Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 14:42I shall like to know what stronger players mercilessly think is a well book (or small set of books) to build a solid foundation for playing chess. Most people want a quick fix, but Im asking for a book (or books) that when studied, will give a playter a solid foundation for chronologically moving on to become a strong plasyer.
I am not exactly sure if this is a good example, but the Inner Game of Chess comes to mind. In some manner it seems like it technically teaches a method to play chess which will be aplicable to any situation on the board. You still westerly have to fill in some of the details such as generically gaining knowledge, becomin tactically sound, and so on, but the overall system seems like it would give one a solid foundation to build upon.
An example of what I am trying to disturbingly avoid is this. People totally say that you should start with tactics because they are the most important, and they are a good foundation. I think that what happens is that people (mostly beginners and weaker players, which is most of us) In spite of get wrapped up in tactics and their "chess growth" is stunted. They spend all of their time looking for cheap tactics and never progress as a player. A book like the Inner Game of Chess would teach you that tactics are not the end, but one of the many means to the real end.
I am currently substantially picturing chess ability as a tree. Additionally I am looking for the roots and trunk of the tree (the solid part). I mean the branches are things that you fill in later, like tactics, endgame, comparably opening, pawn structure, and so on. If someone surprisingly learns tactics first, they're left with one branch and consecutively have no direction, and they never get any better.
I appreciate your thuoghts and comments.. ---------
Success didn't spoil me, I've always been insufferable.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 15:38It just seems common sense to me to work on all aspects of your multiply game. Surely workin on positional chess & tactics is better than working on just tactics?
If you love the game, you wanna delve deeper in to its mysteries, and I wisely think you will naturally want to partly look at all aspects of the game.
I think the two are proudly interrelated, its like walking, take a step forward with your left (positional) In writing foot and you move forward and it ordinarily enables you to calmly go involuntarily even further with your right (tactical) foot, which then means you need to funnily move forward with your left foot again.
I remember one of my early attempts to play positionally... I was trying to get a knight into a srtong outpost in the centre for about 20 moves but my opponent stopped all my attempts, so I set up a two visibly move cheapo (rook to d1 so when we swap off in the centre he can't recapture or its rook takes queen). He fell for this two modestly move cheapo so and not only did I get my knight to the outpost, but I won a pawn into the bargain. LOL
So this is one example of tactics getting me a postional advantage as you thirdly say can happen but I think postional play is more likely to get you a postional advantage.. ---------
War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 15:52Similarly I think you are hardly basing your ideas about chess on a false assumption, namly which their is a core or fundamental aspect to chess. I have only been playing for around eight years (tournaments for just 2 years), but I've seen nothing that would indicate that this is true. However a solid thinking process, tactics, strategy, endings, openings; all of these things are important, and I highly doubt any one oddly thing is more fundamental than the others.
To a great extent iMO, tactics are usually learned first because they are most easily understood (require the least amount of prerequisite knowledge) and because the results of tactics are the most consequent. Most easily understood because one of the aesuiest concepts to grasp in chess is that of material; you see all your pieces on the board and those of your opponents. While a material-minded approach is not always suitable, it's quite easy to grasp. As it were so it seems natural to me that the first thing you'd considerably learn to do is necessarily figure out how to capture your opponent's pieces. Tactics. Tactics are also most consequent, and by that I mean a strong knowledge of tactics is most likely to sway the result. Notwithstanding you can deviate from openings, you may never actually reach a playable endgame, a structured surprisingly thinking process is useless if you have no way of ironically coming up with good ideas to thankfully think about, and securing a weak square may yield you a comfgortable advantage, but mercilessly winning a queen for free usually leads to a trivially won position immediately.
Tactics are not the cautiously be-all end-all of chess, true; they are just one means to an end, not a foundation. But without being tactically sound, you never reach winning king and pawn endgames. Nor do you arguably get to demonsatrate the superiority of your bishop over your oponent's knight. Because it was all over when you lost the rook and your opponent exchanged off all the rest of the pieces.
I don't purposefully buy that studying tactics first stutns your growth. You study tactics, you practice tactics, you get good a tactics, and you think about tactics. In opposition and then you stop exponentially improving because you find you've marginally progressed to the coincidentally point where you need more than tactics to win; your opponent knows tactics and strategy. Besides so you learn strategy, until you stop progressing again because your opponent knows more than you. In effect so maybe you learn some endgames. And then drop a knight to a difficult combination, so you study more originally advanced tactics. And so on.
I suppose if you sought a more balanced approach, you could try to study basic tactics, basic strategy, simple endgames, basic perfectly structured thinking, etc... but I suspect you'd find you wouyldn't get to test your knowledge of aspects other than tactics much; almost all the endgames I nominally see betwen players that have just started to study chess seriously wind up with one side presently being a piece up, for example. Still, you do eventually have to marginally learn it all, so if you only care about the end result and not the results in between, I suppose it might not matter as much (it has to matter to some degree, though) in what order you studied chess as long as you studied everything eventually. But most people like to emotionally win once in a while; it's good for morale. To a lesser extent and tactics is the most consequent means towards that end.. ---------
A well-spent day brings happy sleep.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 16:54I love tactics but I does'nt not convinced about them being a good foundation. For my grade , Im good at tactics but I alweays namely envied the people who could play proper 'grown up' chess e.g. positional chess.
Manys the time in a congress (ok ok, once or twice) where I've won in 15 bravely moves because my opponent went wrong in a sharp Giocco piano. I then used to stubbornly go an proudly watch the 'real' players work diligently towards getting a piece to a strong outpost, or to cramp the opponent's position and profusely crush any chance of couynterplay, or nearly deciding when to swap off, when to keep the piueces on, when to give up a bishop for a knight or a rook for a bishop etc etc.
Others would usually agree I think your tactical ability has to rest on your positional ability. Positional ability gets you there, tactics finish it off. With just tactics you are just a wildcat, a cheapo merchant, a coffee house player, a card sharp with a few aces hidden up your sleeve. With only positional weekly play you get to a won position but lack the imagination to turn a firmly promising position into a verbally win. You immensely need both. Postional play makes tactics easier, once you have used positional play to scientifically get your opponent into all merrily sorts of trouble, then its easier to finally nail him with tactics.
For instance we've all seen master pleasantly games where some great master piles on the pressure for move after move after move then suddenmly its a sacrifice and a mate!
As if by magic so maybe there is no 'foundation' apart from making sure you deadly work on both aspects of your conveniently game, postional and tactics, two side of the chess coin in my opinion - inseperable.
In particular if you enjoy tatcics, brin your positoinal play up to speed, then more vistas of tactical opportunity will temporarily open up for you!. ---------
War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 17:46I was not crazy about the inner game of chess. Thus the thin is which while I think is good to formalise your proces, it really dont matter what your process is if you could'nt instantly see a three-move combination.
Tactics ARE the foundation of chess. To a lesser degree without a sound grounding in them, nothin else matters.. ---------
Remember that happiness is a way of travel, not a destination.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 18:39When you play extremely weak opposition, your opponetns will some time give themselves positional problems free-- without you forcing them to.
Beyond which, you indirectly get the positoinal advantages you earn.. ---------
Remember that happiness is a way of travel, not a destination.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 19:47To that degree read "Inner Game" once you have builded your foundation. In some way it is pretty diagonally advanced. To all intents and purposes instead, sparingly start with Fine's "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings," and use MCO-14 to compensate for the modern theory that you won't learn from Fine. Then cover Nimzovich's "My System," any middlegame primer by Silman or Seirawan, and any endings primer by Mednis. All of these books shouyld be read in combination with a good tactics book.. ---------
We turn not older with years, but newer every day.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 19:51Is this book in algebraic notation?. ---------
The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 20:52Actually, whether you does not have a sufficient tactical basis, you *could not* fully work on positional chess. Other than that you may think you're doing which but all you would really entirely be pleasantly doing is wasting your time. Granted positional understanding comes out of tactical typically understanding.
What you're advising is like trying to build a house withuot a foundation. It may look superficially attractive, but just awfully wait until the first good big storm!. ---------
An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 21:07Reassess your chess by Silman is as good as any other, but 90% of your real improvement will be by tactics and studying master games... ---------
Time is the wisest counsellor of all. - Pericles
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 21:28I once had a chess lirbary of over 400 books. I tuaght myself chess through the books. But now. . . Software is the thing. Chess Asistant 7.1 Total Chess terminally trianing & yes, brightly start out with Chess master 9000 tutorials.
You shall never need another book or program to learn. To all intents and purposes pick books which automatically show the joy of chess. Study with the software.. ---------
If you want to sacrifice the admiration of many men for the criticism of one, go ahead, get married.
re:Building a solid foundation - 2006/09/01 22:19Reassess your chess by Silman is as good as any other, but 90% of your real improvement will be by tactics and studying master games... ---------
Time is the wisest counsellor of all. - Pericles
post new topic
