| |
Main
Date: 26 Mar 2008 11:51:48
From: Eric Normandeau
Subject: Chess Books
|
Hi all,
What if you had to recomment the 3 best books to become strong at chess
to someone around 1000FIDE??? What are the very best ones? and why?
Thanks in advance :)
Ciao!
Eric
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2008 02:28:39
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
On Wed, 26 2008 11:51:48 -0400, Eric Normandeau
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>What if you had to recomment the 3 best books to become strong at chess
>to someone around 1000FIDE??? What are the very best ones? and why?
>
>Thanks in advance :)
>
>Ciao!
>
>Eric
#1 Logical chess move by move - Irving Chernev
- a great primer on strategy, perhaps 'dated' but I would start with
the earlier masters first.
#2 Chess - Polgar
- a HUGE tome of tactics although I would also recommend software for
this such as convektas 'chess tactics for beginners'
#3 Silman's complete endgame course - Jeremy Silman
- simply the best book Ive seen on learning the endgame.
Just remember to play LOTS of slow chess :) avoid blitz (let the
flames begin!)
Just my 2cents worth
J.Lohner
|
| | |
Date: 28 Mar 2008 10:34:45
From: Eric Normandeau
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
[email protected] a �crit :
> On Wed, 26 2008 11:51:48 -0400, Eric Normandeau
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> What if you had to recomment the 3 best books to become strong at chess
>> to someone around 1000FIDE??? What are the very best ones? and why?
>>
>> Thanks in advance :)
>>
>> Ciao!
>>
>> Eric
>
> #1 Logical chess move by move - Irving Chernev
>
> - a great primer on strategy, perhaps 'dated' but I would start with
> the earlier masters first.
>
> #2 Chess - Polgar
>
> - a HUGE tome of tactics although I would also recommend software for
> this such as convektas 'chess tactics for beginners'
>
> #3 Silman's complete endgame course - Jeremy Silman
>
> - simply the best book Ive seen on learning the endgame.
>
> Just remember to play LOTS of slow chess :) avoid blitz (let the
> flames begin!)
>
> Just my 2cents worth
> J.Lohner
Thank you for these suggestions. Chernev's book keeps being mentionned,
I'll sure grab that one. The endgame book might be a good idea too :)
Ciao!
Eric
|
| |
I do not believe a specific book is important. If you can go over any
good notes to 2 master games per day, I think you will improve. 1000
FIDE may be a bit low to talk about this, in my opinion; you should be
able to go significantly higher than this by any method that will make
you take your games more seriously, without acquiring any new
knowledge. For myself, I seemed to get much stronger when I decided
that during a sabbatical year when I was away from all chess games, I
would carefully go throught the notes of 2 games per day from
Bronstein's book of Zurich 1953. After the year away, I entered
tournaments and was shocked to see how well I did.
I regret to say that I have not kept up the practice, and my chess has
slipped. This also tells me something, but I am not sure quite what.
What I gained, I think, was not simply extra knowledge of chess ideas
(which I would retain even without further study), but an appreciation
for how complex a chess position is, which allowed me to probe further
than I did before reading Bronstein's notes. This lesson seems
completely forgotten; in my last tournament, I was playing much faster
than my opponents, and missed some very nice wins by not studying the
position carefully and going purely on instinct. So I think; perhaps,
of course, I am just getting old.
Jerry Spinrad
On 26, 10:51=A0am, Eric Normandeau <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What if you had to recomment the 3 best books to become strong at chess
> to someone around 1000FIDE??? What are the very best ones? and why?
>
> Thanks in advance :)
>
> Ciao!
>
> Eric
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 17:07:55
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
Eric Normandeau wrote:
> What if you had to recomment the 3 best books to become strong at chess
> to someone around 1000FIDE??? What are the very best ones? and why?
People insist there are no silly questions, but this particular one
always triggers my silly-meter.
I suppose I should ask for proof to the contrary: that is, a reasonably
convincing argument that becoming strong at chess from books is not significantly
related to the learner in question. I am not convinced that personality-
related factors (tenacity, willingness to eat learning pain in form of games
lost to human opponents among them) and strong motivation are not important
factors in the equation.
But disregarding that, my top suggestion is, as always, Book of Common Prayer
-- in Russian. Russian is probably best, but as long as it is a language the
person doesn't understand right now, it works.
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 12:45:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
"Eric Normandeau" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi all,
>
> What if you had to recomment the 3 best books to become strong at chess to
> someone around 1000FIDE??? What are the very best ones? and why?
War and Peace - Tolstoy, because you sense the role of individual drama and
strife in turbulent society, and why some things require a fight.
Taliessin Through Logres - Charles Williams, because it has a Gothic sense
of another sensibility within these realms of time
The Magus - Fowles, because it is a warning to those who would know but
would not understand.
You may think this a trite answer to your question about 3 books, but
reading chess books to improve on 1000 rating is probably not as good an
idea as
a) playing chess instead for 95% of your available time, and
b) expanding your mind in lateral ways so that your imagination and insight
play their proper roles, rather than rote learned materials [See Fowles note
above, which does not mean such material is useful in the playing of the
game, and if at all, without constant cramming]
If you must read chessbooks, try any of the Chess School material from
Convekta - and these are just pictures, hardly any text, and the goal is to
increase your pattern recognition skills.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Thanks in advance :)
>
> Ciao!
>
> Eric
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 09:38:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
> =A0 I found it very useful to play against
> stronger players, losing again and again
> until finally, one day they started getting
> frustrated that their cheap shots were no
> longer doing the trick; that's when they
> had to hunker down and play REAL
> chess! =A0Slowly, but surely, you will learn
> strategy-- but it will be of little use until
> you first "master" tactics.
I am 1100 rated may be ?! How to improve tactics.
I know all theory but when I go to play I forget to see that Opponent
will kill my Bishop in second move.
How to know that you have seen all the tactics in Chess is there any
simple way of doing it. Computers can think on 100000s of moves and
solve tactics. How can a Human be good at Tactics?
I usually forget that a piece is killing my piece and make a move
overlooking simple threats. How can this problem be removed? I play
1-2 games in a month may be It comes by practise.
Is Chess Intelligence game or a Practise game?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Dan Heisman's new book, Back To Basics: Tactics is (as someone called
it) a good "hold in your hand" book. Otherwise just spend time (lots
of it) on the tactics problem servers such as chess.emrald.de and
chesstempo.com.
Forget about opening books for quite a little while.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 13:26:03
From: Eric Normandeau
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
[email protected] a �crit :
> Dan Heisman's new book, Back To Basics: Tactics is (as someone called
> it) a good "hold in your hand" book. Otherwise just spend time (lots
> of it) on the tactics problem servers such as chess.emrald.de and
> chesstempo.com.
>
> Forget about opening books for quite a little while.
Ok, title noted!
Thanks
Ciao!
Eric
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 17:01:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
On 26, 12:45 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
[Arrogant drivel snipped]
> Cordially, Phil Innes
You are a very sick man, Phil Innes... .
It is ludicrous to assume that because a
player is rated 1000 FIDE (or rather, *thinks*
he is), he needs to "expand his mind" so he
can then comprehend chess on a somewhat
higher (than 1000 FIDE) level. Your
response smacks of arrogance, as well as
stupidity. Chess is not a tool by which you
can assume the role of superior-intellect by
virtue of lying about your title or rating; it is
merely a game, and the skills involved are
very limited in scope.
------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my (dated) recommendation:
Apart from practice against stronger players,
a good bet would be Bruce Pandolfini's The
ABCs of Chess. It contains a lot of crucial
information which could take someone up to
at least the 1500 level, even if you never
study chess openings.
Tactics are (almost) everything. Do not
become one of the *many* players who
complain after every game that you "had
him, until..."; instead, be one of those
players that had been had, until you
nailed the poor sap with a combination
you spotted easily but which he never
even imagined could exist. Focus on
*tactics first*, strategy second.
I found it very useful to play against
stronger players, losing again and again
until finally, one day they started getting
frustrated that their cheap shots were no
longer doing the trick; that's when they
had to hunker down and play REAL
chess! Slowly, but surely, you will learn
strategy-- but it will be of little use until
you first "master" tactics.
BTW, those who recommend Logical
Chess, Move by Move might be surprised
to learn that there is a superior, more
up-to-date version of this same idea now.
I don't know the author, but it's probably
a lot better than the old "always play
1. P-K4!, because I said so, that's why"
stuff.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 09:16:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2ad1f4ff-79e1-447d-b6d3-82415f3a43aa@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 26, 12:45 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [Arrogant drivel snipped]
>
>> Cordially, Phil Innes
>
>
> You are a very sick man, Phil Innes... .
Definition for Newbies of HelpSpeak: "sick-man" = strong player
> It is ludicrous to assume that because a
> player is rated 1000 FIDE (or rather, *thinks*
> he is), he needs to "expand his mind" so he
> can then comprehend chess on a somewhat
> higher (than 1000 FIDE) level.
Hang on! I'll send messages to Gardner and BF Skinner!
They even think that for academic subjects its better not to cram but to
listen to deeply //patterned// music, like Bach for example, since this
exercises one's mind to the degree that it can produce what's in it!
Of course, if Help-not wants to condemn this player to a heavy regimen of
cramming and remembering theory and advice, then maybe that will provide
results? The only drawback with it is that you have to keep cramming in
order to produce the same results, and also its no fun!
> Your
> response smacks of arrogance, as well as
> stupidity. Chess is not a tool by which you
> can assume the role of superior-intellect by
> virtue of lying about your title or rating; it is
> merely a game, and the skills involved are
> very limited in scope.
Says the "I cudda bin a C player"!
Of course, perhaps we only read here a prescription of how to limit your
chess as Help-bot himself has done? And then instead of conducting your own
studies and developing your own insight [which alone lets you /continue/ to
increase in ability] you can use Fritz, which requires no thought or insight
whatever.
Then you can in every other post write trash about anyone stronger than you,
while pretending you even understand what Fritz says.
But this is the Newbies choice; to become like Help-bot, or take the advice
of strong players. I believe I cited Kasparov before, and this was certainly
his opinion.
The right idea here is to sensible supplement your play with study, with the
right material at the right time, and in the right proportion.
The wrong idea is to play things you don't understand from your own
experience - so that every time it says 'White is better' you can't see
why - and that's because you don't put the effort into finding patterns on
the board yourself, but rely on an author to tell you what's what. And all
this vicariously learned stuff will then need to be unlearned in order to
make more improvement - which many players are unwilling to do.
The fun of chess is that you /can/ determine what goes on by your /own/
insight. If you can do that, then nevermind reaching 1500 and stalling, you
can reach 2000 and beyond.
Phil Innes
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here is my (dated) recommendation:
>
> Apart from practice against stronger players,
> a good bet would be Bruce Pandolfini's The
> ABCs of Chess. It contains a lot of crucial
> information which could take someone up to
> at least the 1500 level, even if you never
> study chess openings.
>
> Tactics are (almost) everything. Do not
> become one of the *many* players who
> complain after every game that you "had
> him, until..."; instead, be one of those
> players that had been had, until you
> nailed the poor sap with a combination
> you spotted easily but which he never
> even imagined could exist. Focus on
> *tactics first*, strategy second.
>
> I found it very useful to play against
> stronger players, losing again and again
> until finally, one day they started getting
> frustrated that their cheap shots were no
> longer doing the trick; that's when they
> had to hunker down and play REAL
> chess! Slowly, but surely, you will learn
> strategy-- but it will be of little use until
> you first "master" tactics.
>
> BTW, those who recommend Logical
> Chess, Move by Move might be surprised
> to learn that there is a superior, more
> up-to-date version of this same idea now.
> I don't know the author, but it's probably
> a lot better than the old "always play
> 1. P-K4!, because I said so, that's why"
> stuff.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 13:34:43
From: Eric Normandeau
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
Hello you 2, :)
I accept all kinds of advices, whether serious, ludicrous or
semi-ridicule-in-a-makes-you-think-about-your-expectations way. I was
not offended at all by Phil's comment and was in fact interrested in the
titles suggested. I learn chess presently, but I have other interrest
areas as well, litterature being one :)
So, once again, I welcome all advices and comments and will not feel
offended. I'm a big boy and can decide what to make of them. I like the
interactions taking place in this newsgroup but don't feel you have to
fight over my questions or over the supposition that an answer to one of
them was rude/insulting to me or whatever. I'll fend for myself if I
ever see a point in doing so.
I take all responses in consideration and decide what's to get out of
them. If it's only a good laugh from time to time, so be it! :P
Cheers to all!
Eric
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 16:35:02
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
Eric Normandeau <[email protected] > wrote:
> What if you had to recomment the 3 best books to become strong at
> chess to someone around 1000FIDE??? What are the very best ones? and
> why?
In the thread you started about GetClub, I pointed you at Dan
Heisman's column at chesscafe.com. Personally, I wouldn't spend a
penny on books until you've digested those. They really are very good
and will give you a big lift from 1000FIDE.
If really want something to hold in your hands, try Chernev's _Logical
Chess Move by Move_.
But, if most of your games are being decided because one player or the
other hangs a piece, books aren't going to help very much. The first
thing you need to check about every move that you consider and every
move that your opponent plays is `Does this hang a piece?'
Dave.
--
David Richerby Artificial Hat (TM): it's like a hat
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made of plastic!
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 10:31:46
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Books
|
On 26, 12:35=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Eric Normandeau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What if you had to recomment the 3 best books to become strong at
> > chess to someone around 1000FIDE??? What are the very best ones? and
> > why?
>
> In the thread you started about GetClub, I pointed you at Dan
> Heisman's column at chesscafe.com. =A0Personally, I wouldn't spend a
> penny on books until you've digested those. =A0They really are very good
> and will give you a big lift from 1000FIDE.
>
> If really want something to hold in your hands, try Chernev's _Logical
> Chess Move by Move_.
>
> But, if most of your games are being decided because one player or the
> other hangs a piece, books aren't going to help very much. =A0The first
> thing you need to check about every move that you consider and every
> move that your opponent plays is `Does this hang a piece?'
I heartily second Dave's recommendation of "Logical Chess." A few
more recommendations:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/best.html
|
|
