So what is the real title of the "Latvian Gambit for Beginners" book?
Why is the line being shown in my chess book the line I'm being shown in my chess book.
Sort:
lolol the latvian gambit for beginners was NOT the book thats funny though.
no i was using the latvian gambit bc it was the first example i could think of that didnt have multiple lines. it was in "starting out e4!", which im not studying someone just gave it to me for my birthday.
right now im looking at soviet chess primer and chess openings for kids.
Mar 20, 2022
0
#4
Soviet chess primer despite it’s title is a book for advanced players. After a few chapters it gets pretty difficult.
Your comments above show why studying openings at a beginner level is mostly a waste of time. You opponent strays away from that 20 move main line you spent weeks memorising and you are on your own. The authors of these opening books assume you automatically understand every move and can see why it is best play by the opponent.
l have bought so many opening books and realised I understood nothing. Most give no explanation for the myriad of variations from the main line, it’s just a huge waste of time for most amateur players trying to absorb all those lines and maybe get a +0.5 advantage in the middle game.
The John Emms book on E4 is a better book to start if you must read an opening book as he concentrates on opening principles rather than concrete lines. I highly recommended “Discovering Chess Openings” by Emms which is all you really need in terms of openings for a long time.
the chess opening for kids is also an excellent book, as are all the ones in this set. You will learn a lot from that book in regards to openings.
Thank you for the long and thoughtful response. I'm going to order the emms book and spend some time with it. I think for me im getting frustrated because im not understanding the "purpose" of the theory im trying to understand. Like im fine not putting the cart before the horse, but i dont know what a cart or a horse look like. Do higher (than me) level chess players tend to stick to the lines youd see discussed at their reading level? Wouldnt that be a weakness or does it just come down to how well/appropriately they use them? Also, when do you know its time to move onto higher level theory?
Again, thank you for your help
You could give a try with Chessable. After you register you can ask in the forum which book would be appropriate for your level. Some people will say you should forget about openings, but I think you certainly could learn a short book (they are called Sweet & Short there). The advantage of Chessable is that you can ask questions about the moves which you don't understand and the author or other students will answer you. You can also use an engine to try to understand what is going on.
You should also analyse your games to find negative patterns in your games. For example, in your last game you dis a lot of pawn moves, weakening your position. Remember, you shouldn't make several pawn moves in the opening. Develop your pieces at good squares, move each piece once and avoid losing time by moving the same piece several times. Try to castle soon and avoid to move the pawns in front of your king, especially if the Queens are still on the board.
Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
I have a few questions about how chess books are written, and if some of you might clarify, I think it will help me understand HOW I'm supposed to be reading these.
The main one:
Lets say I'm reading about the Latvian gambit. In the book it takes me through a 20 turn line where white winds up in a really violent position. Ok great, love it, but why this specific line?
Is it because both W and B are playing optimally given the orgininal position? And therefore if you follow that line and the opponent deviates first, then there is likely an opportunity to exploit suboptimal play?
That doesnt sound right.
Alternatively, is it just because that line gives many interesting positions to consider the best move of? That seems more likely but wouldn't that be explained?
Furthermore, why are mainlines considered mainlines? Are different books from roughly the same time typically going to agree exactly on what a main line is?
Is there a few rules of thumb as to what justifies the moves of the losing side in a chess book example, given that the example is providing a path to win for the winning side? For reference im trying to get familiar with some basic openings. (if you look at some of my games youll see im a total slob who needs some principle)
I feel like im either missing something huge, mixing high level and low level concepts indiscriminately, or these are the types of questions that a lot of people ask when they first start studying.
Additionally, if anyone has any tips on how to develop a serviceable opening repetoire from square zero, feel free to share.
All the books im reading either have beginner in the title or begin with an explanation about how the pieces move, so i dont think im reading out of my depth, i just feel like im missing a few links in the chain.