I agree with Paddy to a certain extent: I thought Neil should have given the Ruy as well.

To be fair though anyone can play sharply when their opponent falls into a thematic book trap! (the Rublevsky game; 13..h6??).

Here's my review of 

Starting Out: 1 e4! – a reliable repertoire for the improving player, by Neil McDonald, Everyman Chess (http://www.everymanchess.com), 2006, 200 pages £14.99
 
Neil McDonald aims to provide a “serious” repertoire for the market which is apparently now known as the “aspiring” player (from the blurb on the back cover): no tricky crap, no quick fixes, just tried and tested, sound stuff with some ambition, that a player can continue to employ as he moves up the ranks.   

Designing a repertoire can be great fun, a sort of chess “fantasy football”. I can tell you are itching to know what he is recommending, so here goes:

1 e4 e5: the Scotch (also deals with Black’s alternatives on move 2; gives 5 Nc3 against the Petroff)): 40 pages

1 e4 c5: Open Sicilians: 60 pages!

1 e4 Nf6: Exchange Variation: 9 pages

1 e4 c6: Panov Attack: 12 pages

1 e4 d5: 2 exd5 a) 2...Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Bd2; 

b) 2..Nf6 3 Nf3 Nxd5 4 d4: 15 pages.

1 e4 d6 and 1...g6: Be3, Qd2, 0-0-0: 12 pages

1 e4 e6: Tarrasch, aiming for the Korchnoi Gambit: 12 pages

There can few arguments that the Scotch is a sound and ambitious opening which can be played at all levels of chess. There is a snag though – the great attention that the Scotch has received since its modern “re-launch” in the 1990 Kasparov-Karpov World Championship match has led to a complete metamorphosis. From being considered a strategically simple opening suitable for beginners, with relatively few variations for either sides to learn, it has become a vast complex of lines which are both strategically and tactically complex and where the best moves for White are often counter-intuitive, paradoxical or apparently anti-positional. In other words, the Scotch has become a prime example of the trend in modern opening play pointed out by John Watson in “Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy” towards concrete “move by move” play, rather than play based on positional principles.   

Is McDonalds’ choice of the Mieses Variation, for instance, really suitable for juniors or other “aspiring” players? Just look at it: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 e5 Qe7! 7 Qe2! Nd5 8 c4. In the first eight moves, White makes four pawn moves, three knight moves and blocks his f1-bishop with his queen! OK, you can argue that this is modern chess; it may be weird by classical standards but we know it works in practice (such apparently paradoxical positions have their own internal logic), and in modern chess that’s the only thing that matters.   

Yet as a teacher I have always believed that it is best to start from the simple and logical and gradually help the student move towards the complex; I would thus feel very uncomfortable recommending the Mieses as part of a student’s first opening repertoire. I think it is worth noting that many current Scotch experts such as Rublevsky started with the Scotch Four Knights rather than the Mieses. (What? Scotch Four Knights? Isn’t that boring and drawish? Well it depends. Check out this junior game by the future super-GM: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 c6 11. Qf3 Be7 12. Rae1 h6 13. Bxh6 gxh6 14. Qe3 Be6 15. Qxh6 Bd6 16. Qg5+ Kh8 17. f4 Re8 18. Rf3 Ng8 19. Qh5+ Kg7 20. Rg3+ Kf8 21. Rxg8+ Kxg8 22. Qh7+ Kf8 23. Qh6+ Kg8 24. Bh7+ Kh8 25. Bf5+ Kg8 26. Qh7+ Kf8 27. Qh8+ Ke7 28. Rxe6+ 1-0  Rublevsky, S - Novik, M, USSR-ch U20, Sochi 1990.) 

I would also be unhappy recommending another of McDonald’s Scotch lines: 4…Bc5 5 Nxc6 Qf6 6 Qf3 – how do you explain this to an inexperienced player in a way that really adds to the fund of chess knowledge that he or she needs at that level?   

It is clear from the introduction that McDonald has made a conscious choice of these lines in preference to (say) the Ruy Lopez; yet a very strong case can be made that the rapid and aggressive development that is typical of the Lopez, along with the simple, logical but powerful plan of building up a pawn centre with c3 and d4, is actually pretty easy for an inexperienced player to get his head round. Despite the huge strategic complexity of the Lopez at professional level, it actually provides a framework within which an inexperienced player can express himself without too much risk (not that I recommend the Lopez as one’s very first 1 e4 e5 opening). In contrast, the Mieses requires a large amount of detailed concrete knowledge – “the value of each move is very high” as they say. The positions in the Mieses are far from straightforward to handle – White has the better pawn structure and will have a clear advantage if he can consolidate; Black is ahead in development but has a bad structure and risks being strategically busted unless he can create enough activity. 

McDonald’s other controversial choice is the Open Sicilian. He has clearly put a lot of thought into selecting the lines he recommends in this section. He writes: “I am convinced that at the beginning of your 1 e4 career you should play the bold 2 Nf3! and 3 d4! It means more work for you, but the rewards to your chess understanding will be enormous. The resulting positions will expand your feel for the initiative and your tactical imagination, both of which are essential for your development as a player.”  He is right, of course, but it is not every player who will be willing to make the investment of time and energy required. There is also the issue of the large “maintenance bill” that you have to pay to stay up to date in such sharp and fashionable lines. 

McDonald’s other lines all seem sensible and relatively uncontroversial, with the possible exception of the Korchnoi Gambit against the French; it is not certain that this will stand the test of time. In contrast to McDonald’s treatment of the Sicilian, this seems to be one suggestion motivated more by reasons of economy rather than based on its intrinsic merits. With such a large slice of the book devoted to the Sicilian, coverage of the other defences is inevitably superficial, but McDonald generally points the reader in the right direction. 

I thought that McDonald’s dismissal of the Petroff as “a boring, turgid opening line used at the highest level to neutralize the advantage of the first move” was a bit misleading (although perhaps tongue in cheek). Consider this recent game: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 8. c3 Bd6 9. Re1 f5 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Qb3 Kh8 12. h3 Bh5 13. Qxb7 Ne7 14. Qb3 Ng6 15.Bf1 c5 16. g3 Rb8 17. Qd1 cxd4 18. cxd4 Qc7 19. Bg2 Bxg3 20. fxg3 Qxg3 21. Re2 Nf4 22. Qe1 Rbe8 23. Nxe4 Nxe2+ 24. Qxe2 fxe4 25. Qe1 Rxf3 26. Qxg3 Rxg3 0-1, Areshchenko,A (2653) – Jussupow,Ar (2595), Bundesliga 2005. Turgid, huh?  In any case, at lower levels of chess the Petroff is a perfectly sensible choice that can lead to interesting and lively games. How about this: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 8. c3 Be7 9. Re1 f5 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Nf1 Bd6 12. Ne3 Bxh2+ 13. Kxh2 Nxf2 14. Qe2 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 Bxf3 16. gxf3 Qh4+ 17. Kg2 Qxe1 18. Nxd5 Rae8 19. Nf4 g5 20. Bd2 Qxa1 21. Qc4+ Kh8 22. Ne6 Qxb2 0-1, Westra, R-Van Kemenade, R, BCF- rapidplay championship, Leeds 2000.

This book is part of the “Starting Out” series, so whilst the coverage is inevitably limited, there is a wealth of explanation and highlighted tips and warnings to help the reader. There is certainly enough material here for the reader to start playing these lines, although the serious “aspiring” player will need to supplement it with more specialized books, databases and internet sources. There is an index of variations and a list of the fifty-six complete annotated games through which the theory is conveyed. For so prolific a writer, I have to say that McDonald maintains a remarkably good average standard of work so, although I have doubts about some of his repertoire suggestions here, I am happy to recommend this book.

Verdict: an interesting repertoire book for the “aspiring” player but with some controversial elements. *** (3 stars out of five)

All in all I rather liked this book. I'm sure that players upto 2200 are well off if they can master the material in the book. I found most of the lines given by McDonald convincing and usually straightforward and quite easy to play (which I think is a major factor).  And two thumbs up for recommending the Open Sicilian.
At times he might have digged a little deeper, like against the Accelerated Dragon and the Dragodorf - also I find the recommended 7.Nf3 versus 6.-e5 Najdorf a bit tame and I don't like the Panov against the Caro-Kann at all (he really should have gone for the main line 3.Nc3, which is actually quite easy to play for white) but overall I thought the coverage to be quite good. Especially the 1.e4 e5 and the Sicilian chapters.

I'm FIDE rated about 2000 and like most players I know bits and pieces in some openings but overall my repertoire is full of holes. Some might say that a book like this doesn't goes deep enough but I would argue that if you're not super-serious about your opening repertoire then this book is all you need (at least what I need).

MNb wrote on 09/15/06 at 21:10:10:


Indeed, they could view it as a good training opportunity (being faced repeatedly with the same doubtful variation).  I wonder how many of them have studied e.g. Fischer-Gheorghiu 1970 (yes, I know Gheorghiu didn't play exactly as Willempie outlined), annotated e.g. in Michael Stean's very nice book "Simple Chess."

But that's not the fault of your clubmate, it's the fault of his opponents. Instead of complaining they should either do some work on your clubmate's defense, or avoid it with say 5.Nc3 or 2.f4. It is as simple as that.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/15/06 at 04:24:54:

What a boring piece of text

Markovich wrote on 09/14/06 at 19:37:08:

While I agree with your points, they dont really contradict what he says, especially the 2nd part. At lower levels (ELO up to 1700) the Petrov is often played in exactly this way. They just drop back with the knight to f6 and play it in a similar "mode" as the Italian 4 knights.