Originally posted by randolph
His recommendations aren't bad but his analysis ranges from lazy and unchecked to downright malicious.
It's funny you mention that, because he devotes a small chapter under the Scandinavian section on what to do against Blackmar-Diemer psycopaths who play 2.e4, and takes a nice pot shot against Diemer's shoddy analysis ("10.Nxf7.. is this sacrifice sound? The literature suggests that it is, but analysis suggests that it is not.. [two moves of analysis later] .. and the white queen is trapped!! This little problem didn't stop Diemer from awarding himself two exclamation marks for the wretched move Nxf7" )
That's one thing about the From's Gambit.. our resident Bird's player talked about our first and only game played to date where he had white, and he mentioned that he was actually hoping that I would have played the From's instead of just setting up a generic "d5/c5/Bd6/Nc6 and play for an ..e5 break" system, because as he said, he was "more than ready" for the From's Gambit.
Compare that to, say, the Smith-Morra against the Sicilian, which may have a similar assessment (it isn't bad, but you can realistically expect more in the main lines, so choose this for psychological value only) but I have yet to meet a Sicilian player who has said anything BUT "ugh, not the Smith-Morra!" in the post-mortem.