indeed. I guess, sufficed to say, many Authors aim to do that initially but as in Life, wind up not having the complete freedom to do so for a variety of reasons: editors, publishers, time constraints, schedule conflicts, changes in concepts, real-time chess happenings etc etc which ultimately affected the final product. For me, I just glean as much I can and play through selected openings, lines and variations pertinent to me only (at any particular time it necessitates for me to do so). Saying that, I have tens of notebooks containing my opening repertoire (before laptops became a thing), self-annotated games of my own (relevant wins & losses), of Masters (Legends & Contemporary) by openings, and lastly with thoughts, analyses, potential ideas, as well as note additions, updates on several of my openings I use or find interesting. Bottom line, yeah would be nice to have such books, but then I think about how self-exploration (and the journey of leveling up) is rapidly becoming a thing of the past with the advent of AI, engines and the like.
A new type of opening book
If you create your own books from amateur games filtered to your rating range, you can follow lines knowing EXACTLY how popular they are, and even chose lines you like the looks of. Generally, I ignore lines that are 10% or less, but you could always choose the top 2-3 moves to get bare minimum theory.
I agree that memorizing theory is mind numbing and difficult, especially using spaced repetition, but the upside of rolling your own is you get to cheat off everyone's homework tracking them down following THEIR mistakes that GMs don't even know exist, unless they're youtube GMs like igor.
I just posted an entire BOOK on the naselwaus gambit here that's probably the ONLY ONE in existence as the owens is rare 2% line and the naselwaus returns the trixter favor as its a 1% line for owens players!!!! It's a micro fraction of a microfraction line, but is also super effective with white getting at least a 1 pawn advantage in EVERY line to mates in 6, and white has winning stats in most, if not all of those 1 pawn lines.
What started out as a 49 line quick start guide turned into an 11 page book, but it's more complete than any GM book chasing theory down to the last dozen players standing using stats to track their blunders and lines they're bad at.
Doing theory like that CAN be a move order nightmare, but can also teach you reoccurring themes by showing you transpositions and ideas you can learn when they repeat.
As I was building the book, several times I knew what to do in New lines because I'd seen the same attacks before.
If I tried to memorize the theory one line at a time or even just play them through, essential themes would stick, and I'd know what I'm doing better than sneaky owens beating them at their own "never seen this before, have ya?!" game, and i very much hate the owens. They're totally used to players playing natural pawn blockades, so just doing what feels right is familiar to THEM.
this might not work for you, but it's an option.
Studying database stats was how I found the alapin diemer gambit which I love because it's related to gedult blackmar diemer which I already play against the scandinavian, and when I confused THAT with the maroczy fantasy variation in the carokann which i did horribly with, i started CRUSHING caros by ACCIDENT playing the mieses gambit with 3.Be3 just doing what comes natural against players totally unused to Bxf7+ pin breaking sacs, so ideas can be learned.
Most of us play the first few moves of a chess game from memory. For example, as White after 1. d4 d5, we know that 2. c4 is a good move that does not lose a pawn with more than adequate compensation. We don’t analyze possible response to c4; we just know from experience that it’s good. Chess beginners may be no longer relying on memory at move 3, while grandmasters may be playing from memory past move 20. Beyond remembering moves, we know some general guidelines for individual openings. For example, we know that in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, it’s usually dangerous to try to hold on to our extra pawn. After exhausting our stock of remembered moves and guidelines for the opening in question, we are on our own in the middle game.
Most chess opening books ignore this reality. They give us thickets of variations with little consideration to how hard it is to memorize these moves. They don’t separate what is important to know from what is unlikely to matter. In a book for anyone but GMs, it’s silly to feature an opening novelty in the French Defense Exchange Variation on move 17. Rather than the thickets, I would like to see chess books on a particular opening do the following: (1) give us the rock-bottom minimum moves that should be learned to play the opening at, say, the 1300 level, (2) give us several more moves that might be learned by players with better memories, (3) give us guidelines for our play in the opening past the remembered moves, and (4) give us games in the opening to build our intuition about it.
Uhm, you haven't looked very hard, have you?
The Starting Out series, Move by Move series, and First Steps series, all published by Everyman, all do what you are begging for to various degrees.
The First Steps series is the simplest and for beginners. The Starting out would be more for the 1300 to 1900, and the Move by Move for 1700 to 2200.
Leave the opening book by Quality Chess and New In Chess for those 2000 to Grandmaster!
@1
"we are on our own in the middle game." ++ No. You can rely on previous games you have played or annotated grandmaster games you have studied.
"(1) give us the rock-bottom minimum moves that should be learned" ++ None at all. Lasker formulated 4 common sense principles.
- Only play your d- and e-pawns
- Play your knights first and only then your bishops
- Do not play the same piece twice
- Do not pin your opponent's king's knight with your queen's bishop before your opponent has castled O-O
"(2) give us several more moves" ++ None
"(3) give us guidelines for our play in the opening past the remembered moves"
++ Study annotated grandmaster games.
"(4) give us games in the opening to build our intuition about it." ++ Consult a game data base.
No DONT study grandmaster games!!!!! they are irrelevant. They will steer you into quiet bean counting lines you have to understand to play. They will PREVENT YOU from playing aggressive lines that work better against amateurs and steer you away from gambits.
Their flowery war of words poetry will get you killed in a street fight.
I do agree with the GM suggestion that you start out with open games to sharpen your tactics before building your positional skills when you progress, but would suggest that more aggressive tactics minded players play gambits because THOSE are what win at the amateur level where 1 pawn means NOTHING in games that REGULARLY feature 5 point swings and accuracy is 90% on a good day.
Gambit haters ignore reality. Good gambits have higher win rates than GM approved toothless bean counting swill under 2000. if you're a 2000 rated player,you dont need to listen to ANYONE and can figure your path out yourself.
I STILL have to argue with gambit haters who THINK they know what's best FOR ME. I just don't get positional and never will, but I'm Fearless out in the open with tactics ready tools and generally happy to gam it pawns just to get them out of my way. GMs and parrots would try to steer me away from the very reason i play chess, what i'm best at, and what i have fun doing.
I quit chess because I didn't have today's tools to study AMATEUR games, create TREEs, and train those to get out of the stonewall and scandinavian which i STILL hate even if it's where my most accurate games are and i actually have wi ning stats with because 2...e5 drives me nuts as does 3.nc3 forcing me to bring my queen out and 3.d4 is a nightmare. Don't get me started on the stonewall straightjacket!
All I did for a few YEARS when i got sick of online math cheating poker (where im a grandmaster) and wanted to play cheat proofreader chess was play tactics puzzles... solve the kind of problems i can visualize and have fun without positional PTSD triggering positional agony.
Grandmasters would keep me in my former 1400 hole unable to progress with dull (pun intended) tools that don't work for me.
You can learn a lot from grandmasters, but don't take their opening advice as law.
ALL of my winning is with gambits and all of my losing, very badly at that, is positional, hypermodern and closed which all hold me back.
We're it not for smith morra gambit, mises gambit carokann and alapin diemer french, I'd probably STILL be losing bad against those where im CRUSHING caros, up 8% against sicilians and FINALLY within 3 points against the french, up a percent recently.
Gambits aren't for everyone, but they're EVERYTHING for some of us. GMs, unless their name is Igor have NOTHING to teach ME about openings. Screw that hack that didn't give me ANY theory against 2.e5 in the scandinavian simply saying play 2...Bf5 or 2...c5 and you'll be fine! No I won't you lying sack! What's make me fine is playing 1...e5 so no one can stop me from playing Nf6! well, actually, players can, but i can play ...f5 GAMBITS and get out of playing the toothless scandinavian altogether.
One person's "unsound" is another's liberation. I don't listen to or trust GM theory at all.
Most of us play the first few moves of a chess game from memory. For example, as White after 1. d4 d5, we know that 2. c4 is a good move that does not lose a pawn with more than adequate compensation. We don’t analyze possible response to c4; we just know from experience that it’s good. Chess beginners may be no longer relying on memory at move 3, while grandmasters may be playing from memory past move 20. Beyond remembering moves, we know some general guidelines for individual openings. For example, we know that in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, it’s usually dangerous to try to hold on to our extra pawn. After exhausting our stock of remembered moves and guidelines for the opening in question, we are on our own in the middle game.
Most chess opening books ignore this reality. They give us thickets of variations with little consideration to how hard it is to memorize these moves. They don’t separate what is important to know from what is unlikely to matter. In a book for anyone but GMs, it’s silly to feature an opening novelty in the French Defense Exchange Variation on move 17. Rather than the thickets, I would like to see chess books on a particular opening do the following: (1) give us the rock-bottom minimum moves that should be learned to play the opening at, say, the 1300 level, (2) give us several more moves that might be learned by players with better memories, (3) give us guidelines for our play in the opening past the remembered moves, and (4) give us games in the opening to build our intuition about it.