Home > Publishing Schedule > Playing 1.e4 e5 – reprinting

Playing 1.e4 e5 – reprinting

We need to reprint Nikos Ntirlis’s fine book Playing 1.e4 e5. Whenever we reprint a book, we of course take the opportunity to correct any errors we missed the first time. So, do you know of any errors in Playing 1.e4 e5 that we should fix?

Please note that we are reprinting, not updating to the present day or writing a new edition. So “Instead of the Breyer, Nikos should cover the Zaitsev” is not a helpful correction.

We have tried asking the blog for title suggestions, so why not for error-spotting? Call it an experiment.

Categories: Publishing Schedule Tags:
  1. ROBERT R
    June 6th, 2018 at 15:01 | #1

    What is the deadline?

  2. jackson
    June 6th, 2018 at 15:56 | #2

    There were some talk about a missing line in the King’s Gambit in a video you made. Are stuff like that going to be included in the reprint?

    Is Yusupov Build…3 also being reprinted? I know there are some typos in it but maybe you are aware of those.

  3. Tom Tidom
    June 6th, 2018 at 16:15 | #3

    Good to see that this book has found a big audience…

    Regarding mistakes the only one I remember is that in one reference GM Wedberg is called “german” while I´m sure he is”swedish”. Looking it up it´s on page 187 in the left column where after 12.0-0 Rb8 13.Kh1 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Short – Wedberg, Malmo 2002 is quoted.

  4. Vadux
    June 6th, 2018 at 17:03 | #4

    In the Yates Variation there is a problem.After 9.d4 Lg4 10.Le3 ed4 11.cd4 d5 12. e5 Se4
    13 h3 Lh5 you only gave Sc3 here, but 14.Sbd2 is a problem because you cant react in the same
    way without the inclusion of h3 Lh5. After 14..Sd2 15 Qd2 Lf3 there is 16 Qc3 with advantage
    because on 16.. Qd7 17.Tec1 as there is no Qg4 here. Instead of 14..Sd2 maybe 14..Qd7 or
    14..Lf5.

  5. Paul
    June 6th, 2018 at 18:35 | #5

    Hey all,
    some ideas about this…these are not errors, but new developments in some lines or new book, you can respond to:
    1) Scotch: Something against Shaws recommendation 21.Ld1!? (p.268, “Playing 1.e4”
    2) Scotch Four Knights: Wei Yi – Vidit, S, 2018 is very important 9…Bg4! is maybe much easier than the recommendation of the book?
    3) Bishops Opening / Two Knights: Please check “Bc4 Against the Open Games” (I dont have it, but maybe there is something to response to!?)

    Thanks a lot and good luck,
    Paul

  6. Pinpon
    June 6th, 2018 at 20:28 | #6

    @Paul
    Right . (2) is important .
    Maybe another introduction !?
    Looked today at last TP book introduction .
    Funny .

  7. Patrick
    June 6th, 2018 at 20:32 | #7

    Jacob, I don’t know if you consider this an “error” or not, but it’s really a grammatical error.

    On page 240, 1st column, 3rd paragraph, inside the parenthesis:

    “except for those which involving exchanging on c6, which were covered in the previous chapter”

    Shouldn’t “involving” be “involve”? Or else a linking verb (i.e. “are”) should be put in like “except for those which are involving exchanges on c6”. (The first scenario seems to make more sense).

    Not sure which is the ideal case, but there definitely appears to be a grammar defect there of some sort.

  8. Patrick
    June 6th, 2018 at 20:36 | #8

    Jacob,

    Based on the previous message, another option besides changing “involving” to “involve” would be instead to simply get rid of the first occurence of the word “which”, where it would read:

    “except for those involving exchanging on c6, which were covered in the previous chapter”

    Just another possibility.

  9. Patrick
    June 6th, 2018 at 20:38 | #9

    Actually, if you remove “which”, you probably need to change “exchanging” to “exchanges”.

    “except for those involving exchanges on c6, which were covered in the previous chapter”

  10. Doug Eckert
    June 7th, 2018 at 04:31 | #10

    First, this is my favorite opening book ever. Best blend of explanations, historic games and variations I have ever seen.
    1. Page 40, Variation B2, 5 Qe2 Be7 6 d4 0-0 7 Bd2 d6 (c5!?) 8 0-0-0 Nd7 9 Kb1 c6 unclear Vlog #5
    2. Page 223, 15 Nxc6 instead of 15 Bxf4 is = for White.
    3. Page 240, I would add the entire Spassky – Yusupov, Linares 1990 game score to the book.
    4. Page 243, 9 exd5 is not as easy for Black as indicated and requires further explanation.
    5. Page 280, 11 Nh4 should be covered in light of Lagrave – Svidler 2017
    6. Page 278, Aronian continues to play 8…0-0 instead of 8…c5. Objectively, not sure if there is a reason, but probably requires further investigation.

  11. John NS
    June 7th, 2018 at 05:56 | #11

    Will the Forward Chess version be updated as well? Thanks.

  12. Douglas Eckert
    June 7th, 2018 at 07:37 | #12

    Continuing

    7. Page 329, footnote to 14…g6!. Given the complexity and length of the lines given for Black, additional exploration as an alternative seems to be warranted. Each of 17…Nxd5, 17…Rxe1 and 17…Ne5.

    8. Page 372, footnote with 20 Nh2 instead of 25 Ra2, 25 Ra3 Bb5 26 Nh6+ (This is another idea instead of 26 Bh6) 26…Bxh6 27 Bxh6 Nc5 28 Rf1 a4 29 Qe3 Nd3 30 Nh5 f6 31 Ng7 Re7 32 Ne6 Qb8= Heydt – Eckert DE10A Correspondence 2016.

    Kidding on 8. Too much to know to fit it into one book. Fantastic book!

  13. Jacob Aagaar
    June 7th, 2018 at 09:34 | #13

    @John NS
    Obviously.

  14. Sam Collins
    June 7th, 2018 at 10:22 | #14

    I agree with Vadux’s suggestion. This line up to 16.Qc3 was played in Ponomariov – Eljanov, UKR-Ch 2013, and is analysed by Csaba Balogh in Best Attacking Games of 2012-2015 (Chess Evolution, 2016)(Game 16).

  15. John Shaw
    June 7th, 2018 at 10:44 | #15

    ROBERT R :
    What is the deadline?

    I think we will finish the reprint file early next week.

  16. John Shaw
    June 7th, 2018 at 10:45 | #16

    @Vadux

    @Sam Collins

    Good one, thanks. I believe the same line is also mentioned in Ehlvest’s “Grandmaster Opening Preparation” so we really should get this one right.

  17. John Shaw
    June 7th, 2018 at 10:49 | #17

    @Paul

    Thanks Paul, but we are reprinting not updating. We prefer to put most of our time into creating new books, rather than updating and rewriting older ones. Errors are different – we correct those, as we will not reprint something we know is wrong.

  18. IJK
    June 7th, 2018 at 12:42 | #18

    Would be wonderful, if you cover something against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 Be7
    5.0-0 0-0 6.Re1 d6 7.a4 Na5 8.Ba2 c5 9.Na3 Nc6 10. c3 h6 11.Bd2 a6 12.h3 Rb8
    1)13.Nc4 b5 14.axb5 axb5 15.Ne3 Re8
    1)a 16.Qe2 Be6 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Ng4 Qd7 19.Nxf6 Bxf6 20.h4 Ra8
    1)a1. 21.g4
    1)a2. 21.g3 Qf7 22.Kg2 Be7 23.Nh2 Rf8 24.Be3 Kh7 Rf1
    1)b 16.Nh2 Na5 17.Bc1
    2)13.Nc2 Be6 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.b4 cxb4 16.Nxb4
    I know this would be an update, but from a theoretical point of view this 12.h3 line should be critical, is the recommendation of two recent books and at least I think it deserves more than just a short side note on page 164.

  19. middlewave
    June 7th, 2018 at 13:22 | #19

    @Pinpon
    Are you referring to https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7828.pdf and one particular page?
    It must be the most creative rewording of “I’m an idiot” I have ever seen :-p

  20. Pinpon
    June 7th, 2018 at 18:00 | #20

    @middlewave
    Yep !
    A nice topic in itself like Markus thoughts on beauty in chess ?

  21. ROBERT R
    June 7th, 2018 at 19:20 | #21

    I was hoping for 8 weeks, not one.

    p26 Goring Gambit Declined game. The move 25…g5 is awarded an exclamation and a diagram, but in the note to move 26 [26.Rxh6 g4 27.Bg2 Nd3 clear edge Black] I noticed that White has 28.Re6. The engine confirmed that White is ok. Instead of 25…g5 the engine recommends 25…Ng4 -+, with a 2-pawn difference in evaluation.

  22. Topnotch
    June 8th, 2018 at 14:59 | #22

    I tried posting to the the ‘Three Excerpts’ thread, but it keeps giving me a duplicate post detected which is incorrect as my post doesn’t show up anywhere. Is the ‘Three Excerpts’ thread locked or has anyone else experienced any posting issues with it?

  23. Jacob Aagaard
    June 8th, 2018 at 16:18 | #23

    @Topnotch
    This happens to me all the time too

  24. Tobias
    June 9th, 2018 at 11:39 | #24

    @Topnotch
    I think it means that you attempted posting the same text before and that text is awaiting moderation.
    Now I don’t know how this blog is set up, but I think that at least external links make that a post needs moderation.

  25. Topnotch
    June 9th, 2018 at 15:07 | #25

    Tobias :
    @Topnotch
    I think it means that you attempted posting the same text before and that text is awaiting moderation.
    Now I don’t know how this blog is set up, but I think that at least external links make that a post needs moderation.

    Thanks Tobias, so who moderates and how long does to take for a post to show up, and if its rejected is the user notified?

  26. John Shaw
    June 11th, 2018 at 09:22 | #26

    Topnotch :

    Tobias :
    @Topnotch
    I think it means that you attempted posting the same text before and that text is awaiting moderation.
    Now I don’t know how this blog is set up, but I think that at least external links make that a post needs moderation.

    Thanks Tobias, so who moderates and how long does to take for a post to show up, and if its rejected is the user notified?

    It’s a piece of software that sometimes decides to leave a normal comment invisible and “pending approval” by a human. As Jacob said, sometimes it does this to his comments, also to mine, and to others, for no apparent good reason. But the software generally is useful: without it, we would have over a thousand spam comments needing removed.

    How long does it take for a post to show? It depends how often a QC human logs into the site, but expect slower service over the weekend.

  27. Markus
    June 11th, 2018 at 21:34 | #27

    Talking about reprinting: Will you consider to reprint the book “Playing 1.D4 The Queen’s Gambit” by Lars Schandorff? According to your shop it is sold out.

  28. Luís Silva
    June 12th, 2018 at 13:20 | #28

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4 Bd7 9.c3 Nikolaos talks about 9…0-0 but does not cover 10.Bc2 an idea I found in Caruana’s games intended to avoid 10…Na5. Maybe 9…Na5!? could be seen. Thank you

  29. Topnotch
    June 12th, 2018 at 13:52 | #29

    @John Shaw

    Thanks for the explanation, looks like my post has shown up now.

  30. Jacob Aagaard
    June 13th, 2018 at 17:09 | #30

    @Markus
    They are still available on Forward Chess. We have no plans to reprint. We would rather direct people to other 1.d4 repertoires, like Avrukh’s or maybe create a new one at some point.

  31. Leon Trotsky
    June 13th, 2018 at 18:44 | #31

    Is there to be a reprint of Berg French books, or update on theory ?

  32. Jacob Aagaard
    June 14th, 2018 at 01:11 | #32

    @Leon Trotsky
    The books are in print.

  33. Nino Tschoepe
    June 14th, 2018 at 07:51 | #33

    I just found one mistake right at this moment. I haven´t checked all the comments here so I don´t know if anybody allready said it. If so just ignore 🙂
    At the very beginning of p. 206 in the Spanish exchange.
    The line goes 5…exd4 6.Qxd4 and then he wants to play Bd6. That loses on the spot. Later when he analysed it deeper he first takes 6…Qxd4 7Nxd4 and then Bd6.. So he doesnt recommend to blunder the game in one move but its just a typing mistake.

  34. fredphil
    June 14th, 2018 at 08:58 | #34

    Markus :
    Talking about reprinting: Will you consider to reprint the book “Playing 1.D4 The Queen’s Gambit” by Lars Schandorff? According to your shop it is sold out.

    I can sell it to you but from France
    very good state

  35. Cowe
    June 14th, 2018 at 19:40 | #35

    In the Spanish Exchange, maybe say a word about 5.h3, cutting out some …Bg4 lines.

  36. Jacob Aagaard
    June 14th, 2018 at 19:53 | #36

    @Cowe
    Weakening.

    Glad to help.

  37. Jose
    June 15th, 2018 at 12:57 | #37

    Playing 1.e4 Sicilian Mainlines is an excellent book

  38. Cowe
    June 19th, 2018 at 10:00 | #38

    Far beyond reprint, there is an important post on chesspub regarding 2 Knights variation, called “Playing for a Win against 13.Ne5: in 8.Bd3″(hope you don’t mind the external reference). Poster IsaVulpes makes a convincing case that this line is difficult for Black, while being browsed lightly by existing literature, including Ntirlis. For the benefit of the chess community, could you kindly share your views on this line, either here or on that forum ?

  39. John Shaw
    June 19th, 2018 at 12:09 | #39

    @Cowe

    Sorry, but no time for external analysis, or at least not now. We are busy working on “The Woodpecker Method” and getting close to the end. And then there will be another book to work on.

  40. Andrew Greet
    June 19th, 2018 at 12:30 | #40

    @Cowe

    I had a brief look at the thread while on my lunch break. It’s not the sort of discussion we would usually get into (unless Nikos cares enough about it to reply on ChessPub in his own time), as the same thing happens with every good opening book ever published: the recommended line still appears to be fundamentally sound for Black, but it’s always possible to extent the discussion by picking up on some reasonable move which the author didn’t consider.
    The poster seems to be worried about the possibility of a weaker opponent preparing this line in elaborate detail to reach a drawn endgame or forced perpetual. Well, draws can happen when you have Black and the opponent plays/prepares perfectly. In my experience it’s extremely rare to face someone who prepares in that kind of depth just to force a draw; but if you suspect a certain opponent might try such an approach, then either accept the draw or find a backup line.

  41. JB
    June 19th, 2018 at 13:03 | #41

    L’ Ami did an update on the chessbase website updating his dvd on the 2 knights as well and I’m sure he warns about a line both he and nikos recommended against bd3 being suspect too. Might want to check that

  42. JB
    June 19th, 2018 at 14:00 | #42

    Had a look at L’Ami again and he thinks Nikos’ …Qc7 stands up still against 9.h4 but thinks 9…h6 is even better

  43. Andre
    June 19th, 2018 at 15:02 | #43

    Could you post a link to L’Ami’s update article? I can’t find it.

  44. Baljej
    June 19th, 2018 at 15:48 | #44

    @Andre: JB refers to an update on videos.chessbase.com, available for premium members.

  45. Cowe
    June 21st, 2018 at 18:58 | #45

    Andrew Greet :
    @Cowe
    I had a brief look at the thread while on my lunch break. It’s not the sort of discussion we would usually get into (unless Nikos cares enough about it to reply on ChessPub in his own time) […].

    Fair enough, better leave this discussion to chesspub then. Thanks for your replies.

  46. Alexander
    June 23rd, 2018 at 05:17 | #46

    Instead of the Breyer, Nikos should cover the Zaitsev.

  47. Ray
    June 23rd, 2018 at 06:05 | #47

    I think he should go for the Caro-Kann.

  48. Till
    July 10th, 2018 at 08:05 | #48

    Will thee be a “changelog” for the new edition, so we know what has changed? Maybe post a PGN or something when done? Thanks a lot.

  49. James2
    August 10th, 2018 at 17:35 | #49

    Hi all at QC,

    I was just wondering if there was anything in the pipeline regarding the Petroff a repertoire after 1 e4 e5? Something like ‘Playing the Petroff’? It seems to have become popular this year and is similar to the Berlin. There isn’t lots of new modern literature on it at the moment either.

    Thank you.

    James

  50. Topnotch
    August 11th, 2018 at 02:14 | #50

    James2 :
    Hi all at QC,
    I was just wondering if there was anything in the pipeline regarding the Petroff a repertoire after 1 e4 e5? Something like ‘Playing the Petroff’? It seems to have become popular this year and is similar to the Berlin. There isn’t lots of new modern literature on it at the moment either.
    Thank you.
    James

    Preferably by a Chinese author.

  51. Frank
    August 11th, 2018 at 09:57 | #51

    Or Rustam Kashimdzhanov 🙂 @Topnotch

  52. Ray
    August 11th, 2018 at 11:14 | #52

    Gelfand, Caruana or Giri could also do the job probably.

  53. JB
    August 11th, 2018 at 16:47 | #53

    Fabiano possibly a little busy this summer….

  54. James2
    August 13th, 2018 at 12:30 | #54

    Another book I think which is overdue (and could go well as a “Playing the…..”) is 1 b3, which has seen a lot of developments over the last few years and there isn’t much up to date literature on it (excluding the Lakdawala Everyman book). This seems like it could be an interesting area to explore.

    James

  55. James2
    August 16th, 2018 at 14:34 | #55

    @Topnotch
    Lo and behold, Chessbase have a dvd coming out soon on the Petroff, authored by Daniel Fernandez. It is in the coming soon section on the Chess and Bridge Shop website.

    James

  56. August 16th, 2018 at 18:28 | #56

    @James2

    Not sure how others feel but having brought a few opening DVD’s I think they tend to be as expensive or more expensive than a book yet to me, don’t seem to have the depth of analysis one normally gets with a book.

    Michael.

  57. James2
    August 16th, 2018 at 19:09 | #57

    @Michael
    I completely agree with you Michael. I think the DVD does not have the same depth of analysis for sure.

    James

  58. The Doctor
    August 16th, 2018 at 22:04 | #58

    Can you let us know what you actually updated in the 1 e4 e5 book and will the updates be for if you have already purchased on FC

  59. The Doctor
    August 16th, 2018 at 22:05 | #59

    I meant will updates be available on FC for free if purchased previously

  60. The Doctor
    August 16th, 2018 at 22:09 | #60

    Don’t bother answering you already answered the question earlier!

  61. Doug Eckert
    August 17th, 2018 at 16:16 | #61

    @Michael
    I don’t own too many DVD’s. But, on a narrow topic, with clear explanations and a database of say 80 games or so that are well annotated and connect the ideas together, it is a nice format. To do the book we are talking about, Playing 1 e4 e5 would probably require 3 – 4 DVD’s. I had suggested it on these boards before as a nice updating method. But, the team did not think they would sell or be economic. On a narrow specific topic, I think it is a nice format. On a broad/repertoire topic, it requires several DVD’s which increases the price/cost.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

 Limit your comments to