Very entertaining four page article in the latest CHESS by David Mabbs.
He states you only need read three chess books to become a good player.
Rueden Fine's Basic Chess Endings,
Capablanca's Chess Fundementals
and Pachman' The Middle Game in Chess
wot no openings books? :'(
"Opening books are not important, and you shouldn't tie yourself
in knots studying them!" David Mabbs.
Mabbs is one of the old School so you can replace Fine's book
with any good endgame book.
At one time BCE was regarded as the endgame bible mainly because
it was the only decent book around on endings.
Capa's book is of course irreplaceable.
Pachman's book as the CHESS editor points out, is out of print
and says there are plenty of other good books on the middle game.
But refrains from giving any titles.
I got my middle game from game collections, Alekhine, Tartakower,
Tarrasch, Keres. So cannot suggest a 'good middle game' book.
Later in article editor states they are going to press Batsford for
a reprint of the Pachmand book.
So there we have it - we only need 3 books.
That means I'll have to drop 333 on ebay and so will everyone else.
This discussion regarding descriptive is fascinating. On the one hand we have young folks who cannot take fifteen minutes to learn a simple system that served the English speaking world well for a little more than a century. On the other hand, we have middle aged conservatives that cannot take fifteen minutes to adapt the system developed in Germany nearly two centuries ago that has become the global standard because it is simpler, easier to remember, and does a superior job of transcending linguistic differences.
If an old book is in descriptive, learn to read. But, there is no reason to prefer a system that is clearly inferior to modern algebraic.
Originally posted by WulebgrYou may have neglected to mention those of us who are perfectly comfortable with both systems. I long ago switched to algebraic and use it whenever I record a game or write notes on moves. But I think everyone should get wrapped around the idea that there's lots of good chess literature written in descriptive notation that will never be reprinted in algebraic. No money in it. Batsford publishing apparently thinks there's a buck to be made in reprinting My 60 Memorable Games, but only because Fischer is no longer with us.
This discussion regarding descriptive is fascinating. On the one hand we have young folks who cannot take fifteen minutes to learn a simple system that served the English speaking world well for a little more than a century. On the other hand, we have middle aged conservatives that cannot take fifteen minutes to adapt the system developed in Germany nearly t ...[text shortened]... o read. But, there is no reason to prefer a system that is clearly inferior to modern algebraic.
Originally posted by WulebgrI learned algebraic first and only got into descriptive because I had books using this notation.I can use both now though I would have some trouble writing descriptive.
This discussion regarding descriptive is fascinating. On the one hand we have young folks who cannot take fifteen minutes to learn a simple system that served the English speaking world well for a little more than a century. On the other hand, we have middle aged conservatives that cannot take fifteen minutes to adapt the system developed in Germany nearly t ...[text shortened]... o read. But, there is no reason to prefer a system that is clearly inferior to modern algebraic.
I agree algebraic is easier but got to appreciate descriptive after going over games in that form of notation.
I also suspect descriptive is better for teaching.The algebraic 'e4' does nothing to me while 'pawn to king four' brings up an image of a pawn moving up the board.I think that's why things 'stick' better.Hope I'm making some sense LOL