Best books to learn the "classical" approach for Black against the flank openings

Klauer
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov hat geschrieben:

So I don't know where this mania to learn from weaker players comes from.

The point is to be able to communicate the knowledge.

 

End of discussion after a good summary.

dannyhume

Now the misunderstanding goes the other way ... I (and many weak players) don't want to "learn from weaker players"... I want to "learn from [the mistakes of] weaker players" that are around my level or slightly higher in order to build skill gradually.   There is a strong pedagogical/andragogical reason why a lot of higher-rated players talk about learning tactics and endgames first before diving into strategy and openings.  There is a reason why many great chess books are considered awful for players at a certain level.  This is not a controversial "chess idea" espoused by weak chess players (that is, to learn from the cruder mistakes of weaker players first before moving onto more subtle mistakes), but a fundamental concept of effective pedagogy/andragogy in any subject.  Kasparov does not want to sit around all day telling me 'oops, you missed a 3-move tactic' (well, everyone has a price, but that is one I cannot afford).   

kindaspongey

"... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf

"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever

"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

Klauer

- So start with Eddy Sibbing & Cor van Wijgerden as a beginner. Are they called step method in english?

- Then continue with a good endgame book and a good tactics book, which please you. A book upon opening basics should be added. The books of Yasser Seirawan are excellent imo. But take what you like. De gustibus non est diputandum.

- If you have reached 1200/1300 in otb tournaments start working with the Yussopow books for the 1500 level.

 

This is enough for five years or more.

If you like chess books you will buy more. Opening books with well commented games are out now a lot. Search reviews and read the free pages offered buy the publishing houses. Don't, do not, don't buy high level opening books if you are not yet an average club player, which is 1500-1600 in a narrow margin and 1300-1800 in a wide margin.

This is only about books. Discussing with friends and stronger players, playing and analyzing your games is another topic. About flank openings - which is a fuzzy concept - was the typical advice I got: Don't touch them if you are beyond 2000. Play against them either with a Tarrasch defense like method or c6-d5 and e5 if possible.

Later I learned about trainers saying: With black e4 - e5, d4 - d5, c4 - c5. Here I myself would listen to someone stronger than 2100 with experience and patience to explain.

dannyhume

Yes, it is called "Chess Steps" in the U.S.  I have enjoyed the series so far (I have gone through level 3, which is supposed to go to level 1600 USCF), so I have restrained and blockaded myself from going to Step 4 (which is for up to 1750 ... my goal rating in the next 20 years) until my OTB or tactical ratings go up significantly. 

I have not heard many recommend 1...c5 against c4.  Usually, I hear 1...e5 and sometimes 1...Nf6.   I think Lev Alburt's Chess Openings Explained for Black covers 1.c4 c5, but I am not familiar with any other titles that cover the Black side of 1.c4 c5. 

 

Thanks for the advice, Klauer!  

kindaspongey
dannyhume wrote:

...  I think Lev Alburt's Chess Openings Explained for Black covers 1.c4 c5, but I am not familiar with any other titles that cover the Black side of 1.c4 c5. ...

Beating Unusual Openings

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627072813/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen107.pdf

sonet192a
But their is different pathways to
dannyhume
Thanks, kindaspongey!
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
dannyhume wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

One question to everybody here.

You have a 1400 player.

A 1600 player teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.

Then a master teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.

Finally Kasparov teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.

From whom do you think he will gain the most knowledge?

I best Kasparov will teach him 3 times MORE than a master and 5 times MORE than the 1600 player.

And what is more important - will teach him much more correct.

So I don't know where this mania to learn from weaker players comes from.

The point is to be able to communicate the knowledge.

 

It is not about the level of the teacher but rather the level of material that is taught.  A GM ought to be a better teacher, but rarely or reluctantly are they willing to teach a 1400-level player (adult, not a rapidly rising prodigy) those tactics, endgames, strategy, and openings that are around a 1600-level in difficulty.  

 

Garry Kasparov teaching me all of the subtleties of why he prefers a particular move on move 6 of an opening that has about 8 options within a 0.3 pawns value of each other is not going to stick in my primitive chess brain.  This is the hallmark of effective teaching... logical progression from simple to more complex and from the more concrete (e.g., checkmate/material gain) to the more abstract (positional imbalances to your preference).  You can't just start teaching a 6-year old child calculus without going through arithmetic first.   

Right, take My 60 memorable games - absolute classic, absolutely marvelous.

FEW lines, why?

Because Fischer prunes heavily and gives you ONLY the best.

It is easy to read, why would not you read that one, and instead take up some blurry GM book at 2500 level, where it is all stuffed with endless variations.

Why so many variations?

Because they have no clue what is going on.

A single best move in each and every position, but they are analysing 10...

And behold, people are learning from them.

The wrong stuff.

Where they could safely stick with Fischer.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Klauer wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov hat geschrieben:

So I don't know where this mania to learn from weaker players comes from.

The point is to be able to communicate the knowledge.

 

End of discussion after a good summary.

Yeah, it's maniacal.

People are swearing they have been learning much faster and adding some 300-500 elos in no time after reading Tactics Time, for example, as the book contains ONLY low amateur games(1400-1800).

How come?

Do you know what the only difference between a successful tactics pattern of a 1500 player and 2500 player is?

Right, a good tactics happens in 1 in every 30 games of a 1500 player, and in every 1 in 5 games of a 2500 player.

So, statistically, stronger players simply play more frequent tactics.

That is it - pure fact everyone can verify for themselves.

And yet the mantra that you learn from weaker players better persists...

The patterns are the SAME, obvious, is not it?

Otherwise, Tactics Time is a good book, but for different reasons.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
dannyhume wrote:

Now the misunderstanding goes the other way ... I (and many weak players) don't want to "learn from weaker players"... I want to "learn from [the mistakes of] weaker players" that are around my level or slightly higher in order to build skill gradually.   There is a strong pedagogical/andragogical reason why a lot of higher-rated players talk about learning tactics and endgames first before diving into strategy and openings.  There is a reason why many great chess books are considered awful for players at a certain level.  This is not a controversial "chess idea" espoused by weak chess players (that is, to learn from the cruder mistakes of weaker players first before moving onto more subtle mistakes), but a fundamental concept of effective pedagogy/andragogy in any subject.  Kasparov does not want to sit around all day telling me 'oops, you missed a 3-move tactic' (well, everyone has a price, but that is one I cannot afford).   

Stockfish will sit around for you all day long for no price at all...

Just switch it on and will analyse for you weak and strong moves alike.

Learning from the mistakes of others, learning from WEAK moves, that makes no sense at all.

One thing you and everybody here should understand is that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the winning/losing patterns in a game of a 1100 and 3100.

The patterns, tactical or positional, are simply the SAME.

You need the patterns, understanding their philosophy, and NOT the games of a particular player.

If anything, games of stronger players are FULL of patterns games of weaker players lack.

So, this is simply the wrong philosophy.

Some kind of a collective psychosis, hallucination...

You can NEVER leanr more from a 1500 player than a 2500 one, never.

Take a game of 1500 one ending in 30 moves.

10 blunders, 25 very weak moves and 5 good ones.

What are you going to learn from that(ok, we made it 40)?

 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
dannyhume wrote:

Yes, it is called "Chess Steps" in the U.S.  I have enjoyed the series so far (I have gone through level 3, which is supposed to go to level 1600 USCF), so I have restrained and blockaded myself from going to Step 4 (which is for up to 1750 ... my goal rating in the next 20 years) until my OTB or tactical ratings go up significantly. 

I have not heard many recommend 1...c5 against c4.  Usually, I hear 1...e5 and sometimes 1...Nf6.   I think Lev Alburt's Chess Openings Explained for Black covers 1.c4 c5, but I am not familiar with any other titles that cover the Black side of 1.c4 c5. 

 

Thanks for the advice, Klauer!  

They don't, because they are weak.

Replay Fischer games to see the truth(later career).

Fischer is 500-600 elos stronger than them.

They are 2500 GMs, he was 3000+ analytically.

e7-e5 exposes the d5-square too much.

Playing c7-c6 after that is mostly awkward and very difficult.

Playing e7-e6 after c5 is very reasonable, though.

That is the simple explanation why 1...c5 is a better answer on 1. c4.

All lines featuring 1. c4 e5 fail to consider white playing also e2-e4 and that is wrong.

Simply a wrong fashion.

Moves stick, fashions stick and lines stick, but they appear mostly by chance.