How Good Is the Chess Exam by Igor Khmelnitsky As A Guidance to Self-Improvement?

The used book bookstore near me offered three of them for $24.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105944/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review484.pdf

(Wouldn't think that you would have a use for more than one of them.)

Link is dead

It worked a little while ago. I hope it is just a temporary problem.

"... you’ll be able to determine your strengths and weaknesses with a fair amount of accuracy. ... My only gripe is that the book could have been edited better. The author refers to certain books with inaccurate names ... If you are in the under-2200 category and would like to know how to economize your limited training time, then Chess Exam and Training Guide is for you. It’s simply one of the best instructional books I’ve read in years. It’s a labor of love, so don’t let this one pass you by. ..."

I hadn't heard of these books before, but the reviews on Amazon make them sound very good. The basic premise of the first book is that the tests in the book will help you identify your weak areas. You can then spend your limited study time fixing those areas instead of spinning your wheels on areas that you already understand well. Six months or more after the first go round, you go through the book again and repeat the process. If this really works as advertised, it's an excellent idea. Note, though, that the few negative reviews were from players who thought the material was too advanced for them.

The second book appears to follow the same routine, but focuses on tactics. The third book has you playing against Bobby Fischer: it takes 60 positions from his games and places you in his opponent's chair to figure out how to proceed.

I have taken the plunge and ordered the first book. Amazon had a few sample pages displayed and it looks like an excellent learning and evaluation tool. I’ll let you know how it is once I’ve gotten well into it.

So have I...though I suspect it's gonna tell me that I suck in all aspects of chess!

Yeah, I’m afraid it will tell me the same thing.

I tried it yesterday. My result was horrible! I swear by the moon, all of the choices looked perfectly playable to me T.T

I've finished the first 10 positions in Khmelnitsky and can highly recommend the book. Each position has two questions, usually an overall evaluation of the position and a decision on what the best move is. You are given four choices for each question. When you've made your choices, you turn the page and see the answers along with a detailed explanation. A table for each question shows whether you got five points, 1 point, zero points , or minus 1 point.

I got 66 out of 100 points, which the book equates to an ELO of 1868. The positions are not easy, so that result wasn't too disappointing. This was an interim evaluation, which occurs after every set of 10 questions, and is confined to an overall rating. After all 100 questions, there are tables that break your level of understanding down to 12 areas.

The explanations for each position are extremely valuable. They show not only the analysis, but also the thought process for arriving at the correct conclusions. That is missing from most instructional material, and yet is so important to improving one's game.

I tested myself yesterday. I scored zero point in ending skills, which is a good thing because I know what to improve immediately. I scored 1100 ELO opening skills, 1200 ELO tactics, 1300 ELO on checkmate, and 900 ELO strategy. So, I will focus ending skills to raise it up to 1000 first. So my ELO is about 900

It's cool that the book showed you where you are weakest. That's what it's supposed to do, but I wasn't sure if it would be effective. Good to know that it works. Just 90 more positions and I'll have the answers. 

What will you be using for endgame study? Many, including myself, recommend Silman's book due to its structure: going step by step from basic to complex. Whatever way you choose, best of luck.

I don't want to go deep into theory so I just practice chess.com drill. For instance if I think a position is interesting, I google on how to play that position and play 3,4 times

I've finished the second set of 10 questions in Khmelnitsky and still highly recommend the book. These positions were harder than the first set; my score was somewhat lower but it translated to  an ELO of 1852. My average ELO for the first 20 positions is 1860.

I have a tournament this weekend, so with preps this week and analysis of my games next week, it will be a couple of weeks before beginning the third set of positions. 

Hopefully, the book is a leading indicator of your real chess strength OldPatzerMike.   And you will do well in the tournament as you are under-rated.  I'm assuming, of course, that you are under 1800 USCF.

My OTB rating would be a bit of a frustration if I let myself focus on it. In 1992 it got into the 1800s before I stopped playing. Coming back last year, I understood much more about chess than in the old days and thought it would increase. Alas, it dropped continually until stabilizing around 1700. It remains to be seen whether playing the “rust” off will translate to a higher rating or age has become an impediment to consistently strong play. 

Looks like a promising book. Would you say that the analysis of the weakness and the tips given to better them are on point? I'm not particulary weak or strong in any area, i've hard time to tell.

The tips are not that helpful because they are available online. It does identify the weakness unless you are totally lost like me. This book best test people with ELO like you. I lack a lot of skills so my result was very low, which meant I must practice everything.