Well you don't HAVE to resort to a book for this. Grab hold of SCID (a free database chess app. ) That already comes with a few opening books ... press F11 to view the opening tree and you'll be able to find your "current theory" opening lines in there.
Latest edition of Encyclopedia of Chess Openings
Sort:
Feb 24, 2011
0
#3
@Fezzik : Thanks for the heads-up. I have MCO-14 and I've not had much luck finding the side lines I normally venture into, so I assumed the same for the ECO/NCOs. I might just give the ECO a look-see.
Feb 24, 2011
0
#4
Fezzik wrote:
ECO is 5 volumes of material with editors and contributors who are or have been world champion Candidates. MCO is 1 volume put together by a couple of American GMs. For what it is, MCO isn't bad. But it aint ECO.
ECO codes is a big nonsense. There is no system at all. Everything should be remade with more reasonable patterns.
Feb 24, 2011
0
#5
uhohspaghettio wrote
I don't believe the ECO has it right. Whatever QGD meant originally, it has come to be used for 2. ....e6.
I'm no expert on ECO but if you play 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 to the Queen's Gambit, then you are declining the gambit pawn. Thus, it is considered a line of the Queen's Gambit Declined. The same is true for 2. ... e6.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote
I don't believe the ECO has it right. Whatever QGD meant originally, it has come to be used for 2. ....e6.
I'm no expert on ECO but if you play 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 to the Queen's Gambit, then you are declining the gambit pawn. Thus, it is considered a line of the Queen's Gambit Declined. The same is true for 2. ... e6.
With all due respect, that is a ridiculous argument. You cannot "work out logically" what the proper name for something is called.
When people talk about the QGD, they are talking about 2. ...e6. If you view a tutorial on the internet or ESPECIALLY if you buy a book or DVD about the Queen's Gambit Declined, you will not see ANYTHING but 2. ...e6. So the ECO categorization has become outdated in this sense.
You just stated that "I'm no expert", well that's certainly an understatement considering you don't even know what I'm arguing for.
The ECO is an authorative source, so it is "correct" by default. But nobody else considers that to be part of the QGD anymore, as you would know if you had an absolute clue of what you were talking about. So the ECO should move on also and update its listings.
The Slav is just a subset of all the possible "declined" variations. After a gambit, you either accept or decline the gambit. If you accept it, it will be the -X- gambit Accepted. If you decline it, it will be the -X- gambit Declined. A special case is something like the albin counter-gambit, which can also be considered a variation of the Queen's Gambit declined.
WilsonYiuWahWong wrote:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_eco_b_3e.html
I found a review of Jeremy Silman's and he claims the newer editions of ECO are rubbish. Which edition is worthwhile? I've got 0 opening books and have to make heads of tails by going though games myself in my database. Is the book(s) available online or only on paperback? I'd like to take a look at it.
The editions before this third edition are great/worthwhile. Thanks for the review and I wont be buying any ECOs 3rd edition myself ....... If you want to get ECOs then you should get the second editions...
Feb 25, 2011
0
#8
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
I'm no expert on ECO but if you play 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 to the Queen's Gambit, then you are declining the gambit pawn. Thus, it is considered a line of the Queen's Gambit Declined. The same is true for 2. ... e6.
With all due respect, that is a ridiculous argument. You cannot "work out logically" what the proper name for something is called.
When people talk about the QGD, they are talking about 2. ...e6. If you view a tutorial on the internet or ESPECIALLY if you buy a book or DVD about the Queen's Gambit Declined, you will not see ANYTHING but 2. ...e6. So the ECO categorization has become outdated in this sense.
You just stated that "I'm no expert", well that's certainly an understatement considering you don't even know what I'm arguing for.
The ECO is an authorative source, so it is "correct" by default. But nobody else considers that to be part of the QGD anymore, as you would know if you had an absolute clue of what you were talking about. So the ECO should move on also and update its listings.
Let's see, logical deductions in chess dont' work? Got it 
SCID gives the opening as just Slav. Wikipedia lists it as a variation of the QGD. I would have to look at my MCO when I get home but I would bet the MCO 14 has it in the same section as QGD as a separate varation (but still under the QGD family). The ECO D book I have at home is an older edition and probably has it under that same thing
Do a Google search on ECO D10 ... I didn't look through every link but most of the sites look like they call that the QGD Slav Defense. I guess a lot of people still consider it a QGD line and still call it that. Even Fezzik says:
So yeah, ECO got it right!
.... apparently people still consider it such.
I'm not saying that opening variations don't evolve and get new names (that would be a stupid claim). Fezzik mentioned Biology classifications above. Chess openings are something like that games with 1. d4 d5 are in the Queens Pawn openings family, games with 2. c4 are in the Queen's Gambit Genus, if followed by 2. ... c6 or 2. ... e6. (analogy may be off, I'm not a Biology guy).
So, I'll look at my ECO D book when I get home and see what it has. If I get a chance, I'll try and get access to a newer version and see how it is listed there. I would think however the ECO publishers have it would be considered the accepted naming/classification of the opening order (you know, since they created it). Maybe it is listed completely by itself now and no longer under QGD Slav.
I think I'll go with the experts on the semantics of opening classification.
Feb 25, 2011
0
#9
uhohspaghettio wrote:
MCO-14 does not have the Slav under QGD, NOBODY considers the Slav a part of the QGD anymore, except maybe people who don't have a clue of opening theory. Scid only has it that way because IT IS GETTING ITS INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICIAL SOURCE... THE ECO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
It's really sad that you wasted all your time writing that complete and absolute nonsense out when you don't have an absolute clue of what you're saying. Go search Amazon.com for books on the Queen's Gambit Declined and see if their books contain moves other than 2. ....e6.
http://www.amazon.com/Queens-Gambit-Declined-Matthew-Sadler/dp/1857442563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298653168&sr=8-1
I don't know if you felt "backed up" by your idiot friend there and felt a bit more confident in your comments because of that but you're all wrong.
The fact that you have the MCO-14 and thought that the Slav was under the QGD means that you hardly even looked at it (at least not the Queen's Pawn lines).
Wow, anger issues much?
I'll have to look at my MCO 14 when I get home. I don't do a lot of opening study and mostly just use it for some opening reference and occasionally analysis. Though, if you knew how to read, I said that SCID has it as Slav Defense; i.e. not under GQD.
As to your claim that my post was utter nonsense, that's your biased opinion. Looking at the books Amazon has, very few of them have the search inside functionality so I can't do any real research to see if your claim is correct anyway.
But the simple thing is, that when you say,
But nobody else considers that to be part of the QGD anymore, as you would know if you had an absolute clue of what you were talking about.
and
NOBODY considers the Slav a part of the QGD anymore, except maybe people who don't have a clue of opening theory
you are wrong. It is provably false. It was proven in this topic. It is proven by a search on Google. It is proven by the ECO codes themselves. But I guess you are right. Everyone else that disagrees with you is wrong and you are absolutely right. That has to be it, because all those those other people that have the Slav listed as QGD Slav Defense don't have any idea what they are talking about either. Especially those stupid ECO publishers, Sahovski. They must be on drugs (addicted to chess).
I will agree that it appears that may writers on openings do categorize the Slav as it's own, distinct variation and don't mention it being under the umbrella of the QGD. However, I doubt you have looked at all the books (I know I haven't) and can say conclusively, that none of them do.
For the beginner, the best's I've seen so far is the 4-volume Chess Opening Essentials series by Djuric, Komarov, and Pantaleoni. Lots of verbal explanation, up to date on theory.
Nunn's Chess Openings (NCO) by Nunn et. al. is a bit dated by now, and also too advanced for a beginner. It is my favorite opening reference.
Modern Chess Openings (MCO) went downhill since the times of Walter Korn. Pretty shallow in comparison to NCO, can be used as a reference.
Fundamental Chess Openings (FCO) by van der Sterren is great for beginners, but already outdated in some lines, even though it was published in 2010. If you want a single-volume opening manual, this is it.
decline = To express polite refusal.
?
The argument here seems to be, near as I can figure:
A) The Slav, i.e., 2...c6, is a way of declining the Queen's Gambit.
B) The Slav is SO big a topic with SO much theory, that it only makes practical sense to consider it its own branch of discussion.
Nobody seems to disagree with any of this, yet argument rages on. About what, exactly?
It's like you're arguing about my mother in law. And the argument is going:
"She's fat!"
"No she's not...she's evil!"
"No she's not...she's fat!"
"Evil!"
"Fat!"
"Evil!"
Relax. It's okay. She's both fat, and evil. Everybody grab a beer and calm down.
In some old books I had 2. ...e6 was called "The Orthodox Defence of the Queen's Gambit" but I haven't seen this name used recently.
Feb 25, 2011
0
#14
BopGun wrote:
Relax. It's okay. She's both fat, and evil. Everybody grab a beer and calm down.
I think what I got is that the MCO is fat and the NCO is just evil. Or something
And I'll have to go with the BGD (beer gambit declined)
Germans tend to refer to 2...c6 as "Slawisch" and "...e6" as "Orthodox", to this day. There are so many forms of declining the Queen's Gambit that no one way of playing can claim to be the true Queen's Gambit Declined, "Abgelehntes Damengambit", around here. That term simply doesn't get used. "Angenommenes Damengambit", QGA, does.
I'd wager that if the opening does only get named "the Queen's Gambit Declined", then the best guess for black's second move would be ...e6, as that is the traditional response ("orthodox" does mean, after all "according to the true (correct) teaching" in ancient greek). That's how it used to get declined before people found out that the Slav is an equally viable alternative. (With others closely following.) If there is literature around that calls 2...e6 "The Queen's Gambit Declined" I imagine that's why. I'd nevertheless call it the orthodox QGD.
The QGA often transposes into the Slav, so I think there would be a certain amount of confusion in including the Slav in the category of QGD.
Great idea, BopGun.
Fezzik wrote:
Btw, ECO is a languageless tome. It doesn't actually call the Slav a Slav or the QGD a QGD.
I find this attempt to eschew the traditional names of openings rather off-putting.
Fezzik wrote:
Btw, ECO is a languageless tome. It doesn't actually call the Slav a Slav or the QGD a QGD.
Also, transpositions can occur in almost every opening. The QGD Tarrasch can become a Scotch! Does that mean that entire QGD Tarrasch should be relocated to the Scotch? No. It means there are transpositions between openings. There are many QGD-QGA transpositions.
I think if we put the whole Caro-Kann under the Blackmar-Diemer, the BDG would have a much better reputation.
Chess members:
I'm a begginer looking to create my first opening repertoire. What I'm seeing is that the the "official opening book" is the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. Now I do see that this is available for download on this website but hasn't been updated since 2007. I am looking to download the most current version possible. Does anyone know where to get this and if their are any free versions. The one I have right now came with Fritz 12 and I don't know how up to date it is. Thanks again to everyone!