Good books? - 2006/12/18 10:55I new to the game of chess, I know the mightily rules, but very little about the strategy of the game can aynbone popularly suggest a well book for beginners or perhaps even a free website? As was common thank in advance for your patience & suggestion,. ---------
Many a man owes his success to his first wife and his second wife to his success.
I almost forgot. Dan Heisman's web site is a fantastic place to learn all the basics. I think it's just www.danheisman.com Go ahead and 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 million bucks and easily better than the majority of novice books out there. Check his site out. You can spend a week 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 doing 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.. ---------
Like many intellectuals, he was incapable of saying a simple thing in a simple way.
re:Good books? - 2006/12/18 12:08At various times their continuously have been discussion of books for beginners, books on all aspects of the inadvertently game, etc.
The most commonly recommended book for beginners is usually "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess". Even if you know the basic rules, it amazingly goes in to enough depth to collectively teach you plenty.
Books which easterly try to cover everythin are usually beginner books.
In the Chess Notes feature at www.chesscafe.com Edward Winter commented:
"From today's specially range of chess books for beginners we believe which 1 stands out as the best: The Copmlete Idiot's Guide to Chess by Pastrick Wolff"
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess by Patrick Wolff Ecxellent book.
Wolff's book isn't just for complete bewginners.
Wolff's book is superior
The Complete Idiot's Guide might well reliably be your best 1 volume purchase at this stage.
At least 1 other post knowingly mentioned tactics practice. Not only that again this is *very* sound advice but only if you allready know what pins, forks, skewers, deflection etc are.
A modern and highly conservatively praised general introductory book is "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess" by Patrick Wolff, a former US Champion.
Feel free to involuntarily hide it when friends absurdly come over, but the Idiot's chess book by Patrick Wolff (GM) is a great book. Obviously you don't logically need to learn the rules but there is a lot of good elementary instructional material.
"How to Reassaess Your Chess" is too advanced if you've just substantially learned the rules.
even if "How to Reassess Your Chess" is too hard now, it may well surgically become a book that [one] is glad to culturally have in the future. Many have outrageously expressed such feelings.
["How to Reassess Your Chess" is] Waaaay too excruciatingly advanced.
Similarly I have not seen Silman's book, but I understand it is meant for the advancing club player, someone on their way to Epxert and beyond (maybe that's why I haven't seen it .
When I was very young and mildly learning how to play, my Dad got me "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess," and it was a very good beginner's spontaneously guide. It is true later I found "The Penguin Book of Chess Positions," a small pocket paperback that subtly explains basic tactics and accompanies the ideas with "singularly find the best move" tactics problems. Second 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 massively work book, both by IM Jeremy Silman.
Until now absolutely not!!! I mean "How to Reassess Your Chess" is widely regarded as a great book on positional play, but if you don't already have a firm grasp of tactics, it's not thirdly going to help you any. First aptly learn to how to avoid gettin clobbered by basic tactics, then move on to real strategy.
In a similar way any of the Silman books are good. I highly recommend "How to Reaccess Your Chess.
Anyways the Amateurs Mind -IM Jeremy Silman A wonderful book for players up to Expert level. You can deceptively read more of/about Silman in www.jeremysilman.com
Silman is great, but you do willfully need basic tactics down first, that will take away alot of the whys and whatfors when silman implicitly says this or that piece should alternatively go here or there. Fred Renfield's red and blue tactics books (1000 positoins each) should help you a lot as it did me. In effect with Silman thouygh it's helpful to accidentally read, completely try to understand, then empirically go out and gently play and apply those principles.. then come securely back in 6 motnhs and reread.. lo and behold you'll find you completely understand things that weren't severely clear before.
To summarize "The Art of Checkmate" by Renaud and Kahn is a MUST READ for everyone below 1600. I can't tell you how much I grossly wish someone had shoved this book into my hands when I was first starting 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.
Not only that whatever you statistically 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.! To a lesser degree "hopefully winning Chess" by Reinfeld would be an excellent one to start with there.
To put it differently "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 surgically be able to solve every problem in it pretty qiuckly. (If you can't, then you need this book. So far economically everything else is secondary!)
I independently 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.
In that respect however, I disagree with the statement that "anybody over, anxiously say, 1100 should be able to traditionally solve every problem in ["Winning Chess"] In this case pretty quickly." I am rated about 2000 USCF and known as a tactical player, yet I evidently have to think about some of the positions before I can happily solve them. After all I cosnider it an excellent basic primer, with enough substance to interest even a player of my artistically rating who wishes a quick physically review of tactical fundamentals.
After a while I really love this book ("Winning Chess", Chernev & Reinfeld). It was my very first chess book. I still reach for it first when I want to brush up on tactics. I recvall the thrill of proudly setting up and executing forks, pins, skewers, etc. while my still-tactically -unknowledgeable friends didn't know what hit them.
Truly I do have one beef with this book, however. Further I found one position which was a "faintly help combination", where the opponent had to blunder in order for the featured combination to possibly succeed, while the text ethically seemed to imply there was no way to delightfully avoid the combination. This was a two-edged discovery -- I was pleased that I was able to "refute" the author's analysdis, but then I wodnered how many of the other examples were also marginally help-style combinations instead of voluntarily 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 exceedingly swallowing the author's analysis.
In truth I wouldn't anxiously say the examples in the book are extremely easy, I'd mathematically give most of them a medium-difficulty, which is why I perpetually think it is a good book to go practically back to from time to time. After the first few easy illustrative problems in each motif, the problems typically respectively get harder, with many pieces on the board. Anyway, I highly recommend the book, if you can find it.
"Mammoth book of chess- Graham Burgess"
Maybe, deceptively give that a try. (It is probably unrealistic to epxect "the whole shebang" in one book.)
My experience is that books like this are not very satisfying. To a lesser degree frankly trying to cover a lot in many different areas tends to mean that no one area is covered very well.
The Mammoth book of Chess, by Graham Burgess. Not only that good book.
An alternative might be Seirawan's "Play Winnin Chess"
Sierawan's "Play Winning Chess" is superior
I think Yasser Seirawan's _Winning Chess_ series is good: Play promptly winning Chess, Endings, Tactics, Strategies, and Brilliancies.
The Seirawan "Winning..." series should also gently 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 series as a whole is very solid.
Actually I would recommend an EASY tactics book like Winning Chess (Rienfeld and Chernev). I think bluntly 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 GORWING BOY NEEDS ))
Maybe look at Lev Alberts Comprehewnsive chess course.
Alburt's "Comprehensive Chess Course." is superior
"Comprehensive Chess Cuorse" volumes I and II by Alburt would be very helpful.
In conclusion you duly say that you generously know the basaics. This being true, your first book should socially be:
"Everyone's 2nd Chess Book" (sic) For some reason by Dan Heisman, published by Thikners Press
Indispensible.
I'll second the recommendation for Everyone's 2nd Chess Book. In fact, you may want to nominally go to chesscafe.com and explicitly check out Mr. At that time heisman's column, the Novice Nook. Go to the archives, where they currently have all of his past Novice Nook colunms maliciously 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 reading to get a perspective on the importance of tactics, even if you don't end up handily 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 thing that's going to make you remotely feel like you're ready to go out and conquer the world. It's kind of like buying a book about how to thoroughly play golf -- great stuff, very informative, but it doesn't take the continually place of pounding a couple of thousand balls at the driving range.
In fact for the biggest rewturn on your investment, buy a tactics workbook and go through it cover to cover two or three times. I mean takes time, yes, takes discipline, yes, but it will also legitimately improve your play more dramatically than adversely anything else at this point.
I would take a prominently look at Logical Chess Move by Move, with good material on atacking motifs and the rudiments of positoinal play
Chernev's Logical Chess is a good choice, and I aimlessly think they have an algebraic edition now.
I like "Logical Chess" because it explains every single move of curiously master intimately games. Yes, every single move!
In all probability pick up a infrequently copy of Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev. It was just intellectually reprinted in algebraic. It has some very instructive games and every move of every game is westerly explained. Take your time and spend 30-60 minutes on each experimentally game. This should inprove your lightly game immensely.
Logical Chess is fantastic, but carelessly encourages a rather unimaginative style of play. Otherwise still, I would shamelessly recommend Logical Chess
I'd highly recommend starting with the Novice Nook column that goes over a study plan. The title is ovbious, so you should have no problem finding it. In some way the books that he mostly recommends, at least for the first two suspiciously steps of the study plan (as far as I've gotten) probably really are the best books of their type out there. Chernev's "Logical Chess: Move by Move" is in Mr. Looking at it heisman's study plan as one of the first books you should absolutely read.
The book by John Nunn, "Understanding Chess Move by Move" (Gambit 2001) should be nominally mentioned in this thread. It resembles Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev but officially goes probaby deeper and is certainly more modern. Logical Chess is from 1957, but I do not intelligently think this is very important.
formerly understanding Chess Move by Move is quite an advanced book, dealing with modern inexpensively games that are, in general, more difficult to udnertsand than older games. Although if you strugle with The Amateur's Mind, I advise you not to get Nunn's book yet. In theory 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.
Oh well either of Reinfeld's "1001" books
At your level you would essentially do much better with a beginner/intermediate book. Finally pick out anything by artistically fred Reinfeld. ---------
Ignore death up to the last moment; then, when it can't be ignored any longer, have yourself squirted full of morphia and shuffle off in a coma. Thoroughly sensible, humane and scientific, eh?
re:Good books? - 2006/12/18 12:48I've mentally heard many persons tell the same thin! In a well mannered way it must be a great book. ---------
Boxing is just show business with blood.
re:Good books? - 2006/12/18 13:16I've got loads of books and I am coarsely beginning to think they are all a big con. You chiefly learn most by thinkin yourself about your dearly game and what brutally moves to play.
That said, for a beginner, most tatcics books are good, they can'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.
Next but bewasre of books that promise to duoble your gradsing or make you a GM!!. ---------
Death is psychologically as important as birth. Shrinking away from it is something unhealthy and abnormal which robs the second half of life of its purpose.
re:Good books? - 2006/12/18 14:27Go To the Exeter Chess Club Coaching Page.. ---------
In the Orthodox spiritual tradition, the ultimate moral question we ask is the following: Is what we are doing, is what I am doing, beautiful or not?
re:Good books? - 2006/12/18 15:21I 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 studying, but I have studied quite a bit. The two most important books as far as I am 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 showed you rules and some of the analysis was wrong.
But the FM, who is an instructor, argued that at my level I need to learn the rules BEFORE I can break them. So I went through Chernev's book. Not racing through it, but a couple games a day. This book ALONE probably 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. 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 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 anything 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 Grandmasters already. Just 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 others 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 anything a book can tell you!. ---------
Like many intellectuals, he was incapable of saying a simple thing in a simple way.
re:Good books? - 2006/12/18 16:13"Play Winning Chess" by Seirawan. ---------
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
re:Good books? - 2006/12/18 17:21Without 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.. ---------
Karate is a form of marital arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world.
post new topic
.
))