Opinions wanted about 'Chess Opening Essentials' by Djuric et al

Hi all

First post here at Chess.com.

On the Amazon.com site all 3 volumes get 5 stars, and volume 1 is especially praised. However, i've seen one or two professional reviews on blogs(Chessville and The Chess Mind) which seem to slate it. Their common opinion seems to be that it's superficial even for weak players. I own volume 1, and i can't quite see where these reviewers are coming from. It's almost as detailed as John Watson's Mastering the Chess Openings(i own volume 3 on the English Opening and ebooks for volume 1 & 2), yet they both seem to praise Watson's work.

I haven't studied either book in detail because i've only owned them for a little under a week, but my opinion so far is that Chess Opening Essentials(COE) is by far the better of the 2 for the following reasons:

a) COE is considerably easier and more pleasent to read with the use of colour and much less cramped spacing/formatting. Because Watson's book is so cramped and frequently includes variations within the main body of the text, it makes it seem far more asdvanced than it is.

b) It tends to stick to the point, whereas Watson's book goes off at tangent. In many ways, most parts of the book were akin to reading a 10,000 word thesis on how to open a can of beans.

c) More openings included

Am i justified in believing that Chess Opening Essentials is the superior of the 2 and an excellent book? My main reason for asking is so that i can convince myself that it's the best idea to buy the remaining 2 volumes.

btw i don't know what my playing strength is at the moment because i'm only just getting back into chess. But i played regularly between the ages of 3 and 8 where i won various awards in competitions and congresses in the under-9's group. I gave up chess at 8, and have only played casually against friends once in a blue moon since then, and also occasionally against the computer. I very occasionally beat the gnuchess and crafty chess engines on my PC, but i have a tendency to play lazily(ie i often play by 'instinct' rather than thinking through the moves. I'm trying to make a conscious effort to change this bad habit).

Does nobody own either of the books?

Sorry friend, I don't.

But what I can tell you is enjoy them and learn from them, and don't slave away at openings.  If they are as bad or superficial as the reviews state, then you will find this out as you get stronger, but until then there is no reason not to use/enjoy these books.

A few opening books that I started with 2 years ago are no longer useful to me, it happens.

If you get something out of them, then they are worth it.  I have some books that the reviewers said were weak, but I must have been weaker, since I got some good stuff from them.  I was planning on buying the 3 volumes myself.  I wanted something a little more simple than Watson's books.

I have the watson books and they are fantastic.  I would say that you need to be at least an advanced beginner to get something out of them.  But, probably is best geared towards intermediate to advanced players(with definitely some useful material to less experienced players)

Thanks for the advice guys.

I've played chess on and off since i was a child, but i've never actually studied the deeper ideas in the openings. 

wango

I think the Djuric books are great for learning or renewing one's chess knowledge in the openings, so i think i will take my chance and get the other 2 volumes.

Hoklanie

I agree. I've often found that on many occasion. Silman's Amateur's Mind comes to mind. Althought it is generally a highly regarded book, some people consider the tone of the book to be patronising, whereas his style of writing works for me.

erikido23

I think you're right. The Watson books aren't immediately friendly and need some work to get the most out of them due to the way it's written. I think they will be great for when i get stronger, but not just yet. It's a shame that they are wrongly advertised as being useful to lower rated players.

I own the first volume and I like it. The book is nice if you want at glance at a few lines and to have a few nice model games using the presented openings.

farbror

Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you agree. I think it is great for giving guidance on new openings in a user friendly manner. I don't understand why it was slated in the 2 reviews that i mentioned in the first post. Watson's book is probably better for those who want to go that bit further with some(many openings are omitted completely) openings. I don't think Watson's book is good to start out on, in my opinion, even though the author claims otherwise. The formatting of Watson's book needs a lot of improvement if it is to be suitable to start out on.

I own one of the books of Watson (the third to be exactly). I think this is a good book to get a good understanding of the openings. You learn about the ideas and the subtile differences between two variations. So if you want to understand a opening fully (although you should do more than reading a book) mastering the chess openings (and above all the first chapters of the first book).

Anyway I guess that this isn't such important until a certain level, so I think you're right that for you the chess opening Essentials might be a better choice, altrough I think the leveling up your tactical skill is far more important than your openings... (So chesspuzle books, or a book like "build up your chess with Arthur Yusupov" might be improve your play fare more than opening books.

The_element_of_chess

You're perfectly right! The openings are something that i'm going to focus on after i've read Silman's book and the Art of Attack(book on tactics). When that time comes, you guys are helping me to believe that Chess Opening Essentials book really is the better one to start on.

The thing is, i've played chess since i was a child and have done well against people and the computer since then without actually knowing why. I never studied theory even when (say) i was getting 1st or 2nd prize in competitions as a child. I was playing more or less by an instinctive  sense of what was good and what wasn't. Maybe i did learn a considerable amount of 'correct play' as a child merely by playing lots of games.

So that's why im going 'back to basics' in order to understand why i'm playing well or not, and therefore be able to identify what i need to improve upon.  Thats also the reason why i want to study the ideas in the opening.

Hope that makes sense.

Just got a cheap copy of Chess Opening Essentials and it was worth the money.  It's great for a glance over all the major lines (some of the minor ones too).  I've been using it to get an idea of what openings I'd like to play so that I can get some more detailed books on those particular openings.  My only two compliants with the book is its lack of detail in many lines.  There's tons of pages deciated to the Ruy Lopez, the French, and the Sicilian; most everything else is sparse in details.  But that makes sense since they're the most popular openings right now (and the book would be much too large anyway).  Still, it's a great book for an overview of the many opening choices a player has.

Wolfstriker1

Thats also what i want to get out of the book (ie similarly to you, i want to get an overall view of the ideas behind each of the openings so that i know which ones to focus upon). Thats also why it's important that the book is as complete as possible, but sheer depth is not important. I think it's a bad idea to go too deeply into an opening in order to learn if an opening is right for a person because it means that you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees.It's most helpful to see the overall idea. That's why Watsons' book muddies the waters somewhat, making it of less  value to the audience of which both books are intended for.

When i can identify which opening ideas suit me best and my style of play, then i can know which specialist books(eg focusing solely on the Nadjorf) to seek out.

For those reasons, i believe that Chess Opening Essentials is a better book than Watsons for my needs. I think the reviewers who are slating COE and praising Watson's book are missing the point.

For me, an overview is vitally important. When i can see the whole, it makes it far easier to see the parts. Everyone's different, but that's what works best for me.

I completely agree with you, BritishOpening.