1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    17 Apr '11 22:29
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    It makes me wonder if opening books should be written in a format where instead of analyzing branches of lines it should be done based chapters of player strength.

    i.e.

    Chapters 1-4 are typical plans, traps etc.
    chapter 5-6 is common lines in the u1400 database
    chapter 7-8 slighly more sophisticated stuff for Class B players
    chapter 9-12 Class A id ...[text shortened]... yer or lower who neglects playing through the old masters is doing themselves a great diservice.
    I am playing through one hundred Fischer games on my little computer, its guess the
    move and its wonderful. No analysis, no annotations, just the games and trying to
    guess the move, its absolutely wonderful, i cannot tell you how my appreciation for
    Fischer has reached new heights, he is so original, i would recommend it to anyone.
  2. SubscriberPaul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    The Stacks
    Joined
    21 Aug '09
    Moves
    113497
    17 Apr '11 23:33
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    It makes me wonder if opening books should be written in a format where instead of analyzing branches of lines it should be done based chapters of player strength.

    i.e.

    Chapters 1-4 are typical plans, traps etc.
    chapter 5-6 is common lines in the u1400 database
    chapter 7-8 slighly more sophisticated stuff for Class B players
    chapter 9-12 Class A id ...[text shortened]... yer or lower who neglects playing through the old masters is doing themselves a great diservice.
    USCF Senior Master John Hall wrote a book entitled Opening Systems for Competitive Chess Players, where he advocates the Torre Attack, the QGD Tartakower setup against everything but 1. e4, and the Caro Kann. The format is annotated games.

    In the introduction he has a section on how to use the book, and it has three subsections: One for Novice and Class E/D players, one for C/B players, and one for A/Expert/Master Players.

    The games are annotated at three levels, and he coaches each group on how they should approach the games and the annotations, and what they need to do to be successful.

    It is not exactly like your outline, but it is absolutely in the spirit. It is a good book and relatively successful, so the idea has a track record and legs.

    Sometimes we experienced players tend to group all opening books together and administer our righteous disdain, but the reality is, that like many things, there are good ones and bad ones, and which ones are which may well depend on the reader as much as the writer!
  3. e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    18 Apr '11 12:482 edits
    The first rep book that I know of was actually in a chapter called:
    Method Chess by Leonard Barden in his Guardian Chess Book. (1967).

    The Goring was one of his suggestions and GM Motwani and IM Bryson
    (a postal GM before computers) both admit proudly to using the 'method'
    (repertoire) with great success.

    There now seem to be loads to choose from.

    Some try to catch with the eye with a snazy jazzy title:

    A Ferocious Opening Repertoire (Everyman Chess):
    An Explosive Chess Opening Repertoire for Black (Gambit Books)
    A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire by Chris Baker
    A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire (Cadogan Chess Books)

    Others....

    A Hypermodern Opening Repertoire for White - Eric Schiller..... 😕

    As I said, you don't have to take them all onboard. Just one
    or two from one book, another from another book.

    Those that are slightly off beat but give postions you like playing.

    In The Chess Opening for You, a Complete System for White and Black
    by Larry Evans (Kings Indain Attack v everything as White. KID v 1.D4
    and the Center Counter v 1.e4 )

    He says it is important when choosing a repertoire that you 'Know Yourself'.
  4. Joined
    10 Apr '03
    Moves
    48786
    30 Apr '11 19:52
    As White:
    Blackmar-Diemer Gambit

    As Black:
    Dutch Defense (vs. 1.d4 1.c4 1.Nf3, etc.)
    Symetrical King Pawn Defenses (vs. 1.e4)

    The book title is "The Final Theory of Chess." It is 400 pages of mostly computer analysis. The eBook is free if you go to "Downloads" page on the Open Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.
  5. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    12361
    01 May '11 14:20
    Originally posted by Phillidor284
    As White:
    Blackmar-Diemer Gambit

    As Black:
    Dutch Defense (vs. 1.d4 1.c4 1.Nf3, etc.)
    Symetrical King Pawn Defenses (vs. 1.e4)

    The book title is "The Final Theory of Chess." It is 400 pages of mostly computer analysis. The eBook is free if you go to "Downloads" page on the Open Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.
    Striving towards Mate from the First Move, I presume. And I should trust this... why? Computer analysis is good for pointing out tactical tricks you missed, not for opening strategy.

    Richard
  6. Standard membernimzo5
    Ronin
    Hereford Boathouse
    Joined
    08 Oct '09
    Moves
    29575
    01 May '11 14:26
    I am highly suspicious of anyone who thinks the BDG is "THE" final theory on best openings. An interesting idea however as I think if there were a significant number of contributors and an intelligent system of evaluating the shared analysis you might gradually get something.

    Then again, this project is years behind the pet projects of various enthusiasts using more advanced engines than fritz 10 and serious dedicated software.

    I prefer not to reinvent the wheel when it comes to openings, but instead to take existing theory and find my own areas to explore.
  7. Joined
    10 Apr '03
    Moves
    48786
    01 May '11 18:19
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    I am highly suspicious of anyone who thinks the BDG is "THE" final theory on best openings. An interesting idea however as I think if there were a significant number of contributors and an intelligent system of evaluating the shared analysis you might gradually get something.

    Then again, this project is years behind the pet projects of various enthusiasts ...[text shortened]... en it comes to openings, but instead to take existing theory and find my own areas to explore.
    It is understandable to be suspicious of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. White's repertoire was built around the BDG, as explained in the book, in part because of the tactical nature of the opening which lends itself to computer analysis perhaps better than more positional openings.

    Just for clarification, the book isn't claiming that the BDG is the single best opening. For example, "Following countless hours of computer analysis, the jury will one day come back in and the verdict returned as to whether the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit leads to a forced win, loss, or draw with perfect play" (page 1).

    An interesting question is: Is there a single "best" opening? That is: If the BDG turns out to be a draw with best play and no other White opening leads to a forced win for White then by what objective measure is the BDG inferior to any other opening?
  8. Standard membernimzo5
    Ronin
    Hereford Boathouse
    Joined
    08 Oct '09
    Moves
    29575
    01 May '11 20:24
    Originally posted by Phillidor284
    An interesting question is: Is there a single "best" opening? That is: If the BDG turns out to be a draw with best play and no other White opening leads to a forced win for White then by what objective measure is the BDG inferior to any other opening?
    At that point then it comes down to a question of playing for positions you play well vs your opponent not as well. However, it is far more likely that the BDG will be a draw/loss long before it is remotely clear on other White choices.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree