Browser version of Openings vs PDF

Does anyone use the browser version instead of the pdf's to study the openings?

I was just looking at the Dutch today and loaded up the browser to play through the moves automatically.

Anyway I noticed the content is actually changed slightly. Nothing really new added but the online version reads more naturally like somebody who understands English properly has written it.

I've not looked at the other openings on the browser yet but I'm curious to see if there are any differences, and maybe even some extra little bits of information.

It's nothing major but now a couple more moves have commentaries attached to them for example in the PDF version of the Dutch I've printed out the moves 5.e3 Be6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Qf3 are given without commentary but in the browser version the following information is added;

5.e3 White puts now his pawns on the opposite color of his remained bishop. Also, he clears the way for the queen to come on f3, then Bd3 and Ng1-e2-f4, one of the best setups in this position. White keeps both possibilities to castle on the queenside or kingside.

5...Be6 the best move for Black. [Other possibility is: 5...c6 but Black will have some problems with the development of the b8-knight. 6.Bd3 Bd6 (6...Qb6 7.Na4!?+/= ) 7.Qf3 g6 8.Nge2 Be6 9.h3 White has a better play because of his better pieces and better structure. TO DO: - Attack Black's kingside structure by g2-g4 and Ne2-f4 - Castle long and then attack on the kingside.]

6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Qf3



I'm definitely going to check over the browser version of openings from now on to see if there are any extra bits of information over the pdf versions. Might be useful if others who are studying certain lines can point out if there are any differences between browser and pdf versions of other opening lines too.


Also the browser version of the Dutch concludes with this paragraph with sounds a lot less stilted than the traditional Romanian writings.

Usually in Dutch Defense, Black has flexible/dynamic pawn structures. But this position is characterized by a less flexible structure, so, at least from psychological point of view, this variation favors White who managed not let Black to make his game. With 8 pawns on the board and small chances to drastically open the position, the knights are better than the bishops, so the previous trade (a white bishop for a black knight is justified). White's strategic goal for the middlegame is to clarify the central position in his favor by pushing c2-c4 (after a possible maneuver Nc3-e2-f4). The point is that after d5xc4 White will dominate the central squares and the open c-file, or after c4xd5 he will make a weak black pawn on d5. Black should maintain the central tension and eventually try to open the position by f5-f4 or c7-c5. By trying to keep a tense situation, Black can make problematic any White's attempt of playing on one of the wings. WHITE TO DO LIST: - create and maintain permanent pressure against f5 and d5 - find outposts for the knights: Ng1-e2-f4 and maybe Nc3-e2-g3 - try to make possible the pawn thrusts: c2-c4 and/or g2-g4 (supported by h2-h3). - in the future, e3-e4 can be a very strong pawn thrust in the center (prepared by f2-f3) After 7...


Actually the pdf version says of the same position 'On the arisen position the centre is dynamic which demands a specific approach for every peculiar case.

The browser version says. 'Usually Black has flexible/dynamic pawn structures. But this position is characterized by a less flexible structure so at least from a psychological point of view this variation favours White who managed not to let Black make his game.

The two quotes actually seem to contradict one another slightly. I guess studying both versions will reap rewards. I definitely want to see if this is true for the other lines as well......

I'm studying the Benko (Volga) Gambit now and once again the browser version is slightly different to the pdf document.

There are a couple of alternative variations not considered in the pdf and some of the explanations are a little clearer.

I'm so glad I noticed this as these subtle sentence alterations or bits of added detail really help fill in some gaps.

I found the Dutch and Benko lines to be very short and didn't really understand what was going on but with a couple annotated games taken from the mega database 09 and the extra details on this browser versio it is making a bit more sense to me now.

I guess next I'll check out the chessbase files and see what's on them. Upto now all I had done was save and print out all the pdf stuff assuming that the browser version would be an exact replica.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I though the same, that pdf text was identical to browser version since both in my mind were only "export" from the chessbase version.

Now what we have to figure out, is which of the 3 media is the more up to date ? I would suggest it is the chessbase version, but this need to be double-checked.

Oh god. You guys opened another can of worms over here!

I always used the Chessbase files and never looked at the browser ones. Now I gotta go back and check.

Egads. They need to fix this.

From what I can tell the chessbase files and browser files are the same, its the pdf documents that differ slightly.

I'm only speaking regarding the Dutch and Benko lines but the pdf document contains a few less variations and some minor missing move commentary.

But these are only single page opening lines. If the Slav or Catalan or future complex openings for Black have differences that might prove an annoyance.

Up until yesterday I had never used the chessbase files or browser versions at all, and was purely using the pdf documents which I had all printed out.

I've noticed the chessbase files version of the Kings Indian also differs with the pdf version.

The pdf version lists 3 possible Black setups whilst the chessbase files list four.

Also the main line in the chessbase files differs from the pdf version which instead recommends one of the chessbase files sub lines as its main line.

I'll list more differences between the two as I continue studying this.

I've not checked the browser version yet but I will do just to see if anything differs on there as well.

If anyone like me has been just using the pdf versions printed out to study from definitely check out the chessbase files because there is quite a bit more information on them.

Weird my KID response for white has four main lines.

Egads they need version control!