GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/16/07 at 22:14:27:


I suppose you don't like giving up the centre with 3...exd4, but isn't there still d6, Nf6, Nbd7 = no ending - or don't you like white's g4 stuff?
I've never understood why GMs write on an opening and then give it up. - Wouldn't the writing process provide extra depth to the understanding of the opening in question, which should be an edge in an era when most players skip thru a few mainlines on their laptops just before the game...

Personally, I have the opposite problem - no one touches their e-pawns on the first move anymore. 

I heard Marin recommends 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 Bc5 for black, does he give any analyses after the critical 4.fxe5 d6 5.exd6 Qxd6 ?

I had a good look through the Scotch 4 Knights chapter yesterday, which is very good (although once again White can force a draw at the end of the mainline!!) but found it very annoying playing a move and then having to go to another page to read the note, then back to play the next move, then back to read the next note, ... etc. I hope I never see another book with this format in my life!

Yep, this seems to be a curse of many repertoire books. Daives' "Play 1.e4 e5" also gives White the option of a  forced draw in one of the Ruy Lopez Keres lines. And many Pirc repertore books recommend lines against the Austrian Attack that give White the option of a forced draw. The recent "Ruy Lopez" A guide for Black" reccommends as its core defence one that gives White the option of forced repetition. But to be fair, here, at least the authors offer an alternative.  ( And of course all Caro-Kann books give White the option of a draw at will  )

I think the question is as a writer, when you think a line is objectively the best option for Black, how do you go about reccommending another line which you don't believe in.  

Personally this "problem" has never been a problem for me since I never rely on any repertoire book as a complete solution.

I was browsing through two lines in the book yesterday and both main recommendations lead to a draw by repetition, although the book is definitely called 'Beating the Open games'!!
I have the impression that whilst the 'repertoire' is very correct, and solid, many of the lines may only be of use against players with the same ELO or higher where you are happy with a half point.

I recently got the book and I am not sure yet what to make of the format. Basically, Marin gives some games where he demonstrates the ideas, then he gives the ECO style table with the reccomended moves, followed by footnotes.

I am keeping an open mind as I make my way throught the book - I reserve judgment.

By the way, Klyemeister, what do u mean Marshall move order?

I have just bought the Marin book, and I have to say I am surprised and a little bit disappointed!
The way he has arranged the material is very strange and he gives too much space to lines that he rejects, and bad moves, in an attempt to show what one should avoid. For instance, in the Evans Gambit chapter he discusses 3 moves in some depth, and then devotes only two paragraphs to his favoured 4th move! There then follows an ugly ECO style section which deals solely with this 4th move  (7...Nge7). I would much have preferred to see the space given over to instructive games involving this move, with the alternatives consigned to small notes.
Still, there is obviously a lot of useful information to be gleaned from this, and I shall be bringing it with me to future tournaments!
Regarding 'false friends' I have to admit to employing more and more of these since moving to France a few decades ago, and I even sometimes find myself completely forgetting the English equivalent of a French word!
I do most of the editing on ChessPublishing and I can say that the 'House Style' is to allow any terms (or even misspelt words) if they sound sufficiently 'chessic', i.e. if their meaning would be completely understood by a chess player, or they are in fairly common use amongst chess players.