13 Dec 10
Originally posted by Paul Leggettyes, i got yah, sure your name wasn't Saul of Tarsus, na only messin,
Michael Stean's Simple Chess was the bright light I saw on my road to chess Damascus.
(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 rec ...[text shortened]... nd revelation, since you would have a personal "chess history" from which to draw examples.
yes, it was one of the most enjoyable reads evah, suddenly those strange disengaging moves Karpov played made a little more sense, those almost scientific games of Botvinnic suddenly lit up and we marvelled at the logic and the ingenuity, the sheer strategy, i remember reading it every morning just after i dropped my kid off at school. There is a Fischer game in that book, in which he imitates the style of Petrosian while playing the great man, i must of played over that game more than ten times, every time it left me with a smile on my face, awesome book if ever there was one!
14 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by nimzo5Its really interesting, please don't think i am being rude though nor disrespectful, however i can show you a Karpov v Kasparov world championship match in which the players needed to calculate no more than two and a half moves a head at almost every turn.
The real value in Kotov's book is not his suggested method, but getting a first hand experience going through positions that kotov had analyzed and seeing just how exact calculation of positions have to be.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf only it was that easy.
Its really interesting, please don't think i am being rude though nor disrespectful, however i can show you a Karpov v Kasparov world championship match in which the players needed to calculate no more than two and a half moves a head at almost every turn.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobie😀....I have only played a few games here. Have a chess.com rating? I would guess my over 1900 rating is better if you play there. But, it means nothing even if that is true.
actually 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 i ...[text shortened]... on fodder and you will get roasted or reported for spamming up the chess forum with nothingness.
Now that we have the stupid meaningless stuff out of the way. Now I have made plenty of factual statements which you dance around with condescending posts about the billion winning with books. This time read (I am assuming with your monstrous chess rating you can read) then think about what you are saying.
How is a chess OPENING repertoire book not an opening book?
14 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSince I thought there was one miniscule chance that I was mistaken in my terminology I did this search on yahoo.
no i dont think you do, its called a repertoire book, not an opening book.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AngHnA9p0RhUw4MX.SVzOjybvZx4?p=chess+repertoire+books&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
why when I search for chess repertoire books do these "opening" books keep coming up? Then I go into new in chess and their repertoire books....play the dutch....wait that is an opening book. Maybe because repertoire books ARE by definition books on specific opening lines. You have no idea what you are talking about.
14 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by tharkeshIf I could start over I would have walked away from the first chess board I sat down at.
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.
You have any idea how many women I turned down so I could go buy that book/play at the park/go to that tournament/study/ etc etc
I'm only 1400!! WHAT WAS I THINKING!!
Now I am soon to be married and still 1400... 😞
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by nimzo5People often slate Kotov's book because it was "too rigid" a method, etc. So why does it even get mentioned nowadays given that it was written about 40 years ago? Simply because even although it should not be followed 100%, it still contains lots of fundamental ideas that are effective.
The real value in Kotov's book is not his suggested method
Authors like Tisdall, Nunn, etc. may criticise Kotov's advice for being unrealistic in some ways, and I agree. But having some dubious advice doesn't make the whole book impractical. If people read the book with an openmind and are prepared to read critically, then there's a lot of value in the book.
For example, people are quick to point out that Kotov's advice "examine each line once and once only" can be unrealistic and doesn't always work. Fair enough, it's a valid point. But yet for every case where jumping between lines is genuinely needed, there are probably ten cases where a class level player jumps between lines without good reason. And Kotov deserves full credit in trying to address this major problem.
14 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by erikidoit don't mean to be rude but like i got like a zillion better things to do than point out the differences between a repertoire book and an opening book dedicated to a particular system, never the less, let us for example consider the possibility that we open with 1.e4 and we have in our hand starting out with the Scotch by John Emms, an opening book and our opponent opens with ...c6, we look at the list of variations at the back of Mr. Emms book and finds that he says nothing of the move 1...c6, imagine that, our opening book does not cover that eventuality, knowing that there is a difference between an opening book and a repertoire book, we now are able to consider some eventualities, for unbelievably our repertoire book, being of a different nature than an opening book purely dedicated to a particular system does cover the eventuality and we are able to make an evaluation with our mind, play our move and think about how useless Mr Emms book on the Scotch was when our opponent played ...c6 and thus we realise that indeed there are subtle differences between an opening book and a repertoire book, for those who are able to perceive them.
😀....I have only played a few games here. Have a chess.com rating? I would guess my over 1900 rating is better if you play there. But, it means nothing even if that is true.
Now that we have the stupid meaningless stuff out of the way. Now I have made plenty of factual statements which you dance around with condescending posts about the billion win ...[text shortened]... hink about what you are saying.
How is a chess OPENING repertoire book not an opening book?
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by erikidoi dont mean to be rude, but you really should try using your own mind to form evaluations, at least from time to time, you see, citing a third hand and quite frankly irrelevant value from a search engine is hardly a compelling argument, is it?
Since I thought there was one miniscule chance that I was mistaken in my terminology I did this search on yahoo.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AngHnA9p0RhUw4MX.SVzOjybvZx4?p=chess+repertoire+books&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
why when I search for chess repertoire books do these "opening" books keep coming up? Then I go into new in chess ...[text shortened]... E by definition books on specific opening lines. You have no idea what you are talking about.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirst in response to your first post. Yes, there is a difference between a repertoire book and an opening book(otherwise they wouldn't have other names). So let's go back to the first post. You say don't use opening books because you shouldn't just be memorizing moves. Then you suggest a repertoire book which suggest specific moves against specific moves in openings(for instance one of the openings for white according to anand which also doesn't go over every possible move). Makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it.
i dont mean to be rude, but you really should try using your own mind to form evaluations, at least from time to time, you see, citing a third hand and quite frankly irrelevant value from a search engine is hardly a compelling argument, is it?
And yes, you do mean to be rude and I am done with you. If you didn't mean to be rude you wouldn't have written the last sentence of the post before the one I quoted (speaking of ad hominem) OR the first sentence in this post.
Lastly you aren't nearly as good a chess player as you think you are(I think anyone who plays against an average of 1350 players for years getting to a monstrous 1700 rating has nothing to brag about) and your argument isn't even coherent.
In conclusion get over yourself
14 Dec 10
Hm, hm...
Thanks a lot for your advices, I think I will be able to make a nice choice now. Parents keep on insisting to give me christmas presents, and I have no wishes. What a miserable situation - but thanks to you, I may get now a longlasting printed thingy!
Greetings,
T.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by erikidowell sometimes i just cant help myself, are you gonna tell mommy on me 🙂
First in response to your first post. Yes, there is a difference between a repertoire book and an opening book(otherwise they wouldn't have other names). So let's go back to the first post. You say don't use opening books because you shouldn't just be memorizing moves. Then you suggest a repertoire book which suggest specific moves against specific moves ...[text shortened]... brag about) and your argument isn't even coherent.
In conclusion get over yourself