The System

I wanted to know if anyone of the higher rated players has read this book and what do you guys think about it.

I'm reading this book now and I think Hans Berliner has some very nice things but then he's saying things like that he has busted some very common black responses to 1. d4. The guy definetely has very good credentials and he has proven to be right at other times but anyway...

So help me out please. 

  I WOULD read it if I had the book here & the time right now, but have not yet done so. I'll mention a bit of his background for anyone completely unaware of it; tho You are probably  aware that Berliner has been the Postal Chess World Champion player. He has also been very deep into programming of Chess playing computers; & is a talented OTB player, I think Master or higher, since he had a very good game vs Fischer one time. I believe it may have been a Draw.

I have heard a few other players mention this book, and how he uses his own theory of analysis & assessment, utilizing patterns of piece groupings, as I understood it from them, which he utilizes to good effect in his programming efforts. Does he call them "clumps", or "chunks"?

With that said, moving to his remarks about BL Defenses to 1.d4 , I have no idea if his writing and anlysis are completely down to earth at all times, or if he ever gets over-exuberant aor overly optimistic, or such? It is especially hard to judge without having seen his actual wording of it, of course. So I am sorry to not be of much help in that regard. But would be interested in hearing what you think about that matter, and if you feel like he does a good job of supporting his contentions about those defenses? Your post leads me to feel like you have some doubts about it?

***

The area where I hope I can contribute something here, is in asking if perhaps any of these are Defenses to 1.d4 that he does cite in his book, as being "busted(?)" or in disfavor now? They are:

***

[#1] The Benko Gambit, [#2] The Benoni Defense when played against the WT (f4)Taimanov Var. [#3] The KI vs  Samisch Variation.  [#4] Also the KI Mar del Plata Var. vs the WT b4 "Bayonet" line; which has been very cyclical for several decades, and was under a cloud again the last I heard of it.  [#5] Budapest Defense. 

***

These I have heard/read of as becoming unfavorably regarded, as of my latest knowlege of them, according to opinion(s) from some GM(s), or published source. If any do match the Berliner openings he mentions, it should lend some support to his contention(s) then; and more supporting opinions should be available to find. 

Regards, Craig A.C.

*** 

First of all thanks for the reply BaronDerKilt

I've started to read The System recentely so I'm only at page 67 "The System at Work on an Actual Opening" so I can't discuss much of it as of now. But I think I'll restart the book and this time try to study it a little bit more. Setting up the board (BabasChess) and such.

Berliner was an OTB IM and CC GM and he in fact drew against Fischer.He calls the oiece grouping chunks and they are indeed a very vital part of his play. Even though he says that tactics are king the thing is that when aren't no tactics available he considers that chunks are the best way to guide how a game should procede.

 As for the defences he considers busted they are the QGD and the Gruenfeld (and if I'm not mistaken the Slav defence too)if his analysis are indeed correct. And I think this is a point many people miss. He seems to be open to the possibility of misjudging things. At time he seems to be somewhat dogmatic but I think tha something Nimzo first encountered on his beggininf and then people realised that he indeed was onto something.

 But just give me sometime so I can a better study of it and I'll be posting stuff on this thread so we can throw ideas at each other and discuss them

As for me not believing in him I'll just say that he certainly knows a lot more about chess than I do (and I truely admire some his analysis and depth - particularly the ones on Estrin-Berliner) but some the top players still play the Gruenfeld. So it least make me wonder if they think he's wrong, if they aren't paying attention to him cause they think he's some kind of a loony, or if white just isn't playing what he says that should be played and black is still getting away with it. I for one know that I'm not skilled enough to judge what he says. I want to study his book and get better. 

This is what Berliner thinks he has busted:

"Applying these principles over nearly 50 years of play and analysis, Berliner believes he has found the best lines against most major

black responses to 1 d4. Essentially refuted, he says, are several
forms of the Queen's Gambit Declined (Orthodox, Tarrasch, and
Semi-Tarrasch defenses), the Gruenfeld, the Modern Benoni, and
the Benko Gambit (though the Queen's Gambit Accepted still
needs a lot of work, and the Slav and Nimzo-Indian still have him
stumped). Analyses of these openings makes up the bulk of The
System."

 I think that for things to make sense you really need a board. I guess that if you read it through with lots of care things sink in but I guess that moving up the pieces and looking into positions is way better. But if you are lazy to set up a board , follow main lines and then variants (just like I am) maybe you should install BabasChess. After you get the hang of it it is very easy to use and you can always go up and down the main lines and variations very nicely. Of course the down side is that you look at book and then the pc, but I don't think there isn't anything much better than this.

The other thing that I think anyone should be aware of is that Berliner makes some grandiose claims and we should really try to understand wy he says the stuff he says. I don't want to follow a line he says he's winning for white and the blow it all of on the endgame or if my opponent plays something unexpected.