From my research into this opening, the only thing it can be used to force is the 4.e3 variation of the QID. Other than that, when you play the CZ you are asking your opponent to decide what to play.
That has nearly, but not completely, turned me from playing it. On that issue, I wonder if White has less work using the CZ, despite this drawback. It's clear you have less control over the opening to be played. The workload relative to using another d-pawn special is not so clear at all. No one has made any attempt to clarify this issue either.
On Rudel's book, which I've read very, very closely up to the half-way mark, I think:
a) it could have been organized better b) it assumes some chess knowledge which presents a cognitive gap for 1300 players c) parts of it are better than some of the stuff already in circulation on the CZ. d) it has too many typos but that due to the nature of the publishing process with this sort of book, I think.
I would describe myself as an active as opposed to passive chess book reader. As an aging B class player/sometime A class player, and nearly retired science teacher, I struggled with it in certain places to extract real meaning. There were times I was "in the light" of the author's message and, at other times, I was in the dark.
I would say the book has its moments. The book was certainly no half-hearted attempt -- that I can assure you! It's not perfect either, but it's difficult to buy any that are, right?
Compared to Soltis' CZ, I would give it more than a passing grade.
I've not ready Palliser's book yet. If that's not it, I'll say that the best CZ book has yet to be written.
I also think, like some other posters here, that you should gather information from reading a book before making remarks about the book. Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial but that doesn't always happen in these Forums.
|