15951 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
hello atahant. Glen Fear's "practical endgame play" might be worth considering. Do some searching to see if you can find more about its content. Sounds to me that Richie and Oprah are trying to give you good advice. Would it be practical to do both tactics and endgame study. Perhaps alternating monthly?
Thanks guys, I'll look into those books aswell. I think it is obvious I mostly need midgame tactics study for now.
One excellent endgame book that hasn't been mentioned is Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings done in algabraic notation by Pal Benko. I'm a fairly weak player and its a bear to get through. Easily the hardest of the two mentioned previously.
Who should have one this ending. How should I have played this one. What piece material does it take to win certain endings are all answered once you get the hang of his writing.
A 600 page tome that is well worth the investment. (Provided you like the 1800s language usage IE pawns should be connected-whose pawns. Clearly he is ahead-who is ahead. Ect Ect.)
An excerpt: I. The winning process in the case of bishop and knight endings may be conveniently divided into these five steps: 1) Place all your pieces in the most favorable positions available
2) Weaken the opponents pawns as much as possible
3) Create an outside passed pawn
4) If a piece is diverted to stop the pawn capture it
5) If the king is used to block the pawn , maneuver your own king to the other wing and establish a decisive superiority there.
I don't understand the original question. Why is it either SIlman or Dvoretsky?
In no way are they clearly better writers than e.g., K.Mueller, M.Marin, or J.Nunn.
I personally think Silman is very overrated. It is an american hype. Just read Nunn's Understanding Chess Endgames (2011?). Extremely well written.
I imagine he's made his decision at some point in the last 4 years.
Silman - totally overrated as most American chess literature
Dvoretsky - too advanced for amateurs
How about 6 books by GM V.Kovacevic? (each one is more than 300 pages long):
Everything you need to know about endgame is in those books but it would take years to master them all. And one more slight problem: the books are written in Croatian, I think there's no English translation so...
Would a legit 2100 ask such a dumb question??
Have read chunks of DEM, having a fairly basic chess knowledge.
DEM is not a difficult book, in the sense that there is not significant pre-requisite chess knowledge or understanding. To illustrate, you won't come across references to obscure opening variations which you're expected to know, or be expected to understand a complex middlegame position at a glance. The book is complex and has dense examples, but very much in a from-first-principles sort of way.
For those with the background, imagine jumping into Wald's "General Relativity" as a first GR book as a postgrad student.
I'm a legit 2100 (aside from all those rated forfeit wins I would've lost or drawn if played out) and I don't think this is such a dumb question. What, everyone rated +2100 is supposed to be an expert on all endgame books? I own over a dozen and not one is by Silman or Dvoretsky which also leaves me out of the loop here in trying to choose between them - or makes me "dumb" if I ask for anyone else's opinion I guess...
Does the following make atahan a "legit 2100?"
The man that started this thread has not logged in for the last 16 months. Although that does not prevent us from blogging about the issue I find it hilarious. NimzoDave was the one reviving the thread so cheers to that!
You know not much has changed in the past four years.
I'm a legit 2100 (aside from all those rated forfeit wins I would've lost or drawn if played out) and I don't think this is such a dumb question.
Nimzo, your USCF rating is 1805 according to the information you provided. No, I don't consider chess.com's rating to be a "legit" rating.
But your point is valid. The question is one that deserves a clear answer. Dvoretsky's endgame books are far better than Silman's books.
I agree with other posters that there are some excellent endgame resources available that aren't written by Dvoretsky or Silman.
My own favorites include
Fundamental Chess Endings by Mueller and Lamprecht, Analysing the Endgame by Speelman,
Batsford Chess Endings by Speelman, Tisdall and Wade,
Rook Endings by Levenfish and Smyslov (even though there are numerous mistakes, it was the book I used to learn Rook endings.)
Mastering the Endgame by Shereshevsky.
For absolute beginners, I like books by Flear and Pandolfini over Silman. I know, nobody likes Pandolfini. But his explanation of the B+N mate is a classic! I really appreciate his verbal explanations of the endgames!
Smyslovfan yes my now long since inactive USCF rating is 1805 (OTB) but I agree that my turn-based rating here hardly indicates I'd be rated the same at USCF now my mostly uneducated guess is I'd be about 300 pts lower USCF CC rated if I was active there.
At any rate be careful of comparing apples to oranges - ie postal ratings to OTB and active to inactive ratings. But in general I agree with you that the ratings here are inflated compared to USCF but these ratings are still "legit" certainly for here (except for cheaters of course) at least and the Glicko rating system is certainly legit IMHO although it may not be the best one out there.
For what it's worth, I'm working through silman's book now and am really enjoying it :0)
Nimzo, I don't mean any disrespect to you. But if you were to go to a chess tournament and start chatting with some of the players there, would you tell them you are 2100 or 1800?
When discussing endgames, I would trust the outdated OTB rating over a current correspondence rating to give me a sense of the quality of the player.
But as I said, your original point was valid. And I wouldn't rely on ratings as much as I would on the quality of your comments to make any judgements.
I TOTALLY agree.
In particular with respect to Silman. His books are extremely overrated, and full of "fillers" (soft text that should make you feel-good).
Just practise the important positions (both colors) against a computer a couple of days. Read Snape, or, Giddins, or Nunn.
It is a universal chess question. 4 years, or 4 seconds. Doesn't matter; how do we best progress in chess?
"Reykjavik Open, Round 8 | Commentary by FM Ingvar Johannesson & Fiona Steil-Antoni"
Making the Chess.com Forums Better
by Cmagnus31 a few minutes ago
BTB's Daily puzzal: Puzzal #3
by DragonZenMaster a few minutes ago
If chess players are so smart why they are not millionaires/billionaires?
by Talmapai a few minutes ago
Was this exchange sacrifice sound?
by GMVillads a few minutes ago
3/10/2014 - A Quick End
by Thogstacker a few minutes ago
Lecture on Sicilian End-games
by jdcannon 3 minutes ago
Two Ads from 1998: Chessbase and Chess Assistant
by Conflagration_Planet 4 minutes ago
A game lost - blunders due to lack of rest?
by 3FFA 4 minutes ago
Vitruvius Chess Engine
by scrooge_mcdude 5 minutes ago
by orangeishblue 5 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!