Does anyone other than the chessmind-blog have an opinion on this book by now?
Somehow all discussion stopped after it was actually released.
I really like the two Chess Stars books I own (Attacking the Flexible Sicilian / Attacking the English+Reti), and would like to add the Berlin to my repertoire for days where I don't feel like discussing the Marshall.
Is this book still a good idea despite being obviously dated by now? Don't really feel like I need any cutting edge theory at ~1900 level, but perhaps some of the lines are outright 'refuted' by now?
I was planning to learn the Endgame with Cox and use this for a start into the Anti-Berlins; can always update concrete lines later manually by checking out what people play nowadays (I presume that particularly the 4.d3 Bc5 5.Bc6: line has had some major developments in the last 6 years).
How does it stack up compared to the much more recent "Berlin Defence Unraveled"?
The excerpt of that one didn't read as nicely; felt more confuddled and denser than the neat Introduction-StepbyStep-CompleteGames format of the CStars books, which I've grown to love.
Should I get it anyway because 2012 is just 'too old' (even for a low rated OTB player rather than Correspondence GM)?
Or are there any other general problems with the Lysyj/Ovetchkin tome? Feedback would be lovely, thanks!
I found no problems with either Cox or Lysyj/Ovetchkin (whatever endorsement that entails) when I was looking for ways to play against the Berlin with White (the conclusion I reached was to play 3.Bc4 or 2.Bc4). For me: Cox > Lysyj > Bernal (I only read Bernal's excerpt).
I would just read the book whose style you like best. In the Berlin understanding of typical positions, common maneuvers/patterns/formations is what matters. Concrete variations and innovations matter less than in pretty much any other opening.