I have to say I consider this book one of the most impressive opening books ever -- really a masterpiece relative to its intended purpose -- and it has a chance of being my main 1.d4 resource or maybe even my main White repertoire in the future.  My openings background is 1.e4 except for one year playing 1.d4 2.c4, so I think I am a prime candidate for the book's target audience.   

I particularly like Burgess's recommendations where e2-e4 may appear without c2-c4: obviously the Torre Attack, but also the 6.a4 King's Indian.  The latter can resemble a sort of Philidor/Pirc where a2-a4 is an absolutely normal/logical move, but the LS-bishop is on g2 rather than its usual home on c4.  It seems to me the bishop is placed well on g2 assisting queenside play with ideas of a4-a5-a6 rather than on c4 since a direct attack on the king can be difficult to organize.   

Of course, being a 1.e4 player I would not hesitate to transpose to a Pirc or Open Sicilian or French, which is in the spirit of the book although obviously beyond its scope.  For example, I am not convinced by Eingorn's "rock-solid" coverage of 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3!? (2.e4) 2...c5 3.e4 for the "accidental" Sicilian player who invited a French on the previous move -- also at White's option.

This forum post is not a proper "review" but i felt an urge to share my appreciation and enthusiasm for the book and hope it will spur others to comment.  I don't think the book is good as a "starter" 1.d4 repertoire as it assumes a comfort level with different types of positions and a sort of intuitive acceptance that we are not doing the same plan against everything because the aim is to be shifty and crafty.  Burgess is a smart man who put a lot of time and thought into this project, and in my opinion he succeeded impressively.

The book is generally well laid-out and simple enough to play casually after a couple sittings.  The one exception, which i've not sorted out, are the many Slav and Semi-Slav transpositions-- e.g., when to play Nbd2 vs. Nc3 and when to gambit the c4-pawn.  These are not readily apparent to me after a couple perusals of teh book.  Of course i don't blame Burgess for this.

Seeley wrote on 10/10/13 at 21:52:29:

At page 18 Burgess writes, "This is known as the Mannheim Variation... 4...c6 5.Qxc4 is a solid line that can also arise from the Slav."  Does that count as mentioning the transposition?

I can't disagree there.

A fair bit of it perhaps because a book called 'play whatever you like the look of' wouldn't be terribly easy to write

doesnt Steve Giddins in his book on building an opening repertoire make the point that club players often put too much emphasis on having a style? much of this probably comes from the material we read and encourages us to classify ourselves in this way.  

I like the reasoning behind the options chosen by Burgess, and in addition feel that it would very much help a club player find his own style or chess identity, especially at the lower end of the club/tournament spectrum as it gives them a wider choice of options to use.  

Burgess's selection is also useful for those players transitioning from D-pawn special repertoires to a more standard range of openings. They may already play the Torre, or be using something that involves starting the game with d4 and Nf3 such as the colle, zuketort or london system. Or, they may be a tromp player looking for alternative lines.

ReneDescartes wrote on 01/26/14 at 23:51:45:


Thank you for your reply! Personnally, as black I have a harder time defending against the catalan than the Bf4-QGD. I agree with Stigma. My first reaction when seeing the contents of this book is the numerous transpositions that Burgess evokes but do not make of, prefeering instead 4 completely different setups (Bf4-QGD, g3-Semi-slav, e3-Slav, Qa4-QGA) and thus many more subvariations (at least 4 more for the Slav only). Far from being a casual-player repertoire.

But the question then arises: Is it really more important for club players (the likely target audience for a repertoire book like Burgess') to make things difficult for the opponent than to develop a consistent style themselves?

Despite the many sidelines, Burgess' repertoire is quite ambitious in the sense that it expects White to be comfortable with lots of different types of positions and plans. But players who can do that are already strong or rapidly developing, and may as well adopt critical main lines! Maybe the ideal reader is a strong, versatile club or international player who for some reason doesn't have the time or memory to play main lines.

Personally, I use it the same way I use any other repertoire book: Mix and match, pick only the lines that appeal to me and ideally do some independent work on them.

Question : as Burgess suggests the fianchetto (5. g3) against the Triangle, is there a reason why he does not recommend the whole Catalan too against QGD and Semi-Slav? Wouldn't it be more coherent?

Title therefore caps. 
A simple language point.