OK, here is my question, I just read the review on ChessCafe which has this excerpt:
Quote:In the Foreword the author, Bulgarian grandmaster Delchev, describes his efforts assisting former Women's World Champion Antoaneta Stefanova in preparing for a couple of tournaments. First they went with a repertoire that required sharp play and plenty of memorized lines. Unfortunately, this approach failed because Stefanova lacked confidence in some of the most principled openings. So for the second tournament, they went in the opposite direction, aiming to throw the opponents out of their preparation and make them think for themselves in unfamiliar positions. The switch was from move-by-move memorization to plan-oriented thinking, and this proved quite successful. At the conclusion he writes about the books target audience and makes some interesting and good points:
"Club players have probably noticed that their opponents as a rule are well prepared against the central opening 1 e4/1 d4. If you are disappointed with your results, or just tired of endless studying the latest analyses in the most explored variations, you'll find here a viable repertoire versus 1...d5. You might also use my suggestions as surprise weapons.
Then I scan through this thread, and see people discussing theory fifteen moves deep. While grandmasters may indeed be able to remember 15 moves deep on various lines OTB, I know such learning is a total waste of time for me (one unexpected move and it all goes kaput).
So is this book actually less theoretical than, say, developing a D4 repertoire where you play the exchange, anti-meran, and similar? Is this book worth getting for someone around 1800 in terms of ideas for an OTB repertoire (as opposed to a theoretical discussion repertoire), or not?