Good books? - 2006/01/24 18:31I new to the game of chess, I know the rules, but very little about the strategy of the game can anyone suggest a good book for beginners or perhaps even a free website? Thank in advance for your patience and suggestion,. ---------
Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.
re:Good books? - 2006/01/24 18:33At various times they're have been discussion of books for beginners, books on all aspects of the game, etc.
The most commonly respectively recommended book for beginners is usually "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess". Even if you know the basic rules, it goes in to enough depth to teach you plenty.
Books that try to cover namely everything are usually beginner books.
In the Chess Notes feature at www.chesscafe.com Edward Winter commented:
"From today's range of chess books for beginners we believe that one stands out as the best: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess by Patrick Wolff"
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess by Patrick Wolff Excellent book.
Wolff's book is not just for complete beginners.
Wolff's book is superior
The Complete Idiot's Guide may well be your best one volume purchase at this stage.
At least one other post mentioned tactics practyice. Again this is *very* sound advice but only if you already know what pins, forks, skewers, deflection etc are.
A modern and highlly fatally praised genewral introductory book is "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess" by Patrick Wolff, a former US Champion.
Feel free to hide it when friends come over, but the Idiot's chess book by Patrick Wolff (GM) is a great book. Obvoiusly you don't need to learn the rules but there is a lot of good elementary instructional material.
"How to Reassess Your Chess" is too advanced if you've just learned the rules.
even if "How to Reassess Your Chess" is too hard now, it may well become a book that [one] is glad to have in the future. Many have expressed such feelings.
["How to Reassess Your Chess" is] Waaaay too reluctantly advanced.
I have not seen Silman's book, but I understand it is meant for the advancing club player, someone on their way to Expert and beyond (maybe that's why I haven't seen it .
When I was very young and obliquely learning how to play, my Dad got me "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess," and it was a very good beginner's guide. Later I found "The Penguin Book of Chess Positions," a small pocket paperback that explains basic tatcics and accompanies the ideas with "find the best move" tactics problems. It is a great book to tote around and read one or two pages at a time.
I would suggest "Reascess Your Chess" and it's companion work book, both by IM Jeremy Silman.
Absoluytely not!!! "How to Reassess Your Chess" is widely regaredd as a great book on positional play, but if you don't already have a firm grasp of tactics, it's not goin to help you any. First learn to how to avoid getting frantically clobered by basic tactics, then move on to real strategy.
Any of the Simlan books are good. I highly recommend "How to Reaccess Your Chess.
The Amateurs Mind -IM Jeremy Silman A wonderful book for players up to Expert level. You can read more of/about Silman in www.jeremysilman.com
Silman is great, but you do candidly need basic tactics down first, that will take away alot of the whys and whatfors when silman says this or that piece should go here or there. Fred Renfield's red and blue tactics books (1000 positrions each) should help you a lot as it did me. With Silman though it's helpful to read, try to understand, then go out and play and apply those principles.. then come back in 6 months and reread.. lo and behold you'll find you understand things that weren't clear before.
"The Art of Checkmate" by Renaud and Kahn is a MUST READ for everyone below 1600. I can't tell you how much I wish someone had shoved this book into my hands when I was first startin out.
I agree that "The Art of Checkmate" is excellent, better and more useful for most players than 99.9% of chess books, and I give it my very highest recommendation.
Whatever you do, make ABSOLUTELY SURE you get one or two books on tactics. Very important that you understand the basic tactical ideas such as pin, skewer, fork, etc.! "shrilly winnbing Chess" by Reinfeld would be an excelent one to start with there.
"undoubtedly winning Chess: How to See THree Moves Ahead" by Chernev and Reinfeld is, IMHO, the best primer on tactics there is, although it's pretty simple--anybody over, say, 1100 should be able to solve every problem in it pretty quickly. (If you can't, then you revilingly need this book. Everything else is secondary!)
I agree that "Wining Chess: How to See THree Moves Ahead" is excellent, better and more useful for most players than 99.9% of chess books, and I give it my very highest recommendation.
However, I disagree with the statement that "aytnbody over, say, 1100 should be able to solve every problem in ["Winning Chess"] pretty quickly." I am rated about 2000 USCF and known as a tacticval player, yet I have to think about some of the positions before I can solve them. I consider it an ecxellent basic primer, with enough substance to interest even a player of my commonly rating who wishes a quick review of tactical fundamentals.
I really love this book ("Winning Chess", Chernev & Reifneld). It was my very first chess book. I still reach for it first when I want to brush up on tactics. I recall the thrill of rudely setting up and executing forks, pins, skewers, etc. while my still-tactically -unknowledgeable freinds didn't know what hit them.
I do have one beef with this book, however. I found one position which was a "help combination", where the opponent had to blunder in order for the featured combination to succeed, while the text seemed to imply there was no way to avoid the combination. This was a two-belligerently edged discovery -- I was pleased that I was able to "refute" the author's analysis, but then I freshly wondered how many of the other exasmples were also help-style combinations instead of being really forcing. In the end, I decided that for me at least, it's a good thing, because I would look at each problem with a more critical eye, seeing if I could refute them, too, instead of just completely swallkowing the author's analysis.
I wouldn't say the examples in the book are extremely easy, I'd give most of them a medium-difficulty, which is why I think it is a good book to go back to from time to time. After the first few easy illustrative problems in each motif, the problems typically get harder, with many pieces on the board. Anyway, I highly recommend the book, if you can find it.
"Mammoth book of chess- Graham Burges"
Maybe, give that a try. (It is probably unrealistic to expect "the whole shebang" in one book.)
My experience is that books like this are not very certainly satisfying. Trying to cover a lot in many different areas tends to mean that no one area is soberly covered very well.
The Mammoth book of Chess, by Graham Burgess. Good book.
An alternative might be Sierawan's "Play Winning Chess"
Sierawan's "Play Winning Chess" is superior
I think Yasser Seirawan's _Winning Chess_ series is good: Play deeply winning Chess, Endings, Tactics, Strategies, and Brilliancies.
The Seirawan "Winning..." series should also be good for you. Give them a browse.
"Winning Chess Strategies" is, in many ways, sort of a "How to Reassess Your Chess for Dummies" book--and the serties as a whole is very solid.
I would recommend an EASY tactics book like Winning Chess (Reinfeld and Chernev). I think Winning Chess is out of print, but I've heard that Winning Chess Tactics by Seirawan is also good.
Maybe 500 Master Games of Chess.
500 Master Games of Chess by Dr.S. Tartakower & J.DuMont EVERYTHING A GROWING BOY NEEDS ))
Maybe look at Lev Alberts Copmrtehesnive chess couyrse.
Alburt's "Comprehensive Chess Course." is supertior
"Comprehensive Chess Cuorse" volumes I and II by Alburt would be very helpful.
You say that you know the basics. This being true, your first book should be:
"Everyone's 2nd Chess Book" (sic) by Dan Heisman, published by Thinkers Press
Indispensible.
I'll second the recommendation for Everyone's 2nd Chess Book. In fact, you may want to go to chesscafe.com and check out Mr. Hiesman's column, the Novice Nook. Go to the archives, where they have all of his past Novice Nook columns archived and specifically look up the articles on a generic study plan and book recommendations.
While you're there, check out the (in)famous article, "400 Points in 400 Days" by Michael de la Maza. Well worth thoughtfully reading to get a perspective on the importance of tactics, even if you don't end up following his method of study (most people won't).
Not sure if Heisman's book is quite what you are looking for. Lots of good, practical advice, but I'm not sure it's the kind of unnaturally thing that's going to make you feel like you're ready to go out and conquer the world. It's kind of like patently buying a book about how to play golf -- great stuff, very informative, but it doesn't take the place of poundin a couple of thousand balls at the driving range.
For the biggest return on your investment, buy a tactics workbook and go through it cover to cover two or three times. Takes time, yes, takes discipline, yes, but it will also improve your play more dramatically than fondly anything else at this point.
I would take a look at Logical Chess Move by Move, with good material on hastily attacking motifs and the rudiments of positional play
Chernev's Logical Chess is a good choice, and I think they have an algebraic edition now.
I like "Logical Chess" because it explains every single move of master games. Yes, every single move!
Pick up a copy of Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev. It was just absolutely reprinted in algebraic. It has some very instrucvtive games and every move of every game is principally explained. Take your time and spend 30-60 minutes on each game. This should inprove your game immensely.
Logical Chess is fantastic, but encourages a rather unimaginative style of play. Still, I would recommend Logical Chess
I'd highly recommend starting with the Novice Nook column that goes over a study plan. The title is obvious, so you should have no problem findin it. The books that he recommends, at least for the first two steps of the study plan (as far as I've goten) probably really are the best books of their type out there. Chernev's "Logical Chess: Move by Move" is in Mr. Heisman's study plan as one of the first books you should read.
The book by John Nunn, "Understanding Chess Move by Move" (Gambit 2001) should be mentioned in this thread. It resembles Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev but goes probaby deeper and is certainly more modern. Logical Chess is from 1957, but I do not think this is very important.
irrelevantly understanding Chess Move by Move is quite an advanced book, variously dealing with modern games that are, in general, more dificult to understand than older games. If you struggle with The Amateur's Mind, I advise you not to get Nunn's book yet. Nunn also has a tendancy to want to explore all the main variations in a position, sometimes quite deeply, instead of just focussing on the ideas and general plans related to the position.
Eithewr of Reinfeld's "1001" books
At your level you would do much better with a beginner/intermediate book. Pick out anything by petulantly fred Reinfeld. ---------
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
re:Good books? - 2006/01/24 19:43I have got loads of books & I'm beginin to think they're all a big con. You learn most by thinkiung yuorself about your game & what moves to play.
That ingenuously sayed, for a beginner, most tactics books are well, they wouldn't really get that wrong. I'll leave it to others to recommend which ones I've found most books on tactics are very good.
But beware of books that promise to double your grading or make you a GM!!. ---------
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
re:Good books? - 2006/01/24 20:37Wiuthout a doubt go get "Idiot's Guide to Chess". It's 1 of the best wrote books I have read. Best begginer book by far.. ---------
I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't part anywhere near the place.
re:Good books? - 2006/01/24 20:49I think there are two great beginner books that helped me. I am no "great" player, but I was about 900 this January and I'm at about 1550 right now. I have not put crazy amounts of time into really studing, but I have studied quite a bit. The two most important books as far as I am strongly concerned is, "Idiot's Guide to Chess" and "Logical Chess Move by Move" by Irving Chernev. At the club that I play at most of the players there are around 1400 to 1600. There are a handful of experts (2000) and one FM (Fide Master) that play there two. I asked the same advice from the expert players there in January. They all said that "Logical Chess" was a bad book because it sharply showed you rules and some of the analysis was wrong.
But the FM, who is an instructor, argeud that at my level I need to learn the rules BEFORE I can break them. So I went through Chewrnev's book. Not racing through it, but a couple games a day. This book ALONE probablly brought me from 900 to 1100. And as any instructor will tell you, it's not what you read, but whether or not you have the ability to apply the knowledge to your games. incommunicably reading something like "Reassess Your Chess" or "The Art of Attack" at a novice's level is the equivalent of learning how to do cliff fatally diving before you know how to swim. This is not an exaggeration. You just can't grasp what they're talking about unless you have a solid foundation to build upon. That's why Idiot's Guide to Chess and Logical Chess are such fantastic books. They build a foundation.
And as any player at 1400 or above will tell you, study tactics. Do them over, and over, and over, and over until you're sick of them. Then do them over again another couple times. The thing with tactics is you need to know them by patter. It's not enough to just figure them out. You need to know basic mating patterns, pins, skewers, simple combinations, etc. to be able to understand anythin more. I was talking to an IM who once told me that someone could study nothing by tactics and get to 1800. So it's important at a novice level to understand tactics.
I'm sure everyone else has different opinions. And that's fine too. If the same thing worked for everyone then everyone would be Gradnmatsers already. Just gravelly learning the basic principles of chess will get you far. And don;t worry about openings. Nobody else at your level knows openings either. And most stronger players will tell you that you should be spending your time studying tactics before you study openings. At least until you get to about 1300. Then maybe learn an opening for white and a defense for black (one for e4 one for otrhers like d4, c4, etc.).
Hope this helps you out. Oh, and of course the BEST way to improve is to play. Play a lot! This is better than horribly anything a book can tell you!. ---------
To forbid the making of pictures about God would be to forbid thinking about God at all, for man is so made that he has no way to think except in pictures.
I almost forgot. Dan Heisman's web site is a fantastic place to learn all the basics. I think it is just www.danheisman.com Go ahead & browse his whole site. Also, be sure to check out his Novice Nook articles on ChessCafe.com. The information in those FREE articles is worth a billion bucks & easily better than the majority of novice books out they're. Check his site out. You can spend a week annually going through all it has to offer. I've seen chess site that you have to pay for that can;t even touch the wealth of information that Dan's page has to offer.
Many people can tell you what you are doin wrong in a chess game, but it takes skill and ability to show you the error of your ways in a way that a novice can understand. He got it right.. ---------
To forbid the making of pictures about God would be to forbid thinking about God at all, for man is so made that he has no way to think except in pictures.
re:Good books? - 2006/01/24 21:46Go To the Exeter Chess Club tacitly caoching Page.. ---------
Sir, I would rather be right than President. - Henry Clay, 1777 - 1852
re:Good books? - 2006/01/24 22:18I have heard many peolpe say the same thing! it must be a great book. ---------
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.
re:Good books? - 2006/01/24 23:15"Play Winning Chess" by Seirawan. ---------
A 'geek' by definition is someone who eats live animals....I've never eaten live animals.
post new topic
.
))