GabrielGale wrote on 08/27/13 at 06:21:34:


I was looking for lines that are unfashionable rather than unplayable. It might be possible to go back further than 1970 to find some. I had a go at the old Batsford Pirc book, fishing the games out of Magabase and playing through them, but gave up when the scope of the task started to sink in. 

I did discover that the 6. ...Nc6 defence to the Pirc Austrian might be an "unfashionable rather than unplayable", but it wasn't ever the option in my repertoire books (they all go for 5. ...c5 or 6. ...Na6)and felt vindicated when both Vigus's Pirc in Black and White and Moskolenko's Perfect Pirc came to the similar conclusion.

Looking at old books to find these lines is a quite time intensive method, and might not be successful, but I'd be interested in better methods to do it.

My 2-10 I probably should have called "preferences" and not "principles."  But I will always stand by "clear, concise and cogent" as the fundamental principle of good exposition, or any sort.

I particularly disagree with Principle 1.  Whatever happened to the search for truth?  I think the very best opening books, indeed, are those that present detailed, objective analysis and discussion and do not look to advance the cause of either side.

Case in point: Ruslan's splendid book on the Triangle.

I would question most of the other principles, in that they seem to assume that the book in question is to be someone's exclusive reference for tournament preparation.  That implies a quite amateurish method of preparation, as well as one not very well-informed by recent games, possibly obscure corr games, etc., etc.  These days, any theory book at all is at least slightly obsolete before it is even set into galleys.  

Personally also, I can read a position just as well from either side of the board. (I admit, I do have a problem reading positions sideways!)  I see no particular need to put the Black pieces at the bottom in repertoire books for Black.  But that, of course, is a publisher's decision, based on his understanding of the preferences of likely readers.

Some of my own principles of good theoretical chess writing which, after the first, are in no particular order of significance:

1. Be clear, concise and cogent.  All the other points are corollaries of this.

2. Retain a reasonably formal level of diction.  Do not use contractions.  Do not refer to players by their first names, even if they are close personal friends.  Black and White are always referred to by the conventional English impersonal pronoun, notwithstanding that the player in question may be a female.  Use the feminine personal pronoun only when linked to a female player's name.  White consolidates his advantage; Ahmilovskaya consolidates her advantage. 

3. Avoid undue exhuberance and argumentativeness.

4. Do not waste paper, ink or the reader's time with supposedly interesting personal stories. 

5. Do not employ usages understood only on one side of the Atlantic, like "put paid to," "spoiled for choice," "pressurize" and so forth. This is something that a good editor should be able to catch.  "While" is universally acceptable, while "whilst" is a special word used only in Britain -- or is it only in England? -- southern England? -- apparently useful for conveying one's class status.  So I would advise always "while."  So long as you write well, no one cares whether you are well-educated.

6. Lay the variations out in a format easily understood.

7. Make sure that if a position appears more than once, it is evaluated the same each time.  There is software for this.  

8. Supply a clear table of variations, sufficiently comprehensive to index the various sections of the book.  Not moreso.

9. Supply verbal explanations sufficient for the understanding of the intended audience.  Most especially, point out advantages and disadvantages in terminal positions.

10. Unless the book is a collection of games, avoid the ever-so-popular "game" format ("12.Be3 is considered in Game 57").  A theory book is a theory book, and should not waste time and space explicating middle-game and endgame positions that do not flow directly out of theory.  Let us be frank, dear chessfriends:  the popularity of the game format has much more to do with the ease of casting up text with readily available software than with the supposed necessity of studying entire games. But  there is nothing necessarily wrong with including short collections of key games to augment the purely theoretical parts of the work.

TalJechin wrote on 08/24/13 at 08:01:00:


I liked that aspect of Marin's Lopez book.

I have a plan to study an opening from a sequence of repertoire books. e.g for one opening, I have a repertoire book from the 70's. one from the 80's, one from 2000, and one recent. Then I go through each, and see how choices evolve. Interesting to see what stands the test of time! Also gives a use for some of my defunked books.

TalJechin wrote on 08/24/13 at 08:01:00:

Yes! I have been agitating for years to see a book like this. Two recent books that I was hoping would have a bit of this approach are The Greatest Ever Chess Opening Ideas and Revolution in the 70s, but the former was much shallower than I hoped for (since there were 50 chapters) and I gather the latter was disappointing.

My Great Predecessors has a bit of this (I just got to Bronstein's KID) but I could use a lot more.

Bibs wrote on 08/24/13 at 03:17:57:


I'd also agree on that as long as it's a repertoire for black. Strangely, you never see it being done.

I don't think a book needs to be dedicated to a certain colour though. On the contrary, nowadays it would be refreshing with an objective view for once.

One thing I'd really like to see more is a historic perspective, i.e. delving into different ideas for each side, what's been tried and why that didn't work and how that lead to the next idea, and so on. It would be a lot of work for the author of course, but the book (or dvd) would stay useful much longer!

I am not aware of any book that satisfies all five of your principles. I don't agree with all of them anyway.

Your principle 1 is just what separates a repertoire book from a non-repertoire book. Same with principle 2.

I kind of like diagrams with the "hero" at the bottom even if the hero is Black (your principle 3) but this seems to be a turnoff for a lot of people. It probably would aid retention though.

Your principle 4 may work for some people (I know that some people really like the layout of Marin's e4 e5 books) but I prefer that the variations be in English. As for your principle 4b, I prefer that variations be sorted by order of frequency of play (which is how books usually do it).

No big opinion on your principle 5. Lay-flat is more convenient but I never seem to have much trouble keeping books open.

My own biggest principle that I routinely see violated: be thorough in tracking transpositions! Not uncommonly I will think that a move is not covered in a book, only to find that the resulting position is handled under a different line. Usually the tipoff comes when I see that the position occurs a lot in a database. The Gambit opening books tended to be really good about this. (The worst is when they note the transposition in the wrong place! Sometimes I will see a move 12 annotated with "This position also could have been reached if White played such-and-such on move 10".)

The other principle I wish more books would follow is to be very clear about which moves need to be memorized. Sometimes it is basically a game-losing decision to play a certain move 12 if you don't know all the tricks that follow it through move 17; sometimes you can basically wing it pretty early because the position is relatively quiescent. Although I really have no one to blame but myself, I've occasionally gotten caught out playing something that I thought was in my repertoire, only to find myself immediately having to calculate furiously to try to fight my way through a line littered with minefields that I hadn't bothered to learn a route through.

. .
Chess opening books are better if they obey the following five principles of opening book design:


1. Dedicated to one color only.

2. If dedicated to Black, a large variety of possible White moves should be presented and considered in every move-pair, but usually only one or two Black replies should be considered for each the immediately prior White move that is considered.
(Else the book bloats and other more important content is silently excluded; and besides a huge move tree is already a major challenge to memorize or even play through at home.)

3. If dedicated to Black, all position diagrams should have row_1 above row_8 on the page.

4. Most moves should be presented in a tree or table, to make them much easier to review the night before a tournament.
(MCO has variation IDs along the top edge of the table, and move-pairs runing down the vertical side of the table, although too often without extra space to more clearly separate each move-pair from the next.
In contrast, Artur Yusupov's The Petroff Defence has move-pairs run left-to-right along the top of the table, in true pairs where White's move is on top of Black's.
If MCO's layout includes the slight extra space, it then seems preferable to Yusupov's layout.)

4b. And the variations need to be alphabetized or sorted, perhaps by origin square coordinates then by destination square coordinates.

5. A lay-flat binding is better than a binding that must constantly be held open.


I was inspired to write this post by the dismal opening book The Petroff by Lasha Janjgava.

Janjgava's book honors principle 1, at least at the lip service level.

Janjgava's book violates principle 2, because it devotes too much space by presenting Black with more options than he needs in each move-pair branch.

Janjgava's book violates principle 3. The book is dedicated to Black, yet all its diagrams are presented from White's perspective. Why?

Janjgava's book violates principle 4, about move tables. The book is published by Gambit, which means it is required to use the double-column layout. It cannot use move tables, and instead must use the archaic eyesore of branch display that leads to paragraphs that are labeled with nesting IDs like - "e42223" (on page 91). Following these nested branch notations is harder than playing good chess.
The book does have a two page index of variations in the back, but obviously it is sparse, and one must next go to the page it references to find the necessary info.

Janjgava's book violates principle 5, as do almost all chess books. Somehow we all got the dubious idea that spiral or coil bound books were cheap and inferior, yet for chess such bindings are usually blatantly superior. Who wants the burden of holding a standard paperback open constantly while tracking variations and making marginal notes? This applies to opening books, and to shot puzzle books, at least.

Those are my thoughts and judgments, FWIWorth. I am curious to know which principles have some sympathy, and which have none. 
. .