Mtal wrote on 02/09/16 at 16:17:48:


The point, I assume, is to play ...Bf5 and exchange Bishops without allowing the standard 7...Nge7 8 Qh5

Thanks for that. I have the DVDs, but I haven't finished watching them yet. I was thinking of getting the book as a companion, so I can look up the lines easily. Knowing where they differ helps with knowing how that will work out. 

Also, I don't currently play the Winawer (I like the MacCutcheon too much), though I may try it out if Williams makes it look fun enough. Not for at least another 3 weeks, though - I'm currently training for a major tourney, and just trying to learn my current openings better, not switch any out.

So I see this thread's been dead for a while, but I figured I'd ask anyway, and hopefully somebody who knows will answer. Does Williams cover all the same lines in this book that he did in the "Killer French" DVDs? Are there significant differences between the two, as far as his repertoire choices? Or more variety of lines in the book or something?

Any info would be appreciated.

I wouldn't say gaps, its more about the odd thing perhaps not being super thorough, and more importantly some of the lines being (purposefully!) slightly marginal in terms of soundness.

Depends what you're after If you're happy with the lines then suspect mostly just the usual bit of database/analysis work.

If you want some sounder back up/alternative lines then either one of the generalist books (Psakhis say), or play the French 3. 
(or one of the several other French repitoire books about.).

Of course a chesspub subcription to the French section might well do both (no guarantees cf coverage of all of William's stuff but certainly some of it, and plenty of alternative ideas to chew over!).

I'm not totally sure if either of the books you mention will quite do either. They're more coverage of a few interesting lines than anything more specific. They might well give some good ideas for alternative lines, and its all useful knowledge.

Really do think its a little bit of a mistake to tightly fixate on one repitoire because one of the French's biggest pluses is the sheer variety of sound ideas it offers black.

Yup. Interesting that PTF2 had this in a side note but (suboptimally I think?) without g5/h3 included. 

No mention of 10 Nbd2 but 10 Nxd4 is in with a - seemingly entirely reasonable - comment that its just a bad version of the TMB. 

Not that this section is unobjectionable - using 11 Nxd4 Bc5 12 o-o? as his main (complete) game is a bit bizzarely wasteful! Perhaps it was the only good game he could fine, in which case its the format at fault

The coverage of 7 dc is a bit light/dismissive too. After all whites getting what was a main line (esp if a subsequent b4/b5) with black committed to an unusually early, if reasonable, Rc8. It might in fact be whites best in a practical sense this.

Also you could quibble that after what he identifies as the critical 12 Ne2 - in an extensive side note - and then 12.. Bxf2+ 13 Kf1 f6 14 Nbc3 fe 15 Ba4 he only gives 15 .. Bc5 16 Bxg5 Be7 and isn't clear if black is OK or not. 

Fair enough but 16 .. Ne7 really does seems more logical and could well be a little better. But then again by then I think he's already gone a little beyond what anyone else has done on this.

So I don't know. You can imagine how scary the chapter would look if say Watson was giving this as a primary choice!

Yes, thats tricky.

Its unarguably not the sort of very thorough book that say Watson produces and you'd be mad to rely on it for correspondence chess! 

What I'm not sure about is how serious that is. The book seems to be aiming at the sort of people who want to get rather sharp positions permitting attacking play regardless of their absolute theoretical merit. 

The lines seem good for that and there's perhaps enough detail - at UK club level I'd say that there probably is. There's some detail in places and - unlike quite a few gambit repitoires - a plausibly sound basis for it all.

So on those terms perhaps OK. Subjectively I found it fun to read, and wouldn't use most of the lines anyway for various reasons (a lot of choice in the French!).

Back to Simon Williams' book, my copy arrived a few days ago.  I played the French a while back and I'm starting to play it again in tournaments, so I'm no expert but I wanted to give my first impressions.

Williams does an excellent job verbally explaining what is going on in most positions.  For the most part he's chosen very instructive games  and actually treats the Exchange with a little bit of depth.   

His chosen repertoire lines are all extremely sharp.  I get the impression that the book is almost more of a large Dangerous Weapons repertoire from Black's point of view.  For instance, in the Advance Variation, he focuses exclusively on 5...Bd7 intending ...f6, Qc7, and 0-0-0.  Certainly fun stuff but it's a far cry from the Nimzovitch approved way of handling these positions.  At times I wish he provided some coverage of more "positional" stuff; in my opinion, the regular lines of the Advance give Black plenty of opportunity to play for a win.  But others might love his recommendations.  There are a lot of interesting ideas here (at least for someone that hasn't kept up with all the latest theory like myself).  One recommendation I find intriguing is 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bd7 6.Bd3 Rc8!?, threatening to play ...cxd4 and ...Nb4 going after White's Bishop.  Williams' main line leads to some very interesting tactical possibilities for Black where the 2nd player sacs a piece for two pawns and some chances against White's King.  I don't know if it will end up being rubbish or not, but it's certainly interesting.  That's my main gripe with the book, though; a lot of his recommendations look interesting (and he's played most of them himself), but I get the feeling that, deep down, they just might not be entirely sound.  Stronger players and time can judge.

Also, I played the old game of pitting repertoire book vs. repertoire book with Tzermiadianos' book.  Frankly, I thought Tzermiadianos did a better job of covering the line where the two books overlap.  Williams' line ends with the conclusion of approximate dynamic equality (I don't remember the exact phrase he used) and Tzermiadianos claims a slight edge for White.  I agree with the Tzermiadianos, but you can't really complain about White getting an edge.  My problem is that Williams doesn't really offer any new ideas to combat Tzermiadianos' repertoire; if you play Williams' recommendation down the line against Tzermiadianos', you won't present the White player with any new problems to solve.  Maybe I missed some notes or something somewhere, but that was my impression.  You can't expect Williams to completely overturn theory, but I think most authors can be expected to provide new problems to present against other popular repertoire books, and I don't think Williams did that here.

Those are my initial thoughts; I'd be curious to hear other people's as well.

I'm quite shocked by some of the posts criticising Marshall's article.

The aim of these columns is not to provide a comprehensive coverage of the theory of a variation but rather to explain contemporary opening variations move by move, so that club players and below understand the variation well enough to play it successfully. The target audience for these columns is <2000 players, for whom the opening will rarely decide the outcome of the game. That said, even I have learned from her columns. 

If I claimed that 'Chess Tactics for Beginners' was a terrible program because I find all the puzzles very easy, everyone would laugh at me. However it seems to be okay to do a hatchet job of any opening book or article if you are not the target audience. 

I think dom's reply is the most constructive - some lines aren't considered, but that said, the article doesn't try to cover absolutely everything. 

Daniel, Sverre Johnsen wrote the second edition of 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' by himself, and the book was quite good. Also, David Rudel is not a bad chess author. 

I've gone quite off-topic, so I'll mention that Robert Hess has used 3.ed5 ed5 4.Bf4 with success. So it's certainly not a bad repertoire recommendation.