(My rating would be two-and-a-half stars if that were possible.)
I'm a master who's played the QGA on and off for about 20 years. My other reference works were getting old, so I got a copy of Ward's book. The parts I've read so far have disappointed me.
He spends a bit more than 1/3 of the pages on the 3.e4 lines, writing, "If the QGA is to be refuted, then 3 e4 is probably the place for White players to look." This statement is puzzling. He's implying that there could be a _refutation_ to the QGA (an eye-opening claim), and he says nothing of the likelihood that White can get an _advantage_ in this line, rather than in other lines (a more useful consideration).
I don't know the e4 lines well, but I'm familiar with other QGA lines. He skips over some significant variations in those. Two examples:
A) In the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 5.Bxc4 e6, he doesn't analyze a common Black setup built around the moves a6, Nc6, and Bd6. [In a note -- not his regular analysis -- he mentions one game that began that way, in which White played weirdly and got into trouble.]
B) In the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3, he never mentions one of Black's sensible responses, 4. ... Nc6, which has been played many times.
Skipping lines such as these would make sense if this were a repertoire book, advising the Black player to choose certain variations. But it's not; it's a survey of the entire opening. Of course, you can never include every little subvariation of an opening, but the two I mentioned are hardly obscure.
Ward does a nice job of describing some positional ideas in his analysis (rather than just complex variations). However, as he analyzes games, he focuses much more on the moves actually played than on possibly superior alternatives, which he either omits or glosses over.
This book could also have used better editing and proofreading. A few examples:
1. Page 91: "The queen had look after the knight."
2. Page 100: a note mentions the move h5 for Black, but it should have been Bh5.
3. Page 103: a note says "As we shall see elsewhere," referring to something that happens in other games, but we are not told where to find those games.
4. Page 154: the text reads "It's inconceivable" when it clearly should have said "It's conceivable."
A book by a grandmaster on an important opening raises the reader's hopes -- too much so in this case. If I were a specialist in 3.e4, I might have a much better view of this book. From my perspective, though, it merits no more than a lukewarm recommendation.
