Learning Openings, midgame, and endgame
Sort:
I need help with getting better at chess. I would like to read some books starting with openings, then midgame, then end. Are there any good books that focus on each thing one at a time? Are there any other good sources for learning these things?
Possibly helpful:
Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf
https://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/7192.pdf
Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev (1957)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev (1965)
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/
Winning Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld (1949)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf
Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://www.mongoosepress.com/excerpts/OpeningsForAmateurs%20sample.pdf
Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
Chess Endgames for Kids by Karsten Müller (2015)
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-endgames-for-kids/
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Chess_Endgames_for_Kids.pdf
A Guide to Chess Improvement by Dan Heisman (2010)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105628/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review781.pdf
You got it a little wrong.You need to start from endgames , then middlegame , then openings.
So many people say. I don't know anyone who actually learned that way. My chess friends include two masters and two experts.
Aside from considering it dubious advice, I suspect it would bore many, if not most, new players into quitting.
jengaias wrote:
You got it a little wrong.You need to start from endgames , then middlegame , then openings.
For now you need nothing more than opening principles.
Agreed.
First: basic opening principles.
Next: endgames.
Next: middle-games, Pawn structures and tactics.
THEN you are ready to learn some openings.
Thing is, unless you know what a won ending LOOKS like, you won't be able to DO anything with whatever advantage you might gain in the opening.
here is thing.... while we could argue priorities all day (and we Might!)
I don't see anyone learning chess as....
first I will learn ALL about opening principles and then
I would ALL about endgames....
consider that for a second- that would mean the chess student would be trying to learn the fine distinction of complex rook endgames while totally drawing a black on discovered attack or double check....
no, spongey has a quote from someone thats wildly relevant
you have to improve on most topics all at once if you want to improve your rating.... and "learning endgame" is the challenge of a life-time, so there is no do THAT first then after that....
now, if you see all this as a matter of emphasis- your probably right.
we would be a little stronger and quicker to improve in chess if we emphasized studying our endgame, and kept all the learning of opening names very minimal.
but chessplayers are an ego driven lot, and every guy stronger than "E" wants to say something intelligible about the 'tarrash french' and have a basic sicilian variation memorized (for a few moves).... there's no problem with that, unless we take it to extremes.
and anybody saying otherwise is just being niave. and I say that with great respect to emu/jengy whom I know are strong and educational players... I don't disagree with you- but you know we all will study more openings than we should.
Who really starts from the endgame?
I often ask and never get an answer except from pfren who, as I recall, says that's how he teaches his students.
I taught Chess for years in the '80s, and that's how I taught them.
Of course, it's important not to bore your students, so we had "parallel lessons" on other topics as well... largely tactics, since that was popular.
The nine-volume Yusupov series is supposedly a decent packaging of Soviet chess training. Here's the table of contents for the first book:
You will notice the emphasis is almost entirely on tactics followed by positional concerns with a few nods to the opening and endgame.
Makes sense to me.
jengais: No one is disputing that endgames are important. The question on the table is whether endgame study should be the major priority for beginning players. You have not addressed this.
As I understand it, the Soviets did teach endgames from the beginning, but not as the major concentration. This is what we see in the first Yusupov book.
I'm aware of Jonathan Hawkins's claim that studying endgames was key for his rating breakthroughs, but he was already an advanced class player at the time. What might be good for John Hawkins with a rating of 1900 might not be the best advice for John Hawkins with a rating of 900.
Go to sleep ipcress12.
Look up for some Capablanca quotes if you want to see why the endgame is so important.
If I could go back in time, I would spend all my time studying endgames when I was a beginner, and tactics too. Not openings and other stupidities.
This one will probably send all of you to sleep. Blueemu already said it in other words.
AsianPlayerDetected wrote:
I need help with getting better at chess. I would like to read some books starting with openings, then midgame, then end. Are there any good books that focus on each thing one at a time? Are there any other good sources for learning these things?
FCO: Fundamental Chess Openings.
Chess Training for Post-beginners: A Basic Course in Positional Understanding
Yaroslav Srokovski.
100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player Improved and Expanded
Jesus de la Villa.
Silmans Complete Endgame Course.
the answer ofc is yes.
in fact there is a wide variety of books to choose from about nearly any chess topic. its an interesting thing to wander over to amazon.com, and read the reviews and any "read it now" clips of chess books.
BP: Of course I know the Capablanca quotes.
He was an impressive player. But that doesn't mean he was right about studying the endgame before anything else. Being the best at something doesn't guarantee being the best at teaching others.
Yusupov OTOH was both a top GM and a top chess trainer. He does not teach chess as Capablanca recommends.
Do you have any arguments beyond quotes from an authority?
Learning openings, then middlegames and finally endgames makes no sense. AT ALL. Even if your masters did it like that.
A good game will end on an endgame, how are you supposed to play a game of chess if you dont know what you are trying to achieve (a winning endgame).
I havent heard Yusupov saying Capablanca's advice is trash, and I also wonder why a book dedicated on becomming IM only talks about endgames.
WEIRD.