13 Dec 10
Originally posted by wormwoodI think this analogy is important.
yeah, exactly. if you'll take every position from the book, and work on them on a board until you know them inside out, it'll be 100% guaranteed beneficial.
the problem is NOBODY does that. nobody. if you'll study one single book thoroughly like that, you've done more work than 99.99% of us. we just get more and more books, and hardly even read them more ...[text shortened]... ting to be able to play jimi hendrix songs just because you've listened to them from a cd.
I spent a couple years learning guitar as a kid, didn't learn songs, just focused on scales, chords and music theory. After that time, I can listen to a song, and if I can remember how the song goes in my head, I can play it.
Chess is the same. If you spend a couple years of hard work on learning how pieces harmonize with each other, tactics, etc. Then you can look at a gm game and things will make sense to you.
Books are primarily for enjoyment or a poor substitute for a coach.
If I could only have one book I would probably choose "Think like a grandmaster" by kotov. He touches on subjects you need to master to be a strong player, but makes it clear that it comes down to the work you put into it- not any secrets..
13 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by erikidoyes a repertoire book is not a single specific opening book like how to play the Scotch, or winning with the Modern, and its choice was qualified by the statement that its simply a stop gap measure until other aspects of the game are mastered. I stand by the statement.
Look deep inside the stars...like where YOU say get yourself a good repertoire book. Maybe you think a repertoire book has nothing to do with openings?!
13 Dec 10
I guess I should have come up with this answer first. I wish I would have started a notebook of all of my games (move by move) when I first started and gone over them more sytematically like I do now. My Rating has gone up consistently, and I feel like I'm playing better. I've stolen a few games from higher rated players and I've just played a little tighter, and the only thing I did was start this notebook/analysis pattern of mine.
P
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by nimzo5why does he name his book, think like a grandmaster, as if all grandmasters think the same way?
I think this analogy is important.
I spent a couple years learning guitar as a kid, didn't learn songs, just focused on scales, chords and music theory. After that time, I can listen to a song, and if I can remember how the song goes in my head, I can play it.
Chess is the same. If you spend a couple years of hard work on learning how pieces harmonize ...[text shortened]... player, but makes it clear that it comes down to the work you put into it- not any secrets..
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow I get it...one opening book is blasphemy while a couple opening books combined into one is tremendous
yes a repertoire book is not a single specific opening book like how to play the Scotch, or winning with the Modern, and its choice was qualified by the statement that its simply a stop gap measure until other aspects of the game are mastered. I stand by the statement.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by erikidoThis whole post is the best in the thread, but this piece of advice is particularly worth heeding.
Oh and one last thing. Only buy ONE book. Until you finish working with it don't buy another. That is probably my one thing I would do over. NOw I have so many books that I have partially gone over and with a whole lot of choices it is hard to keep to my study plan.
As for which book, well, the title of the thread is "If you could start over...": if I could start over, I'd choose Dr. Tarrasch's "The Game of Chess".
Here are two apposite passages from that book.
"So that the beginner may make the best use of this book, I must give him a little important advice. His very understandable desire to play a game as soon as possible he must suppress. To play games while still in the beginner's stage is the surest way to become an unskillful player. Only when he has again and again worked through the Elements and has thoroughly grasped all the combinations there explained, only when he has studied and re-studied the End-Game and has thus quickened his insight, only when he has assimilated the enormous amount of material in the Middle Game -- well, then he has long ceased to be a weak player, even though he has never played a game. Then he has only to grasp those principles laid down in "The General Theory of the Opening" and he has at last progressed so far that he is ready to play games."
"Naturally, for further progress the study of master games is most important -- but only of those games which are accompanied by the most complete and apposite notes. From faultily annotated games faulty play is easily learned. For this further study I recommend my Dreihundert Schachpartien [300 Games of Chess] -- from which whole generations of chess players have learned the finer points of chess -- and in particular my Die Moderne Schachpartie [not translated]."
(translations from the first English edition, 1935, by Smith & Bone)
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause, compared to a patzer like you or me, they all do. There are differences, of course, but the difference between a grandmaster and a woodpusher is much, much larger than between two grandmasters. Not just in points, but in the underlying process as well. You and I make the moves we think are the best - they almost always make the moves they know are the best.
why does he name his book, think like a grandmaster, as if all grandmasters think the same way?
Richard
13 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow Bluei object, think like a grandmaster assumes that there is one correct way of thinking in chess, that is the Kotov way, secondly I am not just any old patzer, i am a grandpatzer!
Because, compared to a patzer like you or me, they all do. There are differences, of course, but the difference between a grandmaster and a woodpusher is much, much larger than between two grandmasters. Not just in points, but in the underlying process as well. You and I make the moves we think are the best - they almost always make the moves they know are the best.
Richard
13 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI doubt he thought every GM thought like him, but it's just a catchy (selling) name. if anything, pretty much all GMs commenting on the book usually say they don't think the same way as kotov. there's some doubt on if even kotov used it. it just seems too rigorous and structured, to be optimal for the parallel fuzzy classifier of a neural mess we call the human brain.
why does he name his book, think like a grandmaster, as if all grandmasters think the same way?
but it has its fans, both amateur and GM.
that said, I'd think forcing yourself to calculate the painful kotov way must be great calculation exercise. maybe not feasible in game, but as calculation training hitting the sweet spot.
13 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by erikidoactually i have an electronic rating in a recognised intellectual field which is higher than yours, its called chess, you may have heard of it, what is more, considering the tabloid nature of your post, i find it rather rich that you should call anyone dumb, therefore if you have anything with even the least semblance of content, i suggest you post it, otherwise, shut up a yo face, for these ad hominem attacks are cannon fodder and you will get roasted or reported for spamming up the chess forum with nothingness.
Lol...are you really that dumb?
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by wormwoodi dunno wormwood, it appears to me that calculation is a purely visual exercise, in that we engage our imagination and imagine in our minds eye the placement of the pieces prior to making our move working from what we hope to achieve in the end through the fine details which shall help us achieve that end, to work through a branching system i think happens naturally as we look at our opponents subsequent replies.
I doubt he thought every GM thought like him, but it's just a catchy (selling) name. if anything, pretty much all GMs commenting on the book usually say they don't think the same way as kotov. there's some doubt on if even kotov used it. it just seems too rigorous and structured, to be optimal for the parallel fuzzy classifier of a neural mess we cal ...[text shortened]... on exercise. maybe not feasible in game, but as calculation training hitting the sweet spot.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by tharkeshhere's a good book.... http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-training/endgame-simulations.php
Hello,
I have been looking around the forum a lot and found many very exciting threads - also concerning the topic 'which book to buy'. So I hope not to bore you with this and to get some reasonable answers (this forum needs a 'best of' thread...).
Given a player, who has never a) owned nor b) looked into a book of chess nor c) played in a chess club: ...[text shortened]... ecause you too often follow this route of playing?
Thanks in advance for your answer,
T.
and here's another one http://chess.emrald.net/
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMichael Stean's Simple Chess was the bright light I saw on my road to chess Damascus.
i suggest, School of elementary tactics by Martin Weteschnik (in German originally i believe, English translation is a little rough), a thoroughly fantastic book which shall increase ones tactical vision. Add to this practice sessions on say chesstempo.com and a positional understanding with say, Simple chess by Michael Stein, a repertoire book to t ...[text shortened]... ov, any Book on Tal or Bronstein, don't go near opening books, they really are a waste of time.
(I was already named "Paul" before I read it, but work with me on this).
It really is a simple book to read, but it dramatically altered my thinking process about the game, and opened me up to understanding so many other things about chess.
Highly recommended for someone who knows the rules but not much else. And I suspect that reading it again a year later after playing a bunch of games would be a second revelation, since you would have a personal "chess history" from which to draw examples.