I also have Silman's book & like you pointed out it is geared for higher players. I was disappointed in this book. I am not sure about Chernev's book? Most books use GM games in them & its hard to move up from 1500 to a higher rating studying the GM games IMO.
Reassess your chess not for a 1400?
Sort:
I studied "move by move " by Chernev in the past, it was a book with Gm games but explained in great detail, I would say it increased my chess rating by 200 at the time, so I cannot say I agree with you on the gm games.
9kick9 wrote:
I also have Silman's book & like you pointed out it is geared for higher players. I was disappointed in this book. I am not sure about Chernev's book? Most books use GM games in them & its hard to move up from 1500 to a higher rating studying the GM games IMO.
slowlybutsurely79 wrote:
...My friend, a 2000+ player told me that if I study this book (Chernev’s), I’ll be a 1800 if I grasp the content.
The catch is "if you understand the content". I have no idea if you can or not. I just want to point out that Chernev's book is a very well annotated set of showcase games but it doesn't explain things with the depth of Silman's book. It might be better to study Silman's book and use Chernev's to see certain concepts in action in real grandmaster games.
Thank you, I'll probably stick to Silman and see how it goes
Gomer_Pyle wrote:
slowlybutsurely79 wrote:
...My friend, a 2000+ player told me that if I study this book (Chernev’s), I’ll be a 1800 if I grasp the content.
The catch is "if you understand the content". I have no idea if you can or not. I just want to point out that Chernev's book is a very well annotated set of showcase games but it doesn't explain things with the depth of Silman's book. It might be better to study Silman's book and use Chernev's to see certain concepts in action in real grandmaster games.
There's nothing wrong with missing the questions the first time around. Just shows your weak areas and that you should go back over the material again until you fully understand it and then move on. Perhaps the book is for stronger players, but that doesn't mean you can't learn something from it. If you are feeling like it's too tough for you, go to something else and come back to it later.... but I wouldn't give up after failing one test....
Identify your weak points. For me, a 1363 fide, the positional concepts were quite clear, which is why I beat 1800s consistently OTB, but my calculation is weak , which is why I practice on chesstempo
I've just started reading it too, I think it's a great book for anyone as long as you understand it. It really has helped my positional chess so far, and I love it.
As for getting problems wrong, like others said, maybe it's just your weak point. Maybe doing it again would help, but maybe if you understand the answer and find it clear and all then I think it should be fine.
JShubham1907 wrote:
Identify your weak points. For me, a 1363 fide, the positional concepts were quite clear, which is why I beat 1800s consistently OTB, but my calculation is weak , which is why I practice on chesstempo
Hey, and if consistently means more than once your rating will eventually go up!
There is no single book that is THE answer to make a chess player better. Each of us have different weaknesses that we need to address, different tactical abilities, some learn through reading while others need to be visually shown before it "clicks".
I like Silman because he usually does a good job putting concepts into plain language without overwhelming me with a page of alternate variations.
Silman's advice to understand the imbalances in a position, to break the position down in your mind until you can verbalize the nuances and find a plan is good advise no matter your rating.
At 1400, the most common mistake I see in my local chess club is the player simply moving to fast without a long term plan. 1400's love one move tactics and chasing pieces away from the square they are sitting on - even when they are forcing their opponent to move the piece to a better square. Even if you find the wrong plan, having any plan at that level can give you an advantage over your similarly rated opponent. After awhile your plans will become more sophisticated as you have more experience making plans and following through instead of playing chess on a one move at a time basis.
shell_knight wrote:
JShubham1907 wrote:
Identify your weak points. For me, a 1363 fide, the positional concepts were quite clear, which is why I beat 1800s consistently OTB, but my calculation is weak , which is why I practice on chesstempo
Hey, and if consistently means more than once your rating will eventually go up!
The problem is I started in 9th, so I've been able to play only 4 rated tmts. I started at 1312.
Somene has started a How To Reassess Your Chesss study group:
http://www.chess.com/groups/home/htryc-study-group
slowlybutsurely79 wrote:
Hi there, most of my slow chess peers tell me that I am a 1500 fide , I’ve had this from many people. I'd say I'm a 1400. The best player I’ve ever beaten was a 1650 FIDE.
I’ve recently started “How to Reassess your Chess 4th Edition” from Silman. I am understanding practically everything that he’s saying and after 65 pages, I’ve already noticed that when playing, I am applying some of the material like repositioning the knight to an ideal square. Problem is that when I came to do the tests on the first section (knights), I got them all wrong, I am now at test 7. To be fair to myself, only 2 tests were targeted at my rating, the rest were often for 2000+ however after I got all those tests wrong I started doubting whether this book was for my level.
There is a reading list from a Grandmaster who suggests this book for 1700+ players. So I thought, did Silman suggest this book for 1400+ players to capture a bigger audience or is this truly good for me?
I am toying with the idea of switching to Chernev’s “The most instructive games of chess ever played”. However, having gone through the first two games, I did not feel that I was learning anything new. My friend, a 2000+ player told me that if I study this book (Chernev’s), I’ll be a 1800 if I grasp the content.
This leaves me with the dilemma, switch to chernev, do them in parallel, or stick to Silman’s? What’s your take?
Thanks!
Not sure if 1300 chess.com online chess is 1400 elo.
But I read the book around your reported elo, and I found it interesting but a bit frustrating as well. I enjoyed Seirawan's winning chess series (although I didn't read every book in the series).
I also have Chernev's book. I agree it's a good book but for me at least it was hard to use it as an instructional book. Going over the games was very good for reinforcing ideas, but for me wasn't good as a primary source of information.
That said it is a good source of patterns and logical ideas. If you played over those games just for expose to them it would be enough to improve your play.
slowlybutsurely79 wrote:
Hi there, most of my slow chess peers tell me that I am a 1500 fide , I’ve had this from many people. I'd say I'm a 1400. The best player I’ve ever beaten was a 1650 FIDE.
I’ve recently started “How to Reassess your Chess 4th Edition” from Silman. I am understanding practically everything that he’s saying and after 65 pages, I’ve already noticed that when playing, I am applying some of the material like repositioning the knight to an ideal square. Problem is that when I came to do the tests on the first section (knights), I got them all wrong, I am now at test 7. To be fair to myself, only 2 tests were targeted at my rating, the rest were often for 2000+ however after I got all those tests wrong I started doubting whether this book was for my level.
There is a reading list from a Grandmaster who suggests this book for 1700+ players. So I thought, did Silman suggest this book for 1400+ players to capture a bigger audience or is this truly good for me?
I am toying with the idea of switching to Chernev’s “The most instructive games of chess ever played”. However, having gone through the first two games, I did not feel that I was learning anything new. My friend, a 2000+ player told me that if I study this book (Chernev’s), I’ll be a 1800 if I grasp the content.
This leaves me with the dilemma, switch to chernev, do them in parallel, or stick to Silman’s? What’s your take?
Thanks!
First of all, chose a book and stick with it. Dont go back and forth between books. Unless its on 2 different subjects. Silmans book is fine for your level, just stick with it.
The problem with my online rating is that I forgot to move and lost 4 games last May, i havent played much games online but recently I started again
My standard is 1240 or something, they say its 200 lower than Fide, that would be 1440 fide
shell_knight wrote:
slowlybutsurely79 wrote:
Hi there, most of my slow chess peers tell me that I am a 1500 fide , I’ve had this from many people. I'd say I'm a 1400. The best player I’ve ever beaten was a 1650 FIDE.
I’ve recently started “How to Reassess your Chess 4th Edition” from Silman. I am understanding practically everything that he’s saying and after 65 pages, I’ve already noticed that when playing, I am applying some of the material like repositioning the knight to an ideal square. Problem is that when I came to do the tests on the first section (knights), I got them all wrong, I am now at test 7. To be fair to myself, only 2 tests were targeted at my rating, the rest were often for 2000+ however after I got all those tests wrong I started doubting whether this book was for my level.
There is a reading list from a Grandmaster who suggests this book for 1700+ players. So I thought, did Silman suggest this book for 1400+ players to capture a bigger audience or is this truly good for me?
I am toying with the idea of switching to Chernev’s “The most instructive games of chess ever played”. However, having gone through the first two games, I did not feel that I was learning anything new. My friend, a 2000+ player told me that if I study this book (Chernev’s), I’ll be a 1800 if I grasp the content.
This leaves me with the dilemma, switch to chernev, do them in parallel, or stick to Silman’s? What’s your take?
Thanks!
Not sure if 1300 chess.com online chess is 1400 elo.
But I read the book around your reported elo, and I found it interesting but a bit frustrating as well. I enjoyed Seirawan's winning chess series (although I didn't read every book in the series).
I also have Chernev's book. I agree it's a good book but for me at least it was hard to use it as an instructional book. Going over the games was very good for reinforcing ideas, but for me wasn't good as a primary source of information.
That said it is a good source of patterns and logical ideas. If you played over those games just for expose to them it would be enough to improve your play.
Possibly at 1800 level the flip side occurs
alexm2310 wrote:
My standard is 1240 or something, they say its 200 lower than Fide, that would be 1440 fide
I was sure it's the other round tbh, I feel like I'd lose most games against 1800 FIDE players. Not that I've ever read a chess book in my life, but I genuinely found some of the higher rated chess mentor courses useful (particularly Silman's massive course on positional ideas, approximately 300 lessons at varying ratings, mostly 1800+ though.)
Hi there, most of my slow chess peers tell me that I am a 1500 fide , I’ve had this from many people. I'd say I'm a 1400. The best player I’ve ever beaten was a 1650 FIDE.
I’ve recently started “How to Reassess your Chess 4th Edition” from Silman. I am understanding practically everything that he’s saying and after 65 pages, I’ve already noticed that when playing, I am applying some of the material like repositioning the knight to an ideal square. Problem is that when I came to do the tests on the first section (knights), I got them all wrong, I am now at test 7. To be fair to myself, only 2 tests were targeted at my rating, the rest were often for 2000+ however after I got all those tests wrong I started doubting whether this book was for my level.
There is a reading list from a Grandmaster who suggests this book for 1700+ players. So I thought, did Silman suggest this book for 1400+ players to capture a bigger audience or is this truly good for me?
I am toying with the idea of switching to Chernev’s “The most instructive games of chess ever played”. However, having gone through the first two games, I did not feel that I was learning anything new. My friend, a 2000+ player told me that if I study this book (Chernev’s), I’ll be a 1800 if I grasp the content.
This leaves me with the dilemma, switch to chernev, do them in parallel, or stick to Silman’s? What’s your take?
Thanks!