The second edition of this book has been reviewed by Carsten Hansen in May 2010 and he wasn´t too favourable about it but seemingly liked the first edition: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen132.pdf

I know the line you´re thinking of, although Flear lost a game himself as Black in the last few years with this. To be honest the problems with the main-line Guico are in the main-line like they always have been, and for that reason Sveshnikovs e5 line is more of a threat which Devilman´s clubmates are playing against him! (Marin had to update his own book after losing in this line).

"dishonest" no. The tone of the whole Watson review makes me suspect there is some history between him and the authors, cant prove it of course but that review was completely over the top.

The lines are not mainstream but there is a fair amount of theory, the weakness of the book is the gaps which means you have to plug in the missing bits. Also I dont like the recomendation against the Caro-Kann (although its solid) or the Sicilian (but here its personal - a well prepared player will do very well with this Grand Prix stuff, look at Gawaine Jones). Like I said before its an interesting book that goes against the mainstream, unduly hatcheted by Watson.

Bottom line is if you dont like the book dont buy it, but dont go by the Watson review - have a look at the book yourself! From what I´ve seen here most people are going "based on what I saw in Watsons review" and have not read the book.

SWJediknight wrote on 09/28/09 at 20:26:31:


No book should be taken as gospel , all books have errors. I think this book is most helpful for 2300+ or candidate master players who recognize the gaps and appreciate the ideas, but I hate putting a level on books because it all depends on the person. Like all books if it gets you to think and look at things critically its a good book, if not it ends up on the shelf or is just duplicating the job of a database.

Straggler wrote on 09/28/09 at 22:51:04:


Well, yes, but 3...Bc5 is the Italian proper, 3...Be7 the Hungarian and 3...Nf6 the Two-Knights.

TN wrote on 09/28/09 at 12:52:11:

Exactly for this reason I would not recommend it to new players under 1600 either. I don't know the chapter about the Winawer, but I have seen the Caro-Kann and GPA-stuff. Based on that I can only agree with Watson.
The repertoire for Black seems to be better.

MNb wrote on 09/27/09 at 20:15:47:

Davies also recommends the Two Knights. But doesn't "the Italian" mean 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4?

Keano wrote on 09/28/09 at 14:12:07:


I was talking about d3; Ne4 is just a low-theory alternative to the mainline. I didn't claim it is the best but I do claim it is adequate. 

7. ... d3 isn't better for black but it does take sting out of the iniative of white. I do believe a comfortable equality is the result. 7. .. dxc3 just doesn't make sense to me: you let white play Qe2 with a tempo and then you open up the position out of free will... .

I can only thank the gods for COWE. Several players at my club play the Scotch gambit thanks to this book but the book doesn't consider the best move after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 Ne4 (recommended by Davies in Play 1. e4 e5!) 6. Qe2 Nc5 7. c3. It only considers 7. ... dxc3 which is good for white but neglects the best move: 7. ... d3 after which I don't see a lot of problems for black. 

Keano wrote on 09/28/09 at 12:40:46:


Having reread the review, I disagree. If you compare the repertoire with Perelshteyn's games, as Watson has done, it is clear that if Perelshteyn has played a game where the opening repertoire in the book fails to achieve the desired result, then the variation is completely ignored. Also, one good novelty in a chapter does not make the chapter good - in fact, in the Bd2 line most of the assessments are incorrect as the key variations are nearly always ignored. Even in the variation they refuted, the authors neglected several more important variations, and several of the proposed 'novelties' are not superior to previously played moves in the given position, in that they also fail to obtain the advantage. 

Whilst some of the ideas are good, the analysis is not very good as it is either incomplete, offers incorrect evaluations or ignores important options. To take an extreme example, the Phillidor via. the common move order 1...d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5/Nbd7 is completely ignored, and in the 1...e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 move order, the authors advocate 4.de5, which should only lead to equality as the position is too symmetrical after ...d6 for White to claim any advantage. I recall that the coverage of the Voronezh Variation in the Alekhine was also very brief although to be fair that was probably one of the better sections of the book as at least the analysis given was of a good quality.

The book could be recommended to a new player, say under 1600, to introduce them to an opening repertoire, but the main problem in my view is that it teacher the player bad habits in studying the opening and will leave the reader unprepared for the most common variations. This sets up the player for a range of problems later in their career. As Watson says in his conclusion, 'some GMs are profiting from this book, but not by improving their chess.'

Opening books are also about scientific integrity to some extent. Leaving out Black's best, while well-known or easy-to-find moves in a repertoire book for White is dishonest. This is exactly what Dzjindzi did as has been proven not only by Watson. I think that a good reason for bashing.

Devilman wrote on 09/26/09 at 22:59:12:


It's a sin to play 1...e5 and not know the Two Knights, especially at your level.  Take up the Two Knights!  In your line, 4...Nf6!.

Devilman wrote on 09/27/09 at 00:31:33:


No, you don't disturb. It's just that I doubt if we really can help you with your questions. It's not true that it's hard to find books for Black. More or less recently are published books by Kaufmann, Marin (repertoires for Black) and Palkovi (general overview of the Italian). If I am not mistaken the repertoire book by Davies also recommends the Italian. Emms prefers the 2K.
But at your stage you also could do well with older stuff. On my shelves I have volume XI/1 of the German version of the Euwe-series and Pachmann's Moderne Schachtheorie. Both are from the 80's and when it comes to stuff like this they still are satisfactory. In these two books you already could have found out about the disadvantages of 5...Qe7. They are known since the corr. games London-Edinburgh of 1824.
Thank you for confirming my point. Now I am strongly convinced that you need some good book.

This puts me in mind of a game Rossolimo-Evans which went 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. d4 ed(?) 6. 0-0 d3 and now Evans described 7. e5 (as played by Rossolimo and given by TN) as "a sharp move which virtually wins by force."  Classic open-game stuff.

5...Qe7 appears very dubious: 6.0-0! (Even 6.cd4 Qe4 7.Be3 d5 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.0-0! Bc3 10.Bd3 Qe7 11.bc3 favours White) 6...Ne5 (sadly this is necessary as 6...dc3?! 7.Nc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.Bd2! with the twin threats of Bc3 and b4 is clearly better for White; 6...d3 7.e5! d6 8.b4 Bb6 9.ed6 Qd6 10.a4 is also very depressing for Black) 7.Ne5 Qe5 8.cd4 Bd4 (probably the lesser evil as after 8...Qd4 9.Qb3 Nh6 10.Bh6 gh6 11.Bf7 Kd8 12.Nc3 Black is in dire straits) 9.Nd2 (9.Qb3!? may be even stronger) 9...Bb6 10.Nf3 Qh5 11.Be2! (threatening Ng5) 11...Nh6 12.Ng5 Qg6 13.e5 and Black is under heavy pressure from White's more mobilised army. 

Conclusion: Avoid 5...Qe7 and play 5...Nf6 as it is clearly the best move for Black.

You could of course also look up the basic stuff in e.g. ECO or NCO.  But I wouldn't be surprised if such books don't mention 4...Qe7 (one wonders what Black has in mind after 5. 0-0 ...).

@MNb: I wrote that example because it was a blitz game i played yesterday at the club.
You are correct, i know no theory about 2K and italian, but it's hard to find a good book for black.
Thank you for the hint, i won't do the Bb4+ automatically.
Another question if i don't disturb... Is 4..Qe7 a good move?
@TN: Thank you very much

If several of your opponents are only using COWE to study the Scotch Gambit, then this is extremely good news for you, as this book is of a very low quality and full of simple holes. 

For example, you can play 4...Nf6 5.e5 Ne4 and be certain of achieving an advantage against players blindly following Dzindzi. Not only does their recommendation not achieve a clear advantage (they claim +/-), but in fact leads to an inferior position by force. You also have to prepare for 5.0-0, but if you study the theory after 5...Ne4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bd5 Qd5 8.Nc3 Qh5 you will equalise. 

I recommend you look at Watson's review of Chess Openings for White Explained on TWIC to find other holes in the book. It's at the end of review #77.

Hello,
I'm a 1..e5 noob, i didn't play it for many years and now i would like to resurrect it, my elo is 1800+.
My new friends at the chess club usually play the Scotch Gambit and i would like to find a neat way to get advantage against them in the game, i think they studied the "Chess Openings for White, Explained - Alburt, Dzindzichashvili & Perelshteyn".

An example
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 (i don't know 2 knight defense so i try to transpose to giuoco piano)
5. c3 Nf6 6. e5 d5 7. Bb5 Ne4 8. cxd4 Bb4+ 9. Bd2 Nxd2 10. Nbxd2 Bd7 11. 0-0 
My idea is 11..Ne7 to change the white bishop... but i don't like this position...
So I would like to know what theory says about scotch gambit (which i never heard about when i was young  ) or if there's a better way to play against it, can you lend me some lines/ideas?