tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57726894266049739.post6763226146314659493..comments2024-03-28T11:37:38.689-07:00Comments on Chess Skills: The Fighting DragonJames Stripeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13437334325501974461noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57726894266049739.post-54469713136515669572017-02-19T09:07:26.880-08:002017-02-19T09:07:26.880-08:00There are other opening books that do a good job o...There are other opening books that do a good job of explaining ideas, but they are also variation heavy. Vladimir Barsky, <i>The Ragozin Complex</i> (2011) comes to mind as a good example, in particular the long section, "How to Study a Concrete Opening" by Isaak Lipnitsky. This essay focuses strongly on ideas and keeps the variations to a minimum. It originally appeared in Lipnitsky's 1956 book, <i>Questions of Modern Chess Theory</i>. Lipnitsky's essay was the only part of Barsky's book that I had studied before venturing the Ragozin in rated OTB play last summer. I beat the top seed in the event in that game.James Stripeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437334325501974461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57726894266049739.post-17574890363069817542017-02-18T20:09:28.630-08:002017-02-18T20:09:28.630-08:00Thanks for the review, James. Your initial encour...Thanks for the review, James. Your initial encouragement got me to purchase this book, and I am glad that some authors are finding value in an ideas-approach to openings. I really haven't seen this before. Do you know of books that take a similar approach? I'm trying to think of another example, but it is possible that all the opening books I've seen are strictly variation-heavy books, with loads of computer analysis if they are less than 20 years old. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08426614529062139898noreply@blogger.com