Best positional play book for 1800 player

The Alburt book is Chess Strategy for the Tournament Player.  Grooten's is Chess Strategy for Club Players.

Chess Strategy for the Tournament Player is that book worth its weight in gold?

Exactly. I cant remember the exact name.

I think maybe I'll search out a copy of the Alburt book.  I have his tactics book in that series and it's hands down the tactics book I keep picking up when I have a few minutes to solve some puzzles.

I've only read about a chapter and a half so far.  Seems good to me, but JRgascon's recommendation would carry much more weight than mine.

I picked up most of the Alburt course when I had some credit to burn at the used bookstore.  I was disappointed that they didn't have the tactics book.  It seems like a pretty good series of books.

Also "my system" is a great book. There is a lot of options. Read it all!

Certainly, My System is an absolute classic. But I'm betting he's already read it. If he hasn't, he needs to! Since he's already read SOMCS by Watson, I'm guessing he has studied Nimzovich.

Yes, that is a correct assumption.  I think the hardest part is absorbing all of the material, and then applying it to his games. 

I am a fan of Soltis' book Studying Chess Made Easy (it doesn't get mentioned often enough).

One of his central points is that chess isn't a school subject. It's not a matter of studying the subject and then applying it in your games. It's much more a skill that is honed by a lot of deliberate practice. Playing, critically thinking about what went wrong and what went right, solving exercises.

And SOMCS isn't even meant to be an instructional book.

I just started reading Alburt's Chess Strategy for the Tournament Player. I like it so far, but I didn't read many books on this so I can't really comment on its quality.

What rating range do you think this book is on?

I'd like to achieve 2000 rating, do you guys think this book can serve all of my positional needs or I'll have to integrate it with other stuff?

Do you guys think this book can serve all of my positional needs? If you have the book and your asking this question you know that is a no. Ok i will put it another way. No one book will serve all your positional needs. But if you have one that serves to help you with the basics of it then that is a good start.

You like to achieve a 2000 rating! Rethink this in another way. Want you want is to play like a 2000 player. A difference in approach. Say your playing against 1800 several time then your rank can reach 2000. But....and a big but.... when faced against a 2000 player you get crushed and your rank falls below 2000. Then your try again with same results then your wonder what is going on here!

Hope i cleared that up.

This works in chess.com, but OTB I don't think you'll reach a rating close to 2000 if what you do is only beating 1800s. Your rating increases would be just too small, and unlike on chess.com, you can't play 30 rated games every day.

And the question might have been a bit silly, i'll give you that, but all strategy books (and online resources) I've encountered focus on the usual things e.g. outposts, weak squares, bad pieces, etc. So it seemed realistic to me that a single book could be enough to work on all these themes. After all they are not much - game practice it's a different thing but the theory to study should be finite within a amateur level.

30 gms that is too easy. Know several including myself that have played 50- 100 games a day when online. I crushed 2000 at another site playing 1800 players. Yeah it gave like 2-4 points a win. Plus the players moved maybe to fast. But that is not what a strong player wants in their game.

I ..... go ahead laugn. I used to play checkers before i played chess and as good at it. So thinking in a positional way was natural when i learned how the pieces moved on the board. I had no book so i just started playing around and looking for positions to my oppent into in a game. When i lost i just remeber what they did to me then practice it and use it on somebody else.

It is a very good book but it is not exactly a book on positional play.

If you wins against 1800 several times in a row until you reach 2000 then you are playing like 2000. Rating is about probablility and expectation. If I remember correctly 200 difference means that stronger player is expected to get 75% of points and weaker - 25%. If that's your result - this is your level.

Yeah, so if you beat someone 200 point lower 3 out of 4 games over and over your rating wont change...  The problem woudln't be playing many different players 200 points below you, the problem would be beating the same person 10, 20, etc games in a row if their style is easy for you or they're having an off day.  That's when online ratings can get skewed.

As mentioned before, I don't think there are any strategy themed books aimed at an 1800 player (who is not uncharacteristically weak in strategy).

Best is to start playing over game collections and observe the ideas masters use.  Basically all of the ideas are the same, pawn structure, weak pieces / square, exchange sacs, etc. it's just GMs apply it more deeply and more often.

I agree with what you say - ratings can get skewed. But it can equally go other way around - you play same weaker player many games in a row, and his style is difficult for you or you are having a bad day.

Rating almost means nothing. I can play some players in one town at say 1800 rank and clean their house and then go the opposite part of the country and get destroyed.

If you want to be a true 2000 rated player than you have to play and think like them. I know this one site that is was easy for a good player to make 2000+ in 2-3 days. It would take 3 days because you end up beating up on several of the same players getting there. And like chess.com players they are not going to help you out but they had the option to avoid playing an opponent.

Now that i come to think about it. This is the first site i know to mention breaking 2000.

When you get to 2000 and if you can not beat 2000 rated players at some consistant level your rank is going to fall sooner or later to where it belongs. In this case it may crush you mentally and you never reac 2000 again. I prefer to play like a 2000 and wonder when i break 2000 then any other way.