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