I have enjoyed this book, I picked it up at thinkers' press shop on a cross country road trip. While the organization is sometimes frustrating, it is a worthwhile contribution to my KID library. My only question is a) is that Andrew on the cover(I think so.) and b) who is Buckley? cheers

Wow, quite a disparity in the impressions of "King's Indian Battle Plans!"  I guess different people are looking for different things in a book like this.

I just received my copy of the book in the mail about 2 weeks ago, and I've only made it through about a third of the book (it's a big book!).  Still, I thought I'd weigh in with my opinion.   

First, I don't want to hurt IM Martin's feelings (and probably won't), but there are some problems with this book as a purely theoretical work.  Some of the analysis is dated, some of his conclusions are rather subjective, etc.  So don't buy this book if you are looking for an up-to-date, perfectly objective theoretical summary of the entire King's Indian.  (Not sure what book you would buy though.  Maybe there has been a recent ECO published on the opening.  But ECO pretty much sucks these days....)

Second, and notwithstanding the first point, I think this is a wonderful book!  It is simply chock full of ideas (or "Battle Plans," if you prefer) and great games, the vast majority of which are well-analyzed and placed in their theoretical context.  (I think I remember someone stating in this thread that this book was something like a database dump.  This is pure nonsense.  There has been a lot of work put into this book, and it shows.) 

I played the King's Indian as my main defense to 1.d4 in the late '80's and early '90s at the master level, and having gone through just a third of this book I feel that my understanding of certain lines and typical positions and their possibilities has improved substantially.  (Of course, I never really understood it that well when I played it, a fact that was reflected in my rather poor results with the opening.) 

I can't really speak to how much of this book is reflected in IM Martin's previous work on the ChessPublishing site, as I haven't done a comparison.  However, there are obviously substantial additions due to the dates of the games (there are a lot of games from 2003 and some from 2004 in the book).  And having all the material in a physically attractive book (which I think this is) is very convenient.  But it has over 240 annotated games (with a lot more without annotations in the notes)!  It's a massive book, full of interesting stuff, some of which is already on ChessPublishing.  So what?  I just don't understand the complaint about duplication.

Thirdly, I think this book and most of the advertisements for it are pretty much up front about what this book is intended to be.  It is a book of ideas, as played in many absorbing, dynamic struggles between strong players.  Sure, if you're wondering what the latest theory on the Shirov exchange sac in the Bayonet Attack is, you won't find that here.  (You will, however, find twelve nicely annotated games that will probably improve your understand of the ideas behind the Bayonet Attack.)  But that kind of theory is changing all the time, and every book on the King's Indian will be somewhat out-of-date by the time it is published.  (That's why you subscribe to ChessPublishing!).  I highly doubt that any player below, say, IM strength, could go through this book seriously and not significantly improve his or her understanding of the King's Indian.  And understanding is more important than knowledge of up-to-date theory; or rather, without understanding such knowledge is virtually useless.

I have sort of a love-hate relationship with the King's Indian.  As mentioned above, I had a fairly miserable record with it when I played it, compared to how I was doing in other openings.  At the same time, I beat a few IMs pretty badly with the opening, mostly because the King's Indian is like that, and when things go wrong for White they tend to go terribly wrong.  And there are so many wonderful games in this opening! Not just the games where Fischer or Kasparov rolled some fellow world-class GM, but the games between regular GMs and IMs as well, which are often full of tension and dynamism.  One of my most vivid chess memories is participating in the post-game analysis of King's Indian game in which GM Stefan Djuric (as Black) had beaten a local master, a game in which Black's attack seemed to come out of nowhere and then continued on for some 20 moves.  Again and again in the post-game analysis Djuric would refute our suggested improvements of White's defense with these simply amazing sacrificial lines.

Finally, you could also just view this book as a collection of such games, and (for me at least) it is more than worth the price of admission simply as that.  So for a number of reasons (some possibly unique to me but many, I suspect, not) I really like this book.  And I am looking forward to finishing the remaining two-thirds. 

     - Geof

Hi Andrew,

it's great that you have answered this topic!!!
Well, I am still reading the book, and there are really a lot of interesting games and much to learn! So I guess I can say that I don't regret buying it!
But, as I was also looking for a kind of up-to date theoretical coverage of the KID (something that has not been done in a long time...) I was a little disappointed!
For instance, I don't really understand what you recommend vs the Bayonet (is it 9...c6???...is the main line really bad for black????) or vs the Classical (after say, 9. Ne1 Nd7 10.Be3 and 13.a4...)...is 7...Ng4 really bad????
well, a lot of interrogations as you can see 

Well well well, very interesting stuff indeed, it would seem that my post has struck a nerve and for some reason some of you seemed to have been offended by it. That's a shame as that was not the intent.

Gunter seems particularly peeved for some reason, and for one so passionate it surprises me that he is too lazy to even bother to register on this forum as a member but would rather just repeatedly log on as a guest.

Regarding my previous post I make absolutely no apologies as I call it as I see it. Quite frankly Andrew is capable of much better, he is a talented writer and to whom much is given much is expected.

Admittedly I have not read the book and I said as much, however, I am a gold member at Chesspublishing.com (All 12 sites, at least I think they are 12) and noticed that the reservations and disappointment expressed by Krugman and others about Andrew's new book matched exactly the way I felt about his work when he ran the KID website.

Regarding references to my playing strength, let me just say that one need not be a Gourmet Chef to know when food is delicious and when it is not. Gunter, if you find Andrew's recent book delicious, then all the better for you, as for me, I have a more discerning palate.    

Regards

Top  

  We're getting a bit closer to the truth now but don't ask me to have anything other than contempt for weak players with a big mouth who just want to get some kicks criticizing. Like that topnotch dickhead. It's not just this book but a whole range of other chess products and books.

  Of course there are various vested interests in the chess world whose job it is to see that certain books or products do NOT succeed .

  A whole new topic!

  Hey Krug, it's easy to say a guy is getting sloppy or that his books are rubbish or that he's getting old and just can't cut it anymore in the chess world etc .

  So,with respect to you I ask Top Notch ( huh) direct- give some evidence to back up your words. That's all.

   The internet has spawned a whole new generation of chess book reviewers. Would these guys ' put the work in ' and write a chess book. No,they prefer to condemn.

   For me Martin's book has obvious flaws but the vast majority is good, if not very good and sometimes brilliant. I can make up 2/3 different opening repertoires from this one book!. We haven't heard much about that though 'cause it's more fun to criticize.  Kinda pathetic.


  Maybe Martin could respond to all this.
 

  The last post is unreal.He is slamming the book and he hasn't even read it or got it!!

   Yeh,right

   Take care guys...

yes, I own the book and I did read it!
Maybe I shall say again that I am not flaming the book just for my pleasure but because I find the book at times inconsistent I can't stand inconsistency in a chess book...
compiling and commenting on games is nice but is not the only job an author has...
you can compare this book with, for instance, Rowson's book on the grunfeld which is also an "ideas" book, and he's consistent, doesn't give 2 different evaluations for the same line...

  As Martin states in the introduction,this is a book of ideas,not an exhaustive theoretical survey. I respect all other posts on this topic and I see where Krugman is coming from, however when I need an idea for a game,I shall come to this book,not to the soulless Chessbase or to the encyclopaedia of chess openings.

  I shall make the point that some people get a kick out of finding things wrong. For instance,somebody has a quick glance at the book and then states that they think it is mess,without playing through a single game or commenting on the chess itself.

  This book for me is a contrast between very good chess and analysis and shoddy editing as others have remarked upon. I hope Krugman and I can agree on that.

  I saw an excerpt from this book in the English magazine CHESS. It was well laid out, had diagrams in all the right places and was a pleasure to read. I believe it was how the author would have wanted it. The same information in the book looks cramped by comparison and is almost without a diagram. It looks like the publisher was trying to save space and has ended up shooting himself in the foot. I don't know why.

  My assessment is you should buy this book for the chess alone,which is very good, but be prepared to accept some layout problems.

  Thank you.

   I have read the book now and I do not understand what Krugman is referring to. In Game 2 E99 Summerscasl-Hebden,  Martin gives 13 a4 a6 an exclam whereas in Summerscale-Black, Game 4 after 13 a4 Black plays 13...Rf6 14 Nb5! a6,which is different. The conclusion is that it is unwise to allow Nb5.

  Critical as well as analytical rigor is also good.

   

well, I don't really criticize the erratic part...even though I don't understand why he didn't put all games in the same variation next yo each others...but I criticize the lack of rigor...when you get different assesments of the same variation in two different games, obviously something has gone wrong...one gets the impression that he has annotated each game at different times but without checking what he had already said...it is really disappointing...
as to the ideas, I really do agree!!!

I have to admit that I am also a little disappointed...ther are lots of contradictory evaluations in the games : for instance, in the Classical after 10.Be3 and 13.a4 in one game he gives an exclam mark to 13...a6 while 2 games later he says that this is not good and that 13...a4 is better...as Gallagher says in his book...and it is the same thing in the Bayonnet...I find this really disturbing...a good book should be rigourous...
I know it's not an encyclopaedic book, but I would have loved to know what lines are supposed to be best for black...anyway, there are lots of ideas to get in this book!

I liked it. As far as I remember Martin quit the KID site in 2002.There is an enormous amount of new info from 2003 and even 2004 so that's as current as you are going to get. Not a rehash.

The book is just different. I don't think that geophys could have read the introduction or he would have understood the philosophy of the book a bit better.

The editing isn't always up to scratch but that's a minor quibble. The chess in the book is fantastic.

Andrew Martin's new book Battle Plans in the King's Indian is in stock and available through Chessco. com

www.chessco.com/shownews.php?show=1077578197

I hope it is available through Barnes and Noble soon, as I have a gift certificate to use there.