Chris Baker's A Startling Opening Repertoire is one of those everything-in-one-book opening repertoires for White. The repertoire begins with 1.e4, and the lines are for the most part meant to "startle" the opponent, although Baker tosses in a fairly standard (and ultimately harmless) remedy to the Caro-Kann with 3.Nc3, a normal anti-2...Qxd5 Scandinavian solution, and main-line f4 systems against the Pirc and some Modern systems. The rest of the repertoire is an odd mix of extremely safe, mostly passive lines which offer no advantage to White, and a few wild attacking lines (which may offer even less!). Baker describes the systems (inaccurately, in my opinion) as "in the main potentially very aggressive," a wording that doesn't inspire confidence.

Now this book is already very popular, and I won't deny its appeal to the average player. Also, I know how difficult such a book is to write, and Baker has worked hard to provide the reader with ways of playing against even the most trivial and inferior continuations by the opponent. Importantly, he has played many of these systems himself, and offers a great deal of his own original analysis in their support. But I do think that the book's approach and choice of variations share the drawbacks of so many other repertoire books. Essentially, the idea is that you won't have to work very hard to learn these systems, and supposedly, your opponent will tend to be surprised by your choice of lines (although I think that this is less likely than the author would have us believe, at least against any opposition for which the choice of opening is relevant). By avoiding mainstream theory, one can "throw the opponent on his own resources" and gain the upper hand.

In general, I disagree with this approach. I feel that students should be learning lines that they'll want to keep for a long time, if not for life. Ideally, they will take up other systems as they go along, and gain flexibility thereby, but not abandon their old ones. How does that apply to the lines in Baker's book? Well, I don't doubt that many of the people reading this have already tried the first system in his book, the Max Lange Attack and related lines. This approach has practically disappeared at the professional level, but it has been a favorite of students of mine for many years. Without exception, however, they have abandoned it as time went on. Of course, it's also not going to be very "startling," since the Max Lange is one of the first things a 1...e5 player studies. And apart from the fact that I don't like the move order which Baker recommends after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, namely 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 Bxd4 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.f4 d6 8.c3 Nc6 9.f5, he neglects to say how to respond to the simple 4...d6. Well, I suppose that, with some patching up, one could use this as a surprise weapon, but the book is not off to an auspicious start. The next chapter is the aforementioned Cochrane Gambit against the Petroff Defense, a line that I don't believe in at all, and again, it is a system which is unlikely to stay in one's repertoire very long. There follows a very well written chapter on the Philidor, including a section on 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.dxe5. That's fine. But when I went to check the currently-popular move order 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 (which can also arise after 1.d4 d6), Baker gives 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+, and concludes that "it is very hard for White to prove a substantial advantage" (in fact, Black gets equality in his lines), and that "White will have to consider going into the main line of the Philidor," which, he admits, is outside the scope of the book. Hmm.

Baker gives a series of "safe" lines against the Sicilian. For some reason, he devotes an amazing 35 pages just to the Rossolimo Variation (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5), much more than the space given to his anti-2...d6 line (2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4) and anti-2...e6 line (2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bb5) combined. Although the Rossolimo has some bite and has been widely employed at the top levels, the other two systems are harmless for a variety of reasons, and 4.Qxd4 in particular has suffered setbacks in the past few years, after a brief period of popularity. With the lack of ambition inherent in these systems (such that their surprise value is not often of much use), one has to wonder "Why play 1.e4 at all?" or "Wouldn't 1.e4 c5 2.d3 be easier, also equalizing?" Similarly, against the French Defense, White plays the innocuous 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3, when Baker's comment that "I have yet to be convinced that Black can demonstrate a clear route to equality" could just as well be replaced by a statement that none of Black's established answers fails to achieve complete equality! Just for example, in one equalizing line given by most books, 3...d4 4.Ne2 c5 5.c3 Nf6, Baker suggests the unusual 6.Ng3 Nc6 7.Bc4, giving no examples and one short analytical line with extremely cooperative play by Black. White has only played this way once in my databases (and lost), perhaps because Black has several effective answers, for example, 7...a6 and if 8.d3, 8... dxc3 9.bxc3 Na5 (or 9...b5 10.Bb3, and, among other moves, 10...Ra7 intending ...Rd7) 10.Bb3 Nxb3 11.axb3 b6. The position after 5...Nf6 occurs 20 times in Megabase 99, by the way, with White scoring a miserable 3 wins, 11 losses, and 6 draws.

This general pattern of ambitionless play with White is pursued in the Alekhine Defense, 1.e4 Nf6. Now there are many promising paths for White in this opening, but Baker gives 2.Nc3 (is this startling?), and after 2...d5, 3.e5. He then, incidentally, neglects some lines Alekhine-expert Graham Burgess has suggested for Black. But there's a more important problem: What if Black plays 2...e5, transposing to openings like the Vienna, which are out of Baker's repertoire? To this, he simply says that 2...e5 is "unlikely," and fails to suggest anything! Again, it seems that the desire to suggest a risk-free line predominates, even in a case where promising alternatives were so easy to find. Such an attitude seems to me more appropriate for Black systems than for White.

Remember: I'm just skimming through the book and noticing these problems, which is not a good sign. On the other hand, there's a reasonable answer to these sorts of criticism: A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire is a book for the club player, and simply tries to give him or her some systems, mostly not too difficult to learn, to use in selected contests on a popular level, or to incorporate into one's repertoire as a flexible second line. The details, one could argue, aren't that critical in such a context. Baker's work is also valuable as a theoretical contribution; to his credit, he openly shares his analysis and a number of strong, original ideas in these openings. As long as the potential reader views the book in this light, it might be useful for the right audience. And, as mentioned earlier, some of Baker's suggested lines could be legitimate long-term weapons as well (e.g., versus the Pirc, Modern, Scandinavian, and some irregular defenses). The danger I see, however, is that the reader will believe that he is getting more, i.e., the "surprising" and "aggressive" systems the book seems to promise. As a whole, I find this book a bit disappointing, for the same reasons that most "complete" repertoire books disappoint. After all, it isn't hard for an author to suggest lines which equalize for White; the trick would be to describe ones which offer lasting advantages, however small, and interesting prospects. Unfortunately, that probably can't be done in a single volume, at least with sufficient theoretical underpinning, since it would require suggesting lines that strong players regularly employ. In conclusion, I find this an honest and original effort, but I wouldn't want my students to use most of the recommended lines.

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT