Semkov wrote on 05/19/11 at 19:00:16:
I was really scared that the original title "The Grünfeld for Black" would cause confusion with Avrukh's title. Delchev's book is (supposedly) quite different from Avrukh's work and I wanted to distinguish it. I'd like to hear more opnions on the structure in comparison to Quality's layout of the material. My own opinion is that most of the detailed analyses are either superflous /or irrelevant/ or wrong/ or anybody could switch on the engine for them. So it is much more important to focus on ideas and move orders. But I might be wrong. We actually produce both type of books.
I'll try to post my thoughts on this (preview, I am around 2200 fide, most friends say I'm stronger with the little flaw I basically have no black repertoire which slows me down: this book was exactly what I needed
). In my view today, when we all have databases and strong engines, good opening books can be divided in: 1) lots of new original analisis: stuff which would be difficult to discover/evaluate even with the engine (Avrukh?!); 2) lots of "words" with plans and typical stuff well explained followed by a theory section which must, for space reasons, be less detailed than in the first category, but the reader should get enough understanding by the first section to solve most problems (maybe in post mortem) (Delchev!). Personally I think that strong players (i.e. over 2350-2400) would benefit mostly from Avrukh-style books whereas lesser mortals would profit more from a Delchev-style book as it requires less memorization (and time) to be studied. I remember going through a Catalan line from GM1 and reading a comment like "and white has a dream position" and having no clue on why I had to party in that position!
I prefer the Delchev style format, and I actually confess that for some lines I have studied only the Main Ideas and some of the Complete Games and had good results nonetheless (e.g. 2,5/3 against the Benko or 3,5/5 with black against 6.f4 in the Najdorf)! The "evolution" of the first chapter from "Quick repertoire" to "main ideas" doesn't chop much theory while there are more typical ideas (although Kolev in the sharpest sicilian did a magnificent work in mixing theory and main ideas toghether!).
Of course this depends a lot on the author: Marin and Avrukh did totally different books in the same series, but I still find the Chess Stars approach at least more practical.
Even the choiche of the variations may be wiser: Avrukh (but also Marin at times) suggests getting into main lines, sharp lines!, against openings which as white a non professional may meet 1-2 times a year (the Leningrad Dutch for example) with the result that the suggested line leads you to a position where the overwhelming difference in experience with the black player who plays the opening all the time more than compensates the advantage you (should) have as white. I prefer to get an equal position where I know what to do rather than getting an advantage I have no idea on how to exploit.
Pages: [1] 
New Grünfeld Book: The Safest Grünfeld (Read 81197 times)
