I had the Yusupov book for a short while.  Unfortunately it was one of those that came and went from my collection without ever being subjected to serious scrutiny.  I'm not saying it actually frightened me, but it was daunting seeing it up there on the shelf in my bedroom.  Not only did the enormity of what it represented - a world class player's ideal of opening study - disturb me, but the thought did cross my mind that if an intruder were to wield it as a weapon I might be killed outright by a single blow.

Marin's two books on the open games were enthusiastically received, with the main caveat being the format.  If the criticism of the layout of those books is anything to go by most readers would find the old-fashioned opening encyclopedia approach of the Yusupov book absolutely infuriating.  From the perspective of a 2100-2200 tournament player who resorts to the Petroff only occasionally, like myself, this massive tome was of very little practical use, but I dare say that someone who intended to specialize in the Petroff or play it in correspondence would find it invaluable.  

 The Raetsky & Chetverik book is an atypically comprehensive Everyman edition, granted, but it would have to be for it to be worthwhile, as the Petroff is played most intensively at the higher levels.  It goes without saying that it compares favourably with the Lalic book on the Marshall Attack, a similarly awkward subject.

 I've never had a problem with the format or the analysis, in fact it's one of the most reliable and easily navigable reference works I have, and unlike the Yusupov book I can take it out on the train without fear of discomforting the person next to me.  The Chessville reviewer suggests your average player would glean more from consulting a database; well, if  so, then a bit of expositionary prose at the start of each chapter isn't going to make that much of a difference if ideas are discernable from the games themselves.  

 Different people want different things, and honestly speaking it's as hard for me to gauge the usefulness of that book to an improving 1600 as it would be to a 2500, despite the fact that, whilst I was once 1600, I will never be 2500.  'Starting out: the Petroff' must be a more likely prospect than 'Play the Petroff' - it's not an opening that would readily lend itself to such a project.

@Scott:  Great!  It does seem like it's time to study some chess theory, then.  The Petroff's a good choice.

I've been to Laurel, but only once.  When I was living in Biloxi, in the 1970's, anything north of D'Iberville was considered rather foreign.  One of my native friends took exception to some neighbors of ours talking to me about what "we do around here." "Around here?!" she cried.  "They ain't from around here!  They're from Saucier!"  Right, about five miles north of Gulfport on Highway 49. 

Well a Class D player has better things to do with his chess time than read chess psychology books or, for that matter, study openings theory very deeply.  He should just play chess every chance he gets and spend most of the rest of his time working on tactics.  He should perhaps look at a good middlegame book or an elementary endings book like Averbach's.  He should study the openings only to the extent that it actually helps him to win his games.  

I apologize that this is somewhat offtopic, and if it results in yet another chess coaching debate I'll come back and clean it up.  But a surprising number of improving players pay way too much attention to theory, in my view.

Where in Mississippi?  I lived in Biloxi for eight years.

Btw, what is your opinion about the Yusupov's book about Petroff? I s it something like his Chess Inormant Monographs but with more explanations or it is a really good work even somehow outdated.

The Raetsky and Chetverik book is good.  You either want to play the Petroff or you don't.  Any exposition a 'starting out: the Petroff' might provide is as nothing compared to what you'd gain from actually reading Raetsky.  The man knows the Petroff, plays the Petroff, and even covers wacky sidelines in which he played the important theoretical games.

  How many books does a chess player need?  As many as he can buy...

[quote author=burnage link=1240252068/30#30 date=1240935692]I am amazed no one has yet commented on the Leko double crush of the Petroff in 4th FIDE Grand Prix Nalchik.

Well first Gelfand did repair his opening in a later round and drew comfortably -
As for Kasim's line i don't think it's that significant that he lost - he went a bit passive but nonetheless credit to leko for 2 well played games (learning from Kramnik>)

Bacrot won a nice game with 3d4 as well

If I may go back to the question of books, does anyone here have the book by Alex Raetsky and Maxim Chetverik on the Petroff? Is it any good? I'm considering it, but I want to get some feedback first. (There's only one review on Amazon right now.)

Kramnik has a lot to answer for as he has provided an even bigger obstacle to 1 e4 players than the Berlin.  I'd suggest going either 3 d4 ne4 4bd3 d5 5 de or 3 nf3 d6 4 nf3 nxe4 5 nc3 if only because these positions have a bit more life in them. 

If you know your opponent is a die hard Petroff man you could do worse than play 2 f4 or 2 bc4