Best books/resources to learn the Black side of the Open Games?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626201436/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen80.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627083715/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen98.pdf

 

In terms of depth of content and being updated, i think Bologan's Black Weapon in Open Games is one of the best in the business. He also has good explanation on various structures that arises.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Bologans-Black-Weapons-Open-Games/dp/9056915436

Wrong review...

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/How_to_Beat_the_Open_Games.pdf

Thank you for providing the additional commentary.

In fact, I like this book very much.  So far, I have not come across any reviews of the book, as it was published just recently.  But I have other openings books by the same author which I think are generally very good.

Coincidently, upon reading the review of the link you posted in one of your earlier posts (the one I noted in my post #44 as the wrong review (i.e., wrong book, but the correct author), I appreciate that the the following comment made by the reviewer (Hansen) of that book (Sverre Johnsen's Ruy Lopez for Black book) apply appropriately as well to his recent "How to Beat The Open Games"....

"The book is amazingly thorough, with ample amounts of properly
referenced analysis, suggestions, and improvements over existing
theory, loads of original analysis, and plenty of explanatory prose to
support the variations. The author provides detailed descriptions of the
strategies and long-term plans for both sides. Moreover, the illustrative
games are expertly annotated and provide further material for the
student to gain an understanding of the opening."

I am not confident that I would recognize White-bias if it bit me on the nose, but, for the moment, I do not see a reason to have that fear about the Emms book. Indeed, I would not have that fear about any of the 1 e4 e5 books that have been mentioned here, so far.

Danny Hume:  "I decided I will trudge along at a snail's pace with a classical repertoire."

 

Curious.  What changed your mind?

Yes.  "First Steps 1. e4 e5" by John Emms is very good for its intended purpose - i.e., an introduction to the open games.  It would be a good place to start study of the open games.  John Emms is generally one of the better chess authors, particularly for books targeted to the amateur player.

I also agree with Spongey's comment.  Emms always tries to be even handed in representing the play of both sides in his books.

While the intention of Emms' book is to expose one to the themes and plans of the open games, it necessarily makes no attempt at providing encyclopedic coverage of the theory.  A good follow-on to Emms's book which does provide more comprehensive coverage would be "Starting Out: Open Games" by Glenn Flear.

A number of things…

1. My heart and mind were never into the narrow repertoire … it was a concession born out of frustration with time and the fact that my opponents would never play my openings.
2. I believe a very narrow repertoire can be harmful for a lower-level player because s/he misses out on many strategic themes, ideas, and pawn structures (and tactics and endgames). GM’s Carlsen and Kamsky may play the London and GM Rausis may play the Baltic Defense against other GM’s with success, but that is because they know chess from all angles first, then subspecialize according to their desires.  Studies on expertise show that experts are able to find alternative courses of action in the face of difficult situations in their areas.  That is in part why Carlsen would probably destroy a IM using the BDG … he can see all sorts of plans from a variety of situations that he has been exposed to over his lifetime.   
3. As I have read in one of your posts, I think that learning chess in a historical order would make more enjoyable and relevant the classic games of the past, for which much educational material is based (annotated game collections and strategy books, in particular). It would be great to tap into those resources and see an actual relevance with similar positions in my games.
4. Getting a sense of my chess “mortality” with the realization that my last 9 years of sporadic hit-and-miss studying were very inefficient, that I can’t devote to chess the time I devoted to my career, and looking ahead to see what I think I hope to learn regarding chess from here on out.

 

Ahhhh.  I forgot to mention in my prior comment that I have a 9-year old son who I'm helping/coaching/interfering and I want his Chess foundation to be very, very solid and grounded for future long-term growth.

 

And since I want him to learn 1.e4 as White (for Open Games and Tactical Play), and 1. ... e5  and 1.... d5 as his Opening Repertoire, ....

 

I might as well learn them too, lol!!  For my own personal growth!

 

P.S.  I also have him study Endgames and Tactics.  That's the bulk of it.  My challenge is that he loves video games.  And he fidgets a lot.  

That's fantastic... You and your son can hopefully bond over the royal game forever.  My interest in chess merely interferes with life at the price of a slightly higher low-rating (in the future, I hope) over a long time.   I am almost in the same boat as you ... my boy enjoys playing chess here and there (and loves video games in this digital age), but doesn't want to study chess.  In a casual blitz game against an OTB-rated 1100-something kid his age, he captured his opponent's queen ... then immediately offered a draw with more than 4 minutes left on his clock.  I saw him miss a forced mate in 2 about 10 moves in a row against another kid that he was easily winning, but lost on time.  He would get very upset, yet it still took weeks of coaxing to be able to finally show him the simplest of endgames (KQ v K, KRR v K, KR v K) ... he learned it up quickly and seemed to really enjoy it-- thought it might spark more of his interest if he knew how to finish opponents after capturing their major pieces-- but he has absolutely no desire to study, not even doing 5 tactics a day.   Oh well, can't use him as an excuse for chess.

check out the free repertoire 1...e5 by german_mc you get through it in no time

https://www.chessable.com/opening-book/1e4-e5-a-comprehensive-black-repertoire-against-1e4/3767/

this seems not bad for first overview as well, nothing against the ruy yet but scotch and italian looks good                                                                                                                          https://www.chess.com/blog/DeirdreSkye/1-e4-e5-an-easy-repertoire-with-black-part-1-scotch-game

Update... I have read through the following books...

First Steps: 1.e4 e5 by Emms

Starting Out: The Open Games by Glenn Flear

Understanding the Chess Openings by Sam Collins

Chess Openings for Kids by Watson/Burgess

First Steps: 1.e4 e5 by John Emms, in my humble opinion, is a fantastic book.  He covers options and gives explanations for White and Black, including coverage of the Ruy Lopez. He gives recommendations for White and Black (through roughly moves 4-6) in all of his sections.  He says in the introduction that he intended this book to be a sequel to his "Discovering Chess Openings" (another great book by Emms).  Rarely does he list more than a few moves without instructive verbal commentary.  This seems exactly what a low-level player needs.  

Starting Out: The Open Games by Glenn Flear is more advanced.  He admits that he is slightly biased towards Black since he has only played that side of the Open Games (I thought he was balanced in his coverage). Each section begins with explanatory paragraphs with a theoretical overview (which are very good), but then he gets into lines and these lines can get long, such as 6-15 moves with a brief comment at the end (and I'd rather play White in this line, etc.), whereas Emms rarely has more than a few moves without instructive commentary (which we low levels like, maybe need).  Sometimes playing through the variations within variations in this book makes it feels more like it should be titled "Starting Out: I am a 1900 rated player who has only played Queen's Pawn openings my entire life, but would like to give the Open Games a try." The other issue I have with this book (something I feel like I have seen with other authors) is coverage of the less-played lines...  It seems to me that authors will often try to cram multiple lengthy variations within variations of early move possibilities against these less-often played lines with very little explanation, trying to put as much as they can into fewer pages, probably because of their page limits.  

Collins' "Understanding the Chess Openings" is not bad for what it tries to cover.  Smaller than FCO, and at least in the early part of the book there are good explanations.  Once you get deeper into lines, though, it becomes tedious when you know none of your games will go past move 10 in theory and the explanations thin out.

The "...for Kids" book is what you might expect. Brief coverage of some lines.  Easy to read and get through, but not my cup of tea.  

FCO I have heard much about.  I read a few chapters on the QGD and on the 1.e4 side, and it also is not my cup of tea.  Seems better as a mini-reference to look up stuff and get some brief commentary rather than a truly instructional book, explaining purposes of certain moves.  Of course, at my level I am biased against lengthy lines with little commentary (especially when these are played by GM's or old masters), unless the lines are very forced, as in an advanced amateur could figure out the "forcing" moves OTB if they had time, not "forced" because 30 years ago a top 25 GM and his team analyzed the line to the point where you can finally memorize it if you are a high level master actively studying and playing that particular variation... but I am not used to being an advanced amateur studying advanced topics, maybe that is what they need.  

Bologan and Ntrilis' books look very well organized and have lots of material, but are too advanced for me to take the plunge.  Bologan has chapters covering strategic themes, but these give brief coverage to the concepts and often refer to other parts of the book. 

I have heard great things about Marin's book on the open games, but it sounds advanced and since it is not in e-book format, it eludes me until time stops fighting me. 

I know nothing of the repertoire books for Black against the Open Games by Emms, Lokander, or Johnsen. 

The only other book that may be considered for learning 1.e4 e5 more conceptually might be Neil McDonald's Ruy Lopez Move-by-Move, the queen of king pawn chess openings.  McDonald says in the intro that he hopes his book will improve the readers "positional chess", which I find interesting.  I started reading it, but decided I couldn't devote so much time to it at my level. l thinking about slowly going through it between tactics sessions, since I enjoy Neil McDonald's prose in the few books of his that I have read.   

Overall, as you may be able to tell if you have read this far, I am far biased in favor of Emms' First Steps: Play 1.e4 e5, which is likely a reflection of my lower rating, but I think it is still a great book for one "starting out" with learning the open games (the writer preserves the pun, but at the price of grammatical awkwardity and neologism).  This is one of those few good opening books that I will keep, even when I soon quit chess to study the endgame.  

After a game, it makes sense to try to look up the moves in a book and see if it has some indication of how one might have played better in the opening. Many opening books are part explanation and part reference material. The reference material is included in the text with the idea that one mostly skips it on a first reading, and looks at an individual item when it applies to a game that one has just played.
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

Yeah, good points... I think the Emms book is best suited for the starting point of a lot of what you said for learning and playing the open games.

As far as “reference” part of some of these opening books, they often fail miserably. A reference part of an opening book, in my opinion, ought to be in tree format with the various options listed at every move for ease of use for someone looking up particular lines, as opposed to just 1 game score with no commentary as filler.

Often, many books simply list a game or two in a line they describe and after 20-30 more moves, they think the game score alone is stereotypically instructive enough for the amateur in the manner of play of their chosen line, even though the game was played by GM‘s (players who have some sort of clue of what is going on in the game, as opposed to the reader who is likely. I where near that level) ... such an uncommented game score might be one particular decent way to play, but with billions of other possible decent moves in between, it fails to instruct in this “type of play” that occurs in that game’s direction. Only those who already know of the in-between possibilities (e.g., masters and above; maybe just below master level, but having employed the same opening regularly, etc) could possibly get something out of this.

What a lot of lower level opening books lack is explanations of early move order variations. I don’t know if the QGD naturally lends itself to such logical explanations, but Sadler and McDonald’s books knocked it out of the park in this category, while Emms First Steps book for 1.e4 e5 does a great job for the open games. Other books are more like selective examples with occasionally good commentary.