kevinludwig wrote on 07/22/15 at 13:33:30:



I agree with Watson's review. I think there is still a place, more than 15 years later, for a one volume opening manual, and NCO was excellent. 15 years later, theory has moved on, but the book still holds up better than any other single volume opening book from the last millennium. That may not be saying much, but I actually use NCO more often than ECO even now. I like the evaluations and look for places where they disagree with specialists. Rather than see this as a negative, as Watson did, I look at these disagreements to see how I can catch my opponents out.

I'm pretty sure that almost every serious student of the game today uses some sort of database and most use other electronic resources to come up with their own chess theory. But there's still a place for GM analysis and evaluations. There's still a place for an updated NCO.

I think they don't make them because few buy them. Why that is, I'm not sure. I never really used them much myself, because when I wanted to learn an opening I got a book on it, in which the author spent a long time explaining which lines are good, critical, stylistically a certain way, etc, and what some thematic plans are. NCO just left a lot out., and I don't mean lines.

Out of curiosity, how do you use it--when, on what occasion, do you look up a line in it now? In building a repertoire carefully before trying it in play? In adjusting your repertoire? After a blitz game? After a slow game? I understand you're saying that the selection of lines there is in some way unique, but when do you employ it?

In each of these situations, I use a different resource, certainly not MCO/BCO/NCO.

DenVerdsligeRejsende wrote on 07/24/15 at 08:30:54:

I realize that I haven't yet described on my blog in detail my schematic approach to research games for an in-depth study of an opening. This is surely worth a separate article which I will schedule for later. In fact it is only since a few years that I can really say that I have a schematic approach. A few things I can already say in advance.
1) I start with the + 2700 games and analyze them first. Gradually I lower the bar to minimum + 2300. Further I look to correspondence games, computer games and my own practice (including online blitz)
2) The tool based on my article http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2013/08/green-moves.html let me win a huge amount of time

Sure remembering everything is the other hard part. I already wrote an article about that on my blog last year: http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2014/06/archiving.html

Further I also want to point out you need an additional approach for positions where there are few or no reference games yet. I believe my latest article can support here: http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2015/07/computers-achieve-autonomy.html

Finally I want to state that my methods are based on more than 20 years of working with computers and playing chess. During this long period I have changed many times my method and made many optimizations. I just want to say that methods are just tools and should not be regarded as infinite wisdom.

DenVerdsligeRejsende wrote on 07/22/15 at 22:13:33:

GM BryanSmith wrote a few days ago http://www.chess.com/article/view/making-a-plus-in-the-petroff
He clear states that you have to make your own homework: "I began to look up games in this line. It was interesting to see the evolution of the players of the white side trying to find an advantage, and the Black attempting to counter this."

Sometimes I go through hundred of games to define what is popular, bad, critical.

I heard that the French GM Edouard Romain (crossed briefly the 2700 in June 2014) spends each day about 5-6 hours to study theory. Interviews of Kramnik, Anand,... tell us the same story: each day many hours of work. 

For an amateur with limited time this approach is not feasible. You just have to accept this and learn to side-step heavy theory. Besides our opponents neither know the popular/critical/bad lines each time.

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that I don't think a new edition of NCO would be better than a database search assisted by an engine and a portion of critical thought.

By all means, NCO was a great work for its time, and was certainly helpful for me before, especially in the lines I didn't have any books for. But honestly, with just four persons working their way from A00 all the way to E99, there are going to be errors and omissions, and the fact that all lines have to stop at some point with an evaluation mark is IMO a severe restriction compared to a database, where you can play through high-level games from the final position, look at engine evaluations etc. Not to mention the obvious - that every written work at some point gets outdated.

DenVerdsligeRejsende wrote on 07/22/15 at 22:13:33:


I understand what you mean, but:
- Popular moves: Well, you pretty much see them by the number of games from recent years, don't you?
- Bad moves: A bit harder, but game statistics and engine evaluations give a good indication, and I found several clear mistakes in NCO's evaluations too (which is understandable considering the amount of lines they had to dig into).
- Critical moves: If the most critical are not among the most popular moves, there is a good chance they are not in NCO. On the other hand, if the 5th most popular move in a position looks super-sharp, there is a good chance it is worth looking at.

kylemeister wrote on 07/22/15 at 22:36:03:

Nice idea. But if my ailing bookshelves and the forests have any say in the matter, they should be electronic!

Oh wait, there's already the ChessPublishing playable e-books for that. 

DenVerdsligeRejsende wrote on 07/22/15 at 22:13:33:


I'd be inclined to think that you should think for yourself from a tree of candidate moves with the possible aid of an engine to check the tactics. So if there's a position with half a dozen moves with approximately equal evaluations, you choose the one you feel most comfortable with and also be aware of the various ideas in the position. That said, it's as well to keep an eye out for strong tactical ideas. 

On the premise that it's only possible to memorise a relatively limited number of variations, I've thought it efficient to know the lethal ones rather than the equalising ones. So if the position is such that almost every sensible move is playable, that's all you need to know if your ambitions of even reaching FM standard have long dispersed.