Keep It Simple: 1 d4 Chessable Course: An Honest Review

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:

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:

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:

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:

Or at the following variation of the Grünfeld Reversed:

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:

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.

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:

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:

Or the following line of the Grünfeld setups:

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:

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

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

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

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *