Opening Books

[Roger de Coverly]

The latest ChessBase column at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6823 has Edward Winter castigating authors of opening books for not doing historic research

And, of course, even a comprehensive database will not reflect the full history of an opening, since account should also be taken of old monographs and magazine articles

I don't however think that unearthing a game from 1924 that starts 1 e4 Nf6 2 f3 is especially useful for the theory of the Alekhine as essentially it gives Black a choice of a decent position in whatever alternative opening appeals. So 2 ..e5, 2 .. d5, 2 .. c5, even 2 .. d6 all look very playable.

If you are a prospective opponent of Mike Surtees or even Geoff Chandler, you might wish to be aware of the possibility, but does it detract from a book on the Alekhine to be silent on such stuff?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I don't however think that unearthing a game from 1924 that starts 1 e4 Nf6 2 f3 is especially useful for the theory of the Alekhine "

A friend of mine who doesn't play nowadays had occasion to use the above line, and if 2....e5, played 3.f4 to get a Latvian Gambit with colours reversed! This caused his opponents great confusion (and his team-mates some anguish). Whether you really want to include such sidelines is another matter of course.

[Michael Jones]

What's the point of a book about an opening - is it supposed to be a complete list of every move that's ever been played in it, or just a look at what's currently considered main line theory? Historical reference work or practical textbook? I'd say the latter, but Winter evidently disagrees. I suppose he is a chess historian, but not every book about chess is required to read like an encyclopedia.

[LozCooper]

What's the point of a book about an opening - is it supposed to be a complete list of every move that's ever been played in it, or just a look at what's currently considered main line theory? Historical reference work or practical textbook? I'd say the latter, but Winter evidently disagrees. I suppose he is a chess historian, but not every book about chess is required to read like an encyclopedia.

Not that I've bought an opening book for about 20 years but I would say that its most important use is to explain the plans and why you should play certain moves in the opening. Computer databases will always have more up-to-date games as theory is being updated daily and can give assessments and recent results but a database on its own may not have the same level of explanation as a book specific to the opening.

[Geoff Chandler]

I played 1.e4 Nf6 2.f3 e5 3.f4 For years v the Alekhine getting a pure
Latvian in reverse with good results.

(you are right about the look on the face of Black.
£14.95 down the toilet on move 2!)

Been asked why not something like 1.e4 Nf6 2.a3 e5 3.f4?

As every real Latvian Gambiteer will tell you.
In one of the 'quiet' lines you need a6 for your King on move 17.

If you put a pawn on a3 then this line is not available to you.

Of course dedicated opening books cannot cover everything.
But what they give is never seen OTB in any of the players game.

I'm talking about the lower levels here, the players who actually buy the books.
They have a head full of moves played by GM's & IMs and yet they will be playing no M's.
Waste of time, effort and money.

Books like Martin's 'Play the King Indian' are good (it's the only one of his I have,
I cannot speak for the others). Ideas and complete games.

Of course it does mean the reader/owner has to put some work in for
himself to get the full benefit of the ideas.

And there's is the rub.
They did not buy the opening book to expect to actually have to read it
and put some work in of their own.

It's been bought because they are totally crap at tactics or the endgame,
or devoid of middle game ideas and the solution is in an opening book.

The solution is always an opening book.

I wonder what the ratio of opening books v other books on chess is.
20-1? 30-1? 100-1?

Edit:

Just looked at Eddie's article.

Obviously he got the idea from me (;)).

http://www.chessville.com/GC/All_openin ... ripoff.htm