I just got the book and I have to say, that I am very disappointed.
Let´s start with the positive things: The author analyses not only the Berlin Endgame, but also lines like the 4.d3-variation or the 4-knights. Nothing to take for granted in books about the Berlin Wall.
But I have a lot of problems with the book.
1.) The biggest drawback is, that most moves and lines are given without any explanation! His analysis might be objectively fine for all I know - I haven´t checked it yet-, but all I see is a bunch of engine lines. I thought this kind of book disappeared since the early 2000´s, when authors recognized, that their readers are more interested in plans and ideas. This leads to my second point:
2.)Nowhere in the book I find any explanation, what black is aiming at in certain structures. I mean, for example the Berlin Endgame is pretty much defined by its pawn structure, so IMHO you should definetly include model games, what kind of transitions you should avoid at all costs with black and in which positions, you might even think about playing for the win.  Such a part is completely missing. Even worse: Sometimes he writes stuff like: "The White plan in this position is easier to formulate than blacks" and then he stops and doesn´t even explain, what the White plan is. It feels quite bizarre.
3.) The (engine) lines are chosen very selective. Quite often in the book he just starts a line (even in absolutely unforcing positions) on move 15,ends it 7 moves (14 half-moves) later and gives it an evaluation, without looking at other alternatives within this line (and obviously without any explanation, why this certain line should be considered to be particularly important. To my eyes the lines given look very random.
4.) The diagrams are annoyingly small
5.) Sometimes he writes stuff like: "And here we reached a position, where the players played an instructive game" and not only does he not explain, what it is, that makes the game instructive. He doesn´t even give the following moves, so the reader has to search for the game himself in a database, if he wants to see the follow up.
6.) On the last page he cites a hundred games to study, to learn more about the Berlin Endgame. That is something I find absolutely ridiculous. If you give so many games, you should prioritize them! Or divide them into different themes. (It would not be that hard. Just give the headline: "Here are some games, where White was successful on the kingside" and then put the fitting games below that and categorize the others games in similar fashion.) It is as if the author wants to say: lol, I forgot to teach you anything substantial for your understanding, so get yourself another source and learn it there, lol.
And to make it clear: He doesn´t give 100 games with moves. He just writes the games´meta data:
"Volokitin - Eljanov, Foros 2008
Gashimov Aronian - Sochi 2008
...."

I would definetly not recommend this book, if you want to learn this opening.

fjd wrote on 03/03/20 at 06:46:40:


It’s 9. Nc3 a5!?.

On a side note, I don't know what the latest greatest thinking on 7. a4 d6 is, but it will always remind me of Halprin-Pillsbury (described as "Prepared Analysis vs. Genius!" in The Golden Treasury of Chess, a book I acquired as a child).

Stigma wrote on 11/20/19 at 23:03:10:


No, that is fine, but I was referring to your reply to MNb in that post, not you directly.

Personally, I do think that some Eastern bloc countries did some good in the elimination of poverty and (at least attempting to) eliminate social and economic class. Like motörhead said, DDR always had a better social safety net for the lower-income compared to for example, a very rich country like USA. So there is admiration in DDR for that. Definitely not for its lunatic authoritarianism. Remember that Trotsky was Stalin's and Stalinism's arch-enemy.

And anyway, DDR's anthem is very nice. It is the type of song that I would listen to a few times before a tournament game.

I am thinking of taking up the Berlin Wall as a reply to 1. e4 as well, so there is that too. Studying Berlin theory to the tune of Aufenstanden aus Ruinen for this winter sounds quite pleasant.

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 11/20/19 at 19:36:39:

I'm sorry if I insulted you. That wasn't my intention.

I was just genuinely unsure whether there was some appreciation for the DDR in the post as well, with the patriotic song and all, in addition to the obvious criticism contained in the cartoon.

I hope it's OK to ask when I'm unsure how to interpret a post.

MNb wrote on 11/20/19 at 19:48:14:


Rubbish. There would have been no Berlin Wall under Trotsky. West Germany would have been communist as well.

This all assuming that the Second World War had started as it did. If Trotsky had come to power in 1924, I am sure that Germany would have become communist, stopping Hitler from gaining popularity and being elected in the first place.

MNb wrote on 11/20/19 at 19:48:14:


My point was that the Berlin Wall as an opening is extremely popular only after the actual Berlin Wall fell.

MNb wrote on 11/20/19 at 19:48:14:


I have lived in USA for many years. The system is an oligarchy, More like a libertarian capitalist's dream. The working man's nightmare.

And after hundreds of years there is still no universal healthcare. Tens of millions of Americans perished due to being unable to afford healthcare. The only way is a highly reformer-like president. When Bernie Sanders defeats Trump next year and becomes president it can happen. I do not see why if someone less rigid like Hönecker were in power, DDR could reform as well.

The American comedian George Carlin said, "It is called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 11/20/19 at 19:36:39:

Nor Trotsky.


Leon_Trotsky wrote on 11/20/19 at 19:36:39:

Not by me, but as a Dutchman I understand German as well as English. Moreover I had seen the cartoon and the text before.

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 11/20/19 at 19:42:09:

But the USA has a political system that makes it possible, even if it's difficult, to correct such injustices, while the DDR had not. Nor had the Soviet-Union when Trotsky still held a powerful position. Trotsky was as cruel a suppressor as Stalin, as my political soulmates in Russia 1919-1922 learned the hard way. Your nick doesn't speak for you, no matter how much I like your comments on chess.

I support neither Brezhnev nor Hönecker. Neither of them should have been the one to lead their respective countries. But then again, neither should have Stalin.

Stigma wrote on 11/20/19 at 14:45:40:


It was my attempt at irony. But apparently my non=literal messages always seem to get misconstrued.

In any case, people hurl insults at me on a daily basis. Receiving a few more here is not really that much for me.