Coming Soon…

We have updated our Coming Soon page with some titles we plan to publish in Spring and Summer of 2020. It’s quite a few books, so I will keep the details brief in this post. You can read more about each book on its own webpage, as linked below. The first five books below are expected in Spring 2020.

Playing the Grünfeld by Alexey Kovalchuk. The title tells the story – a fighting repertoire against 1.d4 by a talented young Russian player.

GM Mihail Marin will supply a two-volume Black repertoire against 1.d4 using 1…f5, with the aggressive Leningrad Dutch at its heart. The titles are Leningrad Dutch and Dutch Sidelines.

The 2600+ Ukrainian GM Martyn Kravtsiv is writing two volumes from White’s perspective after 1.e4 e5. The title Italian Renaissance tell the story – Bc4 is White’s choice, covered at both move 2 and 3, for added flexibility. There will be Volume I and Volume 2.

The following four titles are expected in Summer 2020.

Playing the Stonewall Dutch by Nikola Sedlak is another where the title is self-explanatory. A bold repertoire against 1.d4.

Think like a Machine by Manella & Zohar explores what chessplayers can learn from computers, using lots of spectacular examples where we humans struggle to find the right moves.

In Playing the Petroff Swapnil Dhopade, one of the new generation of Indian GMs, shares a repertoire against 1.e4 that is both compact and reliable.

In A Matter of Technique GM Jacob Aagaard starts a new series called Grandmaster Knowledge. The annotator’s cliché for winning a won position is that “the rest is a matter of technique” – this book shows how it should be done.

437 thoughts on “Coming Soon…”

  1. Just to be clear, the front cover images are not yet finalized. We are well aware of certain changes which need to be made to some of the covers (perhaps the most glaring mistake as things stand is the differing angles of the board photos on the Marin Dutch books). We just didn’t want to delay the announcement of these new titles any longer, so rest assured we will fine-tune the cover designs in due course.

  2. Well done !
    Interesting to see if the Petroff book will be Bd6 oriented in the ‘’ old ‘’ main line
    Btw , will we see the upcoming Gelfand book in summer 2020 ?

  3. Can’t believe my luck…. a book from Quality on the Petroff!! …..like Pinpon would be even happier if the Old Main Line is based around 6…Bd6 but as I also play 6…Nc6 I’m not going to be too worried either way.

  4. That is a lot of books.

    I was wondering if Marin’s Dutch books would have the flag of the Netherlands as background, but that is not necessary anyway.

    There has not been a book on the Stonewall Dutch since Agdestein’s book.

    I wonder how the Playing the Grünfeld book differs from Awrukh’s two volumes.

  5. Love that caped pawn cover! 😀

    I’m also considering the Grunfeld book but I am unsure how to handle 1. c4 and 1. Nf3. Perhaps the symmetrical English is the way to go? I know it probably won’t be in the scope of the book but it would be nice to see if he has any general suggestions. I’ve been trying the KID lately and being basically universal other than vs 1. e4 is one of the best parts.

  6. @Alex
    Against 1 Nf3 QC have given extensive coverage of Anti-Grunfeld lines in Beating Minor Openings

    Against 1 c4 I’m guessing most Grunfeld players plat 1…Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 as given in the recent Chess Stars book on the Grunfeld.

  7. Interested in the Petroff book. If the old main line is Bd6 I wonder how the repertoire will differ from ‘ Fight 1.e4 like Caruana’.
    Looks like the writer doesn’t play the Petroff himself, or am I missing something? Any hints on lines already?

  8. Leon T: Avrukh’s books were cutting edge at the time and are still of much value, but theory moves on and there are certain lines in his books in which Black has come under some pressure. Kovalchuk’s repertoire benefits from more up-to-date theory, as well as analysis from stronger engines, more recent elite GM games and so on. There are also certain lines where Avrukh’s analysis still holds up, but Kovalchuk offers another solution which he happens to find more appealing.

    Duvupov: Swapnil has played the Petroff a few times although it’s true that it hasn’t exactly formed the backbone of his repertoire. Still, we think his analysis of it is first-rate.

    Karl: We are not yet desperate enough to advocate the London System! (Just joking – sort of…) If you’re looking for a guide to that opening, Sedlak’s books published by NIC are in my opinion your best chance to equalize with White.

  9. @Thomas
    You’re absolutely right; thanks for the correction. I googled the book and the top few results were NIC, so I lazily named them as the publisher, forgetting that they also run a shop!

  10. Mich :
    Good news … but where is Dumbo ???

    “The Electrifying Elephant Gambit” is also on the way. The books in the post above are not yet a complete list of our plans, and many publication dates remain to be clarified.

  11. Andrew Greet :
    Karl: We are not yet desperate enough to advocate the London System! (Just joking – sort of…) If you’re looking for a guide to that opening, Sedlak’s books published by NIC are in my opinion your best chance to equalize with White.

    It am joking too. But just look at your banner http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/i/banner5.png
    With the stonewall book you’re moving into that direction. Soon or later i will see a london system book from quality chess. 😉

  12. I’m quite interested in Jacob’s book ‘A Matter of Technique’ as I spend too much time looking at openings, get great positions then generally only achieve draws!
    My question is what rating of player is this aimed at?
    As I’m only around 2000 rated, will this be much use to me?

  13. Paul: Yes, Negi 5 will happen in 2020.

    Karl: Thanks for the point about the banner. If we ever publish a London repertoire for White we’ll be sure to change it to “Tired of good positions?” etc.

    ‘Doctor’: My guess is that even though the typical reader of Jacob’s books may be rated a little higher, an ambitious 2000-rated player should still be able to get a lot out of them. We’ll be able to answer better once the book is finished of course.

  14. John Shaw :

    Paul H :
    @John Shaw
    Is completion of Negi still pencilled in at some point?

    Yes. And the next one in the Negi series will be this year – that’s “1.e4 vs Minor Defences”.

    While I´m happy to read this it probably also means that the coverage of the Ruy Lopez from White´s side is quite far in the future.

    Perhaps someone is willing to write “Playing the Ruy Lopez” in the meantime ;-).

  15. A Matter of Technique will not be an exercise book, so should be accessible from 1500 or so and upwards. The pieces move the same and stronger players are not that often smarter, just more trained, talented and well-read.

  16. jacob’s book should be of the highest need. We all loose winning ( or draw) position so often. It is really important to learn how to do to concretize a wining advantage and not let our opponent escape.

  17. Andrew Greet :
    Duvupov: Swapnil has played the Petroff a few times although it’s true that it hasn’t exactly formed the backbone of his repertoire. Still, we think his analysis of it is first-rate.

    If he does decide to go with 6….Nc6 in the Old Main Line, it would be good if Swapnil could include something on white’s 8 Nd2. Sakaev included a two line note in his 2011 book on the Petroff but subsequent authors have ignored it. It is quite a popular sideline and very common in ICCF games. It may look passive but it is not without it’s subtleties.

    Thanks.

  18. Thanks for the update on Negi.

    Are you also able to provide an update on the plans for the Grandmaster Preparation series? I notice on Chessable an expanded edition of Calculation- with video from Jacob- is in the coming soon section.

  19. Surely this is the most impressive lineup of forthcoming titles I’ve seen in a long time. I’m very much looking forward to the The Italian Renaissance. Keep up to good work!

  20. Hey Xmas came early in January! Even though (in a non Brexit manner) I couldn’t give a monkeys for all the Dutch there’s a lot to look forward to. Seeing a major clash between the Italian and Petroff book so is John getting locked in the dungeon again to edit one book while Andrew edits the other up in the daylight and neither allowed to look at each others notes? Very happy Jacob catering to club players.. I’ll never be a GM but trying to be the best I can be and his new book seems more at my level. Keep healthy Jacob! Good luck and we’ll all ignore the publication dates as usual and just enjoy them when they arrive ??

  21. PS After finishing your MVL black rep books with the Najdorf and Grunfeld books looking forward to the Magnus version with the Qd6 Scandi, Norwegian Rat and some more quality mainline stuff.?

  22. For the book Stonewall Dutch by Nikola Sedlak, does it cover everything after 1. d4 f5 ?

    Does it cover 1. Nf3 and 1. c4?

    Thanks.

  23. It seems like everyone is harping over the opening books. While I myself am interested in the Italian books and the Stonewall Dutch book, the other two, and probably the biggest two for me, will be the two non-opening books! Think Like a Machine and A Matter of Technique!

  24. JB – Excellent suggestions; in the meantime we’ve got the Elephant Gambit on the way to satisfy your desire for a quality repertoire to last a lifetime.

    Doctor – John is definitely a middlegame expert, as long as we can define a middlegame as a position with nothing but a rook and a number of pawns on each side. But in any case, running the company combined with editing/proofreading duties keeps John busy to say the least, so don’t expect any more books authored by him anytime soon.

    Leaf – The Stonewall book focuses on d4/c4 set-ups. Obviously we understand that there would have been a certain value in covering earlier deviations too. On the other hand, there are many other books covering sidelines after 1.d4 f5, and ultimately we decided that an in-depth guide to the d4/c4 realm would be the best way to let the author shine. Sedlak has generally favoured the 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 move order in his own games; obviously this only works if you play the French as well – but if you do, then it’s an excellent option for a Dutch player.

  25. Hello

    When will be known which line Negi proposes against the Alekhine.

    Although, wondering whether you have in sight a book on the Alekhine (Baburin as the writer?)
    I think many books on how to play against the Alekhine are very interesting, e.g, Shaw and
    Greet (with a diferente editior)

    Thanks, Luis

  26. When will be the official announcement of Negis book? Will he also cover the Pirc & Modern in it& what Lines will he suggest?

  27. @Andrew Greet

    Now that you have GM Nikola Sedlak in your stable of writers he would be an ideal candidate to do a book on Playing The London…theory has moved on since his earlier works and the opening continues to be popular at all levels.

    I know you don’t think much of the opening but, I’m pretty sure that if Quality published a book on the London it would be a stronger seller than a book on lets say the Elephant Gambit!!

  28. Hello,

    Is there any chance to see in the future books with titles like “Playing the Sozin Variation (Including Fischer’s Attack)” or “Playing the Exchange Ruy Lopez”?

  29. Playing the Tarrasch Defence would be a nice book. Covering the so called “Dubov Tarrasch”, the new move order with an early Nf6 like Carlsens choice. It should be a complete repertoire: QGD, QP-Openings, Tarrasch vs English/Reti, Tarrasch vs Nimzo-Larsen, Tarrasch vs “Orangutan”, Tarrasch vs Bird.

    * Dubov Tarrasch: The Dubov Tarrasch suggested Tarrasch in the early 1920s in “Die Verteidigung des Damengambits”.

  30. Michael :
    @Andrew Greet
    Now that you have GM Nikola Sedlak in your stable of writers he would be an ideal candidate to do a book on Playing The London…theory has moved on since his earlier works and the opening continues to be popular at all levels.
    I know you don’t think much of the opening but, I’m pretty sure that if Quality published a book on the London it would be a stronger seller than a book on lets say the Elephant Gambit!!

    The London has seen better days, the surprise effect has long gone and enough ink both digital and physical has already been spilt on it. Black is comfortable in most lines and the London offers nothing objectively except a position to just play chess. Just Play Chess – The London System is not a title I think would sell very well, not sexy enough. A book on the Elephant Gambit however, would probably do better since it is such a controversial and little covered topic, so much so that even I would be tempted to buy it if only out of sheer morbid curiosity.

  31. Here are the answers to the various questions:

    About Negi – against the Alekhine he’s going main line with 4.Nf3; against the Pirc/Modern it’ll be Be3/Nf3. We’ll announce the publication date when we are ready. We will not announce the announcement date.

    As for the London System, I tend to take a similar view to that of Topnotch in the post above, but John and Jacob are the ones who ultimately decide what to publish. So anything’s possible – but at this stage a prospective London book isn’t exactly at the forefront of our team meetings.

    The Alekhine Defence, Dubov Tarrasch and Exchange Ruy Lopez aren’t the worst ideas I’ve heard. Like I said, anything’s possible, and some ideas are more possible than others.

  32. @Topnotch

    “the London offers nothing objectively except a position to just play chess. Just Play Chess”

    Perhaps that is why it is so popular at the highest levels of ICCF…..they just want to play chess in a position which offers imbalances.

  33. Michael :
    @Topnotch
    “the London offers nothing objectively except a position to just play chess. Just Play Chess”
    Perhaps that is why it is so popular at the highest levels of ICCF…..they just want to play chess in a position which offers imbalances.

    Indeed, if you want to keep your repertoire fresh and reliable these days it is essential to have the latest Correspondence Database and keep it updated or else you are likely to face many unpleasant surprises.

  34. I really enjoyed reading Smirin’s inspiration KI Warfare.

    So I’m intrigued by Sicilian Warfare. Smirin is primarily a Kan player, I’m wondering whether this will including mainly his games, and will it cover other Sicilian variations othe than the Kan?

  35. Hi, any plans on updating Marin’s work on the English and Petrov’s Modern Benoni? Also, any plans on launching a book on 1.f4 and the Reti Opening

  36. IronTigran :
    Hi, any plans on updating Marin’s work on the English and Petrov’s Modern Benoni? Also, any plans on launching a book on 1.f4 and the Reti Opening

    Please no book on 1.f4! This move is a waste of time and not a “quality” move!

  37. Recently Vassilios Kotronias wrote a new book on Tarrasch. Does anybody know what is the difference between it and the one by Jacob and Nicos?

  38. @Riesner
    Riesner who said 1.f4 doesn’t give an advantage? People are slowly turning to rarer moves for finding something out of an opening, I think your prejudiced mind needs a lot of schooling to understand that.

  39. IronTigran :
    @Riesner
    Riesner who said 1.f4 doesn’t give an advantage? People are slowly turning to rarer moves for finding something out of an opening, I think your prejudiced mind needs a lot of schooling to understand that.

    I see, that’s why the GMs nowadays played a lot 1.f4 recently. Oh wait,…

  40. I think a good repertoire book on 1.b3 would also be very welcome (at least to me 🙂 ). The only reasonably recent book is by Lakdawala, but the quality is what you would expect…

  41. IronTigran :
    @Riesner
    Riesner who said 1.f4 doesn’t give an advantage? People are slowly turning to rarer moves for finding something out of an opening, I think your prejudiced mind needs a lot of schooling to understand that.

    How about the fact that in the vast majority of databases, 1.f4 scores UNDER 50 PERCENT for White, and White goes first! For example, 365chess.com, 1.f4 scores a whopping 47.6% (35% White Victories, 25.2% Draws, 39.8% Black Victories – 35 + half of 25.2 is only 47.6!).

    The problem is that White gets nothing to counter the early weakening of the King. Black has committed to nothing. In the Dutch Defense, White has committed to 1.d4, which weakens e4, and so the move 1…f5 makes more sense. It prevents e4 and puts a clamp on e4 when combined with 2…Nf6, and in some cases, a future …d5.

    With Black having not committed to d5 yet, 1.f4 is fruitless, and just weakens the White King. I agree with Riesner. You want something offbeat? Time would be better spent covering 1.b3 or 1.Nc3. They don’t score as well as the “big 5” (e4, d4, c4, Nf3, and g3), but they at least result in a plus score for White!

  42. @Patrick
    I agree 1.f4 may not be so great, but I doubt the reason is the weakening of e4 in the Dutch vs. not committing to anything against 1.f4. After all, by far the main move for black against 1.f4 is 1…d5 – weakening the e5-square and thereby justifying the move 1.f4 (in your reasoning). That doesn’t sound logical to me. I suspect the real reason for the below-average score of 1.f4 might be that the Dutch is a counterattacking opening. This only works well if white is ambitious which generally is the case. Playing such a counterattacking opening with reversed colours tends to work less well (imo) because black usually is satisfied with an equal position. That being said, 1.f4 is regularly played by Kamsky with good results, so it can’t be that badb.

  43. @Ray

    Regularly played by Kamsky? He is more a London System guy, nobody play 1.f4 regularly, not in blitz, rapid or classic.

    @IgonTigran Insulting me, does not make 1.f4 more better. Learn to respect other
    opinions. There is a reason, why 1.f4 will not be a quality chess book. I think, they have more
    interesting than writing a book about a move which is more worse than 1.h3

  44. @Riesner
    Strictly speaking you are right, but Kamsky has more than once played 1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.f4 in serious games. Look it up in a database and you will find games as recent as 2019.

  45. @Patrick

    Database percentages are of passing interest but I have always found that the ratings of the players is more relevant..for example if a 2300 player is playing a 2600 player then regardless of the opening chances are the 2300 player is going to get ground down…..similarly a game between two low rated players is often not reflective of an openings potential…

  46. @Michael

    This is why I use the laws of statistics when evaluating things like databases. A valid sample size is said to be 30. You need at least 30 minimum to do a valid statistical analysis. If you had 14 games with 11 of them Black wins, it could just as easily be an anomoly. But here we are talking 20,657 games. So now the question is the following:

    A) Are there just as many cases where White is higher rated than Black as there are cases where Black is higher rated than White? This would be easier to determine if this database gave stats like average rating for White, average rating for Black, average rating for White in games where White won, etc. If there are just as many, you have a valid sample easily.

    B) Is Black significantly higher rated than White overall across the 20,657 games? If that’s the case, the fact that nobody that high up plays the White side of it should say something!

    So either way, 1.f4 just feels wrong to me! And this comes after playing a Dutch last night that I won in 30 moves, but should have lost had White played his 16th move back on move 15.

  47. @Riesner
    1.f4 is a serious try for a small advantage, albeit rarely played. Magnus has a 100pc score with with, and creative players often get very nice positions out of the opening. Your reasoning with the databases is pathetic to say the least – just because an opening scores badly doesn’t mean it is inherently wrong – it just means that White hasn’t explored it much. 1.e4 c5 2.b4 is considered bad if you look at the databases, but having looked at it seriously I see it as a legitimate way for White to play. I suggest learning chess properly first, if you don’t understand this simple statement- chess these days is less about an opening advantage and more about keeping pieces on the board, which 1.f4 does to perfection.

  48. @IronTigran

    First off, I am the one that used the database reference, not him. Secondly, just because anybody made a database reference does not mean that is all we do or know. Your comment is offensive. Third, you want non-database common sense? The Sicilian Wing Gambit is a total joke because it has already been figured out that an early d5 defuses all of White’s play and Black is probably slightly better. Even the French Wing Gambit is a better argument! That lead to the deferred Wing Gambit and a 552 page book by another publisher, and he sugarcoated 2…Nc6 when 2…g6 gives White bigger problems! If the wing gambit was the biggest problem for Black, I would be a life long Sicilian player and kiss the French good-bye. Throwing attacks at people simply because we referenced a database and making the assumption that we are clueless, digital people otherwise just makes you look pathetic! I wish I could play Black against you over the board. My best wins ever are against offbeat garbage, the highest one being black against someone that tried to play 11.Nd3 instead of 11.Nxc6 in Larsen’s opening.

  49. Having had enough of dealing with another poster’s stupid shenanigans, I have a useful question for you. The Italian books. Are they coming out together as one unit or as two separate parts, one early spring and one late spring?

  50. @Patrick
    A real chess education is required for you my friend – these days the lines with 3…d5 in the Wing are practically refuted as far as Black is concerned – White is infact playing for an advantage in many lines. Instead of trashing a respectable opening spend your angry outbursts somewhere else – The 1.f4 first move is a legitimate try for an advantage. Also, take that garbage about the Wing Gambit and throw it in the trash – in reasonably top level correspondence chess (2300+) White has a +5 score in the main line of the Wing after 3…d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e5 6.c4! (Correspondence Database 2020). Also, in the 54 games I could find in the Database with the Wing Accepted, i.e. 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3, White scores rather well – 12 to 8 with 32 draws – not bad for a total joke eh? Don’t believe the almighty computer each time – its perhaps only as smart as you are!

  51. @IronTigran

    The one that needs the chess education is you! Now you are assuming that I just look at databases and research them to move 3 and call it a day. Sorry little child, but I am 2 steps ahead of you there. I do not play the Sicilian because of 2.Nf3 and 3.d4. Against your clown line, I do not play what you claim. 1.e4 c5 2.b4?! cxb4 3.a3 d5! 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e6! I did a lot of research on this line 4 years ago when I played the Taimanov in conjunction with the French until I switched to the French, which I have played since the 90s, almost exclusively in 2018.

  52. @Patrick
    Again, you prove to be an absolute patzer! The line you give is a sham – if Black doesn’t occupy the center here he has clear chances of being worse. First of all statistics indicate in the live database that 5…e5 has been played 528 times, whereas your pet line with 5…e6 only 68 times, so I assumed you meant the main line with 5…e5, not some random line that hasn’t been played that much. Again, I am infinitely ahead of you man-child, so you should see this line and understand where your chess understanding currently stands – 1.e4 c5 2.b4(!/!?) cxb4 3.a3 d5(?!) 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e6(?! – now who locks in his bishop for free? Not me!) 6. Be2! (The line scores almost 62 percent in 9 games, including correspondence, so it’s definitely the best way forward) Nf6 7.d4!?(Frank Meissien, one of the foremost experts of the Wing Gambit in Correspondence play, played 7.0-0 in a game that could decide his GM Norm chances, so it is definitely a serious move, but we transpose) Nc6 8.0-0 Qd8(!? – the engines first choice is definitely not human – shows how difficult Black’s position actually is) 9. Re1 a6(!? – again not a natural move to make, but Black is solid) and here I deviate from that game with 10.Bc4!? (Perfectly possible is 10.axb4 Bxb4 11.c3 Be7 12.Nbd2 0-0 13.Bd3 Nd5 and now I deviate from previous games with the interesting 14.Qc2!?, with an unclear game ahead) preparing d5 and improving one of my pieces, with a complex game…

  53. I’m having great fun watching this discussion, but maybe it’s time to tone down a bit? To each their own I say. Chess is (luckily) much too complex for making strong verdicts on the value of opening lines. If modern chess engines have learned me one thing, it’s that almost all openings are playable nowadays – at least by ordinary players such as myself. The fact that a respected Publisher such as QC are publishing a book on the Elephant Gambit (a total joke?) is telling in that respect. I see no reason why openings such as 1.f4, 1.b3 or even 1.Nc3 would be off-limits while at the same time publishing books on the Elephant Gambit and Morra Gambit.

  54. PS: I would definitely be interested in a book on 1.e4 c5 2.b4. @ IronTigran: do you know if there are any good books around, or are you perhaps working on one yourself?

  55. @IronTigran

    Talk about hypocrisy! You play an offbeat line, but yet expect execlusively main line responses back! I hate to break it to you but there are many “main lines” that I don’t play, and play an offbeat response myself. Works both ways turkey!

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nge7 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Nf5 8.Bxf5 exf5 9.Kf1!

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 and now 7…O-O!, 7…Kf8!, 7…Nf5! (I have played all 3!)

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e4 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 a6 8.Qd2 b5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 and now in a correspondence game, I won with 10.Ne2 (played 38 times) instead of 10.Bxc5 (played 574 times)

    1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e6 4.Nc3 Bb4 and now 5.a3 (played 37 times) over 5.Bf4 (played 209 times).

    So in one breath you preach for abnormality as the main lines are all figured out, and in the next breath, you just assume everyone else will play normal lines.

    Plus, if you think you are so smart and already know these Wing Gambit and 1.f4 lines, what do you need a book for? Let them spend their time with more instructive stuff than 1.f4 for those of us that don’t think we are above everyone else on the planet?

  56. @Ray

    If I remember right, I think Gambiteer I covers the Wing Gambit from White’s viewpoint. Most other sources are for Black on Anti-Sicilians and have a short snippit that covers 2.b4?!

  57. @Ray
    There is “The Sicilian Wing Gambit” by Schmucker (Joachim Beyer Verleg edition) as the last one on the subject.

  58. @Patrick
    Am not an expert by any means, but I have tried out all the openings you have mentioned, and they are indeed decent. I am yet to see anyone completely refute a gambit like the King’s or the Morra, so if that is impossible then the Wing Gambit is a 100 percent sound! Calling me names will not remove the deficiencies of your chess education, so God Bless you, you still have a long way forward to go with respect to understanding chess. Hate is not an answer to chess improvement, and neither is dogma!

    @Ray
    Ray not much literature on the subject, but I would suggest going through the games by a correspondence IM Frank Meissen. IM Shivananda of India and IM Kamran Shirazi are other experts whose games you can consult. Of course, use an engine like Komodo MCTS or Stockfish to improve on them. I have no plans of writing a book on the subject until I make atleast an IM title, so you have to wait! With regards to 1.f4 and 1.b3, I would definitely see the former as a decent try for an advantage, with the latter as an interesting way to play. 1.Nc3 is not an independent move, often transposing to the Veresov or the 4 Knights, known to possess sterile equality.

  59. IronTigran :
    @Riesner
    I suggest learning chess properly first, if you don’t understand this simple statement- chess these days is less about an opening advantage and more about keeping pieces on the board, which 1.f4 does to perfection.

    Why so agressiv? Maybe you should try yoga! I have a very good chess
    education, so don’t tell me what to do! 1.f4 is rarely move and my opinion is that there are a lot of better moves to play for small advantages! Please accept my opinion and don’t be so rude.
    We can argue but on a normal way! I suggest you to try a normal tone for the next time otherwise I won’t take any of your argumentation seriously and I guess you will loose the
    respect from the other readers

  60. @IronTigran

    You are such an extremist and sound just like Donald Trump! Nowhere did I EVER claim a refutation. Only YOU have claimed that saying that 3…d5 is refuted!

    I believe I claimed a “below 50% score” for 1.f4 and I believe I said that 3…d5 “defuses all of White’s play”. NOWHERE do I EVER claim refutation, unless of course your English is that bad that you think something here means that. “Defuses all of White’s play” simply makes claim that all of the tricky garbage that White tries to get with the wing gambit is stopped with that defense. Nowhere does that mean that it’s a forced win for Black, but you and your Trump type of mind wants to put words in other people’s mouth!

    And like I said before, a SLIGHT DISADVANTAGE for White, as in =/+, NOT -+, in my book, is completely unacceptable! I have no problems with a +/= position as Black, but if I am going first, =/+ is inacceptable, and deemed a “Bad Opening” for White.

    But I will again say for the 50th time. Nowhere, NOWHERE, did I ever, EVER, utter the word refutation. And so your “black or white” views, and your putting words into my mouth when they are the words that you yourself and only you yourself are using instead, as much as you want to claim it’s name calling, sometimes the truth hurts, and there is no way to describe your behavior except for 2 words.

    Extremist and Hypocrite!

  61. And I will also add that 1.Nc3 does not transpose if White plays it right. Against 1…d5, stronger than 2.d4 is 2.e4! Yes, this can transpose to other stuff, but White should not be playing 2.d4.

    Also, it should NEVER transpose to the Four Knights. 1…e5 is the weakest move of the legitimate moves for Black. It has been a while since I have studied these lines, and so my memory may not be great, but I believe it’s 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 that is stronger. I want to say this may be followed by g3 and Bg2, but I’m not sure if it’s there or against the Sicilian. I recall the major difference in one of those 2 openings was instead of e4 and some other move, White played g3 and Bg2 instead, and without e4 pushed, the scope of the Bishop is open.

    Again, haven’t played 1.Nc3 since the mid-2000s, so I make NO CLAIM that everything stated is 100% accurate, but I am 100% sure that transposing to the Four Knights is not in White’s best interest in those 1.Nc3 lines!

    While it may be 15 years old, a great source of 1.Nc3 was the book “Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3”.

  62. And another “independent” line with 1.Nc3 is the Tubingen Gambit (place an um lout over the U – don’t know how to type German letters). 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.g4! It can transpose to the Bronstein Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4) or lead to independent lines, depending on the followup.

  63. just to add some fuel to this debate ; i used to play ..b6 when faced with this b4 gambit. It might not be the best theotical move ( computer move) but practice has shown that it was very effective as it is a very bad new for white: NO Gambit, play serious chess!

  64. @RYV
    There are some serious gambits around, or am I mistaken? Just to name a few: Marshall Gambit, Schliemann Gambit, Two Knights with 4.Ng5, Benko Gambit, Anti-Moscow Gambit, Botvinnik Variation, French Poisoned Pawn. Need I say more? Or do you have a different definition of ‘Gambit’?

  65. Serious gambit as the few you mentioned are not serious chess
    All those gambit have been analysed until until draw. They are not chess anymore

  66. Because it’s a basic fact of chess that there are non-material factors that can equal a pawn (in any phase of the game), and that without this aspect chess would be missing a fundamental dimension, it makes no sense to lump all gambits together any more than it would make sense to lump all sideways rook moves together and claim that they’re not serious chess (or that they’re always better than forward or backward rook moves).

  67. I deleted a comment on this thread – a lot of name-calling at another commenter. Strong opinions about chess are fine; insults to commenters you disagree with are not.

  68. Seeing some discussion on 1.f4 I must add few words 😀
    I have started playing it in 2003 when I was 12 years old (rated 1900) and I am a big fan of this move till today (I am now rated 2400+). Of course I don’t claim any opening advantage but the positions are much more interesting than some exchange Slav.
    Personally I don’t have a high percentage with this move but the performance is not different to other moves because I usually play it against stronger opponents so 50% is OK.
    But in general I wouldn’t be attached only to statistics, I see a lot of players scoring badly in a risky offbeat openings (like 1.f4 but also let’s say some Pirc/Modern Defence) just because their theory ends after 5 moves (I also lost many games not because the opening was bad but I just didn’t understand enough). That’s not the way to play controversial openings, you are not only surprising your opponent but also yourself. A lot of such examples add to the bad reputation of these openings. If you decide to play an offbeat opening which is risky, you need to study it before playing so the books covering it are important.

  69. Will you put an umlaut on the “u” in “Playing the Grunfeld” so that it’ll be “Playing the Grünfeld” in the final version?

  70. An Ordinary Chessplayer

    Agree with piongu’s perspective. After 1.f4 white’s position is not worse, so if white scores less than 50% in the database there are some wrong moves following. Oftentimes white players try to follow some pre-conceived scheme, and when it doesn’t work they still persist in the next games because they don’t have any master examples (or master coaches) to show them the way. Or perhaps they don’t persist but simply switch to the London system.

    All that said, I don’t have much interest in a book on 1.f4. There are many, many openings that are “better than its reputation”. Maybe it’s best not to publish books about these openings, so that the few specialists can continue to earn some points playing them.

  71. @An Ordinary Chessplayer
    Pretty decent points here – I agree with you that sometimes not publishing books might be a good idea. However, in order to take the game of chess forward, one sometimes needs to create new theory, and thus it might be essential to write books on rarer openings.

    @John Shaw
    So when can we expect the books to come to India, and could you give us some tentative dates regarding the publishing of the books?

  72. @A Super Talent

    If you go to each book, it tells you when it will be published. Roughly half of them are Spring 2020 and the other half are Summer 2020. Pressuring them to give an exact date, like April 19th, is stupid because either A) It will be wrong anyway, or B) Now you are pressuring them to push out an unfinished product where the quality of it will be trash, like most Microsoft products that get pushed out too early.

    They put seasons on purpose to give them a 3 month span to get it out, and actually, they technically have 6 months to get it out. It doesn’t say Spring 2020 based on any place in particular. Half of the world has Spring 2020 from late September to late December, namely the Southern Hemisphere, namely where it is Summer right now, and where toilet water swirls clockwise! Life is very “down under”!

  73. @Patrick

    And here’s me from “Down Under” thinking that it was impossible to give an exact date of publication as both spring and summer in some northern countries only lasted a day and it was near impossible to predict each year what those two days will be !!!!

  74. @Michael

    If you are implying extreme northern countries that are cold all the time when referring to each of them being one day, I was going under the assumption that it was based on official dates, not local weather. For example, the Northern Hemisphere has Spring and the Southern Hemisphere has Fall (or Autumn) from the Vernon Equinox in late March to the Summer Solstice (Winter Solstice for the Southern Hemisphere) in late June. Of course, yes, depending on where in the hemisphere you are, it can feel like Spring and Summer for way longer (Miami, Florida in the United States) or way shorter (Northern Greenland) than the official dates.

  75. @Patrick

    Sorry it’s just something of a light hearted tongue in cheek joke down here and given as the reason why many of our forefathers immigrated from England and Scotland (including mine) to down under… ….

  76. I confess to having a soft spot for the Caro-Kann and am quite interested in finding out when Lar’s book on the Caro is coming out. I have seen the titles coming out in Spring and Summer, but nothing yet for his book. Is the book still ongoing?

  77. Playing the Grunfeld will be interesting.

    Had a look at the following variation yesterday:

    4. cxd5, Nxd5 5.e4, Nxc3 6.bxc3, Bg7 7.Nf3, c5 8.Rb1, 0-0 9. Be2, Nc6 10.d5, Ne5 11. Nxe5, Bxe5 12.Qd2, e6

    Here 13.f4 is the mainline and is what all strong players do. I started to analyse what will happen after 13.c4 and 13.0-0. Against 13. c4, Qh4! should be played I guess. There could follow 14.Qc2, exd5 15.cxd5, f5! and black is fine. After 13.0-0 it is not obvious what to do.
    Any suggestions? None of the books I have covered these two continuations.

    In my opinion the line with 9.- Nc6 is more interesting (and more risky) than 9.-cxd4.
    It is hard to play for a win after 9.-cxd4.

  78. I’ve just checked the book and Alexey does indeed mention 13.c4 and 13.0-0. Black is fine everywhere. And yes, Alexey’s reason for recommending 9…Nc6 rather than 9…cxd4 was that, although both moves end up being equal with best play, he feels that 9…Nc6 offers more chances to play for a win.

  79. @Andrew Greet

    Thanks a lot for your answer! I suspected that Alexey would recommend 9.- Nc6 since this is the most combative move. Have to wait a little longer to get all the answers and it seems like another “mustbuy”.

  80. I will probably speek a (very small) minority but still, i think playing safe is best. So i would prefer a move that secure a fine position rather than offering ” chance to play for win” which also mean higher risk to loose.
    it would be of high value to have a book with all or most of forced lines ( almost forced) that conclude to a draw.

  81. @RYV

    I don’t think that is the typical attitude of books written by Quality Chess. From what I have seen over the years, QC appears to prefer lines with winning chances, even for Black, over draw lines. Most of the time, it seems to be the right approach, but some lines of theirs I simply do not trust, the big one being their marketing that Black is fine after 6.dxc5! in GM Rep 10. It feels like White gets the Bishop pair in an open position for basically nothing, and that all other aspects of the position appear equal, and so I personally do not see what benefit Black gets for playing this!

    You want safe with 90 percent draws? May I suggest the second edition of Langrock’s book on the French. Draws Galore! However, overall, I would rather lines myself with winning chances, and I myself reserve the Rubinstein mainly for when I face a situation where a draw is sufficient or else in a few cases at the club where I know my opponent is extremely erratic and gets really impatient if they do not get the level of thrill that comes from lines like the Kings Gambit or Morra Gambit!

  82. I am not playing to draw … but i dont want to loose. So i will Always choose the safe position without conterplay for my opponent rather than a double edge attaking play. This is not Always possible with black but “dont loose with white” is a first step.

  83. @RYV

    Seems like your style is similiar to Ulf Anderssons. I guess you have studied his games. It is all about strategy and endgames.

    If it is not your optimal style it may harm your play. Losing is not the end of the world.

  84. @Bebbe
    yes, i found many games of U. Anderson very interresting. Winning with simple moves, correct exchange,… it is even difficult to see where his opponent made a mistake !?

    “Losing is not the end of the world.” i agree but it is not exactly about win/defeat, safe play give you control of the game. Safe play is not incompatible with attack.. as long as it is with control.
    ….
    but no problem, i loose games…lots of games!!

  85. @RYV

    If you like safe and solid positions Qualities new book on the Petroff may well be of interest to you….the opening has held up well for me in correspondence over a number of years..

  86. piongu :
    Seeing some discussion on 1.f4 I must add few words
    I have started playing it in 2003 when I was 12 years old (rated 1900) and I am a big fan of this move till today (I am now rated 2400+). Of course I don’t claim any opening advantage but the positions are much more interesting than some exchange Slav.
    Personally I don’t have a high percentage with this move but the performance is not different to other moves because I usually play it against stronger opponents so 50% is OK.
    But in general I wouldn’t be attached only to statistics, I see a lot of players scoring badly in a risky offbeat openings (like 1.f4 but also let’s say some Pirc/Modern Defence) just because their theory ends after 5 moves (I also lost many games not because the opening was bad but I just didn’t understand enough). That’s not the way to play controversial openings, you are not only surprising your opponent but also yourself. A lot of such examples add to the bad reputation of these openings. If you decide to play an offbeat opening which is risky, you need to study it before playing so the books covering it are important.

    Your handle looked familiar and it just occurred to me where. Are the guy that did that Accelerate the Dragon course on chessable?

  87. I’ll say a few things about the choice between the safest continuation and something offering more winning chances in a repertoire book. The most important thing to stress is that we never knowingly allow our authors to recommend an “exciting” option at the expense of theoretical soundness. (And yes, before some smart arse points it out, I know we’ll be publishing an entire book on the Elephant Gambit, but we and the authors of that book are honest from the outset that this isn’t a fully correct opening – I’m referring to cases such as this Grunfeld variation where the opening is fully sound and the question is how to handle a certain variation.)

    We tend to assume that most readers are tournament players who would prefer not to allow weaker opponents to, for instance, force a perpetual check in some simple way in the opening. Sometimes it’s hard to escape such things – and other times, avoiding it might be playable but involve a lot more effort and risk. So in such cases, we might give the solid equalizer allowing a draw as the main line, while also mentioning the backup option for those who prefer to take the risk.

    In the case of this Grunfeld variation, we have a few options which are reliably equal in the end. Different players will have different preferences; but as far as I can see, both 9…Nc6 and 9…cxd4 require careful preparation as the cost of a mistake could be high. Alexey gave his reasons for preferring the former move, and we’re happy with the…

  88. (here’s the rest as I reached the character limit):

    …with the way this part of the book turned out. While accepting that some will take a different view, it’s not as if 9…cxd4 equalizes in a way which can be learned in ten minutes. Both options require serious effort and the author is of the opinion that 9…Nc6 offers slightly more chances to exploit an error from the opponent.

  89. @Andrew Greet
    dont you think that most of your readers are candidate masters who would be happy to secure a draw against titled players ? or force their opponent to enter risky/weaker lines ? ( this is actually the best way to beat a stronger opponent)
    It is very frustrating when reading an oppening book that , from 2 or 3 ( or more) playable moves, only one continuation is analysed as being ” the only way to fight for avantage..”. Showing how other moves lead to an equal game is also important and important part of theorical opening knowledge.

  90. I remember a discussion with IM’s & GM’s who agree that learning white variations that lead to forced draw ( perpetual, repetition, or liquidation to simple/dry endgames) was an essential part of their progression.

  91. Okay, so now we’ve moved on discussing from the black side of the Grunfeld and are talking about lines that force a draw (or an extremely dry position) with White? Sure, I can see that in certain situations, knowing such variations and playing them against a stronger opponent might cause said opponent to take excessive risks; or of course take the draw, which would not be a bad result.
    For a White repertoire book, if the option of a forced draw is there, it’s useful to mention it, and we will generally do so if it doesn’t take up too much space. However, I get the impression you might like to see 20 pages of analysis showing how to kill the game with White in a certain variation – and while I can see that being a valid strategy against certain opponents, I would tend not to think of it as the most valuable use of pages in the book.

  92. The idea that most readers of QC books are happy to force a draw with White in the opening might be a very slight step away from reality.

  93. @Andrew Greet
    I think that most QC readers are playing in team matches during weekends for their league at all level( from top league to obscure 4 or 5 division!). In such competition, the team result is more important than individual result and ” neutralizing” opponent’s players is what matters most, much more than performing. In such situation, playing for a win at all cost is usally less important .
    first secure a half point…play for a full point as a bonus if possible.

  94. @Andrew Greet
    There are some lines – e.g. in the Sveshnikov – where both Black and White must learn how to force a draw (liquidating Qside pawns, repetitions), same for 1.e4 e5 secondary systems containing lots of draws. Indeed the knowledge that one side plays with a draw in hand helps pruning opening preparation. However, equal doesn’t mean draw, far from it. It would be nice to see positions evaluations with expected win/draw/lose rates, but maybe this depends too much on players’ strength.

  95. I think a book ( one single book) on how to kill the game with white would be usefull. Not very exciting for sure but it could help many players to achieve good results.
    I agree that best use of books is to explain ambitious lines ( from both sides) but sometimes….

  96. Well, now that we know the demand is there I’ll ask Bogdan Lalic if he wants to author our new “Grandmaster Draw” repertoire series. Featuring must-have titles such as Snoozing the Sicilian, Nullifying the Nimzo-Indian, Equalizing with 1.e4, Calming the Caro-Kann and Pacifying the Petroff. Keep the suggestions coming!

  97. I think a good Repertoire Book should contain a brief history showing the progression of a line, and why the author finally settled on a certain option. The Book should also contain lots of fresh ideas and mention forced drawing lines in brief so as to alert the reader as what to expect. There is only so much a Repertoire Book can accomplish, and it is up to the reader to fill in the rest with database research and personal analysis, Negi’s Books so far are the model and by the way Harikrishna’s French Toast also sets the bar very high. The responsibility on how to beat weaker players, and what lines to avoid is up to the player and is always a tricky proposition. In my experience the best way to deal with weaker players, that play for a draw with White from move one is just to keep playing Magnus style.

  98. I am also pretty sure there is a high practical value and high demand also for a “Grandmaster Draw” series. And you might strongly consider renaming yourself to “Equality Chess” then …

  99. You have updated the cover for the Grunfeld book and finalised the page count, I see.
    Does this mean a publication date is imminent?
    Thanks

  100. @RYU

    Saying that the majority are playing on teams is laughable! I have over 2900 USCF rated games and 349 FIDE rated games and not once have I ever played in a Team event! Team events where I am tend to be the top 100 players in the country and scholastics. I am not amongst the top 100 in the country, and if you know how to get someone that is a couple of months shy of 45 to be eligible for a scholastic team event, let me know!

    @Andrew Greet – Here are my suggestions for the openings I play as Black:

    Fizzling Out the French (and yet I tend to beat the Exchange!)
    Killing the KID Softly (since there already is “KILL K.I.D.” for the ones that want blood)
    Oozing Away Old Indian Excitement

  101. Here’s some more drawing line books (I think the first one below is the best one!):

    Brexit Chess: Play the English with draw!

    Relaxing on the Beach and Getting Some Sun Ruys! (Ruy Lopez)

    How to Make Non-Spicy Italian!

    Reti or Not, Here I Draw!

    Queen’s Half-Gambit (Playing 1.d4 d5 2.c4 and gambitting half the point!)

  102. @RYV

    I don’t feel offended and neither should you. I do understand that an arsenal of drawing lines could be useful in certain situations, but I think it would be hard to inspire a wider audience to buy such a book. I can also imagine what kind of jokes people would make about such a project, which is why I couldn’t resist making them myself.

    “Tranquilizing with the Torre/Trompowsky”; “The Mind-Numbing Modern”; the possibilities are endless.

  103. @Patrick
    As i understand, you are playing in northern america where it seems to be no team events ( or very few) but it is different in Europe where there are championship at all level .

  104. @Luis
    Or ‘Appeasing the Alekhine’.

    And I guess ‘Lulling the London’ would be as boring as it gets.

    As to the topic on drawing lines. In my opinion most amateurs play for fun. Trying as white to kill the game is not my definition of fun, but I do realize tastes differ. However, I firmly believe it’s not good for once’s chess development to shy away from ambitious lines. I can’t imagine there’s a business case for a book on forced white drawing lines. Besides, a smart titled player would avoid such lines anyway when playing a weaker opponent, so what’s the use of such a book?

  105. Appeasing the Alekhine is great! The fact that it’s a ‘semi-correct’ defence which gives White better-than-average chances to obtain an advantage is worth some bonus points.

    Another nice one could be “Dulling The Dragon – The Yugoslav Yawn.” 300 pages of spectacular perpetual checking combinations. Followed by “Neutralizing the Najdorf – A Passive-Aggressive Repertoire with 6.Bg5.”

  106. (Quality) Equality Chess has some merit since looking for theoretical advantage tends to be old-fashioned. See for example the Be2 Najdorf: arguably equal, but plenty of room to outplay any opponent, and much knowledge to be gained in these systems. That is quality equality! On the other hand, a book on Bg5 najdorf is more flashy but will add up 300+ pages with no chance to prove advantage or reach a definite conclusion (maybe good saleswise, feed the golden goose).
    In our days , having a headstart in “rich equality”-type positions with many opportunities for both sides to go wrong can be considered an opening success for most tournament players. I would like to see such books rather than ones making claims of += and hiding some clean equalisers in subvariations, old-fashioned style.

  107. @Andrew Greet
    🙂 That’s a good one 🙂

    @ Cowe: I agree with you, but this is not what RYV was asking for. He was looking for a book with forced draws. Which is quite different from objectively equal postitions with plenty of play. But there are quite a number of books on these openings, or am I wrong? E.g. plenty of books on the Italian with 4.d3, the London. I think nowadays it’s commonly agreed that there is no lasting advantage for white. E.g. Negi and Shaw are quite honest about this in their repertoire books. E.g., Negi even gives 3 or 4 lines for white in the mainline Najdorf with 6.Bg5 all ending in equality. The same in some variations against the Caro-Kann (e.g. with 7…e6).

  108. I completely agree with Cowe and i hope there will be new evaluation formulae for positions in the future . Not those of Kaufman ( +0.12 for instance ) but evaluations linked to games played by Leela , Stockfish or others at DIFFERENT levels of play . What would be = with ( +0 =100 -0 ) at 3500 level could be different at 2600-2800 level and of course at 2000-2200 .

  109. A few more titles off the top of my head.

    Banishing the Berlin
    Living with the London
    Dutch Dynamite
    Spanish 4KNights 4life
    How not to play 1.e4
    Romp with the Tromp
    The invincible 1.b3
    Winning with the Italian Stallion
    1.g3 anyone?
    Killing them softly with 1.c4
    Gambit Cartel
    The Modern Morra

  110. William – we do have plans for a 1.c4 project; further details will follow in due course.

    RYV – we decided to stop at 20 because the numbering was getting too complicated. For example, suppose Negi’s first 1.e4 book would have been GM 15 – 1.e4 vol. 1. If we went by the old system, we would have reserved volume numbers 16 to maybe 19 for this series, and the next GM rep book on a different opening would have been, say, volume 20. There’s a certain logic to that, but it would have been ridiculous being here several years later with ‘gaps’ in the volume numbering which have yet to be filled. Not to mention the problem of a book series requiring more volumes than were originally intended – we couldn’t extend the series to volumes 20/21 etc. because those would have already been taken by a different opening. Something similar could have happened with Kotronias’s KID series. So in short, the numbering system had outlived its usefulness and maintaining it would have made things unnecessarily confusing for us, for chess shops and for readers.

  111. With all of these drawing titles, what are you supposed to do when your opponent doesn’t want to draw?

    Last night, the following position occurred in my game with Black to move (I’m White):

    W: Kc5, Be4, P’s d4, g3, h2
    B: Kf6, Ne7, P’s e6, g7, h6

    Should be a fairly easy draw – if nothing else, maybe even a toggle the Knight between e7 and g8 with …h5 flicked in at the right time.

    Nope! He played 45…Nf5 46.Bxf5 Kxf5 47.Kd6 g5?? How am I supposed to draw after this? I had to resort to winning with 48.g4+ Kf6 49.h3 Kf7 50.Kd7 Kf6 51.Ke8 e5 52.dxe5 (8.d5 also wins) Kxe5 53.Kf7 1-0

    Can we get a title “How Not to Win the Won Position”?

  112. piongu :
    @Topnotch
    I don’t fully get what you mean, but it’s me who did that course for chessable.

    By Handle I meant your name “Piongu” looked familiar, then I remembered from where, it was the chessable website. I enjoyed your Accelerate the Dragon course, it was very concise and appealing, although I am having second thoughts about the 2…g6 move-order and leaning more towards 2…Nc6, especially after Magnus showed a convincing way to deal with the Rossolimo in his Wch match with Fabi.

  113. @Topnotch
    Ah OK 😀 I have the same nick on every chess website.
    I play myself 2…g6 and 2…Nc6 (like 50:50) so it’s harder to prepare and I can always pick another if I find some specific problem before the game.
    Btw. I hope to see a QC book on the Accelerated Dragon one day 🙂

  114. @piongu
    An Accelerated Dragon book could be a possibility at some point. On the other hand, I still get a small royalty payment each year from my 2008 ‘Starting Out’ book on that subject, so I’d have mixed feelings about a potential QC book giving customers a reason not to buy it!

  115. Andrew

    The first diagram on the Kindle version of your AD book is completely wrong at least in the preview. Any chance to fix it. What does the mysterious dedication mean if I am allowed to ask or is that garbled too.

  116. John – The dedication was to my girlfriend at the time who is Russian, so I used Cyrillic (‘Lena’ is what the letters say.) I just wrote the book and had nothing to do with the production, especially on Kindle which happened years later, so you should ask Everyman if they can correct it.

    Michael – Nice try! I have a vague notion about writing another book in the future, but the timing would have to be right for me. At this point of my life, I’d rather pull out my own teeth with a rusty pair of pliers than spend my evenings and weekends writing a chess book.

  117. Andrew Greet :
    @piongu
    An Accelerated Dragon book could be a possibility at some point. On the other hand, I still get a small royalty payment each year from my 2008 ‘Starting Out’ book on that subject, so I’d have mixed feelings about a potential QC book giving customers a reason not to buy it!

    Yeah I have that book, I bought it in 2008 and it was a great source of information for me to master this opening 🙂 To this day it’s a good book but a lot of new ideas are popping up lately especially in Maroczy. There’s also nice Panjwani’s book but sooner or later a new extensive work would be needed.

  118. Maybe you could convince Jacob and Boris to write an AD book for QC when they are done with their ‘Technical’ volume? I would immediately preorder that even if they didn’t start writing 😀

  119. Jacob and Boris co-authoring a book on the Accelerated Dragon: that sounds wonderful! While I’m making that happen, I should also convince Jacob to double my salary and lend me his BMW for free over the weekends.

  120. Would also be nice if you would convince Vladimir Kramnik writing a long detailed opening book about the Berlin Wall. I miss this opening in your Grandmaster Series. 🙂

  121. John – I’m sure my ex will be heartbroken to hear that.

    Riesner – I love that suggestion! Come to think of it, we should make our own “Opening According to Kramnik” series for both White and Black, but with big Vlad as the author; he’s got time on his hands now that he’s retired from top-flight competition.

  122. That sounds great, but I think we have to wait at least 10 years :-D. This man is too busy and too expensive :-D.

  123. Kramnik can for sure write the book(s).
    All QC has to do is lure him inte their dungeon, now that John is not there and refuses to write another book anytime soon.

  124. Andrew Greet :
    Here are the answers to the various questions:
    About Negi – against the Alekhine he’s going main line with 4.Nf3; against the Pirc/Modern it’ll be Be3/Nf3. We’ll announce the publication date when we are ready. We will not announce the announcement date.
    As for the London System, I tend to take a similar view to that of Topnotch in the post above, but John and Jacob are the ones who ultimately decide what to publish. So anything’s possible – but at this stage a prospective London book isn’t exactly at the forefront of our team meetings.
    The Alekhine Defence, Dubov Tarrasch and Exchange Ruy Lopez aren’t the worst ideas I’ve heard. Like I said, anything’s possible, and some ideas are more possible than others.

    Hello. Looking forward to seeing some of the books discussed recently. Since early move orders in the Pirc and Modern tend to matter and Be3/Nf3 is a bit general I have two questions related to Negi’s approach:

    (A) What does this mean Mr. Negi intends to do against the Modern?
    1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 and then 4…a6 5.Nf3 (?)
    1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Be3 when 4…Nf6 with a Pirc is Tiger’s recommendation (the other serious move is 4…c5 5.Nc3 – with a Sicilian dragon; where Negi has done good coverage in his 1.e4 series and also against the weirder black non-mainline Dragon setups)
    1.e4 g6 2.d4…

  125. … 2…Bg7 3.Be3 (?) And theory says 3…d5 with ok chances for black, but I doubt someone has bothered to go full red team here with computers and made sure this is actually the case.

    (B) Does this means he goes 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 and 5.Nf3 after all of 4…Bg7, 4…c6 and 4…a6 or does he at some point play for Qd2+Bh6 plans (with delayed or no Nf3).

    Good work when it comes to all the great chess books QC publishes!

  126. 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 is the recommended move order, usually with Nf3 to follow, but sometimes Qd2 first. That’s as much detail as is appropriate to give at this stage.

  127. Andrew
    Since I am seeing some more posts with some further information on Negi’s book I wonder
    whether the following question can be answered against Alekhine

    After 4.Nf3 g6, will Negi recommend (I think so) 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7? And if Yes what line will
    he suggest next?

    I understand that this might be not appropriate at this time. In that case, please ignore/remove
    my query

    thank you

  128. @Luis
    Yes to 5.Bc4, but I’d rather not say which option he favours on move 7 as it will only lead to someone else asking “after X, Y and Z, what does he think about this option?” or “How does he meet the recommendation in whatever book?”

    Do any of you people actually base your buying decisions on the revelation of which line Author X recommends against whatever it might be? Or do you generally know in advance if you want the book or not, and you’re just curious about the details? Or do some of you ask because you play the opposite side of the opening in question and you want to know which line you’re likely to face more often once the book hits the shelves?

  129. @Andrew Greet
    Good question 🙂 . Personally, I’m not basing my buying decision on the specific recommended lines. I base my decision on the topic of the book. E.g., I’m interested in the Grunfeld, so I’m going to buy that book. It’s inevitable that not all lines are 100% to my taste, but that’s no problem for me. If I’m interested in a certain opening I’m going to buy most books on that opening anyway, so I can mix and match.

  130. Andrew

    I perfectly understand

    i) I will buy Negi’s book whatever are his choices
    ii) i was curious because i know some recente ICCF games by a player Pavlov that is doing quite well against 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6. Bb3 Bg7 and several reliable 7th moves and I was curious to see what Negi will suggest
    iii) to be honest I was a bit disappointed with Shaw’s choice but I perfectly undertand his choice
    based on a pragmatic point of view
    iv) I also feel that although the Alekhine defence is considered 2nd rate I doint thing it is easy
    (after several Black’s 4 move) to give a good winning recommendation;
    I had that feeling reading your book e4 against minor defences
    even after the
    “more than hypermodern” 4…Nb6 I wonder whether the best choice isn ot a line based on exd6
    either on moves 5 (or even better after 4.a4 a5 …) in constrast to those “caveman” approaches
    with h4-h5 (after Black plays g6)

    my only final remark is whether a book on the Alekhine by an “expert” would not be a possibility

    please, keep up the good work,

  131. Hi.

    I asked mostly out of curiosity this time. I do play the Pirc & Modern as black. With white finding dangerous lines against the Pirc & Modern has strangely never felt like an issue (will still get the book though) 🙂

    I’d say there are two big advantages to knowing recommendations. The first is that if the book comes out in I don’t know how many months, knowing that respected author x thinks this line is worth recommending in a repertoire book enables you to adopt the line immediately if you should want (maybe try it out a little).

    Knowing what line is recommended also makes it possible to look in the database beforehand and run computers on the lines in question. Trying to find ideas and dangerous lines is good practice analytically and also when you finally get the book in your hands physically you can check for possible problems directly.

    If I spot a problem with the lines while holding the book in my hands for the first time I might not buy it (tend to get from bookstore but have also ordered here previously).

    Have a nice day.

  132. @AndrewGreet
    I won’t buy a book if I can’t see myself playing a significant repertoire choice. For example, I wouldn’t have bought the Najdorf book if David V had chosen the poisoned pawn against 6.Bg5. I also try not to bug you about forthcoming titles before you’re ready…!

  133. @Andrew

    From the the Coming Soon section it looks like Playing the Petroff has been pushed up the publishing list and will now be published earlier than originally planned….or is this just wishful thinking on my part ?

  134. Hi,
    I’m a titled player and played almost every opening in my life except the Grunfeld with black.
    I’m looking for a book with sound explanations and ideas but also theoretically up to date which is suitable for the practical player. Would this book the best starting point for me, or do you recommend another Grunfeld book to start with?

  135. @Raffie
    Well, clearly Alexey’s book is more up-to-date than anything else and the general ideas are explained pretty well (I added quite a few explanatory notes myself during editing), so I can’t think of a better option for you.

    Oh and Michael – I’m midway through editing the Petroff so it looks like you will get your wish.

  136. @hasan
    There are plans and a few early chapters. I expect a lot of people will deliver sooner than we expected, but with no more editors in our team…

  137. @Andrew Greet

    Andrew, in response to your post 171, I can say that sometimes it actually does depend. For example, I am a huge French advocate, and also play the White side of it, mainly the Advance over the board and 3.Nc3 in Correspondence.

    If you were to advertise a book like “How to Beat the French”, then yes, it would absoultely depend on the line whether I buy it or not. 3.Nc3? Yes! 3.e5? Yes! 3.Nd2? Absolutely Not! 3.exd5? You couldn’t pay me enough to take it!

    Sure, in some cases, it’s a buy no matter what (for example, an “Objective” book on the French – Not geared specifically to White or Black), and in some cases, it’s a hard pass no matter what (cough – Grunfeld), but yes there really are cases where yay or nay is solely dependent on the lines chosen!

  138. I’m looking forward to the Technique book by Jacob – any more info on what is covered in this book and also on the rest of this series. What level of player is it aimed at ?

    In terms of potential new ideas – Classical Sicilian or an update on the Sveshnikov (in light of Magnus’ efforts) Sicilian with good coverage on 3 Bb5 systems ( you could do this alone for white) Long shot : Queens Gambit Accepted.

    Keep up the good work !

  139. ‘Playing the Benko Gambit’ would also be nice, especially if it would include anti-Benoni systems (such as 3.Nf3, delaying c2-c4 or how to deal with 1.Nf3 as a Benko / Benoni player).

  140. By the way, I’m currently studying the Najdorf book – it’s really fantastic! Great choice of variations: based more on understanding than mere memorization. I hope the Grunfeld book will have a similar philosophy!

  141. I am working through Ntirlis black classical repertoire books right now.
    Great stuff!

    Any chance he’s going to release a white repertoire?

  142. And another suggestion: maybe Schandorff could write an update of Playing 1.d4 after he finishes Playing the Caro Kann 🙂 . And a one-volume ‘Playing the English’ would also be very nice. Anyway, I guess you have enough planned already, but you never know…

  143. @Ray

    While Quality Chess has written numerous excellent books, and while their success rate is FAR superior to certain publishing companies like Everyman, you can’t just completely write off anything that isn’t written by Quality Chess as being just outright bad. There is some really good stuff out there by other publishing companies.

    Why would it make sense for Quality Chess to mimic what was just recently published, and is actually a good book. A single volume book on the English was recently published, and while I don’t own it, I have browsed it at the book seller at tournaments, and it is a really good book if you plan to take up the English Opening. Since I probably can’t mention titles that are not by this publisher on this forum, I’ll simply say it’s between 400 and 500 pages and the primary color of the cover is Yellow. If I was to go back to playing 1.c4 as White, I’d buy it in a heartbeat!

  144. @Thomas

    What is wrong with “That book”? In some ways, it is one of the best books written as it is complete, not some narrow repertoire. You read it and figure out for yourself which lines you prefer. That way if a line fails, you have a backup.

    Watson’s 4 books were like that too, the third being the English, but it is dated.

    Complete, objective books beat narrow repertoires 11 times out of every 10!

    Sometimes the narrow repertoire is all that is available, but any objective book I will recommend over any repertoire. So yes, Yellow is the way to go if you are going to play the English (blue 10 years ago)

  145. I think you mean the book by Carsten Hansen. It’s supposed to be ‘complete’ indeed, but I agree with Thomas – No. Not that book. Imo it’s shallow, and he doesn’t give goed explanations of the plans. Too schematic. Of course there’s more material out there, and I’m certainly not a QC Fanboy (though I do own a lot of their books). I also have the books by Georgiev (Chess-Stars) e.g., and the DVD’s by Marin (Chessbase), and the book by Cummins (Everyman). But bith Georgiev and Cummins recommend lines with e2-e3, which I don’t like. Marin does recommend my favourite (g2-g3), so that’s indeed a good source. But I simply prefer books, because they are more in depth.

  146. @Ray

    Any “complete” book is of course going to be shallower than one line of one opening covered in 3 volumes (i.e. 2.g3 English – Marin).

    While there are some “strong” repertoire books (e.g. The Marin series, the GM Rep 1.d4 series, Dismantling the Sicilian – First edition from 2009), many of them are just slapped together line selections. For example, the rewrite of DTS which was in essence written by a different author claims to try to go with “the best move” in each case, rather than a cohesive repertoire like the first one that centers around the English Attack. Yes, there may be a line or two that is equal, but if you are going to go with the repertoire approach, having them mesh is more important than having the extra tenth of a point according to artificial intelligence.

    A more objective book is going to be shallower. Now I don’t mean shallow like “Standard Chess Openings” by Schiller – that book is total garbage, but like the Hansen book, where the intention is not to drive you down a narrow path. It is to lead you to many avenues, and you are then expected to do further research on your own via databases or New In Chess Yearbook articles or Chess Informant games – sources that continue to give up-to-date coverage rather than pigeon-holing down the path of a 10-year repertoire (Marin’s books are that old now). The objectives of the English have not changed. Specific lines have. That’s why the objective book beats the repertoire! It’s to…

  147. (cont.) It’s to guide you to the world of possibilities that you continue to keep up with via articles and practice, rather than hold your hand down a single trail that might become a dead end in 10 years, but that’s where they dropped you off. It’s your job to find your way back out, unlike the objective book that doesn’t go quite as deep, but has provided you with different avenues that you can take with further research and doesn’t leave you hanging out to dry when a single system goes dead!

  148. @Ray

    While I still see “Chess Lessons” by Popov as the best book I’ve read yet amongst books written in the 21st century, because of the two posts above, I still see “The Wonderful Winawer” as the best “opening” book of the 21st century. Far better than his other one, The Even More Flexible French.

    It follows everything mentioned above. You study the book, realizing that some lines may be dated, but it covers EVERYTHING, including 7…Qc7, 7…O-O, 7…Kf8, and 7…Nf5 against 7.Qg4, all the Non-7.Qg4 lines, sidelines for White like 5.Bd2, 4.Nge2, 4.a3 and others, 4…Ne7, early-…b6 lines, and it’s not 35 Black wins. Actually, I seem to recall White scoring pretty high outside of the Portish-Hook.

    But that is where you have to be aware that the buck doesn’t stop there. You now need to go through articles (NIC Yearbook, Informant, Chessbase Magazine, etc) and recent games post-2010 (when the book was written), to get further expansion and updates on the Winawer. New ideas for White, New ideas for Black, etc, even if you only play it from one side or the other.

    Pigeon-holing to GMR 14 and 15, or Volume 1 of the French series by Thinker’s Press from last year, is a mistake if you ask me. I actually have played all but 7…Nf5 in tournament competition, and 7…Nf5 on the internet. I don’t play 7…Qc7 much any more, but I still have three more places to run, something I wouldn’t have with a Repertoire book!

  149. What’s the use of giving all possible lines without explaining them?
    Discussing plans, thinking of pawn structures?

    Just giving lines – I can do that myself with my database.

  150. @Thomas
    I agree with you. If you really want to broadly understand an opening, in the past there were great books on the Spanish and the KID (Bellin and Ponzetto) which went through all the opening, just discussing the arising pawn structures and typical plans for both sides. Another book which comes to mind is Pirc Alert (the first half of the book deals just with general ideas, structures and plans). I really like such books. My criticism was aimed specifically at the quality (or rather lack thereoff) of Hansen’s book.

    @ Patrick: I think you got the wrong impression if you think I let myself be pigeon-holed and slavishly follow repertoire books. I always mix and match from different books, provided they are good and offer enough explanations of plans and ideas. For example, I know already that I don’t like …c6 against the Fianchetto Grunfeld, so I’m using Delchev for that line. And so on. The point is, I’m sure both Kovalchuk and Delchev are quite good, and that’s what matters, not if it’s a repertoire book or not.

  151. @Thomas

    Where do you get the idea that it’s nothing but lines. We aren’t talking John Nunn’s Database Dumps of the ’90s here.

    For example, quoting Moskalenko from game 1:

    “13…O-O-O! This strong and logical move exposes the disadvantages of White’s position: a delay in development, a bad pawn structure and a lack of coordination between the pieces. However, the energetic 13…Rg4!? is a modern alternative: 14.Qxh6 (14.Qh3!? deserves some – computer – attention.) 14…O-O-O 15.c4 (To prevent …Nd5, but:) 15…Ng8!? …”

    How is that not explanation? That’s not just lines! Did you actually read the book? Or just flip open to a page or two that happened to look “too busy” and not actually read it?

    I don’t think you understand what I’m getting at. Covering all the lines with lighter coverage doesn’t mean no explanation. If it’s a tree and not complete games, maybe the tree goes to move 17 instead of move 26. Who on earth at the amateur level is going to follow a line to move 26 anyway outside of maybe a correspondence game? Joe Shmo vs Jane Doe is not the same as Carlsen vs Caruana.

  152. @Thomas

    You mentioned no title in your post, and so when you post a response, and don’t mention a title, one would normally assume that you’d be “responding” to the last post or latest mentioned title.

    But alas, how is this not “explanation” (Line 1.1 – Move 6, in response to 6.d4) – and I quote:

    “While perfectly natural, this move leaves the c4-pawn somewhat exposed, a bit like the samisch variation of the Nimzo-Indian where White has put his Bishop on g2 instead of the more favorable d3-square. At the same time, Black has already weakened his light squares by putting his pawns on d6 and e5. The more solid 6.d3 is also an option when Black has tried …”

    “10.c5
    White has to open the position for his Bishops. …”

    “With an interesting queenless middlegame where both sides can claim a share of the chances, although I would prefer White with the Bishop Pair and more harmonious pawn structure, …”

    How is this not prose? As you scroll down further, there are explanations everywhere, hideous blunders, comparisons to other openings like the c3-Sicilian or Old Indian (Not his problem if you don’t know what the Old Indian is – This is a book on the English – If you don’t know what an Old Indian is or the ideas behind the Old Indian, get an Old Indian Book!).

    I don’t get your gripe. Opening books rightfully assume that you know things like mating patterns. If you don’t, you need a book on mating patterns. Don’t expect each opening book to…

  153. (cont.) Don’t expect each opening book to do that for you. That’s what they made middlegame and endgame books for!

  154. “With an interesting queenless middlegame where both sides can claim a share of the chances, although I would prefer White with the Bishop Pair and more harmonious pawn structure, …”

    Just to pick this one, it’s a perfect example for what Willy Henriks calls “free advice”.
    It doesn’t help anyone but sounds great. Or does it?

    Just to make sure – explanation does not mean to put a lot of prose into a book.
    Otherwise Lakwadala’s books would be simply unbeatable.

  155. I received the Grunfeld book yesterday, and at first side I like it a lot. Just to add to the discussion above: Kovalchuk also sometimes uses phrases such as ‘black has the more harmonious position’, but much more often his explanations are to the point. I had a good look at Hansen’s book on the English, with an open mind to Patrick’s enthousiastic endorsement, but alas, I just mainly saw a seemingly endless stream of moves, ending with assessments such as ‘I prefer white’. Of course, there will be some more useful comments hidden inside this wood of variations, but overall I stick with my earlier opinion. And antother point which I forgot to mention earlier: the quality of the analysis is simply much better with Quality Chess books. It clearly shows that their books ae thoroughly edited by top editors such as Andrew 🙂 .This is really a huge added value in my opinion. In books by other pubishers I too often see (with Stockfish running) huge errors in the analysis.

  156. Hansen’s book is not meant to be a theoretical book. “I feel there is a need for a book that dives into the concepts that are fundamental for playing the English Opening well. Therefore, while this book does contain some game references and some theory, they mainly serve to add to the overall understanding of the opening. Also, I should add that not all variations are covered – that has not been my goal. Rather, I have aimed to cover what I felt was most important for the reader to understand the English Opening.” “You will have to start selecting variations and putting together a repertoire, but armed with the knowledge you have acquired in this book.”

  157. Well, that may be so, but I didn’t see any ‘concepts’ in the book, nor did it add to my ‘overall understanding’ of the opening. Just endless variations, like I wrote above. But I guess it’s just me. If you like the book, I say kudos, one can’t argue about preferences 🙂 .

  158. @Ray

    I can’t possibly agree that analysis quality is Black and White comparing Quality Chess to all other publishers. There are phenominal books by Quality Chess, and there are Questionable ones. There are phenominal books by competing publishers (e.g. The Wonderful Winawer) and there are Questionable ones (e.g. 1…d6 – Move by Move).

    But even that is neither here nor there. A narrow repertoire book with one choice for the side you are writing for at each move doesn’t require much for it to fall apart. A prime case in point for a Quality Chess book is Grandmaster Repertoire 10. Bottom of page 295 and I quote “Now White can present three major challenges: B21) 18.Be2, B22) 18.Qd4 and B23) 18.Nd4. Well, I’ve got one for ya! 18.Rd1! I actually looked heavily at a game from Sweden in 2018, Pantzar vs Larsson. Didn’t see much for Black – just looks like a horrible pawn down game. I have always questioned giving up the Bishop pair that fast for no real comp, unlike say, the Tromp or Winawer or Nimzo-Indian where pawn damage is inflicted. All it takes is one idea like this and the whole thing could fall apart. 6.dxc5 is why I discarded the Tarrasch Defense a few years ago.

  159. Also, some have argued piecemealing multiple books. That may work all fine and good for openings with tons of books published – Najdorf, Dragon, Taimanov, French, Ruy Lopez, Caro-Kann, QGD, Slav, Nimzo-Indian, King’s Indian, etc.

    But what happens when you write a repertoire on a narrow topic where not much is published, and it falls apart? Latvian Gambit (Old books like “The Latvian Gambit Lives” are complete, not repertoire), Sokolsky, Tarrasch Defense, Larsen’s Opening, etc.

  160. today, everyone can write chess openings books. you need a correct database, a modern engine for analysis ..and some previous reference books.
    so what makes the difference between good books and others ?

  161. @RYV

    It depends on the criteria one uses to judge Opening book.

    Just to throw out a few:

    -Written by a GM/IM/FM/Master ,basically an authority, who plays opening themselves.
    -How much of extensive work was done.
    -Is it accessible to the masses.
    -The Opening is in fashion.
    -The cover looks nice
    -I always buy every book by this author/publisher.

    I am always amused by the book “Simple Chess” by Michael Stean. I think it is an absolute amazing book that attempts to decode positional chess. But, I have been told by many people that the title killed the book sale.

  162. @Patrick
    Of course I’m generalizing. There are plenty of good books published by other publishers, but I do maintain that QC books (again, in general) have very few analysis errors, and is obviously benefitting from good editing.

    @ RYV: obviously it’s not that simple, otherwise there wouldn’t be any chessbooks anymore. Indeed anyone can look for themselves in Chessbase with the latest engine running. But a) It’s nice to hav someone cut out a path through the jungle of variations, saving you a lot of work; b) the enigine’s judgement is not always right (take for example the KID or other openings with a closed pawn structure) and c) you’re missing the explanation of plans. It’s one thing to reach a position which Stockfish X calls ‘0.00’, but’s it’s another thing to know what to do in that position, or what to do if you’re out of book. I.m.o. that’s the added value of good chessbooks. So making a mere database dump (as some writers do) is indeed not useful at all.

  163. Ray :

    …c) you’re missing the explanation of plans.

    not sure planing is of heavy value anymore in modern chess. Calculation & Concrete variation/line is the rule.

  164. Plans, ideas, knowledge or awareness of the needs of a position are still important to OTB players. or is this no longer “modern chess”? Possibly the audience for chessbooks has shifted toward people considering that 500+ pages books on a single opening can be called practical.

  165. @RYV
    Great, that means I can throw away just about my entire collection of chess books :-). Including the books by Shanklands, which I thought had great rules of thumb, but which it now turns out are useless.

  166. plans are an old soviet concept.
    you must find some short term objectives (control of a colum, weaksquare…). once you have some croncrete advantage, you try to make progress with technical play…but a i dont call this a plan.
    for exaample in the KID, once you closed center, there is no plan. just try to get the pawn lever on c4-c5 before your opponent get g5-g4. Is this a plan ?

  167. Let’s not get into a semantic discussion. I don’t really care what a plan is. I just want to know what my goals are in a certain position, where to put my pieces, which pieces to trade and not, etc etc. But if you can get by with just calculating like a computer, that’s of course fine – I even envy you for that. It’s just that for me personally I like to have some hints where to start. I still think there’s room for positional play without much calculation, even in this day and age. So I guess we just disagree. But no need to have a superior attitude on this by calling it an old soviet concept.

  168. @Ray

    well i may suggest you to get a re-look at 2 old books
    simple chess by M.Stean ( best chess book ever – my point of view of course)
    method in chess by J.Dorfman ( Strange book but with an interresting view of handling the middlegame)

    anyway, whatever the structure, the opening, you should adapt to what your opponent is doing and not try to stick to ” the requierement of the position” . this is my view

  169. @RYV

    In response to your Kings Indian post, it appears you must not be a Kings Indian player. Speaking as a Kings Indian player, the closing of the center does not automatically equate to a race to c5 vs g4. You appear to be assuming closing of the center equals Mar Del Plata with 10.Be3.

    1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 (Gligoric Variation – I have played this position from both sides) Ng4 8.Bg5 f6 9.Bc1 (9.Bh4 is an option too) Nc6?! 10.d5 (there is that closing of the center!) Ne7 11.h3 Nh6 and now you have the old 12.g4 or an idea in NIC Yearbook in the early 2000s, 12.h4, looking to open the h-file instead of the g-file. No c5 intended!

  170. as i was said earlier, a common comment in openings books is “white stand better because he has the B pair” or he has better prospect because of the B pair and so on.
    therefor a usefull book would be :

    “playing the bishop pair” !

  171. @RYV
    Indeed this is a common comment in many opening books, but I agree this is not useful. This is also not what I meant with giving ideas and plans, obviously. Since you don’t seem to understand what I meant, let me give you a completely random example from Kovalchuk’s book (p.435): “This move amounts to a pawn trade: black can hardly ignore the pawn, with f5-f6 and Qh6 on the cards, so he is more or less forced to capture it. White will than capture on b7, hoping that the rook on the 7th rank along with the newly opened kingside lines will benefit him”. And the evaluation of this line on p. 437 is: “White has a passed pawn in the centre but it will not get much further. Black has good control over the position and his rook may go to b2, threatening the white king as well as the a2-pawn”. This may all be completely obvious to you of course, but I think comments such as these are useful to the lesser gods among us. And mind you, this is just a completely random example, the book is full of these pointers, which is totally different from the example you’re giving. The latter is more the type of comment you find in Hansen’s book.

  172. @Patrick

    Patrick :
    @Ray
    I can’t possibly agree that analysis quality is Black and White comparing Quality Chess to all other publishers. There are phenominal books by Quality Chess, and there are Questionable ones. There are phenominal books by competing publishers (e.g. The Wonderful Winawer) and there are Questionable ones (e.g. 1…d6 – Move by Move).
    But even that is neither here nor there. A narrow repertoire book with one choice for the side you are writing for at each move doesn’t require much for it to fall apart. A prime case in point for a Quality Chess book is Grandmaster Repertoire 10. Bottom of page 295 and I quote “Now White can present three major challenges: B21) 18.Be2, B22) 18.Qd4 and B23) 18.Nd4. Well, I’ve got one for ya! 18.Rd1! I actually looked heavily at a game from Sweden in 2018, Pantzar vs Larsson. Didn’t see much for Black – just looks like a horrible pawn down game. I have always questioned giving up the Bishop pair that fast for no real comp, unlike say, the Tromp or Winawer or Nimzo-Indian where pawn damage is inflicted. All it takes is one idea like this and the whole thing could fall apart. 6.dxc5 is why I discarded the Tarrasch Defense a few years ago.

    I do not want to make big overarching points or conclusions as there have been in this discussion, but let me just…

  173. … butt in with a few comments on this.

    I remember busting line after line in the Wonderful Winawer when it came out. Ten odd years ago.

    GM10 on the Tarrasch was written mainly in 2009-10 and released in 2011. 12…0-0 was the novelty at the time. So in 2018 there is an improvement with 18.Rd1 for White. White won the game. When I check it now, it takes me not two minutes to see that 27…Bf5 would have held a draw in Pantzar-Larsson, although not in a position I would strive towards from the opening. So after another 2-3 minutes I realise that 20…Bg4 21.f3 Be6 is the way to play. Is White better after 22.Bxe6 fxe6 23.0-0 Qxb5 24.Ne4 Rad8? If you let Stockfish run, it does not think so. I would argue it is a tiny +=. The book argues that 6.dxc5! is strong and hails it as a big discovery. Page 17-18. It argues that White is minimally better, but not more than you get in other openings like the Petroff or Caro-Kann.

    So, where the Wonderful Winaver was fun, it was like swiss cheese at the time. I am absolutely sure that there are lines in GM10 and all our other opening books that are wrong. I could find some examples quite quickly, I think. But we do work hard to find the missing lines (two people always do this), to find analytical mistakes (again often two people will check a book) as well as ensure quality in language, presentation and so on. We are not wizards. We are normal people who work in an office. We make mistakes all the time. We omitted 3.h4 in the…

  174. … Grunfeld book. When the Italian book was ready for typeset, John realised 3…g6 was missing. It will be in the book, but the author and the line checker had both missed it. We will keep trying to improve. In comparison, other publishers often just fix a few commas and print. It is absolutely a cheaper way to do it, but it means you rely on the author being flawless. They never are.

    There is no trick to hard work. It is just that so few people want to do it…

  175. Hi jacob. I have a question for you but of course everybody’s input is welcome.

    chess books are primary information books. And as a reader i prefer to have the latest news, the more important news at first place. So why are the chapters of the book Always arranged from side line to main line. I would prefer to have the big main line as chapter one, late variations from the main line at chapter 2 to 5 for example , and other side lines as chap6 to 10. closing the book with oddities.

    so the question is will you publish next opening books this way ? if not what is the Reason ?

  176. @RYV

    Maybe because if you put sidelines first and main lines last, you learn why the sidelines are the sidelines and the main lines are the main lines?

  177. dont you think it is more important to learn main lines first then you will better understand why sidelines are siidelines ?
    I dont see the point to spend time and time reading about sidelines. I go to the main line first… so i usally read the book form last chapter back to the begining of the book !

  178. RYV :
    dont you think it is more important to learn main lines first then you will better understand why sidelines are siidelines ?

    In a word, no. Often the only explanation for why the main line is the main line is that, well, all the sidelines aren’t as good for some concrete reason. Without learning the sidelines, you will never know what those concrete reasons are, and so won’t really understand why the main line is the main line.

    I dont see the point to spend time and time reading about sidelines. I go to the main line first… so i usally read the book form last chapter back to the begining of the book !

    Sounds like you’ve already figured out a solution to your posed problem. Skip to the end. And remember that QC can’t possibly please everyone.

  179. @Jacob

    I hope you didn’t mis-interpret what I said. The intent was not to attack Quality Chess Publishers, and I know that you guys work really hard. You have even come to our club in Charlotte, NC multiple times!

    I was simply pointing out to another poster that it isn’t like Quality Chess is god and all others (New In Chess, Everyman, Chess Stars, Russell, Thinkers Chess, etc) are hot garbage, and that QC has their errors too, just like others do.

    And the argument about the Wonderful Winawer is not that it was flawless. Of course, any 2010 Opening book will have holes punched in it, but the format allows for holes without it becoming useless. If you cover the entire Winawer, and suddenly 7…Kf8 becomes busted, you have elsewhere to run (7…O-O, 7…Qc7, 7…Nf5). If it was a narrow repertoire book for Black, recommending only 7…Kf8, then the book would be useless today if 7…Kf8 were actually busted (not saying it is). That’s what I was saying was the downfall of Repertoire books.

  180. when we read the newspaper, the most important informations & articles are on front page or first pages.

    when i read a chess opening book i want to know what is new compare to older publications, so it would be natural to put it at the begining of the book.

  181. Ray :
    @The Lurker
    I think it’s largely a matter of taste. Personally, I always start at the last page.

    I usually start with the index of variations. I agree that it’s a matter of taste. If you want only “the best” (without necessarily understanding why it’s the best), RYV’s approach may be better. If you want to win more, the best would probably be to figure out which variations are the highest percentage. I was just trying to point out to RYV that there’s more than one way to look at it, and QC can’t put all ways into one book. But RYV seems to think his preference is “natural” and everyone else is a blithering idiot, so there’s no point in discussing it further with him.

  182. Patrick – different readers may want different things in an opening book. Speaking not as a QC editor/employee but as a reader, I happen to prefer ambitious repertoire books where the author tries as hard as possible to present the strongest ideas they can find. You prefer a broader selection of lines with less detail. I find that to be of less value because, with a combination of my existing knowledge/playing strength and a database, I can figure out what the main theoretical options are and roughly what the plans should be by myself. That doesn’t mean you are wrong, because we all have different needs and may value certain things differently. However, the pattern of sales figures for our books tells us that repertoire books tend to be most successful.
    Of course there are certain exceptions such as ‘The King’s Gambit’, where we covered many options while maintaining our usual high level of detail – and look what it did to the page count! 🙂

  183. RYV – As has been pointed out, in many openings you can learn by observing what’s wrong with the sidelines before moving on to the main lines which avoid whatever kind of problems have been identified. On the other hand, maybe with certain openings it could be argued that you can learn better by studying the main lines first, perhaps by gaining an understanding of certain thematic pawn structures for instance.
    This issue strikes me as similar to the “why don’t you flip the diagrams in Black repertoire books?” question: we generally do things a certain way, but you can’t please everybody. But if you happen to prefer studying the main lines of an opening first, then check the index, be a rebel and start with the final chapter – problem solved! The diagram zealots don’t have that option, so consider yourself lucky.

  184. Andrew Greet :
    The diagram zealots don’t have that option, so consider yourself lucky.

    But they have!
    The only thing needed ist to learn to read upside down.
    No big thing.

  185. A Super Talent

    @RYV
    No, the most sensational news is on the 1st page – all dramatic things are not important!

    @Andrew Greet
    Agree with your statement. But agree with Patrick. We can’t say that QC is the best and the rest are the worst! Chess Stars has produced some beautiful work in recent times – The Scotch by Khalifman, Everyman continues to provide insightful books from time to time, but maybe too much Lakdawala for my taste, and New in Chess has some exciting stuff as well. One can say that QC has created a niche for itself due to the general quality of work, but there is still room for improvement.
    I agree that authors should try and provide the strongest ideas, as they are most critical, but at the same time they are moves that would have been analysed deeply by our opponents. I’m not sure what the ideal approach is, but something like this might be a compromise – give one main line and one additional option which can be used for variation. Don’t dig too deep into both, but just enough to satisfy the reader of the line’s soundness.

  186. you dont learn what’s right by observing what’s wrong.
    when observing what’s wrong , you get is a good illustrative exemple of what you should not do and it help you to understand why. but knowing what’s wrong it doesnt teach you what is correct.
    …otherwise we would not even need the main line chapter, just read all sideline !

  187. @RYV
    I’ve given my opinion and don’t see the value in adding anything else, especially as you seem convinced that your preferred way is the only correct way. So just accept that we take a different view and move on with your life. If you feel you will get more out of a given book by going through the chapters in a different sequence, then we encourage you to do so.

  188. no problem andrew. Keep it the old conservative way – the historical way- as you want
    I am not convinced i am right, just i dont see your arguments again mine so far. and i think my point of view deserve to be honestly taken into account

    just think about it :
    why does newspapper put the strong/important novelties on first pages instead of backpages ?
    when you try to fix Something, do you intentionally test all non-correct/suboptimal ways before going to the availiable solution?

    again i dont claim i am right; maybe it is a way to progress…maybe not.

    about my way of reading opening book, esppecially QC book which are not for beginners.
    first i look for recent novelties in todays variations…(they usally are in the last chapters)
    second, i compare all recent lines ( main line & side lines) with older publications ( once again this is usually from back to begining as an anti-chronological order)
    third , i have a critical analysis with my own point of viiew.

    I think it is a natural way to work with such books and i will be surprised to be the only one. That is why i think the chronological way from old side lines to recent main line is not the natural way… and not the optimal way to put authors work in light.

    take care & stay home

  189. @RYV
    I think you’re repeating yourself, your point is clear. It doesn’t make it any more convincing if you keep repeating it. Is it so hard to accept that some people have different views? Not everyting is black and white and can be proven like a math problem… There’s also such things as personal preferences in the way one acquires knowledge. Personally I start with the main lines, but I can understand and accept that others have a different way. I don’t see the problem with starting at the back of a book, what’s so difficult about that?

  190. @Ray
    i dont have problem considering someone else having a different point of view…
    but i would like to know their arguments. ( not just “personnal preferences”)
    Anyway that’s not the end of the world as long as the index is not randomly arranged, i will find my way .

    other subject
    does books on random Fischer chess exist ? theory, games & tournaments ..

  191. A Super Talent

    @RYV
    Sidelines can also be sidelines because they are relatively unexplored, not because they are bad.
    Take the Grand Prix Attack against the Sicilian. It was not taken seriously till the 90s, then it suddenly became fashionable.
    Take the Sveshnikov, the Kalashnikov, King’s Indian – any such opening that was initially snubbed.
    Your logic is inherently flawed. Only by knowing what is not right that it becomes easier to understand why something is right. That is the basic nature of human exploration. That is how we invented fire and wheel. That is how our minds progress.
    Geniuses are not those who get it right the first time – they are ones who have failed the most!
    I take it you are either too old or too radicalized to understand what I am saying. So have a good day and stay at home.

  192. @A Super Talent

    Another possibility besides being too old is being too young! Whatever the generation after the millennials is called, as in the kids in grade school, high school, and college today, all seem to expect everything to be handed to them.

    My wife is a high school teacher. Their hands are strapped these days, as they are forced to give passing grades to many people who don’t deserve a passing grade. What was considered a legitimate disability in the 90s is nothing like what is considered a disability today. The fact that the kids don’t want to do any work these days is a disability and they have these special profiles written up about them and you basically have to pass them even if they spend all day not paying attention in class and are on their phone all the time.

    My daughter, almost 10, expects everything to be handed to her. She expects to be allowed to shout from whatever room she’s in and expects it delivered to her, like she’s some princess or queen and her parents are slaves.

    Actually, it’s the “old” people (Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Gen X) that have the common sense these days!

  193. gernot zechner

    RYV seems to be a difficult person, who tries hard to convince others, that they are wrong. The logic to start with mainlines is strange, to say at least. But it is RYV’s choice how to use opening books.
    I agree with A. Greet + Ray etc: starting with sidelines, bc the „so-called mainline“ developed over decades due to trial and error. So some minor lines were popular maybe 30y ago. Imo to understand an opening to need to look at different positions/lines from all angles. How and why a line developed a certain way over the years.

    This would also mean that u should not look at the „Classics“, bc Botvinnik, Alekhine, Capa played soo much weaker than Carlsen, Caruana. It’s common knowledge that u can learn a lot from those old games.

  194. Hi
    I read some interresting comments. And it calls for developpements.
    sidelines are not necessary bad lines – yes! they even can be as good as main lines. It’s sometimes just about fashion : Magnus played 12..Rb8 instead of the usual 12..Bf6 and mainline suddenly skip to sideline. So novelties tend to replace mainlines .
    Today, an opening book is mainly an update of a previous opening book on the subject. It means only a fraction of the book is new material and this new material is concentrated in mainline. So unlless we are new to the chess world, we already have 1 or 2 or mostly more than 3 books on the grunfeld, Najdorf, QGD….and we already had read about the old lines. OK, It is Always interresting to know what a new author thinks about those line ( sometimes nice novelties or a different evaluation from a known position) but it is evident that the most interresting part of his work is what the author put in the mainline- or new mainline.

    we invented fire and Wheel ( time ago) i dont need to re-invented them each time with each book.

    1. Jacob Aagaard

      The idea that opening books now are only a marginal update on previous books clearly does not relate to our books. What nonsense!

  195. If you want the latest developments in opening lines than you’ve got New in Chess Yearbooks. If you’re only interested in specific openings than you’ve got Chesspublishing.com.
    I don’t think a book about a complete opening is there to only inform you about the latest novelties.
    If I buy a newspaper I want news. If I buy a book I want something well thought out by an author.

  196. there is comment about chronological developpement of lines over the years to justify sidelines( old lines) first and mainline (modern line) last. It also says we must have a multiple angles approach to handle the position better. Absolutly right, it is important to study mainlines AND sidelines. Do it the way you want but the fact one line is older than another doesnt add any value.

  197. @RYV
    Sorry, I don’t see what you’re trying to accomplish here. Do you want to hear you’re right? If that’s the case I can help you: ‘you’re absolutely, 100% right’. And then we can move on with our lives.

  198. @Ray
    nice comment, i appriciate.
    keep it easy, we are just talking here. If you dont have any argument to add and you dont understand what it is about, then what subject do you wish we discuss ?

  199. PatientPetroff

    Big thanks for the great work to the entire QC team. Are there any news about the petroff book? I am very exiced about the mainline recommentations 🙂

    1. Jacob Aagaard

      Yes, we have news on the Petroff. We are in the final phases of completing it. The physical process is a bit delayed at the moment, but regarding the editing, Andrew is expecting the final updates from Swapnil. Meanwhile, this morning, we are going to Skype on what he is doing next… I think 6-8 weeks is the right anticipation for the physical book to exists. If there is a world for it to exist in, of course…

  200. RYV :
    @Ray
    nice comment, i appriciate.
    keep it easy, we are just talking here. If you dont have any argument to add and you dont understand what it is about, then what subject do you wish we discuss ?

    RYV; a good discussion is not bad…but pushing your opinions is not discussing, it’s just plain nagging. Stop trolling, you’ve made your point.. Now, stop nagging and get on with your life without bothering me (and other QC clanmembers).

    Please.

  201. Too bad my post has been deleted…

    @QC: spamming and nagging is allowed. But giving feedback on that isn’t, right?

    What a pity… I always thought that QC members were better than that…

  202. Jacob Aagaard

    @Adrian
    Nothing is deleted. At times the blog puts thing for approval. And we are slow at the moment to approve things, all working from home.

  203. Jacob Aagaard :
    @Adrian
    Nothing is deleted. At times the blog puts thing for approval. And we are slow at the moment to approve things, all working from home.

    Okay, my apologies! I’ve jumped into conclusions too fast.

  204. @The Doctor
    Me too. I really like it a lot so far! I’ve decided to take the plunge and switch to the Grünfeld and the Najdorf coming season. Plenty of time to prepare, now that the chess season has prematurely ended 🙂

  205. I had pre-ordered the Grünfeld book, but was informed you cannot ship because of your office being closed. Any plans when you will resume shipping?

  206. “…this work takes a different approach from that of a typical repertoire book. Rather than filling valuable pages analysing rare, inferior and generally irrelevant options, the author delves deep into the most important main lines,…”

    I hope this will be the new guideline for most comming rep books.

    can you explain why a book is published Under the “GM rep” serie or Under the ‘playing..” serie ?
    is it narrow repertoire vs complete repertoire ? intended public ? review process ?

  207. RYV :
    “…this work takes a different approach from that of a typical repertoire book. Rather than filling valuable pages analysing rare, inferior and generally irrelevant options, the author delves deep into the most important main lines,…”
    I hope this will be the new guideline for most comming rep books.
    can you explain why a book is published Under the “GM rep” serie or Under the ‘playing..” serie ?
    is it narrow repertoire vs complete repertoire ? intended public ? review process ?

    I would guess a book published under the GM Rep banner would consist of the most critical hardcore mainlines constantly in a state of flux and in need of regular maintenance to stay up to date, a condition more suited to the professional player, or an ambitious amateur with an an inordinate amount of time to study the latest wrinkles in opening theory. The Playing Series takes a more practical approach by choosing sound and in general more positionally minded lines where understanding the structures is at least as important as knowing the theory. In such lines theoretical developments are usually not as drastic or rapid and often surprises can be handled successfully based on feel and experience with the lines, a typical example could be the Tarrasch against the French in the play Series as opposed to 3.Nc3 against the French in the GM series and so on.

    To…

  208. By now this blog could greatly benefit from a few standard posting tools, like an edit button as well as an indicator that you have exceeded the character limit before you actually send a post, that ends up being cut off and making one look like an idiot.

  209. Hi. There are news about the book/s on the Italian Opening?
    Thx a lot for your constant effort and great quality books!

  210. What is the second edition of Calculation, that seems to have recently been released? Is it related to the forthcoming chessable version of the book?

  211. An Ordinary Chessplayer

    I wanted to make a comment on mainlines first vs sidelines first. (No groans, please.) Both ways have some points in their favor, and both ways have been used historically. For example MCO had mainlines first, while ECO had sidelines first. I had MCO before ECO was even published, so at one time I slightly preferred mainlines first. However, using chess software, if you stick *all* your analysis in a single pgn game, you should notice that the sidelines are at the top, and the mainline is at the bottom. Unless you put your mainline in a comment, which would be weird. And I think you will find, if you want to compare the contents of a recently published book with the contents of a previously saved pgn file, it is very much easier to do if the book has the sidelines first — in the same order as the pgn file. To me, that is a decisive argument in favor of sidelines first.

  212. playing on the net, i had hard time recently with grabbing the pawn in the sicilian wing gambit ( as black) . Either directly 2.b4 or after 2.Nf3 e6 3.b4.
    So i decided to solve this problem temporary with ..b6!? / ?! ( instead of pawn grabbing) which put white out of his scheme, but i am not convinced this is the solution.
    What are your recomendations ?
    the only reference i could find at QC was Kotronias 6A-GMrep , but any other input would be great! and white point of view too!

  213. Isn’t 2.b4 a sideline?

    It thought it had long been answered in older books making the question redundant.

  214. @Joop
    no you are wrong, the sideline is 2.d4! ( the center gambit) as after 2.d4 cxd4 you can play 3.b4!
    whitout giving a queenside pawn!
    but only a few poeple are aware of this trick.

  215. An Ordinary Chessplayer

    Maybe the Sicilian Wing Gambit has more than one solution? I played the Wing Gambit in simuls, one time a 1900-player chose 2…b6 and I got nowhere at all (1/2-1/2). Neither could I find a truly appealing setup afterwards in analysis. It’s just a chess game, but that’s perhaps not what white wants. You could look at 1.e4 c5 2.b4 b6 as a much inferior Sicilian Wing Gambit for black. Or you could look at it as a much improved Owen’s Defense! (1.e4 b6 2.b4 c5!?) I hardly ever play the Sicilian as black, so I would certainly consider the option of 2…b6 as a decent low-theory answer, against a certain type of dangerous opponent. But if the Sicilian were my main opening, then I would feel obliged to study the accepted lines. I couldn’t let my opponent “get away” with 2.b4 very often.

    Stefan Buecker’s magazine Kaissiber had a lot of coverage of the accepted, big articles in No.29 (2007) and No.37 (2010). They also reviewed Davies (2007) Gambiteer I in No.29.

  216. RYV :
    can you explain why a book is published Under the “GM rep” serie or Under the ‘playing..” serie ?
    is it narrow repertoire vs complete repertoire ? intended public ? review process ?

    I would love to hear the answer from the quality chess.

  217. An Ordinary Chessplayer

    Well, you can find this information on the product pages.

    The target for GM Repertoire is quite high, as in this blurb:
    “Grandmaster Repertoire is a new series of high quality books based on the main lines, written by strong grandmasters. The aim is to provide the reader with a complete repertoire at a level good enough for elite tournaments….”
    http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/36/grandmaster_repertoire_1_-_1d4_volume_one_by_boris_avrukh/

    The blurb for Playing the Queen’s Gambit (the very first in the “Playing the” series, if we don’t count Play the Semi-Slav) said “hard-hitting” and “based on main lines”, but did not claim to be aimed at elites.
    http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/41/playing_the_queens_gambit_by_lars_schandorff/

    So it’s the difference between “very, very good”, and merely “very good”.

  218. @Riesner
    Topnotch was sort of on the right lines although there’s a bit more to it. Considerations include:

    1) Firstly, the choice might be made by default. For instance, if the author isn’t a GM, then the book can’t be a GM Repertoire! Also if we’ve already covered a certain topic in the GM Rep series, it’s a good reason to make the next book on that opening ‘Playing’, and vice versa.

    2) The general idea of the GM Repertoire series is to be as ambitious and ‘principled’ as possible. ‘Playing’ books give quality recommendations but are generally not quite so much on the cutting edge of theory. However, this is a broad generalization and there is some variability within each series, so we encourage readers to consider books individually.

  219. Mechanize :Hi. There are news about the book/s on the Italian Opening?Thx a lot for your constant effort and great quality books!

    I’m with you on this one. Other than MAYBE the Stonewall book (as I use this OCCASIONALLY as a backup to the King’s Indian), the Italian Books are really the only “opening” books of interest to me in this list. Otherwise, the two non-opening books are the ones I’m looking forward to, but they aren’t until the summer.

  220. Any hint on when the excerpts for the Petroff and Vol 1 of the Italian Renaissance could be available?….don’t know about the rest of you but we are in lockdown due to the virus with two weeks still to go. So something from Quality to lift our spirits would be warmly welcomed..

  221. I’ve finished editing the Petroff book and it’s in the final stages of proofreading, so it won’t be long before an excerpt is ready. I haven’t been involved with the Italian books so someone else will have to reply about them.
    In the meantime I’m editing the Stonewall and it’s shaping up to be another excellent book. This one is slightly different as it’s mostly based on complete games (albeit with a basic variation tree to provide some structure), whereas most of our repertoire books are pure analysis and variation trees. Different readers prefer different formats and I have no intention of debating the pros and cons (although you guys are welcome to thrash it out if you wish to) – but I will say that when the book deals with a relatively static pawn structure as with the Stonewall, this is where the ‘complete games’ format is at its strongest, and I believe that anyone who buys this book will gain some great insights into how to handle this deeply strategic opening system.

  222. @RYV
    It’s a repertoire book from Black’s perspective. You could certainly learn a lot about the white side from studying it – for instance, there’s quite a lot of “xxx is a popular move but I rejected because the following plan is strong for White” type of advice. But the target audience is definitely those who wish to play the Stonewall with Black.

  223. fine. Even if “black sided”, it is important that the author gives his view of what are white’s best lines. Too many time, a black repertoire shows that black have no problems whatever white’s plan.
    I understand that they can be reluctant to show white’s best variation(s) against their favorite defence..but if not what is a book value ?

  224. Without a doubt, complete games format is the best way to go for openings books. Hopefully, this begins a trend within QC.

  225. Will the Petroff be covering the ECO codes C20 to C39 (that is, Centre Game, Danish, Bishop’s Opening, Vienna, King;s Gambit, etc)?

    Thank you!

  226. @ James 2

    Hopefully not too many pages will be used on the Centre Game, Kings Gambit etc as these were well covered in QC’s Playing 1 e4 e5. Bologan also did a fairly good job in his first volume on the Ruy.

    Suspect that the Bishop’s Opening and the Four (three) Knights depending on which he chooses will get a little more coverage.

    What will be interesting is the line chosen against the Old Main Line ….Kramnik and Gelfand seem to prefer ….Be7 whilst Caruana seems to play …Bd6……and his chose against the New Main Line….will he castle kingside or queenside..!

  227. Yes, the book covers other options after 1.e4 e5. Of the total 328 pages in the book, the chapters dealing with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 span 233 pages, and those covering 1.e4 e5 without 2.Nf3 make up 77 pages.

    As for repertoire choices within the Petroff, it’s …Bd6 in the Old Main Line and kingside castling in the Modern Main Line. I won’t answer any more questions about the choice of lines (just to pre-empt the inevitable) but the excerpt will provide answers soon enough.

  228. there was a post recently about a possible repertoire book on the accelerated dragon.
    this is a popular choice in open tournaments and rapid play.
    Is there anything going on ?
    if not do you think R.Panjwani on the hyper accelerated does the job as well ?

  229. Thank you Andrew, much appreciated. I think the Petroff sounds like it is going to be a very interesting read.

    Also thank you to Michael for your reply.

    James

  230. Interesting! I always thought kingside castling in the modern mainline is quite risky for us mortals. Exciting to read about it!

  231. I must add, what will be more critical is not so much the 77 pages of “Non-Nf3”, but the bigger question will be the 233 pages of Nf3/Nf6, and whether that’s 233 pages of “Petroff”, or whether that will also include “Non-Petroff” lines after 2…Nf6.

    For example, when I used to play the Petroff together with the French back in 2014, I played in the US Open in Orlando (All of which can be found in “The Week in Chess” archive, Sep 1, 2014 batch of games), and all 5 rounds that I had Black (from which I scored 4 1/2 out of 5, drawing the final round), every game started 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6, but NONE of the 5 games were Petroffs. NONE I say!

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 and now both rounds 1 and 5, White played 5.d3, leading not to the Petroff, but the Exchange French!

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 and now in rounds 3, 7, and 9, White played 3.Nc3, leading to not the Petroff, but the Four Knights!

    Even outside that tournament, I got the Four Knights a lot back then. Probably the most critical non-Petroff line to know!

  232. The 2.Nf3 Nf6 section has one chapter dealing with White’s alternatives to 3.d4, spanning 15 pages, most of which is taken up by 3.Nc3 Bb4. There is another chapter dedicated to 5.d3 leading to the Exchange French, which takes up 16 pages.
    5.Nc3 has become more and more popular, so I would imagine you could expect to encounter that move in a lot of games these days, leading to a good battle. Although in the event that White transposes to an Exchange French, Black should have an easier time equalizing than in many other lines, so I wouldn’t be too bothered about that.

  233. @Patrick

    well, that is a common feature.
    sicilian players will face all kind of crapy moves (a3, b3,b4,c3,d3,g3…) most of the time.
    you want to play the ruy lopez breyer as black? ahaha, first you will meet king’s gambit, Vienna, 4N, center game, ponziani…then after 10 or 15 games , someone will play Bb5….and the exchange variation right after ..a6
    from a practical point of view and for open tournaments, books on anti-main-lines are much more usefull than “serious” repertoire books.

  234. @RYV
    For once I agree with you 🙂 . The same goes for variations such as the French Winawer Poisoned Pawn or the Meran. Very nice openings, but you hardly ever get them on the board. I think in that respect the Petroff may not be so bad at all.

  235. @RYV

    Umm…. isn’t an “anti-main-line” also known as a “sideline”? So there is good reason to study sidelines first after all? 🙂

  236. An Ordinary Chessplayer

    @Andrew Greet – Only 16 pages on 5.d3 ?? Clearly that is insufficient, when white has the sharp variation 5.d3 Nf6 6.d4 d5 7.Ne5! at their disposal. It’s enough to put a repertoire author in zugzwang. Maybe to deal with it you will need to bring back descriptive notation, and invent a new kind of diagram — neither white at bottom, nor black at bottom, but reversible.

  237. 7.Ne5!, what a cunning suggestion! It seems to me that 7…Ne4! is the only move, and after 8.Bd3 we breathe a sigh of relief and get back to business as usual.

  238. @An Ordinary Chessplayer
    is this some weird humour? anyway, I’d say all relevant moves after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 have to be analysed in a Petroff book. If some happen to collide with French and 3Knights, they should be in thebook. Plus d3-d4 is not “the French Exchange”, just “the Nf3 Nf6 French Exchange” where it should be feasable to find a decent answer. If you play the Petroff this line is just part of your repertoire.

  239. @Cowe
    I don’t agree. It’s a book on the Petroff (the title says so), and not on 1.e4 e5. That the author considers other white openings is a pure bonus i.m.o. By the same reasoning autors would ‘have to’ treat all Sicilian sidelines in every main line book. It’s not a realistic demand.

  240. @ Andrew : could you please let us know if the anti-Petroff(s)beginning with anything but 1.e4 are developed in the Petroff book ?

  241. Hasan – Nikos may have another book on the way but any formal announcement will come when we are ready.

    Pinpon – Of course! Why wouldn’t a book on the Petroff offer a complete repertoire against 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.g4 and everything else?

  242. @Pinpon Lol is that a serious question? What do you expect? “Yes there is one anti-Petroff chapter
    of 40 pages that starts with other moves than 1.e4. The biggest part is about 1.d4 d5 1.c4 c6 and the Semi-Slav, about 25 pages”

  243. Ray :
    @RYV
    For once I agree with you . The same goes for variations such as the French Winawer Poisoned Pawn or the Meran. Very nice openings, but you hardly ever get them on the board. I think in that respect the Petroff may not be so bad at all.

    Actually, I don’t get a lot of sideline responses. VERY rare. Typically, I get KIA, Exchange, Advance, Tarrasch, or 3.Nc3. If 3.Nc3, I intertwine Rubinstein, Classical, McCutchen (or White can play the Steinitz instead of Classical or McCutchen), and Winawer. When I do play the Winawer, 4 out of every 5 or so are either 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3 6.bxc3 Qa5 or 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 after which I play either 7…O-O, 7…Kf8, or 7…Nf5, depending on mood.

  244. Sorry but i just looked at a review about ´Königspringerzurückhaltungspolitik reversed ´by E.Prié and i was not prepared

  245. for the white side, many recent book advocate 3.Nc3 ( Sielecki-keep it simple ; Khalifman-squeezing 1.e4 e5) or 2.Bc4 (Delchev). Even if the 3N/4N and bishop opening are not truly Petroff lines, they must be in black’s repertoire so i am curious to see what are the recommended variations.

  246. I have a question regarding the Petroff, does anyone know how to show advantage for White after: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 Nc6

    Thanks in advance.

  247. @RYV
    Many people play the London against 1…d5, so that must be in black’s repertoire if he plays the Slav, Queen’s Gambit Declined, Triangle System, Meran, Albin’s Countergambit or Queen’s Gamibt Accepted. Therefore any book on one of these openings should also include a chapter on the London (and on 2.Bg5. 2.e4, 2.g3. 2b3, 2.a3, 2.c3, 2.e3 etc.). The reason is because it’s in black’s repertoire. So it must be in any book. Period.

  248. Looked at the Petroff excerpt and seems great . The choice of 10 ..c5 against Nc3 is a good and fighting idea . Hopefully the recent Vitiugov and So games will be scrutinized in the d4 variation .

  249. 2.Bc4 is an “anti-Petroff” ( and also an anti- elephant gambit !) that can put black out of their system.
    It is interresting to read what the author has to say about, what line he recommend or dislike.
    Maybe he has some novelties or alternatives to established theory.
    If it is just old theory on the bishop opening : no interrest
    if it is Something new from black point of view : well done

  250. The way we generally see it is as follows. When publishing a repertoire book on a certain opening (the Petroff in this case), we are under no obligation to cover the opponent’s earlier ways of avoiding the main subject. However, in some cases we may do so anyway. With the Petroff, there were a few excellent reasons to do so:
    1) The book was not massive, so we knew we could include the extra material without the length of the book getting silly.
    2) It would not be so convenient for readers to get the information they needed on other 1.e4 e5 lines from other sources. For instance, Nikos’s book covers the same sidelines, but a lot of that book is dedicated to the Ruy Lopez, Two Knights and Scotch, none of which are relevant to a pure Petroff player, so it would not really have been fair to ask the Petroff readers to buy that book as well. The same applies to books from other publishers covering the Open Games – such books generally assume Black wants to go 1.e4 e5 2.Nf6 Nc6, so they would not be getting much value for money if they were only buying such a book for the coverage of 2.Nc3, 2.f4 and so on.
    (continued below…)

  251. With other books, it could be a completely different story. Take “Playing the Najdorf” for instance: the Najdorf took up 500+ pages so it would have been ridiculous to add detailed coverage of Anti-Sicilians. Moreover, we already have an entire book (GM 6A) dedicated to this important subject. It’s the same situation with 1.d4 sidelines (GM 11) and non-1.e4/1.d4 openings (GM 19). So Vigorito’s short Anti-Sicilian section was a pure bonus.

    It should be obvious that when the relevant sidelines that avoid the target opening are covered by GM 6A, GM 11 or GM 19, we are less likely to cover them again in a book where they are not the main subject. But even then, there are exceptions. For instance, in Nikos’s “Playing 1.d4 d5”, he did cover a bunch of non-2.c4 and even some non-1.d4 options because he (and we) thought this would be of value to the reader – and crucially, we could do it without the page count getting too crazy.

    To summarise: we are not obliged to cover the sidelines which avoid the main opening or variation named in the book title. When we do so, we hope readers appreciate the extra material. And if we don’t, rest assured we always think about such matters, and if we decide not to do it in a certain book then it is for a good reason.

  252. @Cowe, Ray & RYV

    Regarding your comments on the inclusion of 2 Bc4 and other sidelines in this book; some players of the Petroff don’t play any other 1…e5 lines so don’t have the early divergence reference library that a regular 2…Nc6 player might have. Furthermore the Petroff may be the second option to say the Sicilian, so to have this information included in the one book is exceptionally helpful and cost effective.

    It is interesting that several of the other Petroff publications in recent years have also included these early sidelines, which suggests from a marketing prospective it works.

  253. RYV :
    @Ray
    you missed Something :
    white can also play the London against king’s indian !

    You guys don’t seem to ‘pay much attention to detail’, there is a huge difference between the London and Accelerated London. There is little interest in the Classical London, all the ‘attention’ now and it has been so for awhile is on the Accelerated London, new ideas are still being discovered there, but if you are ‘paying close attention’ to developments then Black has nothing to fear theoretically.

    Operative words being ‘Pay Attention to Details.’ 🙂

  254. @Michael
    I absolutely agree that this is very useful. I was just reacting to the demanding tone of RYV’s post – like Andrew (correctly, in my view) points out, it is not an obligation of the publisher to include these lines, if the title of the book is ‘Playing the Petroff’. I just think the argument ‘it should be in your repertoire and therefore the publisher should add it to the book’ is invalid. But again, I do think it’s very nice to include these lines – I’m just not taking it for granted 🙂 .

  255. Just saw that the 2nd Edition of Calculation is out from the GM Preparation series. Are there plans for 2nd ed. for the other volumes in the series? Lastly, is there an excerpt or table of contents for the second ed. somewhere? Thanks

  256. @Ray
    hello
    just read carefully what i had written. I’ve never said “..therefore the publisher should add it to the book”. It is the Petroff player responsability to prepare against 3N/4N bishop KG..
    I think we all agree on the subject. no obligation to the publisher but as long as it is usefull for the reader/player and that the author has his own recomendations – great, fine…!

  257. My wishes for eventual new Nikos books:

    Playing the King’s Indian (just one book please…)

    and

    Playing d4 a revised edition together with Lars Schandorff

  258. looking for new theme in répertoires books :

    old indian & Philidor defence ( single volume ?!) –

    KI-attack

    Chigorin defence. by Moro. (GM-rep)

  259. @The Doctor
    Hi Doctor,

    While I am certainly not plugging any other publisher, I got ‘An Idiot Proof Repertoire’ published by Gambit a couple of days ago on their app. It covers the English for white, and in my opinion Burgess has done an absolutely fantastic job. It is a really great read!

    James

  260. James 2

    I have ordered Burgess book.
    What you say does not surprise me. I know Burgess from two Alekhine’s books,
    pity tere is no recente Alekhine book like his two

  261. Burgess recommends the Scandinavian and a Slav / QGA hybrid with black… Sound really exciting, I can’t wait to have the book in my hands… And with 176 pages it sounds absolutely thorough…

  262. Benjamin Fitch

    @James2
    From the words alone, one can safely identify only sarcasm. To accurately identify “contempt” (versus, say, mere jest) would require more information, such as hearing and seeing the words spoken and having some knowledge of intent or mental state.

    Regarding reading the book: Having certain data at hand (the fact that exactly 176 pages are used to cover an entire repertoire for both White and Black), only basic arithmetic, not actual reading, is needed to reach some conclusions with no appreciable margin of error. For example, thoroughness is a mathematical impossibility. That doesn’t imply that thoroughness is the book’s intention–only that it’s not a possibility.

  263. From the Scandi part of the sample I got a lot of new information which wasn’t mentioned in the books by Scandi-specialist authors. So for me it’s a must buy and having ‘read’ Burgess’ The Slav and A Cunning Chess Opening Repertoire for White I have complete faith in Burgess’ works.

  264. pages count isnt an accurate indication of book quality. In fact , mathematicaly with less pages you get a better ration usefull vs useless !

    for exemple, the best chess book ever – Simple chess by Michael Stean – is a small format 116 pages in original publication.

  265. Benjamin Fitch

    Yes, considering the author I have little doubt that the quality is excellent and that there’s something new to be found in multiple places within the book.

  266. I was indeed only being sarcastic – no contempt meant in any way. As for the other qualification, I can only say ‘blessed are the ignorant’. Just as I’m not able to assess the quality of this new book from a brief description / excerpt, surely the other way around (knowing it’s a great book without having thoroughly studied it) seems like an equally impossible task. If James2 has indeed done achieved within a day or two, I say: kudos for you.

  267. James2 :
    @The Doctor
    Hi Doctor,
    While I am certainly not plugging any other publisher, I got ‘An Idiot Proof Repertoire’ published by Gambit a couple of days ago on their app. It covers the English for white, and in my opinion Burgess has done an absolutely fantastic job. It is a really great read!
    James

    Thanks I’ll take look!

  268. James2 :
    @The Doctor
    Hi Doctor,
    While I am certainly not plugging any other publisher, I got ‘An Idiot Proof Repertoire’ published by Gambit a couple of days ago on their app. It covers the English for white, and in my opinion Burgess has done an absolutely fantastic job. It is a really great read!
    James

    I just took a look at the sample pages, and you are right, it does appear that a lot of thought and analysis went into this ‘Idiot Proof’ Repertoire. Still I just love the following comment posted on the Chesspub Forum that made me laugh and laugh, I am paraphrasing, but it goes something like this ‘No matter how Idiot Proof you try to make a Repertoire, in the end Stupidity always wins’ It’s hilarious because it’s so true 🙂

  269. Since we are mentioning wish list books: I’d love a “The Catalan for White and Black” book.

    If you really want to make me happy, make it mostly explanations, structures and exercises a la Opening Simulator, not focused on either side. Plus repertoires for white and black in say 30-50 pages each (way more than I can remember).

    It’s such an important opening in all the d4/Nf3 transpositional mess but there isn’t that much treatment of it in opening books.

  270. Continuing with the trend of “Wish List” books – it would be interesting to see the lines that simply aren’t covered in the Sicilian. Objective, not White or Black biased. What do I mean by lines that simply aren’t covered? You see a ton of books on main lines – English Attack, 6.Bg5 Najdorf, Sozin, Yugoslav Attack, Richter Rauzer, etc. You also see a ton of books on Anti-Sicilians, like the Alapin, Closed, Grand Prix, etc.

    What about the offbeat open lines? 6.Nb3, 6.g3, 6.Rg1 (The Freak Attack) in the Najdorf. 6.f4, 6.Be2, 6.g3 in the Dragon. The line White can play in the Taimanov where he gets the Queen for 3 pieces. The early …Nxd4 in the Accelerated Dragon Maroczy Bind where White has not played Be3 yet and has to take with the Queen, Etc. Those lines that get the 1 paragraph blurb in repertoire books. Maybe a very lightly annotated game if you are lucky.

    This would give Sicilian advocates expanded knowledge on this offbeat lines, and would give White players something to chew on when facing players at their club that they’ve already thrown the English Attack at a dozen times.

  271. In essence, the above suggestion would be similar to a couple of Everyman Books from about 15 years ago – Offbeat Nimzo-Indian and Offbeat Kings Indian. They didn’t cover Nimzo-Indian and Kings Indian avoidance, like the London or Torre or Colle, but they also didn’t cover the 4.e3, or 4.Qc2 Nimzo, nor the CLassical, Fianchetto, Saemisch, or Four Pawns King’s Indian. They covered stuff like the Leningrad, Saemisch, and 4.f3 Nimzo along with the Averbakh, Seiriwan’s 5.Bd3, 5.Nge2, etc in the King’s Indian.

    Same concept but for the Open Sicilian.

  272. Andrew, how do you figure nobody would buy it? Sicilian Players, e4 players, correspondence players, etc.

    Actually, you were with Everyman back then as you wrote a Queen Indian book. Was there some retail report that Offbeat Nimzo, Offbeat Kings Indian, and Offbeat Spanish, along with New In Chess’s Ruy Lopez Revisited, all flopped?

    The Sicilian has a ton of offbeat lines that are playable, unlike other openings such as the Caro-Kann or French where such a book would not really be appropriate.

  273. I don’t know how those Everyman titles did, but at QC it’s become clear that “Complete Repertoire” books on an opening sell much better than “Here’s a bunch of interesting lines” type of books.

  274. Are there Plans for more opening simulator books? QGA, Bb5-Sicilian, Accelerated Dragon may be interesting for this format.

  275. Krokohol, not so sure about QGA or Accel Dragon unless you left maybe the Maroczy Bind out. I do not own the Kings Indian book YET, but it seems like that format of book would be best suited for openings with lots of sacrificial patterns, whether positional sacrifice or tactical combination. QGA seems a little dry for the format. I would think more cases like the Najdorf, Grunfeld, Modern Benoni, Semi-Slav, Ruy Lopez, etc. Even my beloved French may not be so great for the format because outside of the Winawer and McCutchen, it is more a matter of knowing where to put your pieces and understanding closed, IQP, and symmetrical (exchange) structures.

  276. @Patrick
    Patrick, yes, i want help to know “where to put my pieces”. QGA, AD and Bb5-Sicilian are decent options that are kind of blind spots in QC-Program. As i understand the simulator format, the target is to shift the relation from memorization to exercises.
    In my view eg. QGA qualifies perfectly for the simulator format and especially better than the Najdorf. Behind typical tactics that appear in every opening there are structures, exchanges and levers that can be addressed by the exercises as well. The main point is that the QGA depends not so much on forced lines that have to be memorized. Furthermore the QGA should not be reduced to IQP which can indeed be studied with Rios, Psakhis and e3-Poison books to some extent (though an IQP book would be great as well). There are typical endgames or even funny gambit play in e4 (White), Nc6 or Bg4 (Black) variations that give great stuff for exercises.

  277. @Patrick
    I don’t see why the Simulator concept should be restricted to tactics exercises. Positional and strategy exercises are just as useful i.m.o. I’d say an opening such as the French is perfectly suited for the Simulator approach! E.g. if you play 3…Nf6 against the Tarrasch variation, there are plenty of interesting motifs to train, e.g. in the line with 5.f4, when to sacrifice a knight for two pawns with black, and when not?

  278. A recent book about the c3 Sicilian for White would also be nice. There hasn’t been one in years and imo it is a pretty popular and practical opening club players can score well with.

  279. Hi. I wanted to ask whether the forthcoming 2nd edition of “GM Prep: Calculation” was going to be available in hardcover as well. And if not, what would happen to the Special Discount offers for the 6 books in HC? Thanks!

  280. I’m a huge friend of Jacobs Book, waiting for “A matter of technique’……hope there will be no delay…due to current situation…
    Wish there will be more book on technique and improvement than opening…

  281. Joop :
    My wishes for eventual new Nikos books:
    Playing the King’s Indian (just one book please…)
    and
    Playing d4 a revised edition together with Lars Schandorff

    Just to say that the Playing 1 d4 update is something that definitely could be updated as I’ve used this book in correspondence chess and on more than one occasion have been stung.

    The line I remember well is the line in the Saemisch KID where the piece sac given in KOTKI 5 is simply not given! Also it could benefit from the opening page on each chapter following a tree format to help navigate variations more easily.

  282. @Nick

    The updated version of Calculation seems released already, in both hardback and paperback, with the additional chapter (at least this webpage and chess direct show it being in stock). The lack of publicity here or elsewhere perplexes me…….I guessed perhaps the release was meant to tie in with the delayed chessable version of the book, but just a guess.

  283. @Andrew

    Will a release date be available for the Petroff in the near future? And secondly under all the various lockdowns etc are Quality currently able to pack and dispatch books to fill individual orders?

    Thanks

  284. Michael :
    @Andrew
    Will a release date be available for the Petroff in the near future? And secondly under all the various lockdowns etc are Quality currently able to pack and dispatch books to fill individual orders?
    Thanks

    Yes they will dispatch them by drone.

  285. @Ray
    I never said that all problems should be tactical. Yes, there would be positional problems as well, like the exchange sac on c3 in the Dragon and Najdorf.

    Some openings though are too monotonous to warrant an Opening Similator. What does Black do in the advance? Attack d4. What does Black do in the Closed Tarrasch? Attack d4! Etc. All the problems would be the same!

  286. @Patrick
    I don’t agree it’s only about attacking d4 – for example, in the French Advance black also has plans with …f6, and after 6.a3 c4 where’s your attack on d4? As for the Closed Tarrasch, there are plenty of lines with a piece sacrifice on e5. These positions are very complicated and it can be quite hard to judge when such a sacrifice is good or not. If you put it that simplistic you could also say that the Grünfeld is only about attacking d4, and the Modern Benoni only about playing …b5, and the Najdorf only about attacking via the c-file. The French is one of the strategically most complex and flexible openings around, so I really think you’re not doing justice to this opening by narrowing it down to attacking d4.

  287. @Ray

    Anybody can cherry pick one given line to contradict the fact that more than half of French games involve Black attacking d4 in some way, shape, or form. Sure, go around tooting your horn about the 6.a3 c4 advance, or Exchange, or Open Tarrasch where White has no d-pawn, or Winawer lines with …c4 and …O-O-O (though tactics still exist on d4). Doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of lines center around that theme. The d4-square.

    As a French player for almost 25 years, I can safely claim that the French is not as diverse as the Nimzo-Indian, King’s Indian, Sicilian (NOT Sicilian Najdorf – SICILIAN!), or Ruy Lopez. Just because it’s not as diverse as those 4 doesn’t make it as rigid as the London System or Colle Koltanoski. Not everything is black or white, but that Opening Simulator format would be best used for an opening with extreme diversity – the Nimzo-Indian screams ME ME ME ME ME!

  288. The Doctor :
    Has anyone any experience with Chessable?
    Would you recommend??

    I really enjoy a lot of their streaming video, but not a fan of the move-trainer. I’m old school that way.

  289. Topnotch :

    The Doctor :
    Has anyone any experience with Chessable?
    Would you recommend??

    I really enjoy a lot of their streaming video, but not a fan of the move-trainer. I’m old school that way.

    They’re very expensive though. I like the makeover trainer a lot I feel it’s helped me understand the openings I play better.

  290. A Super Talent

    @Patrick
    Patrick it seems to me that you have a lot of dogma with regards to chess openings in specific and chess in general. I myself play the French in correspondence, and it is one of the richest openings in terms of possibilities. Just because the central theme is the attack on the d4 square doesn’t mean that that is the only theme in the opening! That way let me simplify the four you mention:

    1.Nimzo – Don’t allow e4!
    2.KID – Kingside Pawn Storm.
    3.Sicilian – Counterattack themes only.
    4. RL – c3-d4 pawn push.

    I’m not saying that these are the central themes, nor am I claiming that these openings are not subtle or diverse. I am only showing what happens when you take a Black or White approach to everything. Chess is not so simple. There are various ways to play openings – the Ruy Lopez for example can be played in the slow d3 c3 fashion like an Italian, or aggressively with d3 h3-g4 Nd2-f1-g3 and a kingside pawn storm without castling, or classically with the traditional maneuvering.

    Your claim is just a claim, not hard truth. I respectfully disagree with you on this. Many tactics happen on the e5 square as well as Ray mentioned, there is also the Bd7-a4-c2-g6 idea, the slow queenside pawn storm, the modern method of exchange sacing on g4 in the advance…I could go on here.

    @Ray
    Ray its like you said, there are two types of French Players – the dynamic ones and the solid ones. There…

  291. @Paul H Thanks for the confirmation. I was basing my question simply on the fact that on Amazon it shows as “forthcoming” in August or something like that. According to Amazon it is not published yet, which is weird because as you say it seems it’s available already on the QC webpage.

  292. Jacob Aagaard

    @RB

    RB :
    How is Negi’s next book going, can we hope for it soon?

    Depends on what you mean with soon. A few months. Sooner than “soon enough” as it is one step ahead in the queue.

  293. @A Super Talent

    There is a frequent misconception of the Kings Indian. It is not a kingside pawn storm. The Mar Del Plata is. Dare you to storm the Kingside against the Four Pawns, Saemisch, Averbakh, Petrosian, or Gligoric.

  294. @Jacob Aagaard

    my question was not about ” when” but rather “why ” as the elephant book was ” …close to the finish line… ” more than one year ago and the remaining questions were mostly about the cover design !.
    Does authors ( or ediitors) decide to re-analyse or re-write back from the start ?
    maybe there is a novelty that refute the refutation ? or just delayed because Brexit ?
    take care & stay safe .. in the dongeon

    1. Jacob Aagaard

      I think delayed more by the authors producing babies. No refutations we know of, although I have to say that personally, I do not believe 2…d5 is necessarily the strongest move in that position ;-).

  295. By the way, this is quite an interesting type of cognitive dissonance, I think. First Patrick is giving an oversimplified view of the French, then A Super Talent is giving some other examples of oversimplified views to make a point of not oversimplifying things, and then Patrick is correcting A Super Talent that he is taking an oversimplified view. Quite interesting indeed 🙂

  296. I’ve read book printing in general has been delayed because of the virus. I think this also has effect on the expected release dates of the coming soon Quality Chess books?

    1. Jacob Aagaard

      A little bit. The main thing is that we cannot sacrifice an author’s work. When a book is released, it sells well for a bit. If we release at a time when there is no infrastructure to help the book, it dies and the author loses out badly. We have to be very cautious.

  297. @Jacob Aagaard

    Understand your caution and desire to do the best thing by the author. So one question, if it the manuscript is held back from the printer and a game such as Caruana-Wang from the Online Nations Cup 2020 impacted an assessment would it be up-dated before printing…..but if the book has been printed and warehoused before a later distribution in say August what then?

  298. @Michael
    In that scenario, if the book had been finished but not yet been printed, we would of course consult the author and make a suitable update.

    But if, heaven forbid, the book had already been printed…
    we would have no alternative but to destroy however many thousands of the book we printed, rewrite the chapter in question, redo the entire print run and then sacrifice a goat in honour of the Chess Gods in the hope that they may prevent such an atrocity from occurring again.
    Or maybe we would just live with it. Perhaps even publish an update on the blog. I don’t know, it would be a tough decision. First option sounds safer to me – perhaps make it a herd of goats to be on the safe side.

  299. Jacob Aagaard

    @Michael
    The balance point seems to be a few weeks. The physical process will always be 3-4 weeks with printing and shipping, so we always have this issue. Now it is 6-10 weeks for a few books. In comparison we know that another publisher will spend a year from receiving the manuscripts till they publish without ever consulting the authors on updates…

  300. @Andrew Greet

    No not the goat sacrifice they are really quiet nice animals…. a simple up-date on the blog would be fine!!

    In saying that I don’t think Wong’s 13th move would be the authors choice anyway so it is probably not an issue…but good to see that QC have given this possibility some thought in these unusual times and are on to it…

    Looking forward to the book being available and thanks to yourself and Jacob for your replies.

  301. Alan C Rodenstein

    Given the understandable logistical constraints caused by COVID 19, any idea when the Petroff book will be out. I have started playing the Petroff online with success and am looking forward to the new book.

  302. This leads to an urgent question:

    Are any Elephants harmed or even killed during the production of the “Electrifying Elephant Gambit” ?
    The title suggests so. Gambitting an elephant using electricity?

    I won’t buy such a book!

  303. Franck Steenbekkers

    what do you think about bring out books earlier at Forwardchess because a lot of people stay at home and have time enought to spent time at chess

  304. @Franck Steenbekkers
    This would provide us with useful income and would be great for FC plus the readers, but we decided against it because it would be a real kick in the nuts to the chess shops, who are having a difficult enough time without losing out on the additional sales which this course of action would cost them.

  305. Andrew Greet :
    @Franck Steenbekkers
    This would provide us with useful income and would be great for FC plus the readers, but we decided against it because it would be a real kick in the nuts to the chess shops, who are having a difficult enough time without losing out on the additional sales which this course of action would cost them.

    Sounds logical. I would totally buy the physical book of the Petroff AND the FC version. A construction that comes to mind that if we would be able to somehow ‘pre-order’ the physical book, we get early access to the FC version. But this is just my enthousiasm and impatience speaking.

  306. Hi, is there any update yet on Schandorff on the Caro-Kann? His GM repertoire book was superb, but is showing its age now. Still very good though Also any chance of him doing an update on his 1 d4 books?

  307. This months ChessPublishing column 1 e4 e5 has coverage of two of the lines offered in Playing the Petroff…

    Black seems to be doing fine…..!

  308. Hi, really looking forward to Playing the Petroff and Negi vs Minor Defences.

    Is there an ETA for those two?

  309. Michael Stewart

    Look forward to the coming titles , Hope Elephant comes in this year!!!If not maybe a purchase next year when I come to London, Scotland , and Ireland . If things go back to normal of course!!!

  310. Phil :
    Hi, really looking forward to Playing the Petroff and Negi vs Minor Defences.
    Is there an ETA for those two?

    Yes also interested well the Petroff book will be published.

  311. Hi! I was just browsing the 2020 catalogue and was very happy to see that there is a new Caro-Kann book by Schandorff on the production line. However, I also started wondering what is the main difference between the “Playing the…” series and the “GM Repertoire” series. Thanks! and keep up the great work! …we’ll keep buying 🙂

  312. I wonder why there is no modern publication of “Caplanca vs Alekhine – The greatest rivaly in chess”. From being friends analysing together to being enemies, not talking to each other. Today we know more about them because of new biographies like Miguel Sanchez on Capablanca from 2015.

  313. @Phil Collins I have always enjoyed their games and rivalry too.

    Although, if you hunt around, most of their games together are annotated.

    Winter in his book on Capa, like Sanchez, deals with the rivalry extensively. Not sure what else there is to say. FOr me, the real interest lies in their match.

    Alekhine’s book is difficult to get now but very good – On the Road to the World Championship. It has all the games, some with bare scores and notes, some with detailed annotations.

    Sanchez and WInter both have quite a few annotations of games from the match. Verhoeven and Skinner has all the games, There is also a Spanish language book that looks thorough. Verhoven and Skinner of course have all the games and some preamble, but not detailed annotations for this match. (The Euwe matches are different).

    I think Kasparov’s books, MGP 1 has 2 excellent sections on the match and annotates in fascinating detail

    Game 1 is in Alekhine’s game collection. Game 3 is a wonderful game, in Reinfeld and Lakdawala. Games 7, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 27 29, 31 are in MGP. Game 32 is Alekhine;s MBGOC and 34 in MGP and Alekhine and many standard endgame books. There are other sources (ie Golombek).

    However, I suspect only history anoraks like me and you would buy this book. Likewise, what would for me be a more interesting book, on the Alekhine – Euwe matches. . .

  314. Phil Collins :
    I forgot: Huebner would be the ideal man realize such a project

    Such a project wouldn’t be as unrealistic as you might suspect. Hübner has written about historic world championship matches. AFAIR he has dealt with several Lasker matches up to Lasker – Capablanca.
    The projects were first published as article series in the German mag Schach and then in a polished version in better layout as hardcover books, by Edition Marco I guess. I would suspect only such a construct made the whole thing financially feasable.
    I only know the articles series, but those were excellent stuff. The analysis focused on key points, but in those points they were on the level you would expect from Hübner. And since Dr Hübner is a scientist, all sources were clearly marked.

  315. Hübner has written about the match Capablanca-Aljechin in the german magazine “SCHACH” issues 5,6,8 in the year 1998

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top