Emms' new book is Play the Open Games as Black, subtitled What to do when White avoids the Ruy Lopez. It's about time that someone tackled this challenging subject, which has received even less attention in recent literature than the Lopez. 1...e5 players will rejoice that they can finally get some high-level assistance for meeting all these annoying openings in one book. Emms covers: irregular lines such as 2.Bb5 and 2.Ne2, the Center Game, Danish Gambit, Vienna Game, Bishop's Opening, Ponziani, Goring Gambit, Scotch Game, Belgrade Gambit, Scotch Four Knights, Main Four Knights, and the Two Knights Defense. Whew! For the best-established openings, he offers two or even three choices for Black, an approach I consider the absolute best for a repertoire book, and one demanding more than twice the work from the author. The result is that one has the choice between active and solid lines, and something to fall back on if one of these lines fails.

Like many players, I have had my early experiences with many of these openings, but have only kept up with the theory of a few. From general considerations (and memory), I like Emms' 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 and 4.h4 g5 6.Ne5 Nf6 lines against the King's Gambit, and the solid 5...Be7 versus the Belgrade Gambit. The Scotch Four Knights is thoroughly defused by Emms' main line, 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5, as I have learned from lengthy analysis with students. And Rubinstein's 4...Nd4! is still a complete answer to 4.Bb5. I don't know Two Knights theory, except that I'm sure that the Max Lange Attack is at best nothing for White, and probably less. Emms agrees.

I would take issue with only two lines. In the Goring Gambit (which I used to play for White), Emms' suggestions are good enough for equality; but in the intricacies of the main lines, I am convinced that Black actually comes out on top. In the Scotch Game, I'm not convinced that the author has found a true equalizer versus 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5 8.c4 Nb6 9.Nc3, as Kasparov plays. I feel that the Scotch is the only one of these openings which is like the Ruy Lopez, offering White long-term chances which don't fizzle out after a series of forcing central breaks or exchanges, as so many of these 1.e4 e5 openings do.

Again, there are two thought-provoking reviews of this book at ChessCafe.com, by Tim Harding and Carsten Hansen. For the record, I should say that in Hansen's excellent review, I take issue with two of his disagreements with Emms. The first is basically a reading error: after 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bc5 (Emms' alternate line) 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d6 8.0-0 Ng4 9.Bf4 g5 10. Bd2 Qf6 11.Qe2 Qe5 12.g3, Hansen takes issue with 12...h5 13.Kh1 due to 13...h4!, and suggests 13.Na4 instead. But Emms' text actually reads 12...a5 (not 12...h5; 12...a5 allows ...Ba7 after Na4) 13.Kh1, so the pawn is still on h7. Then, by the way, 13...h5 is still interesting, e.g., 14.f4 Qe7!? 15.fxg5 h4 16.gxh4 Rxh4 17.Bf4 Bd4 with great complications.

The second position is in the Two Knights after 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bc5 11.0-0 Qd6 12.Ng4 Bxg4 13.Bxg4 h5 14.Be2 Ng4 15.g3. Then Hansen suggests that 15...Nxh2! wins, and it does after 16.Kxh2 h4. However, 16.d4! seems to keep the balance, e.g., 16...Nxf1 (16...Bxd4? 17.Kxh2; 16...exd3 17.Kxh2 dxe2 18.Qxe2+, =) 17.dxc5 Qxd1 18.Bxd1 and White even stands better.

In conclusion, even with its technicality and ambitious scope, I think that any 1...e5 player from about 1500 up will want a copy of this book.