21 Jul 07
Originally posted by anthias"How to beat 1 d4" by James Rizzitano is a nice start for the Queen's Gambit Accepted, and it also covers some common early White deviations 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3/e3/Nf3 etc.
I want to learn those two openings and create an opening repertoire for black for tournament play. Can you suggest any books?
For the Philidor, none other than "The Philidor Files" by Bauer.
--
- Joined
- 12 Aug 06
- Moves
- 5380
21 Jul 07
I have those books. "How to beat d4" looks great, but it's full of theory. Whenever I start a main line I see something like "other alternatives are..." and a page full of minor variations. I've never had an opening repertoire before so I need help. Should I attempt to consume all of the book or just parts of it?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by anthiasI think the key is to play the lines you're learning. I haven't opened a chess book in my life but by playing on here and using databases for the openings I've memorized pretty much every mainline (e4, d4) opening and a number of the variants for the black side. One of the keys using this method is to only have one or two openings for each side. For example I will respond to c4 and d4 with e6 and I will match e4 with e5. That way your opening knowledge can be limited and still complete.
I have those books. "How to beat d4" looks great, but it's full of theory. Whenever I start a main line I see something like "other alternatives are..." and a page full of minor variations. I've never had an opening repertoire before so I need help. Should I attempt to consume all of the book or just parts of it?
- Joined
- 12 Aug 06
- Moves
- 5380
21 Jul 07
That is what I aimed at. Both the Philidors and the QGA are pretty forcing openings. And I also play the Colle and the Barry/150 attack against 2...Nf6. The trouble is reading those theory packed books. I spent five hours yesterday to memorize the first 6 pages of 'How to Beat 1.d4'. Is that normal?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by anthiasI don't think so. Imo your time is much better spent on here or playing otb chess. Books can be nice because you're learning directly from a master but lines are better memorized through 'osmosis' persay.
That is what I aimed at. Both the Philidors and the QGA are pretty forcing openings. And I also play the Colle and the Barry/150 attack against 2...Nf6. The trouble is reading those theory packed books. I spent five hours yesterday to memorize the first 6 pages of 'How to Beat 1.d4'. Is that normal?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by anthiasYou could get "Starting Out: the Queen's Gambit Accepted". It's not as heavy on the theory and gives you the basics of the QGA.
I want to learn those two openings and create an opening repertoire for black for tournament play. Can you suggest any books?
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by yofidawgFrom what I understand, accepting it generally leads to more open positions, while declining it generally leads to closed play. Mainly a matter of preference; the QGA does give black a slight statistical disadvantage, but like any opening that allows white to occupy the center with pawns, black can usually equalize in the earlier middlegame.
Is the QGA actually good? Everything I've read seems to say it's better to decline...what are some advantages of accepting the QG?
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by anthiasThe QGA is a very solid, interesting choice. Many top GMs play it, and it has withstood theoretical scrutiny. Rizzitano's book is an excellent choice for a repertoire (and it also includes lines against non-c4 lines like the London, Colle, Stonewall, etc.).
I want to learn those two openings and create an opening repertoire for black for tournament play. Can you suggest any books?
The Philidor, on the other hand, is not nearly as well respected as the QGA. If you are going to play 1...e5 you have many more interesting choices such as the Petroff, 2...Nc6 and the Black side of the Lopez, Italian/Two Knights, etc. The Philidor isn't terrible, and the "Philidor Files" is a very good book. While the Philidor might be underrated, it would be better for your chess to play something more theoretically respectable.
Scott
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by yofidawgThere isn't anything theoretically unsound about the QGA. Accepting or declining is rather a matter of taste and what kind of position you're aiming for.
Is the QGA actually good? Everything I've read seems to say it's better to decline...what are some advantages of accepting the QG?
Top GMs like Kasparov, Anand and Kramnik have used this opening so that's sort of a "seal of approval".
Kasparov used the QGA in his WC match against Kramnik, and Kramnik recently played the QGA (by transposition) in his WC match against Topalov as well as his match against Deep Fritz.