I recently read that learning endgame, middle game and finally openings (in this order) is the proper way to learn chess. Your thoughts?
There's a lot of merit to that approach, and it is what I do with my students.
Again, is there any sign of a general agreement on just how much endgame work one might be obliged to do before considering anything else? How much middlegame work one might be obliged to do before considering anything about openings?
I recently read that learning endgame, middle game and finally openings (in this order) is the proper way to learn chess. Your thoughts?
There's a lot of merit to that approach, and it is what I do with my students.
Again, is there any sign of a general agreement on just how much endgame work one might be obliged to do before considering anything else? How much middlegame work one might be obliged to do before considering anything about openings?
I doubt it.
I use a cyclical process in imitation of Capablanca's approach in Chess Fundamentals. The process is a general structure always subject to variation, but generally, conforms to
1. checkmates and endings
2. tactics and planning
3. openings and miniatures
4. great games
The cycle lasts a month and then repeats. It is tailored to a player's skill level.
August checkmates included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
There were thirteen exercises designed for a one hour lesson. They started easy and became more difficult. Some of the exercise were defensive in nature: the student needed to find moves that avoided the checkmate that happened in the game.
First, I suggest to avoid books which are too advanced for the player's skill level, that is, in terms of the concepts that are presented, or how they are presented. In that case it would be prudent to focus on the less "advanced" books, until such time as the player's skill becomes commensurate with that of the advanced book. As an analogy, when embarking on the study of mathematics, attempting to study calculus before first mastering arithmetic and algebra would be an exercise in futility and frustration.
Many of the books recommended in the "best chess books" lists are of the “calculus” variety, targeted primarily to those with “Master” in their chess title, and over the head of the lower rated chess amateur. In that case the best books may be those written specifically for the beginner-intermediate level player audience. One must learn to walk before attempting to run.
Second, (IMO) it is not necessary to read books linearly. That is, restricting yourself to, and finishing one book before reading another book, or reading books or sections of books in a particular order. In fact, for the typical amateur I suggest a process of reading portions of several books on different topics at the same time, depending at any given instant on what you are interested in and motivated to learn. I believe that this approach would provide a more well-rounded exposure to a variety of topics.
Finally, for some chess book suggestions and instructive resources, check out....
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
...it is not necessary to read books linearly. That is, restricting yourself to, and finishing one book before reading another book, or reading books or sections of books in a particular order. In fact, for the typical amateur I suggest a process of reading portions of several books on different topics at the same time, depending at any given instant on what you are interested in and motivated to learn. I believe that this approach would provide a more well-rounded exposure to a variety of topics.
Good advice.
My question is:
after you learn how the pieces move + the rules where do you start learning from there? What is the best course of action?
For example:
Do you start learning with white or black? Does that matter? Should you start by trying to memorize openings and play through them over and over until you have them memorized? Then do you learn middle and then end game? Or should you just focus on mastering 1 opening at a time and try to understand theory with that 1 first and then learn a second one?
I'm having a hard time figuring out a plan of action to learn and become a better chess player. I feel like I'm just constantly learning a bunch of information in no particular order and it's hard to retain the information.
PLEASE HELP!
My question is:
after you learn how the pieces move + the rules where do you start learning from there? What is the best course of action?
For example:
Do you start learning with white or black? Does that matter? Should you start by trying to memorize openings and play through them over and over until you have them memorized? Then do you learn middle and then end game? Or should you just focus on mastering 1 opening at a time and try to understand theory with that 1 first and then learn a second one?
I'm having a hard time figuring out a plan of action to learn and become a better chess player. I feel like I'm just constantly learning a bunch of information in no particular order and it's hard to retain the information.
PLEASE HELP!
The reverse will serve you better.
I have found that students become stronger players if they work from the end to the beginning. Learn checkmates, then endgames, then tactics and middle game planning, then openings, then full games. Repeat this cycle every five study sessions.
Jose Capablanca offers this sequence and excellent instruction in Chess Fundamentals (1991). Get the 1994 algebraic edition, now published by Everyman Press.
This sample gives you a sense of Capablanca's method. This is about the amount offered in the Amazon preview, so hopefully I am not treading on copyright.
@Ziryab I don't know how to quote message. But yes your advice is very sound. My study plan was like this: Learnt Basics (Touch Move, Board setting, piece value, movement, Rules like castling, enpassant, Pawn (under) Promotion, stalemate, Algebraic Notation,Square Colors, Ranks, Files, Diagonals etc) Then I studied like- Endgame>Tactical Problems mixed with middle game positions (Pins, Forks, skewers, x-ray, discovery,double check, counting captures) >Traps in Major Openings>Opening Lines>Complete Games Repeat the cycle until this becomes your habit to see immediately. For that Practice Practice Practice is the key. This helped me a lot. I have seen others who worked upon my this advice have got very fast & Good results. P.S.- I used this method in my college Haven't played since last 10 years. Only a few days ago it again awakened from inside.
The Soviet Chess Primer by Maizelis?
This and Your First Move by Sokolsky as well as Learn Chess by Nunn are amazing chess books to start with. Not for lazy learners though, you have to study hard.
As a structured program Chess Steps (can be replaced by Seirawan's Winning Chess series if you are an adult) followed by Yusupov's series is a great route to master.
My question is:
after you learn how the pieces move + the rules where do you start learning from there? What is the best course of action?
For example:
Do you start learning with white or black? Does that matter? Should you start by trying to memorize openings and play through them over and over until you have them memorized? Then do you learn middle and then end game? Or should you just focus on mastering 1 opening at a time and try to understand theory with that 1 first and then learn a second one?
I'm having a hard time figuring out a plan of action to learn and become a better chess player. I feel like I'm just constantly learning a bunch of information in no particular order and it's hard to retain the information.
PLEASE HELP!
The reverse will serve you better.
I have found that students become stronger players if they work from the end to the beginning. Learn checkmates, then endgames, then tactics and middle game planning, then openings, then full games. Repeat this cycle every five study sessions.
Jose Capablanca offers this sequence and excellent instruction in Chess Fundamentals (1991). Get the 1994 algebraic edition, now published by Everyman Press.
This sample gives you a sense of Capablanca's method. This is about the amount offered in the Amazon preview, so hopefully I am not treading on copyright.
Thank you so much for your input! I've been playing for almost a year now and your strategy of working from endgame to beginning is in my opinion is ludicrous.. maybe if you're learning what pieces you need for certain checkmates or nets, but how can you possibly have this strategy learning the game? You can't even get to the end game without winning the opening and middle.. if not even just neutralizing them.. I've been studying openings and have found that a strong understanding of them will bring you into the middle game... here you will decide is it closed or open.. who draws first blood...what pieces do I trade based on the squares I occupy, or my material advantage or my positional advantage.
Important ENDGAMES as a beginner...
Learn the ladder mate. Play a game and see how 2 rooks can mate the king by pushing him backwards. You will put a rook on the rank infront of him (out of his reach) now he cant move forward... put the other rook on the rank the king is on, he must move back wards... move the forward rook below the rank the other rook is on. This means the king can never move forward he will always move backwards and you will (like a ladder) push him into mate.
I can't tell new players how much this changed my game.
You won't get through the opening without understanding the power of each piece. You'll understand the power of the pieces with a bit of work on endgames.
Of course, don't listen to a patzer like me.
A few other patzers who have advocated beginning with the endgame (or with studies): Jose Capablanca, Vassily Smyslov, Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov
'how to reassess your chess' by silman.
also his 'complete endgame course', definitely.
i always called that RR mate a 'barrel roll'.
silman's endgame book is extremely readable & the material presented from complete beginner to master level. endgames are fascinating & a comprehensive knowledge of the key positions cannot fail to massively improve your playing strength.
tactics (puzzles) should be the main focus for a beginner though... intimidating ring entrance music & fancy footwork doesn't do a lot of good when you keep getting knocked out. 🙂
'how to reassess your chess' by silman.
also his 'complete endgame course', definitely.
i always called that RR mate a 'barrel roll'.
Bruce Pandolfini calls it the rolling barrier. The name doesn't matter if you know it. It was the first checkmate I learned. Jose Capablanca has it in A Chess Primer (1935) after omitting it from Chess Fundamentals (1921).
Both Capablanca books have:
I recently read that learning endgame, middle game and finally openings (in this order) is the proper way to learn chess. Your thoughts?
There's a lot of merit to that approach, and it is what I do with my students.