This review assumes the reader is familiar with Chessable and their concept

If you don’t know what Chessable is, or you don’t know how exactly it works, I recommend reading this introductory post to Chessable first

INTRODUCTION

A couple of weeks ago, I listened to the 120th episode of the Perpetual Chess Podcast hosted by Ben Johnson, featuring John Hartmann, who is a book reviewer for Chess Life Magazine and editor of Chess Life Online.

In the episode, Hartmann talked about his career as a chess book reviewer and offered advice to all aspiring chess writers. Among other things, he said it is worth to „try and knock on other people’s doors“.

I decided to heed his advice and sent a bunch of emails. One of them landed me into a conversation with members of Chessable, who asked me if I would be interested to write a review of their recently published course, Keep It Simple: 1. d4, by International Master Christof Sielecki.

As I have explained in the Chessable introductory post, considering I am a fervent Chessable devotee who believes their product is useful, there weren’t any internal conflicts that would prevent me from accepting it. ¹ They gave me access to the course, I went through the variations and wrote down my impressions.

The final result – an honest, in-depth review of the Keep It Simple: 1. d4 – is now in front of you.

Hope you will find it useful!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

International Master Christof Sielecki is better known to the wider chess audience as IM Chessexplained, nicknamed after his popular Youtube Channel he started back in 2011. According to his website, in 2014 he gave up his day-time job and started to make a living out of chess.

Most of his time is devoted to his work as a chess-teacher, but he has been also very active as a chess content producer. Apart for the videos for his Youtube channel, he has made video series on chess24 (on Ruy Lopez and English Opening), written a book on Nimzo and Bogo-Indian defences and live-streamed banter blitz session for both chess24 and International Chess Club.

However, during the last couple of years, he has been rather busy with publishing repertoire books for Chessable where he published six courses so far:

• Short & Sweet: The Petroff
• Chessexplained Benko Repertoire: A complete answer to 1. d4
• Chessexplained English: A complete repertoire based on 1. c4
• Fight 1.e4 like Caruana
• Keep It Simple: 1.e4 (which became the first-ever Chessable course that got published as a print book)
• Keep It Simple: 1.d4

ABOUT THE COURSE

Following the success of Keep It Simple: 1. e4, Keep It Simple: 1.d4 was the logical next step. The aim of both KIS courses ² is to provide a complete opening repertoire for the White player on the basis of different 1st moves.

In the KIS: 1 d4 course, the author proposes us to play an universal system based on the fianchetto of the bishop, castling and going c4 (1 d4 – 2 Nf3 – 3 g3 – 4 Bg2 – 5 0-0 – 6 Bg2). Although the aim of the repertoire is to go for this plan almost regardless of what Black does, the author does cover 14 different setups Black can go for, in which we sometimes deviate from our ‘scheme’ (say by playing c4 before castling), due to the concrete features of the position. These setups are divided into 14 chapters (not including Introduction), as follows:

• …d5: Sidelines/ Tarrasch
• …d5 and …c5: Grünfeld Reversed
• …d5 and …e6: The Catalan
• …d5 and …Bf5: …Bf5 Setups
• …d5 and … Bg4: Bg4 Setups
• …g6 and …d5: Grünfeld-style
• …g6 and …d6: King’s Indian Setups
• … e6 and …c5 Benoni Declined with …e6
• …g6 and …c5 Benoni Declined with …g6
• The early …c5: Benoni Systems
• The early …b5: The Anti-c4 approach
• The early …b6: Queen’s Indian Setups
• The early …f5: Dutch Setups
• Black plays something else

There is a marked difference in approach between Keep It Simple 1 e4 and 1 d4 courses. In the former, it was not possible to recommend an universal setup, because the play is more concrete and different replies by Black lead to markedly different positions. For example, after 1…e5 or 1…c5, you know you will never get a Pirc-like or French-like position ³. The simplicity of the repertoire was based on the avoidance of any danger and complications and limiting Black’s counterattacking options by reaching very stable and simple positions, not on universality.

Consequently, move orders and transpositions were of less importance, in contrast to 1 d4 where they are crucial. Since the play is less forced and more flexible, Black can transpose to certain lines later than expected, by delaying some critical moves. For example, in the following variation:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple Review"]  [Black "Line 1"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A49"]  [PlyCount "9"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O *   

Black can decide whether he wants to play the Grünfeld setup with d5 or King’s Indian setup with d6. That is why Sielecki has devoted particular attention to all possible move orders and transpositions.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER AND THE REVIEWING PROCESS

Now that you have the idea about the structure of the course, I should provide a bit information on my preferences as a chess player and perhaps explain how I approached reviewing it.

I am a 2170 ELO rated chess player, who plays 1 e4 most of the time. I have very little experience with 1 d4 – I played it only a couple of times in tournament games, both times avoiding the mainlines and opting for the London System and/or Trompowsky. I am also primarily a tactical player and have a preference for fighting and risky variations, and am therefore not the target audience of the repertoire with ‘Simple’ in title, that often results in quiet, positional play.

In order to review the course, I first had to study it. Due to its sheer volume, I’ve decided to go over every single variation, but less thoroughly. That is why I set the number of repetitions to 1, the Quiz option to ‘Immediately’ and decided to study only the key moves. ⁴ I didn’t watch the complete video material, but I have referenced it on several occassions to hear the author’s thoughts about specific positions.

With that being said, we can finally get started with the actual review. I have decided to organize it as follows: first I will talk about things I liked about the course. Then I will focus on the things I wasn’t fond of. In the end, I will wrap up the review with my final impression and evaluation of the course.

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE COURSE

The main thing I like about this course is its sheer volume. Purely on the basis of the variations and lines of text, it consists of, it is clear that the author has put an enormous amount of work into building this repertoire.

As you go through it, it manifests itself as follows:

• Amount and depth of variations

The course consists of astounding 1031 variations, with the average depth of the line of 13.35 moves. If you disregard all 6-7 move long variations where author covers various transpositions and move orders, an average depth of the main line is probably even greater.

A number of important variations ~20 moves long. On numerous occassions, the author extends the opening variation and transitions deeper into the middle game, directing the student toward potential plans and ideas in subsequent play.

A good example is a variation from the …d5 and …Bf5 chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Sample line 2"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D11"]  [PlyCount "37"]   1. d4 {This chapter is about black setups involving ...d5 and ...Bf5, usually  combined with the pawn moves ...c6 and ...e6. You will encounter this setup  quite frequently if your opponent's main defence to 1. d4 is the Slav Defence}  d5 2. Nf3 (2. c4 c6 {Slav players are very accustomed to the triangle pawns in  the centre (...d5,...c6 and ...e6) and prefer to develop the bishop outside of  the pawn chain, either to f5 or g4. I decided to examine the Slav style setups  in two separate chapters, as our reply against ... Bf5 is quite different to ..  .Bg4. How do we handle the ... Bf5 lines? When I analyzed the ...Bf5-setup it  quickly emerged that White has two principled ideas in it. One of those  involves playing for the pawn push to e4, prepared by c4,Nc3 and Nf3-d2. A  possible line with this approach is 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 c6 4. Bg2 Bf5 5.  O-O e6 6. c4 h6 7. Nc3 Nbd7 8. Nd2 and e4 next. This whole concept certainly  has some logic, but the resulting positions are not that dangerous for Black  in my opinion. Black can often trade pieces on e4 and simplify the position.  This whole approach is very solid for White, but I found the second principled  plan to be much more interesting. The second plan and the one that I chose for  this book involves White playing an early c4 and Qb3, attacking the undefended  b7-pawn. Now the most common reaction for Black is to play ...Qb6, creating a  vis a vis situation of the queens on b3 and b6. We will play the pawn to c5,  forcing a commitment. Now it seems to be most reliable for Black to trade on  b3, creating a complex queenless middlegame. This position type is generally  considered to be satisfactory for Black, but I think I have found enough ideas  to pose some problems. I need to emphasize that there are many ways for Black  to not play into this queenless middlegame, and these are usually not that  great for Black - there are many, not very obvious, pitfalls. If they know the  best line and play into the queen trade, we are going to know the ins and outs  a lot better and make their life as hard as possible. Now, about concrete  moves and move order: we play our usual setup with the kingside fianchetto and  a later c4, but there is one very important twist that I'd like to mention  right at the start of the chapter. We are delaying O-O in this line, going for  a quicker c4/Nc3/Qb3 sequence. I will discuss the reasoning behind this move  order once we reach the specific positions.}) 2... Nf6 3. g3 c6 {Here Black  may still transpose to other chapters of course, with moves like 4... e6, 4...  Bg4 or even 4... g6. Besides the obvious 4... Bf5 there is one more move that  is relevant to ...Bf5-setups.} 4. Bg2 {I recommend delaying/omitting castling,  and playing a quicker c4. The mainline, that we are about to examine, is 4.  Bg2 Bf5 5. c4. I'd like to point out that you may also play the  'hyper-accelerated' c4 by going 4. c4 immediately. This position usually  arises from the proper Slav move order 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 and  has been played quite frequently in recent grandmaster practice. This even  quicker c4 has some points, most notably lines like 4... Bf5 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nh4  or 6. Qb3 Qb6 7. c5, when 7... Na6 is fully prevented due to 8. e4. So, what's  the catch? Black may take on c4, of course. after 4... dxc4 there is no way to  regain the pawn, it is a true gambit. This is fully playable for White, but  also very complicated and committal. I felt that this does not fit too well  with the spirit of this repertoire. However, this move order might be a  welcome addition to your repertoire at a later stage. It obviously shares many  themes with the lines presented here and therefore is certainly easier to add  than something entirely different in nature.} Bf5 {Here Black may still  transpose to other chapters of course, with moves like 4... e6, 4... Bg4 or  even 4... g6. Besides the obvious 4... Bf5 there is one more move that is  relevant to ...Bf5-setups.} 5. c4 {As mentioned before, I recommend playing  this instead of castling first. Of course playing 5. O-O is not a mistake, but  in my opinion it is less precise than 5. c4 if you intend to follow up with  the Qb3 plan. As discussed in the intro, I think this is most dangerous  approach available. So, why is 5. c4 more precise? There are two main points.  The first one is best explained with a sample move sequence. Let's say you  would play} (5. O-O e6 6. c4 Nbd7 7. Nc3 h6 8. Qb3 Qb6 9. c5 {Now Black does  not need to take, but also has 9... Qa6 available. This is a reasonable way  for Black to play, intending ...b6 soon. I was not able to find an advantage  against this idea. Now, let's check what happens if we omit castling: 5. c4 e6  6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. Qb3 Qb6 8. c5. Now 8... Qa6 is not a good idea because of the  tricky move 9. Bf1!, threatening e4. The bishop retreat is not only strong,  but also very easy to miss by Black. So this way we set a little trap and  avoid an otherwise annoying line. The second point of 5. c4 instead of  castling first is the queenless middlegame after the trade on b3, for example  after}) 5... e6 {The most logical move and by far the main one.} 6. Nc3 {Black  now has three main moves of about equal strength. These are 6... Be7, 6... h6  and 6... nbd7. It might not seem like a big difference at first, but the  details are very important here. Black will usually only have some general  ideas about this line, while studying the subtle points will give you good  chances to pose Black serious problems that he has not expected in the first  place. I need to mention that some points apply to all three moves. We will  play 7. Qb3 and the best reply for Black is 7. ..Qb6 8. c5 Qxb3 9. axb3.  Deviating from this sequence is worse for Black and the way to punish these  deviations is also somewhat similar. I'll point out the differences, of course.  The endgame after 9. axb3 is very interesting to study. The three versions of  the endgame are somewhat transpositional, but one important distinction is the  placement of the b8-knight. The endgame with the knight coming to a6 is in  fact sharper and more concrete, while the placement on d7 leads to a more  quiet game. I'd like to emphasize again that studying the endgame is important,  because it will appear frequently as the moves leading to it are so natural.}  Nbd7 {This is the most popular move here.} 7. Qb3 {White has an interesting  alternative in 7. Nh4 here. As mentioned this idea is worth checking if Black  has omitted .. .h6 and the knight is on c3 already. I was not able to find any  tangible advantage, so I decided to stick to the usual recipe with Qb3. The  idea Nh4 will still be important in some lines, though.} Qb6 {This is the best  reply, but not always played. You also meet the passive (and bad) ...Qc8  frequently.} 8. c5 Qxb3 9. axb3 {We have reached the already mentioned endgame.  There are three versions of the endgame, depending on Black's sixth move. Here  Black has already committed to the knight placement on d7, which means the  endgame will be less sharp and based on concrete lines compared to the other  versions where Black might play a quick ...Na6. Let's have a look how the play  develops with the knight on d7. In this position type it is favourable to  still have the king on e1. First of all, Nc3 is more relevant for the  queenside play (b4-b5) than O-O, we are slightly faster on that side of the  board. Additionally, White has the plan to play a setup with h3 and g4, which  is also more powerful with the king still on e1. These points will become  clearer once you study the lines featuring this structure.} a6 {Black plays  this move almost all of time. Not just here on move 9, but also most of the  time at a later stage. Black wants to make the rook on a8 mobile and is afraid  that White may play b4 and even b5 quickly. By going 9... a6 right now he  makes sure that after 9... a6 10. b4 Rc8 the b5-push is prevented.} 10. b4 Rc8  {Black stops any b5-ideas. As we have seen in the 9... Be7 line, this b5-idea  is not even on our agenda.} 11. h3 {Here you may also play 11. Nh4, but it is  essential to understand the general plan of h3 and g4. This plan is relevant  for all versions of the endgame with. ..Nbd7, and may appear from other move  orders. We are dealing with various setups here, rather than very concrete  move orders.} h6 {Black will play this move at some point, getting the  h7-square for the bishop.} 12. g4 Bh7 13. Bf4 Be7 14. Nd2 {This move finally  reveals what to do on the queenside. White starts a knight tour to a5,  ultimately eyeing the b7-pawn. This position is slightly better for White,  because Black has less space and very few active ideas. Of course he is  solidly placed, but it is not much fun to just sit and wait. White also has  the idea to expand in the centre later. Let's examine some possible  continuations to illustrate.} O-O 15. Nb3 Bd8 {Black needs to react to the Na5  idea.} 16. Bd6 Re8 17. f4 {White stops ...e5 and gains even more space.} Be7  18. Bxe7 Rxe7 19. e3 {I prefer White here, being a huge believer in space. If  Black does not show some clear idea, we will play ?f3 and h4. This whole line  also shows the point of delaying castling and playing c4 on move 5. This  kingside expansion does not work after White has castled.} *   

Even though the opening has ended, the author extends the variation up to move 19 and explains typical ideas and motifs behind White’s moves.

• Amount of text/commentary

With 101.954 words of text, this Chessable course is probably the record holder (at least when it comes to the courses I own). That is almost two times more than KIS: 1 e4 (which consisted of 59.309 words).

I was especially fond of clear and in-depth explanations at the beginning of each chapter, where the author presents a detailed overview of the chapter with the main ideas of the variation. It is really helpful when encountering new opening variations for the first time.

And it also makes the task of keeping track of various transpositions and move orders much easier. Which brings me to the next point.

• The clarity in the explanation of transpositions and move orders

Probably the thing I liked the most about the course.

Throughout every previous Chessable course I have studied, I felt that the coverage of the various transpositions and move orders left something to be desired. Either it was mentioned briefly (in passing), omitted altogether, or been rather confusing.

In KIS: 1 d4, this is not the case. From the introduction to the course, the author devotes a lot of attention to dealing with Black’s flexibility. Each chapter contains several specific variations dedicated exclusively to transpositions to other chapters. It is is easy and simple to keep track of this aspect of the course.

• Amount of (new) ideas one can extract from the course

Another aspect of the course I like is that it is not merely a bunch of lines we need to memorize. The author constantly points out ideas behind certain moves and even introduces several novelties in well-known positions. Even if you don’t remember all the subtleties and exact moves of these variations, some concepts will definitely stick.

• Quality of engine analysis

Last, but not least, the quality of engine analysis is the best testament to the author’s thoroughness. The vast majority of the lines I have checked have withstood my own engine’s evaluation. I haven’t discovered a major hole and you really get the feeling that the author had every single position with engine evaluation on his board at some point (which is surprising for such a big course).

WHAT I DIDN’T LIKE ABOUT THE COURSE

Unfortunately, there are also many things I didn’t like about the course. My main objection is that the title is a bit misleading, because this is NOT a SIMPLE course. I thought that the title „Keep it Universal“ would have been more appropriate. ⁵ Even the author himself admits it at least once throughout the course!

The complexity of the course manifests itself as follows:

• Too many complicated, long, forcing and sharp lines

In contrast to KIS: 1 e4 where the main aim was striving for simplicity, with just a few complicated lines included (Four Knights Defence, I am looking at you) in KIS: 1 d4, long, complicated and forcing lines are encountered much more often.

As an example, take a look at the following variation of the Grünfeld chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Sample line 3 - bez komentara"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D77"]  [PlyCount "43"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 dxc4 7. Na3 Nc6 8.  Nxc4 Be6 9. b3 Bd5 10. Bb2 a5 11. Ne3 Be4 12. a3 Bh6 13. Nc4 Bd5 14. Ncd2 Bxd2  15. Qxd2 Bxb3 16. Qh6 Ng4 17. Qh4 f5 18. d5 Bxd5 19. e4 Bxe4 20. Ng5 h5 21.  Rad1 Qe8 22. f3 {And White wins} 1-0   

Or at the following variation of the Grünfeld Reversed:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Sample Line Grünfeld Reversed"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "45"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 cxd4 5. O-O Nc6 6. Nxd4 e5 7. Nxc6 bxc6 8.  c4 Be6 9. Qa4 Qd7 10. Nc3 Rc8 11. cxd5 cxd5 12. Qxd7+ Kxd7 13. Rd1 Bc5 14. Na4  h6 15. Nxc5+ Rxc5 16. f4 e4 17. h3 Rc2 18. g4 Ke7 19. Be3 a5 20. Rac1 Rxe2 21.  Bc5+ Kd8 22. f5 Bd7 23. Bd4 {And the black rook is trapped!} *   

Don’t get me wrong – I am very fond of studying sharp and forcing lines. But I think their number doesn’t quite fit in the „Keep It Simple“ repertoire.

• Too many lines where White gives up material and seeks compensation

Another sharp contrast to KIS: 1 e4, where the main aim was the restriction of Black’s counterattacking chances, is how often the author advises us to „go for it“ and asks us to sacrifice material for long-term compensation.

Chapters like reverse Grünfeld, Catalan or …d5 and …Bf5 are almost based on this concept, while various pawn sacrifices for the sake of the initiative can be found throughout the entire course. Take the following variation from the King’s Indian chapter as an example:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "King's Indian Sample Line #1"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A49"]  [PlyCount "45"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O d6 6. b3 e5 7. dxe5 dxe5 8. Ba3  Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Re8 10. c4 e4 11. Nd4 Ng4 12. Nc3 e3 13. Nd5 exf2+ 14. Kf1 Nxh2+  15. Kxf2 Ng4+ 16. Kg1 Na6 17. Ne7+ Rxe7 18. Bxe7 Ne3 19. Rd3 Nf5 20. Nxf5 Bxf5  21. e4 Bxa1 22. exf5 Rb8 23. b4 {And White has a strong initiative for the  pawn.} *   

Another example from the same chapter was even more astounding. True, the author mentioned 17 bxc4 is possible, but the very suggestion of moves like 17 Qc2 somehow does not fit in the „Keep It Simple“ repertoire.

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "King's Indian Sample Line #2"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A49"]  [PlyCount "35"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O d6 6. b3 c5 7. Bb2 Nc6 8. d5  Na5 9. c4 a6 10. Nbd2 b5 11. e4 Rb8 12. e5 Ng4 13. Re1 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15.  Bxe5 dxe5 16. Rxe5 bxc4 17. Qc2 {Of course 17. bxc4 is better for White as  well, but I wanted to show this interesting engine suggestion. It is not a  commonly seen idea.} cxb3 18. axb3 {White has excellent play for the pawn and  will very likely regain the material soon while keeping a strong initiative.  Black has just too many weak spots to cover at the same time.} *   

As mentioned previously – I don’t associate such variations with the word ‘simple’. Also, a number of these ‘with compensation’ variations didn’t appeal to me since I didn’t find them particularly convincing. I am not sure how much they would appeal to players lower rated than myself, since playing dynamically while being down material is one of the most difficult skills in chess to master.

• Too many nonconclusive evaluations (positions where the author advises us to investigate further)

Another thing that bothered me is how often the author left us with nonconclusive evaluations in (what it seemed to me) unclear positions, where the play is just beginning. For example, take a look at the following line of the Grünfeld chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Grünfeld Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A49"]  [PlyCount "31"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 c6 7. b3 dxc4 8. bxc4  c5 9. Bb2 cxd4 10. Nxd4 Qb6 11. Qc1 Nc6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Nd2 Bf5 14. Nb3 Rac8  15. e4 Be6 16. Rb1 {In the game L.Ding-F.Caruana, Wijk aan Zee 2015, White  played 16. e5 instead. 16. Rb1 is the computer improvement, which poses more  problems. You could easily continue the analysis up to move 30, but this is a  bit too deep. I'll show some moves and then cut it. If you have some time to  spent: it's interesting to analyze a bit here and helpful for your overall  assessment of complicated positions.} *   

Maybe that is my personal reference, ⁶ but when I study openings from a book or a course, I don’t like if I have to search for answers too much on my own.

And since this is a huge and time-consuming course as it is, allotting additional hours to analyze complicated positions on my own wasn’t something that appealed to me.

• Too many positions with minimal to zero advantage

One of the problems I have with this course is trying to determine who the target audience is. As we have just seen, there is a number of complex variations I personally think aren’t suitable for <1800 (or even 1900) players.

On the other hand, there is a number of variations where the author strives for simplicity at all cost (just like in Keep It Simple: 1 e4) which might potentially repulse stronger players. Variations such as this line of the …d5 & …Bg4 setup:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "...d5 and ...Bg5 Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "31"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 c6 4. Bg2 Bg4 5. c4 e6 6. h3 Bh5 7. O-O Nbd7 8. cxd5  cxd5 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Ne5 Bg6 11. Nxg6 hxg6 12. e4 dxe4 13. Nxe4 Nd5 14. Qb3 Qb6  15. Qxb6 N7xb6 16. Nc5 {This is the move that I did not consider during the  game. White has a good, active game here with some advantage.} *   

Or the following line of the Grünfeld setups:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Grünfeld Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D02"]  [PlyCount "27"]   1. d4 g6 2. Nf3 Bg7 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Nh6 5. O-O Nf5 6. c3 O-O 7. Nbd2 Nd6 8. Re1  b6 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Rxe4 Bb7 12. Re1 Nd7 13. Bg5 Nf6 14. Qe2 {My  opponent Etienne Bauduin played 14. Ne5 here, which was also giving White a  comfortable advantage. It's a tough call, but 14. Qe2 seems even stronger. It  keeps more pieces on the board and probably exerts pressure. We play ?ad1 next  and still may play Qe5 later to exploit the weak c6-square.} *   

Okay, my opening philosophy is not suited for such variations. They bugged me in KIS: 1 e4, but they were consistent with the overall approach. This time, they bug me even more, because they are in sharp contrast with previously examined complicated variations.

I understand some players are content with a minimal advantage, but in contrast to KIS: 1 e4, this course can’t guarantee the play will follow such a turn of events.

• Some positions where the author overestimates White’s chances

Even though I am pretty sure the author did check everything with the computer, I found some lines where he decided to ignore it/interpret it in an over-optimistic way. As an example, take a look at this position arising from the variation in the Tarrasch chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Tarrasch Defence Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D30"]  [PlyCount "31"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. g3 Nc6 6. Bg2 Nf6 7. O-O Be7 8.  dxc5 Bxc5 9. a3 Ne4 10. Nfd2 f5 11. Nxe4 dxe4 12. Qxd8+ Nxd8 13. Nc3 Be6 14. g4  g6 15. gxf5 gxf5 16. Bf4 {I think that White is slightly better here. We have  more active possibilities, for example on the queenside based on moves like  Nb5, Rc1 and b4. Another idea worth noting is playing Bh1 to continue with f3  next. That opens the long diagonal and gets us closer to attacking the f5-pawn,  which is more exposed than the e2-pawn. Black has many possible moves now, so  I'd like to stop at this point. It is an interesting position to explore  further, together with a human or silicone partner.} *   

Or this position arising from the variation in the Queen’s Indian chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "Queen's Indian Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "A50"]  [PlyCount "25"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 g6 5. O-O Bg7 6. c4 O-O 7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Nxe4  Bxe4 9. Be3 d6 10. Qd2 Nd7 11. Bh6 Nf6 12. Bxg7 Kxg7 13. b3 *   

Or this positions arising from the variation in the …d5 & … Bf5 chapter:

   [Event "?"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "2019.07.13"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Keep It Simple: 1 d4"]  [Black "... d5 and ...Bf5 Sample Line"]  [Result "*"]  [ECO "D11"]  [PlyCount "35"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 c6 4. Bg2 Bf5 5. c4 e6 6. Nc3 h6 7. Qb3 Qb6 8. c5  Qxb3 9. axb3 Na6 10. Ra4 Nd7 11. h4 Be7 12. Bf4 f6 13. b4 Bc2 14. Rxa6 bxa6 15.  h5 a5 16. b5 cxb5 17. Bh3 Kf7 18. Nxd5 {And again we have enough play for the  exchange.} *   

The author claims White is better in all three positions. Even though I haven’t run a detailed engine analysis, at first sight, Stockfish and yours truly both think White can’t claim any advantage. At the very least, he obtained a playable, complex position, where he is also risking a lot. Even though I might venture to go for such a position once in a while, I wouldn’t feel comfortable if it was the foundation of my opening repertoire.

• Volume

Finally, I know it might be weird I am mentioning volume since I praised the amount of the information in the course previously and that opening book containing a complete repertoire is expected to be thick.

But I spent somewhere between 20-25 hours just quickly going through the material in the first iteration. I know it is unrealistic to expect you can craft entire 1 d4 repertoire in just a couple of hours, but considering the amount of time required and all the cons mentioned, I really wondered whether it is the most effective way of doing so. ⁷

FINAL VERDICT

To conclude – we chess players have a saying that the „calculation of every long variation“ involves a certain hole. This is a bit how I felt as I was going through Keep It Simple: 1 d4.. ⁸ Every huge course is bound to have some variations the student will simply dislike and some variations where the student will dispute the evaluation.

As mentioned above – my main objection is that it is not clear to me who should get the course. Lower rated players might get lost in the forest of complicated variations. Higher rated players might find certain variations less ambitious and the process of memorization not worth the benefits. I personally had a feeling author himself couldn’t decide when to simplify it and when to complicate it, which resulted in the great disproportion between simple and complicated lines.

Bear in mind that I am a certain profile of the player whose general approach to the opening phase is different – I, for instance, preferred FM Kamil Plichta’s Go For The Throat: 1 d4 comprehensive repertoire much more, as it goes for the more direct, conclusive and sharp lines. But nevertheless, I think it would be more consistent if the author follower the recipe of Keep It Simple: 1 e4 and decided for absolutely simple variations (say King’s Indian Exchange, Grünfeld with Bd2, Queen’s Gambit Declined, etc.).

Don’t get me wrong, Keep It Simple: 1 d4 is not a BAD course. The author put an insane amount of hours into it. It contains a gigantic amount of valuable information and a number of good lines. It is not like you will not get anything out of it. Chapters on Catalan, Reverse Grünfeld or Anti Grünfeld are very good and I am glad I have seen this analysis – I might get around to using it someday.

Also, it is definitely a cheaper option than getting yourself a separate book for every particular opening. The course is certainly worth its money.

But I am just not sure whether it is realistic to expect to build an entire repertoire for such amount of money. I am not certain that getting an entire 1 d4 repertoire just to play a couple of lines is the most effective approach. ⁹ At the very least, it depends on your strength, ambitions, time and budget.

I’d urge to at least think a bit whether it is the most effective use of your time and your money for chess improvement purposes and chess opening theory study.

Chessentials Mark: 3.5/5

1. As recommending something I don’t use or being averse to blatant self-promotion.
2. And the 1 c4 course. But I haven’t studied that one, so I will not refer to it in the course of this review
3. Okay, the French structure may appear in some Sicilian variations, but not THAT often.
4. If you are not sure what these settings mean, I once again refer you to the introductory Chessable post
5. But less consistent with the previous courses
6. And bear in mind it comes from a spoilt millennial who longs for „instant gratification“
7. Besides, haven’t I warned you about „instant gratification“ millennials? :(
8. This, but to a lesser extent, is also my impression of its close cousin, Keep It Simple: 1 e4
9. That also goes for the aforementioned Go For The Throat: 1 d4