In my view this allows for the various themes and plans to be more explicitly and clearly communicated, which I feel is the case with Sielecki. I believe most would tend to agree that Sielecki's explanation-style is more 'conversational' than Burgess'. It has to do with the difference in approach, the style, taken by the authors in their presentations (this can be better appreciated by comparing the respective pdf book excerpts provided below). This one is more subjective and a function of the reader's expectations. To gain more insight into the particular openings comprising the repertoires I refer you specifically to the pdf and Chessable links below.Ģ. This is probably taken for granted and no revelation, but I thought to make it clear in case there would be any question over this point. There is essentially no commonality between them. The White and Black repertoires offered by the respective authors are completely different. However there are significant differences, not only in the openings chosen for the repertoires, but also significant stylistic differences in their presentation as well as in the total number of book pages devoted to the repertoires.Īlong those lines, I offer the following observations which I believe should be appreciated at the outset (and which can be readily deduced by examination of the content of the links below).ġ. In terms of their usefulness to the chess player, my bottom line opinion of the books I own is that they will each find a receptive audience that will view them as constructive for the specific openings covered, so that in that sense none of the books are necessarily any "better" than the others. I do not own Sielecki's "Keep It Simple For Black" (KISFB), which to my knowledge has not yet been made available in print form in the USA (however it is available for pre-order on Amazon, to become available in November 2022). I also own Burgess' "An Idiot-Proof Chess Opening Repertoire" (IPCOR). I own Sielecki's first two opening repertoire books - " Keep It Simple 1.e4 (KIS 1.e4) and "Keep It Simple 1.d4" (KIS 1.d4). Consistent with my dearth of remuneration, I will leave it to the comments and links I have provided further below to assist in providing the prospective reader with some insight into the books in question. I believe very few reviewers would look forward to or embark upon such a project, unless compensated handsomely to do so. To begin with, I submit that the reason there are no reviews comparing these books is that in order to do a respectable job that would necessarily involve a lot of research, time and effort.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |