save your money, your oppenent will a make move not covered in the book guaranteed and they don't really explain the plans of the openings.
Playing 1. e4 as White
Sort:
I completely agree with ThrillerFan and jlconn on this issue.
It makes no sense to have a good repertoire book.
What are you going to use it for? As a paper weight(to hold down papers so they don't fly away)?
You should figure out the lines you are planning to play than build your own repetoire around your desired moves.
A repertoire book will give you a basic cover or run down on a couple of different lines which another title player might play but they will only touch the surface and they may even play variations you do not play. You will than be forced to get another book which goes in depth in lines you play.
You might as well save your money and get a book on a line you plan to play.
Sep 3, 2015
0
#44
ylblai2 wrote:
...
I would have some sympathy for some sort of negative reaction, but "almost never helpful" does not seem to me to be appropriate, especially for FM Carsten Hansen, IM John Watson, and IM John Donaldson.
I never said that the FM/IM/GM critiques fail to make the appropriate criticisms. My point was that their specific criticisms are usually applicable only to the pro or near-professional player. I won't bother to cite specific examples - just read the links you gave ... you will find the following specific points: "this opening is given too many pages, that opening is given too few", "there is no coverage of this or that [sub-sub-sub-] variation", "the examples are not recent enough", "the openings chosen aren't main line openings", etc. None of that should matter one bit to the average player.
As a concrete example of what I've been trying to say, take Chess Openings for White, Explained. I read Watson's review, and he basically just states facts throughout, so it's hard to disagree with what he said. Nevertheless, I could not disagree more with the implied message that it doesn't present a good 1.e4 repertoire for the average player. I dislike the book itself for a number of reasons, not least because of the odd choice - common throughout all Al Lawrence efforts - of mixing the marketing into the content. It makes many promises and comes across as snake oil, but if the average player would adopt the repertoire, and do his due diligence, that player would be better off than most of his peers.
Missing coverage of when Black does not play ...d4-d3 after having played ...d5-d4 is really beside the point. Your game collection will fill in those gaps, and anyway, the purpose of a repertoire is not to make it unnecessary to think, it's to provide a foundation for individual thought.
So there is the paradox that you keep harping on: the perfectly correct critique that nevertheless reaches the wrong conclusion for most players, and the book that - though it does suck - offers a solid repertoire that - though it may not work for GMs - could certainly last the average player most if not all of his career.
For every bad review of Chess Openings for White, Explained, there's a good review of the same, and they reach opposite conclusions (Watson's "disastrous" versus Hansen's "Go get the book!").
You're right that I mistyped what I meant ... I didn't mean to say that these critiques are almost never helpful, because really, the opposite is the case ... more like reading them all is as likely to leave you in a state of confusion as reading none of them and having a choice from among 100 repertoire books. There is a tendency for players to get stuck in analysis paralysis. My suggestion is: avoid that trap, pick a repertoire book, adopt the repertoire, and stick to it for a long time. One can make a career of reading reviews when reading the actual books will be immensely more informative, regardless of what the books got wrong according to the cognocenti.
Sep 3, 2015
0
#45
dfgh123 wrote:
save your money, your oppenent will a make move not covered in the book guaranteed and they don't really explain the plans of the openings.
This shows a misunderstanding of what a repertoire is. It is not meant to cover any possible move that the opponent can make on any given move in any given variation ... the idea is to build a "database" of positions, with the knowledge of how to play from them. You need to do your due diligence, and if you do, you will gain enough understanding to handle the moves that are "out of book".
Sep 3, 2015
0
#46
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
I completely agree with ThrillerFan and jlconn on this issue.
It makes no sense to have a good repertoire book.
What are you going to use it for? As a paper weight(to hold down papers so they don't fly away)?
You should figure out the lines you are planning to play than build your own repetoire around your desired moves.
A repertoire book will give you a basic cover or run down on a couple of different lines which another title player might play but they will only touch the surface and they may even play variations you do not play. You will than be forced to get another book which goes in depth in lines you play.
You might as well save your money and get a book on a line you plan to play.
I neither said nor meant this, exactly. But yeah ... there is truth here.
FIfTY SHADES OF GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
James1011James1011 wrote:
FIfTY SHADES OF GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
I'm sort of getting the vibe that you want a BDSM relationship with Christian Grey.
FINALLY SOMEONE ACKNOWLEDGED MY COMMENT
jlconn wrote:
I neither said nor meant this, exactly. But yeah ... there is truth here.
I must of misinterpreted what you said. Very strange!
I would like to ask you a question. What exactly are you trying to say?
Chicken seems to be looking for a book which encompasses a wide range of lines in 1.e4 as white.
I suppose the simpliest response would be you either like the idea or don't like the idea.
I personally do not the idea. I believe getting a single book which is trying to give a wide range of lines on how to play 1.e4 is not going to do much.
Which is the stance I thought you as well as Thriller was taking.
I really do like Thrillers quote on what he had to say about this issue.
"The way theory has evolved today, I wouldn't recommend a single book trying to cover an entire e4 repertoire for White.
Explore and figure out your variations of interest, and purchase accordingly."
It seems like solid advice to me. However, Everyone has different approaches. Does your reasoning differ than what Thriller has to say?
every forum topic is like, so lame.
Sep 3, 2015
0
#52
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
jlconn wrote:
I neither said nor meant this, exactly. But yeah ... there is truth here.
I must of misinterpreted what you said. Very strange!
I would like to ask you a question. What exactly are you trying to say?
Chicken seems to be looking for a book which encompasses a wide range of lines in 1.e4 as white.
I suppose the simpliest response would be you either like the idea or don't like the idea.
I personally do not the idea. I believe getting a single book which is trying to give a wide range of lines on how to play 1.e4 is not going to do much.
Which is the stance I thought you as well as Thriller was taking.
I really do like Thrillers quote on what he had to say about this issue.
"The way theory has evolved today, I wouldn't recommend a single book trying to cover an entire e4 repertoire for White.
Explore and figure out your variations of interest, and purchase accordingly."
It seems like solid advice to me. However, Everyone has different approaches. Does your reasoning differ than what Thriller has to say?
My only issue is that I never said that these repertoire books make no sense ... they make perfect sense for the exact group that I was talking about ... amateur players who are going to remain amateur players, and in order to derive more enjoyment from the game, want to have a complete repertoire, yet haven't any clue how to develop a repertoire on their own. In this case, the repertoire book is amazingly useful.
They are also useful for advanced or expert players who want the benefit of a stronger players' having already done the work selecting lines that will fit together harmoniously.
But the spirit of your post I can agree with for the most part.
Sep 3, 2015
0
#53
xjian77 wrote:
Q & A with GM Artur Yusupov
I'd be curious to examine the difference between what that player who's been playing for 20 years and is still at 1500 meant about recently getting serious about improvement regarding potential progress, and what Yusupov thinks of that player's likely capacity to improve.
Anyway, look at Yusupov's 9 volume chess manual to see what he means when he says repertoire. He provides a full one, for White and for Black, but leaves a lot unexamined, because that's our job. He wants us to understand typical middlegame positions - that's the tabiya that one needs to learn and master in order to have a repertoire. Understanding that little bit well makes it easier to respond to different moves in real games.
jlconn wrote:
I never said that the FM/IM/GM critiques fail to make the appropriate criticisms.
Just to be sure that the record is clear here, my post #30 contained reviews by only FM Carsten Hansen, IM John Watson, and IM John Donaldson. Your post #32 reaction began with, "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. ..." If you agree that the reviews do make appropriate criticisms, then it seems to me that that is helpful.
jlconn wrote:
My point was that their specific criticisms are usually applicable only to the pro or near-professional player.
The first point to make is that "usually" is not the same as "nearly always".
jlconn wrote:
I won't bother to cite specific examples - just read the links you gave ... you will find the following specific points: "this opening is given too many pages, that opening is given too few", "there is no coverage of this or that [sub-sub-sub-] variation", "the examples are not recent enough", "the openings chosen aren't main line openings", etc. None of that should matter one bit to the average player.
YOU apparently felt it mattered that the lines in Attacking with 1.e4 "just don't seem to fit together" and that "Starting Out 1.e4 ... is the only repertoire book" you "know of that attempts to tackle the Open Sicilian." You haven't wanted to say that the FM/IM/GM critiques fail to make appropriate criticisms. I don't see any reason for them to refrain from making comments for the ABOVE-average player. Such comments are not necessarily of interest only to the pro or near-professional player.
jlconn wrote:
As a concrete example of what I've been trying to say, take Chess Openings for White, Explained. I read Watson's review, and he basically just states facts throughout, so it's hard to disagree with what he said. Nevertheless, I could not disagree more with the implied message that it doesn't present a good 1.e4 repertoire for the average player. I dislike the book itself for a number of reasons, not least because of the odd choice - common throughout all Al Lawrence efforts - of mixing the marketing into the content. It makes many promises and comes across as snake oil, but if the average player would adopt the repertoire, and do his due diligence, that player would be better off than most of his peers.
Is that the right comparison? If a person is reading the Watson review, isn't there a good chance that there will be a purchase of some sort? For such a person, isn't the real question about whether money is best spent on Explained or elsewhere?
jlconn wrote:
Missing coverage of when Black does not play ...d4-d3 after having played ...d5-d4 is really beside the point. Your game collection will fill in those gaps, and anyway, the purpose of a repertoire is not to make it unnecessary to think, it's to provide a foundation for individual thought.
So, isn't it perhaps helpful for IM John Watson to warn people about the book saying, "We want this book to be your complete openings reference for your entire playing career"?
And, is it just a matter of "gaps", or is downright unwise instruction involved? IM John Watson wrote, "A keystone of their repertoire is the grand old Giuoco Piano main line, which the authors reach via the following moves: [1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4 Bc5 5 c3 Nf6 6 cxd4 Bb4+ 7 Bd2 Bxd2+ 8 Nbxd2 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Qb3 Na5 11 Qa4+ Nc6 12 Ne5!? 0–0 13 Bxd5.] Right away anyone about to play this system as White is going to wonder: 'What about 13...Nxe5 ?' Not a word about this from the authors! In fact, Black has a clear advantage unless White plays 14 Be4! (14 Qb3?! Nd3+), and I think that Black stands better in that case as well ..." Now I, of course, do not know if IM John Watson is right, but, if he is, then it seems to me that, instead of filling in a gap, the reader will want to find an alternative to the book's suggestion. Don't you think that there is at least potential value to the warning of readers about such things?
Even if a problem is simply a gap, is it necessarily inappropriate to mention it? Might it not be appropriate to warn a potential reader if a book has an unusually large number of such gaps?
jlconn wrote:
So there is the paradox that you keep harping on: the perfectly correct critique that ...
I hope that you do not give anyone the incorrect impression that I harped on (or even said in any way) something about a "perfectly correct critique" being involved here.
jlconn wrote:
... that nevertheless reaches the wrong conclusion for most players, and ...
Even if a review reaches the wrong conclusion for most players, it seems to me that it can still be helpful with regard to giving the reader information about what is in the book. From IM John Watson's review, one can learn that the book is not one that attempts to help White "tackle the Open Sicilian."
jlconn wrote:
...and the book that - though it does suck - offers a solid repertoire that - though it may not work for GMs - could certainly last the average player most if not all of his career.
At one point, IM John Watson wrote, "... little of this fits into the idea of a 'lifetime repertoire'." Maybe he's right. Maybe you are, but, in any event, it seems to me that his detailed arguments are of potential interest to a reader who may not want to sink a lot of time (and some money) into the study of the suggestions of this particular book.
jlconn wrote:
For every bad review of Chess Openings for White, Explained, there's a good review of the same, and they reach opposite conclusions (Watson's "disastrous" versus Hansen's "Go get the book!").
I provided both, along with a follow up Hansen comment on the revision.
jlconn wrote:
You're right that I mistyped what I meant ... I didn't mean to say that these critiques are almost never helpful, because really, the opposite is the case ... more like reading them all is as likely to leave you in a state of confusion as reading none of them and having a choice from among 100 repertoire books. There is a tendency for players to get stuck in analysis paralysis. My suggestion is: avoid that trap, ...
I've never heard of anyone getting stuck in the trap of reading all the reviews. My guess is that, for anyone in danger from such a trap, the most likely outcome is that the person would stop reading. Most could, at the very least, benefit from the reading of some of that appropriate criticism.
jlconn wrote:
... pick a repertoire book, adopt the repertoire, and stick to it for a long time. One can make a career of reading reviews when reading the actual books will be immensely more informative, regardless of what the books got wrong according to the cognocenti.
You yourself have told us that "repertoire books are the likeliest among [opening books] to be low quality", that one repertoire book was "outstanding", another was "excellent", and yet another "may be the best of all". My guess is that the danger of time lost on a low quality opening book is far greater than the danger of time lost looking at reviews. Remember how you told us about lacking faithful attention "for an extended period" to one book, finding that the lines in another book "just don't seem to fit together", following the repertoire in another book "for the longest period", and deciding that yet another book "may be the best of all"?
"... 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. ..." - jlconn (about 25 hours ago in post #32)
Sep 4, 2015
0
#56
Hi,
Can anyone suggest a 1. e4 book that is two pages or less?
Thanks!
UpcountryRain wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone suggest a 1. e4 book that is two pages or less?
Thanks!
I can, but it only goes 2 moves deep
Sep 4, 2015
0
#58
ylblai2 wrote:
"... 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. ..." - jlconn (about 25 hours ago in post #32)
MCO is not a specialty opening book
Chicken_Monster wrote:
No kidding. Memorization is only one part of openings. Understanding the reasons behind the moves is important. Everyone knows that.
Notwithstanding your comment, my question still stands.
He has a good point. You gotta play it consistently to get a feel for a certain opening. That is something I have noticed in my own learning. But you are right, understanding the moves is important as well. You have decided to explore 1.e4, and so many books exist on that opening move alone. In my opinion, it depends on your current skill level. Is "Chess Openings for Dummies" appropriate (just read it, and has sections devoted to 1.e4) or a more specialized book? If I can offer any advice at all, and this is from a mediocre player trying to improve day by day, check out your local library's website. I was surprised how many chess books were available for free.
Sep 4, 2015
0
#60
ylblai2 wrote:
...
Jeez you like to be disputative. I apologize, but I don't share your enthusiasm to argue these points.
I just thought I'd have a go at clarifying my thoughts for someone on the off chance that they were genuinely interested in what I was getting at, but I'm not trying to defend a doctoral dissertation here. I am simply not that attached to my thoughts on the matter to warrant the effort.
If you still think that what I said doesn't make sense, then forget about it, it doesn't matter anyway in the big scheme of things.
In spite of the fact that opening books are generally of low quality, critiques of opening books are almost always even less useful.
At the very least, that seems rather odd. As I wrote before, are you telling us that there are appropriate criticisms to be made and these FM and IM critics somehow failed to make them? Perhaps your position is that they did make the appropriate criticisms, and yet it is somehow useless that they did. Either way, repeating the point, isn't compelling to me in the absence of evidence (such as specifically identified appropriate criticisms that weren't made).
Critiques of opening books are often based on meaningless details or disagreements about how opening books should be organized. 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 anyone.
I tried to identify specific ways in which reviews can be helpful. 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. 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.
These points do not go away simply because you ignore them. I note your repeated use of the word, "often", in connection with the writing of critiques of opening books. At the very least, I would think that you and I would agree that there is a difference between "often" and "almost always".
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.
In response to being asked for repertoire books, YOU YOURSELF felt it was worthwhile to note that in one book "the gaps in the lines offered are filled by" an extra book, in another book the lines "just don't seem to fit together", in another book "2.c3" is used "against the Sicilian", and in another book the content "may be the best of all". It does not make sense to me to just rely on you for such commentary.
The best way to develop a repertoire and learn the openings is to study grandmaster games that feature those openings. ... there are actually decent opening books built around this premise.
And it seems to me that reviews can be helpful for identifying such books.
I've heard amateur reviewers say "I could get this content from online games databases". Some of the more well known critics may say things like "but there's a variation that wasn't covered". Others will just nitpick about various details of organization or the lack of a variations table, or the inclusion of a variations table, etc. I suppose that is what I was reacting against - because none of it matters for the average player.
I would have some sympathy for some sort of negative reaction, but "almost never helpful" does not seem to me to be appropriate, especially for FM Carsten Hansen, IM John Watson, and IM John Donaldson.