hi all,
apologies for this topic if it has been discussed (probably) many times, but maybe some other n00bs like me can benefit off this one. I have purchased some chess literature and I'm not quite sure which order I should start studying them in. I am quite a weak player, so I bought the books and I'm starting some coaching lessons in January. Which ones are good to start off with, especially when linking them with coaching? My rating is probably about 1300-1400...
I was thinking "Winning Chess Tactics" and then "How To Reassess Your Chess" from what I've read about these books... what do you think?
Silman's Complete Endgame Course (Silman)
The Ultimate Chess Puzzle Book (Emms)
Understanding the Chess Openings (Collins)
Understanding Chess Move by Move (Nunn)
Think Like A Grandmaster (Kotov)
The 10 Most Common Chess Mistakes (Evans)
My System + Chess Praxis (Nimzowitsch)
Pawn Structure Chess (Soltis)
Bobby Fischer - The Greatest? (Euwe)
How to Reassess Your Chess + Workbook (Silman)
Inside the Chess Mind (Aagaard)
Art of Attack in Chess (Vukovic)
Winning Chess Tactics (Seirawan)
5,334 Chess Puzzles (Polgar)
The Amateur's Mind (Silman)
The Art of Checkmate (Renaud/Khan)
Best Lessons of a Chess Coach (Weeramantry/Eusebi)
Originally posted by rijnsburgerWinning chess tactics
hi all,
apologies for this topic if it has been discussed (probably) many times, but maybe some other n00bs like me can benefit off this one. I have purchased some chess literature and I'm not quite sure which order I should start studying them in. I am quite a weak player, so I bought the books and I'm starting some coaching lessons in January. Which ...[text shortened]...
The Art of Checkmate (Renaud/Khan)
Best Lessons of a Chess Coach (Weeramantry/Eusebi)
Amatuer's Mind
Then something with good game annotations like Chernev's Logical chess: move by move.
I'd say Nunn's Understanding chess move by move has too steep a learning curve for a 1300-1400
Think like a Grandmaster, Pawn structure chess, the art of attack & My system should wait until much later, in my opinion.
Originally posted by rijnsburgerThere are Three first essential books everyone should own
hi all,
apologies for this topic if it has been discussed (probably) many times, but maybe some other n00bs like me can benefit off this one. I have purchased some chess literature and I'm not quite sure which order I should start studying them in. I am quite a weak player, so I bought the books and I'm starting some coaching lessons in January. Which ...[text shortened]...
The Art of Checkmate (Renaud/Khan)
Best Lessons of a Chess Coach (Weeramantry/Eusebi)
My System by Nimzovich
A good Opening book...MCO is probably the best.
Basic Chess Endings by Rueben Fine
Add to that the two 1001 books ( I think Chrenev did those...loaned mine out years ago and haven't seen em since )
After that then find a book on your favorite player...this could be Tal or Fischer or Kasparov...study their games...looking at it from both sides...which basically means going through the game twice or more.
Eventually you will get a better feel for what kind of player you are...which was something that most of the old timers on here know that i could tell by playing someone. Alot of people think they are agressive and so they study Tal and Alekhine and throw caution to the wind...and they lose because inside they are actually a positional player and should have been studying Petrosian.
I used to give lessons on that when i played here before.
Ok...after you do figure out who you are chess wise then get some specialty books on the openings that fit your style and try to find games that were played using those openings...look at the positions that arise throughout them...but don't forget to keep challenging yourself with tactics.
Ken Smith said that "tactics will save you in a bad endgame" and I will always believe him.
But always study complete games...those will help you so much more than just memorizing an opening 20 moves deep.
Hope that helps
Dave
Originally posted by nmdavidbStudy basic endings first.
There are Three first essential books everyone should own
My System by Nimzovich
A good Opening book...MCO is probably the best.
Basic Chess Endings by Rueben Fine
Add to that the two 1001 books ( I think Chrenev did those...loaned mine out years ago and haven't seen em since )
After that then find a book on your favorite player...this could be T ...[text shortened]... p you so much more than just memorizing an opening 20 moves deep.
Hope that helps
Dave
To win you first need to know what wins and how to win.
Then study elementary openings.
It is no good knowing how to win if you always come out of the opening worse.
Now study elementary tactics and strategy. Work on this until you can avoid basic tactical mistakes in all phases of the game.
Now work on improving you tactics and strategy until you stop dropping pieces and can spot most tactical nuances (you may not always calculate long combinations correctly, even GMs can't always do that but realising they are there is what matters). In the process identify what type of games you are most comfortable with (For example do Open or Closed games best suit your style) as these will determine what sort of openings you should play.
This is perhaps your most intensive phase of study and you need to get your rating up to about 1700 before you are ready to move to the next phase.
You are now ready to study the openings and end games in more depth. In every game you have to play the opening and if you botch it up you will never even get to the end game so this is the most important area to work on now, so now is the time to get better more specialised opening books on the type of openings your style dictates. Ideally as black or white you want to "force" the game towards your style whilst your opponent will be trying the opposite.
Continue this until you are avoiding most opening blunders and generally get into a middle game you are confortable with.
Study the end games as you come to them.
Even OTB you may get adjournments here and there really is no point once you know the basics of studying loads of complex theory that you will never use in practice. However it is worth while ensuring you can mate with N & B and that you understand and can use the theory of opposition so bone up on the basics.
Remember we all make mistakes. Blundering the occasional piece, even just dropping a piece or missing a mate in 1 does not mean you are suddenly poor again. Everyone, even GMs blunder and make the occasional serious error, losing "won" games. The only difference is the better you get the less you do it. A beginner might drop pieces (to single moves) every game whilst a GM might do it (to elementary 2/3 move combinations) every 100 games. Even Kramnik has missed a mate in 1. The only players who never miss a tactical ploy are computer engines.
Originally posted by nmdavidbMy System & MCO for a 1400???
My System by Nimzovich
A good Opening book...MCO is probably the best.
Eesh
🙄
I would broadly agree with Dragon Fire's post above, except my personal order of importance would be:
1) All the rules & moves
2) Tactics & basic combinations
3) Basic endgames & checkmates
4) Strategy (middlegame technique)
5) Selection of opening repertoire
6) Ongoing tactical self-testing with a book or program
from the feedback you guys are giving me it does look like "Winning Chess Strategies" is the first book to tackle. After that I should probably practice by solving puzzles (maybe re-read Seirawan's book a few times) and get to the point where I don't blunder quite as often... after that I think I'll consider endgame studies and maybe a few basic openings.
I've read around the web on this exact same question and I think Dragonfire's advice is pretty much spot on... I need to develop some board vision and get the basic patterns down first before heading off into the great yonder - so, "Winning Chess Tactics", "5,334 Puzzles" and some solid playing time will be on the cards for a few months at least. I think I'll leave Nimzo on the shelf fow now 🙂 although it is a must-have for later.
Don't make the mistake of going into opening theory too much.
Just find out a little about the openings you like or have heard of & why the moves are made.
I agree with DF that you need to know what first few moves to make, but playing a common opening like the white side of the Ruy Lopez & not knowing what the long term power of the move 3.Bb5 is, or missing a simple tactic in the opening can make knowing lines of theory a waste of time. Your opponent goes out of book on move 4 & it's panic time baby!
A decent tactician will trounce an opening theory boffin who lacks the same tactical ability.
Tactical study will not only present you with opportunities to gain material advantage or mate, but will also help you see potential threats from your opponent & counteract them.
You need to study basic strategic theory inasmuch as you need to create the right conditions for tactics to take place, such as control of the center, king safety & active pieces. Wading into My System would get most -1800's lost after a few pages. For a start, Nimzovich's style of stifling, blockading then countering is hardly everyone's cup of tea.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI should have stated that i started playing tourneys in 1980...so My System was basically my bible. The great thing about it is is that even if you don't grasp everything from it on the first read you still pick up some things...then later when you have played quite a bit you go back to it and you pick up more...and so on.
. Wading into My System would get most -1800's lost after a few pages. For a start, Nimzovich's style of stifling, blockading then countering is hardly everyone's cup of tea.
But so far all of the recomendations I have read have been very good!
Dave
Many of the books suggested were good- but,as many before have said, are probably too advanced for a 1400. I also started a similar study system (except I didn't have a coach) and gained about 550 points in a little under a year and a half. My program, towards the beginning when I was 1100, focused a lot on tactics(I used the chess tactics for beginners CD), some endgame from just the facts!, strategy from winning chess strategies by seirawan (excellent beginning strategical book, one of my favorites) and then a little opening knowledge from winning chess openings. As my rating progressed, the structure changed- once I hit 1400, I started focusing more on endgames and move up a level with a new strategy book- once I hit 1500, I started studying openings more seriously, and delved deeper in to strategy- now that I am 1600, I plan on studying endgames and strategy deeply, while keeping my tactics sharp.
Originally posted by chessisvanitychessisvanity do u think it's too late to aspire to that magical 2000? I've read that the brain structure (synapses, interconnected neurons, blahblah) form a lot slower when ur older, but I didnt think I would require two decades to get to that level since I'm now 30! 🙁
also.....you're 30 years old.
I hope you are set for a 15-20 year commitment if you want to reach 2000?....if you're lucky.
Originally posted by rijnsburgerIt's tough that is for sure...dad taught me to play when I was 4...that was 1976...started tourneys when i was 8...1980...finally got my NM title in 1998...but you have to remember I had a life as well...played football..girls..all of that. I look at that Nakamura kid and just shake my head...I think he was a NM at 10...wish I could have got it at that age
chessisvanity do u think it's too late to aspire to that magical 2000? I've read that the brain structure (synapses, interconnected neurons, blahblah) form a lot slower when ur older, but I didnt think I would require two decades to get to that level since I'm now 30! 🙁
The thing is chess should be fun and yes we all want to get better...but if you work so hard that it isn't fun anymore then getting that high rating is kinda meaningless.
Dave
Originally posted by nmdavidbwell admittedly I'm not completely new to the game so I'm hoping 5-10 years and not 15-20 haha... I used to captain the school chess team and beat some provincial players now and then, but I have left it idle since leaving school and am hoping to pick up where I left off soonish. Rusty rusty! but thats quite hectic hey Dave you've been playing for like 35 years now?!
It's tough that is for sure...dad taught me to play when I was 4...that was 1976...started tourneys when i was 8...1980...finally got my NM title in 1998...but you have to remember I had a life as well...played football..girls..all of that. I look at that Nakamura kid and just shake my head...I think he was a NM at 10...wish I could have got it at that age ...[text shortened]... so hard that it isn't fun anymore then getting that high rating is kinda meaningless.
Dave
Originally posted by rijnsburger31 years...yeah a looong time. Should of seen me in High School...you wanna talk about a kid who never fit in. I was on the Football team, played in the band and was on the chess team, the debate team, and the academic team.
well admittedly I'm not completely new to the game so I'm hoping 5-10 years and not 15-20 haha... I used to captain the school chess team and beat some provincial players now and then, but I have left it idle since leaving school and am hoping to pick up where I left off soonish. Rusty rusty! but thats quite hectic hey Dave you've been playing for like 35 years now?!
Too old for football...still like to argue...but only with whatever woman wants to put up with me for a few months or so..hehehe...but chess has always been there.
Had to take a break from it for awhile due to health reasons but still had my copy of 500 Master games of chess in the hospital and my little Drueke set...so my game hasn't slipped too much i hope.
You will do just fine on here I am sure...advice is always freely given...and sometimes criticism even more...lol
Dave
Originally posted by rijnsburgerI started at 29, 2½ half years ago. I think the neurological truth about children learning faster is completely misleading, because kids can't study as efficiently as adults. kids have no dicipline, ability to plan nor perspective on learning things. all things being equal, adults learn slower. but the things are not equal, far from it, and I can teach myself anything faster than a child because of that.
chessisvanity do u think it's too late to aspire to that magical 2000? I've read that the brain structure (synapses, interconnected neurons, blahblah) form a lot slower when ur older, but I didnt think I would require two decades to get to that level since I'm now 30! 🙁
a kid will talk a foreign langugage like a native speaker in a year. but his talk will still be a child's talk. I can never achieve the same level of pronunciation, but I can write grammatically superior 'mature' text in a new language in half of that time, with vastly greater vocabulary, where as a kid will take 10 years at least for that.