30 Sep 10
Originally posted by BailieDonaldsonI have this book, Master Chess. Geoff does 35 pages of tactics and combos - and not a cartoon or joke to be seen!
Actually Geoff (co-) wrote two books - Rampant Chess with Keith Ruxton and Mastering Chess with Danny Kopec/Spike Mullen/Alan Norris. Both are outstanding.
30 Sep 10
I've never read a chess book. I know I can't be the only one around here... I've gone through the annotated games section in the back of Reinfeld's The Complete Chess Player which my dad had lying around the house... Also flipped through a couple of games in Seirawan's Chess Duels last few times I was at B+N. That's really it though.
When I started playing I was told that it was more important to analysis your own games than those of others. So that's what I've been doing for a while... And that's really all I have time for these days. Some people (Kasparov, Kramnik iirc) say it's critically important to study chess history though, to have a "chess hero", etc. Anyone have an opinion on this?
30 Sep 10
"Surprised no one else has mentioned ZB."
I think some us would but the spelling of his name is a barrier.
Also think there may be more chess books written him out
there but nobody knows they are chess books.
Once you have put Eugene Aleksandrovich Znosko-Borovsky
on the cover there is little room for anything else.
30 Sep 10
Originally posted by DivGradCurlIf you don't read books and only analyze your own games, where do you get ideas? I know I couldn't mate with a king and rook if I hadn't studied it first.
I've never read a chess book. I know I can't be the only one around here... I've gone through the annotated games section in the back of Reinfeld's The Complete Chess Player which my dad had lying around the house... Also flipped through a couple of games in Seirawan's Chess Duels last few times I was at B+N. That's really it though.
Whe ...[text shortened]... y chess history though, to have a "chess hero", etc. Anyone have an opinion on this?
I must be misunderstanding your post. Are you saying you are coming up with everything from scratch?
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsOf course I don't come up with everything on my own... I've never read "My System" but I'm familiar with the concept of "blockade". Like I know if my opponent has an isolated pawn my knight probably belongs in front of it. I don't remember how that happened specifically. Probably through reading chess forums like this or talking to random people at club. Also it's not hard to pick up on concepts such as "weak square" and "backward pawn", or even famous games such as the "Opera" or "Evergreen".
If you don't read books and only analyze your own games, where do you get ideas? I know I couldn't mate with a king and rook if I hadn't studied it first.
I must be misunderstanding your post. Are you saying you are coming up with everything from scratch?
Of course I'm not very good at using those concepts in game because I've never consciously studied them. Mostly I'll look for tactics if there're indicators. If not I'll ask myself, "Where does this piece belong?"... If the answer isn't obvious I'll try and play against my opponents pieces. Very rarely do I make it past that last question without coming up with something!
I have absolutely nothing against books. Just haven't used them myself. Always looking for advice from good players though, that's why I asked how other people felt. None of us have the time to study 5 hours a day. Is time better spent studying your own games, or those of the masters? Or even working your way though books like Chernev's and Seirawan's?
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by DivGradCurlI understand better now. You have had real OTB teachers that have shown you these things. They read the books. 🙂
Of course I don't come up with everything on my own... I've never read "My System" but I'm familiar with the concept of "blockade". Like I know if my opponent has an isolated pawn my knight probably belongs in front of it. I don't remember how that happened specifically. Probably through reading chess forums like this or talking to random people at club. ...[text shortened]... even working your way though books like Chernev's and Seirawan's?
Books helped me think about the game more strategically. At first, I was all about the attack. My pieces aimed at the king, and that was about it. I didn't learn that a move you make on move 2 or 3 can lay the groundwork for the entire game. By playing through master games, I got to see how all this stuff plays out. Without an overall strategy, basically you are just putting pieces on squares and calculating (or hoping).
It only takes a few Morphy games to see why you never go after pawns in the opening. It may look like there is a losing move here or there, but it is usually much deeper back.
Capablanca shows how a slightly better more active position is the framework for a crushing endgame advantage.
Alekhine's games show that you can create attacking chances out of any position, no matter how dull it seems.
You also pick up endless patterns and tactics.
Occasionally, I still see two movers that completely awe me by playing through old games.
Technique is another thing you get down pat.
Sometimes a player like Karpov clips a pawn, and the other guy refuses to resign right away.
It's a real joy watching how the game snowballs from there.
The decisive move usually has nothing to do with simply pushing the passed pawn.
The pawn is used as a distraction for some greater scheme.
A lot of the time, the pawn is even sacrificed for some positional advantage that doesn't look like it was worth it but actually forces the win.
You get all of this and more from playing through a good game collection.
There is also the enjoyment factor.
Some people play through games just for joy of it.
As for "Where does this piece belong?", that is the hardest decision a chess player must make. Knowing structures or familiar openings makes it a little easier, but other than that it gets down to experience I guess.
You can get experience from your own games or master games.
The only difference is that the master games MAY show you something that you would never think about.
Some more examples of studying the classics:
Fischer's win over Mecking was very close to Nimzo's win over Spielmann.
Fischer's Caro-Kann Exchange win over Petrosian was an improvement for white against an old Capablanca (black) game.
Fischer's use of the Two Knights Caro-Kann was almost certainly from studying the games of Boleslavsky and Nezhmetdinov. His use of Bc4 in the Open Sicilian was also.
Fischer's famous Tartakower QGD win over Spassky from the 1972 match was an improvement from Spassky (as white I think) against Petrosian in their world championship match.
Fischer not only studied the classics, but he also studied the games of his contemporaries and learned from/improved on them.
01 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsThis may sound a little superficial and corny, but I read chess books for the pure enjoyment of it- it doesn't feel like study to me.
I understand better now. You have had real OTB teachers that have shown you these things. They read the books. 🙂
Books helped me think about the game more strategically. At first, I was all about the attack. My pieces aimed at the king, and that was about it. I didn't learn that a move you make on move 2 or 3 can lay the groundwork fo ut he also studied the games of his contemporaries and learned from/improved on them.
I liken it to reading a book of poems or short stories. I love seeing how different players can play the same opening, but with very different ideas and styles. I love player's collections of games, as I see how they evolved over time, and I get a feel for their particular styles and ideas influence their play. I love tournament books for the round-by-action--I like to follow one player through the book, to see how it felt from game to game.
I really love opening books with annotated games that show how the opening started and then progressed over time. There's something about the evolution and flow of ideas, the back-and-forth theoretical duels that sometimes take place over decades, that I find immensely entertaining and satisfying.
I have definitely learned very much, but it has never felt like study or work!
Paul
01 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DivGradCurlInteresting question div-
I've never read a chess book. I know I can't be the only one around here... I've gone through the annotated games section in the back of Reinfeld's The Complete Chess Player which my dad had lying around the house... Also flipped through a couple of games in Seirawan's Chess Duels last few times I was at B+N. That's really it though.
Whe y chess history though, to have a "chess hero", etc. Anyone have an opinion on this?
I study with an IM and he had me go over about 5-10 games of Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik and asked me to decide which one of these players styles I liked the most and would like to model.
This sort fits the idea of a chess hero I think. My coach didn't like the idea of studying older players like Capa or Alekhine because he felt you would ingest outdated theory and bad defensive technique.
I feel going over 30-40 of Capablanca's games from that Golumbek book improved my chess by 100 pts in the last year.
so take that for what it's worth.
I also agree that doing analysis is way more beneficial than "reading" but sometimes your worn out from analsysis and a good book keeps your enthusiasm for the game going. If there is one thing you need in chess, it's persistence.
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by Shallow BlueWell if Plan A ever pans out and I win the lottery I may take you up on that 😉
Heh. Pay me well enough and I'll translate some for you!
And if I do become a millionaire there are some works by Tarrasch, Alekhine and Botvinnik that are also way overdue for an English translation.