The more time I spend with this book, the more I like it.  I love that Sverre offers two major systems in most cases, so that Black players can mix and match to their taste.  Both 3...Bc5 and 3...Nf6 are covered in the Italian, both 4...Nf6 and 4...Bc5 are covered in the Scotch, etc.   

I'm very far from an expert on the Open Games, having only played a few serious games with 1...e5 as Black (and only when I outrated my opponent by a fair bit), but I've been studying them a lot casually over the last couple of years.  If I return to competitive chess, my plan is to drop 1...c5 and pick up 1...e5.   

I have both Lokander's and Ntirlis's recent books, but I do not own either of Bologan's.  Bologan's content looked quite good, but I recall not enjoying some of his recommendations in the Exchange Spanish when I browsed in the bookstore, and most importantly, I thought that the layout and organization was nearly unreadable.  It all seemed very cluttered to me (admittedly I only browsed for a few minutes) and I couldn't imagine actually using his books much if I bought them, so I went with Lokander and then Ntirlis for my own studies, and now I have Johnsen's book.  Maybe I'll give Bologan another chance in the future.   

Obviously Johnsen has the advantage of having written the most recent book, and I like how he's treated his recommendations with respect to the literature.  He often recommends slight tweaks, if not large deviations, from previous books, which gives the reader a lot of choice in constructing a repertoire.  Personally, I never use all of the lines that an author recommends, but if I can incorporate, perhaps, 20% of a book's proposals into my own repertoire, I feel that's a fantastic value.   

The book seems more dense than Ntirlis' book; there are more little sidelines covered, and in more detail.  Of course, Ntirlis was also covering the Spanish in his, so had space limitations.  I feel that you get a ton of content from Johnsen's book in one volume, more than either of Lokander's or Ntirlis's coverage of the non-Spanish lines.   

I have always felt that while Ntirlis offers excellent analysis (I own four of his books), it's often geared more towards correspondence players, at least in my mind.  I find more unnatural lines, or ones more difficult for humans to understand, in his books than in others.  At least, more lines that are difficult for me to understand.  Lokander's book is much more of a "human" book, and I love the personal feel that runs through it.  Ntirlis can be personal, but somehow feels a bit clinical to me.   

Johnsen's book feels very human and personal, which I favor.  I especially like the little explanations for why he chose a particular variation over another one, and I feel that his reasoning makes more sense for a practical over-the-board player, such as recommending 4...g6 in the Center Game.  At least, I find myself agreeing with his recommendations a lot, but not in all cases.  For instance, I would have liked coverage of the ...d7-d5 lines in the ...Be7 Italian, but that's fine.   

There are pros and cons to the layout in this book.  On the one hand it's pretty highly organized and I always know where to go to find a particular line.  I bought Cornette's book on the Ragozin, for instance, and find it almost completely unreadable.  I'm not exaggerating; I recall trying to make a serious study of 5.Bg5 h6, meeting a bunch of sidelines in Cornette's text, and then not being able to figure out where the main line picked up (I still haven't been able to) or what position a particular note is starting from.  It seemed like there is good content in there, but I honestly couldn't get much out of the book.  Johnsen's book is the opposite of that, thankfully.  My one annoyance is that often I'm studying a particular line, and then if I want to look at deviations, I have to jump around a lot in the text.  I'd have preferred somehow to have the deviations in closer proximity to what I'm studying, but perhaps I'm thinking more of an illustrative games format, and Johnsen has done the best he can with his particular format.  Like I said, I always know where to go to find something, I never get lost in the variations, thankfully.   

I don't have much to offer regarding the analysis as I'm not an expert on these lines, but overall I think that the book is excellent and I'm very happy with my purchase.

MNb wrote on 04/20/18 at 12:20:54:

Having played three (*) defenses to the King's Gambit, I can say that:

• The classical 3...g5 gives me an advantage, and I lose.
• The Modern 3...d5 gives me equality, and I draw.
• The Nimzowitsch 2...d5 + 3...c6 gives me a disadvantage, and I win.

Edited:

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/20/18 at 13:06:23:

All is an exaggeration (2...f5) but not a big one. Let's say lots.


Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/20/18 at 13:06:23:

Because some defenses are still better than others, like the Modern being better than the Nimzowitsch. Playing ....Nf6 at an early stage is a smaller concession than an early ...c6.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/20/18 at 13:06:23:

OK and I'm not saying the Nimzowitsch is uninteresting - but this doesn't answer my question of course.

Then I wonder why Black should play an inferior version of the Modern Defense.

Is it possible to know what the suggested line vs the King's Gambit is?  Thx.

There are some questions/comments about a follow-up book on the Ruy Lopez. I don't have any plans for that but won't rule it out either. Now my main ambition is to make "Win with..." into a trilogy by adding a defence against 1 e4. Nothing is decided yet, but the Caro Kann seems a likely candidate. 

Regarding a reply to the RL "in the open spirit", a line with ...Bc5 seems the obvious option. Maybe 3...Bc5 and the variation pair 4 c3 f5!? (Cordel) and 4 0-0 Qf6!? (nameless?) is worth investigating. I believe there must exist a DVD/Video recommending it, but my googling has been fruitless.

fjd wrote on 04/11/18 at 03:08:33:

I would not join you in crediting QC, since i have found that most QC books are dense trees though Ntirlis is a good counterexample.
Chris Ward's Play the QG (Everyman, 2006) brilliantly executed the games/tree format - as well as any book I've ever seen.  I would say Chess-Stars deserves credit for popularizing the "Quick Repertoire / Theory / Complete Games" format which is a reliable way to do things although the Complete Games sections suffer in Chess-Stars books in my opinion.

Anyway, my main question about Johnsen's book was how it distinguishes itself from Bologan, Lokander, and Ntirlis.  On scanning this thread, i did not see any reason to favor Johnsen's work over its rivals.  It may be that all 4 bear such quality that the choice matters little.

I'm now looking at the other line where my book meets the Shaw book, which is in the Scotch Mieses variation. After the moves 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 e5 Qe7 7 Qe2 Nd5 8 c4 Ba6 9 Nd2 (instead of the more common 9 b3) 9...O-O-O 10 b3 g5 11 Bb2 Bg7, Shaw suggests 12 Qe4 which isn't covered in my book. Now, after the moves 12...Nf4 13 O-O-O (12 O-O-O Nf4 13 Qe4 is another move-order) 13...Bb7 14 Qf5 c5 15 Ne4 h6 16 h4 Qe6 17 Qxe6 Nxe6 18 Re1 what surprises me, is how completely harmless this seems to be. Stockfish 9 at a search depth of 35 gives Black's top 10 moves an evaluation in the range -0.08 to 0.08 (and the next handfull of moves aren't much worse). The game Sethuraman-Bosiocic, Philadelphia 2012 continued 18...Rhe8 19 hxg5 hxg5 20 Rh7 and Shaw claims that Black was still struggling to equalize. That may have been the case but according to Stockfish, Black is perfectly fine (if not better) after 20...Bxe4 21 Rxe4 Rh8 22 Rxh8 Rxh8. This may of course all be a case of the GM evaluating the position more accurately than the engine but that isn't very helpful without any strategic guidance.

Any opinions?