2" x 9-1/4" - 358 pages. Very well laid out.

I would estimate player level = intermediate +

in seperate volumns:

vol 2 is 1.d4

vol 3 is Indian Defences

vol 4 is 1.Nf3

I recommend it highly

Try fifty shades of gray

Get a good book on pawn structures.  Once you understand the pawn structures behind openings, it will help immensely.  

No fifty shades of gray

???

Yes fifty shades of gray

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627032909/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen89.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626210017/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen132.pdf

http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/good...good...good...disastrous

i reported you to the insanley lame police.

I'd like to respond to and expand upon ylblai2's provided links to critiques of repertoire books mentioned. The reviews/critiques are almost never helpful. Some of the common complaints:

• sub variation Z of sub variation Y of variation X of opening W wasn't covered in sufficient detail
• talented junior players should be concetrating on main lines, not sidelines
• the book ignores some games played before publication that indicate that the proposed lines only lead to equality

Opening books are the cash cow of chess publishing, because the demand for them among amateurs is so high. As a result, they represent the only vehicle in the chess world for "quick and easy" money. Percentage-wise, there are very few quality opening books on the market, and repertoire books are the likeliest among them to be low quality.

The best bet for a player of any level who wants to learn a particular opening is to find the opening in an encyclopedia-style reference such as MCO or NCO or ECO, collect games by strong masters who played the opening lines in question, and then study those games in their entirety. There really is no need for a specialty opening book for anyone but professional players.

The best 1.e4 repertoire is the main lines that can be found in MCO.

But that's not what Chicken_Monster asked for.

I think you're being reported due to your spelling, which is actually hurting my eyes.

its hurting your eyes because you think you are smart and spelling something correctly or pointing out someone else's spelling mistake makes you sound 'cool'.  but rest assured, you are a nerd. you will always be a nerd.

"Mmmmmmm ... NERDS"

"NNNNNEEEEEEERRRRRDDSSS!!!!!"

Thank God you proofread that comment before posting it!

jlconn wrote:

"I'd like to respond to and expand upon ylblai2's provided links to critiques of repertoire books mentioned. The reviews/critiques are almost never helpful. Some of the common complaints:

...

Who cares? In response to the first point, ... To the second point, ... To the third point, ...

 ... there are very few quality opening books on the market, and repertoire books are the likeliest among them to be low quality.

... There really is no need for a specialty opening book for anyone but professional players.

The best 1.e4 repertoire is the main lines that can be found in MCO. ..."

I find your comments somewhat confusing. On the one hand, you undertake to respond to "some of the common complaints" in the reviews, but then you turn around and tell us that "repertoire books are the likeliest among [opening books] to be low quality." So are you telling us that there are appropriate criticisms to be made and these FM and IM critics somehow failed to make them? Whatever your position, I don't think that it is possible to say much about it in the absence of specific authentic quotes. As a group, I think that the reviews communicate some of the dangers associated with trying to use a repertoire book. I think it is also valuable that they give an indication of how the repertoire choices differ from one book to another. This is connected to the important issue of how the degree of ambition varies from one book to another. Of course, it seems to me to be of some value to see an FM or IM assessment of the quality of the coverage of the chosen lines in the various books. We see "bad, or ineffective" lines mentioned in connection with one book and the words, "honest and original effort", used in connection with another book, along with lots of detail to consider. (Those WERE authentic quotes, by the way.) As one lowly ~1500 player, I am extremely grateful that there are nonMCO books to help me with openings and reviews to help me know what is in the books and identify the better ones for me.

I do agree that a critic might well have values different from mine, and that, consequently, the critic's conclusion might not be well suited for me. Nevertheless, even when that happens, the critic can still be providing helpful information. If one book only goes for equality and another book advocates more work, seeking an advantage, it can be very helpful to know about that even if the critic does not share my view about which is to be preferred. I should perhaps add that I consider your post (#8 on the first page) to be of value, too. I like seeing multiple points of view.

Just as an aside, can anybody tell us if there are going to be any more MCOs? It seems to me that the last one was quite awhile ago.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626165820/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen110.pdf

Stop fifty shades of gray

Nerds rule the world :). Hehe :)

Just fifty shades of gray

My points were (more or less starting with the last, because it's the main one):

1. Chicken_Monster asked for repertoire books ... not perfect repertoire books, or a repertoire, or ideas about how to play the opening, or how to improve at chess. I thought I hedged my list well when I said that I don't recommend any of the books to anyone whose goal is improvement, but alas and alack....
2. Opening books - especially repertoire books - are often poor quality, and aren't even necessary for someone whose goal is to improve.
3. In spite of the fact that opening books are generally of low quality, critiques of opening books are almost always even less useful.
4. Critiques of opening books are often based on meaningless details or disagreements about how opening books should be organized.
5. People who write such critiques are writing for a particular audience, and that audience is almost never you. FMs, IMs, and GMs or other "qualified authorities" often write for others at their level, or else assume that they are addressing an audience of advanced amateurs, and that that is obvious to everyone.
6. Any repertoire book is good enough as a basis for a repertoire for a novice/intermediate who has no idea otherwise, and insists on having an opening repertoire.
7. But opening books are neither the best nor an efficient use of time for the improving player.
8. The best way to develop a repertoire and learn the openings is to study grandmaster games that feature those openings.

Regarding the discontinuation of MCO (and all books like it) I, too, am under the impression that its days have ended. I've heard as much from many different sources, but you never know.

I happen to like having a quick reference I can turn to to find the main lines of play in an opening, and to have them all laid out at once, so I can flip back and forth between openings. Chess databases don't give me that ability, but I think they are the reason for the death of the opening reference book. That, and the proliferation of opening lines (who would have ever thought that 7.Nf3 would have been a major choice in the Exchange Variation of the Gruenfeld, for instance? - and that's just a minor example of lines that are now accepted that once were considered logically flawed).

FIFTY SHADES OF GRAAAAAAAY