First and foremost, I would like to tell my tale. I would like to explain how I got introduced to chess, and how my chess progressed through the years at a very slow pace, and how now I am trying to improve even more.
When I was about 8 years old my brothers got interested in chess and started to teach me how to play. I learned how to play very fast, and remember being confused at first when understanding pawn moves, but I caught on. We also had a computer program that we played against on occasion. My favorite computer AI was Roswell, who always won, I eventually stopped playing against the computer because I could never beat Rowell, though I am certain now I can manhandle him.
Anyway, it got to the point where I started beating my brothers and they stopped playing me. We also grew out of chess. I occasionally played more against the computer but I could never beat Roswell.
Years later after high school, I joined the military, and during a day pass, we spent time during basic training playing chess with each other. I was able to beat anyone who played me, except for one person, who claimed to be a former youth chess champion, who I believe I was letting it "easy on me," though he still won.
After basic and advanced individual training I went to Korea and worked as a security guard. There, since I often worked the night shift, I had time to play chess. So I did, and I played a lot of games during the night shift. During that time I believe I got better, but I will still at the beginner stages really, and I cannot really know for certain what exactly was my rating, but I know I knew nothing about the opening phases of the game. I didn't even read any chess books, nor did I know of any "checklist" to be mindful of. I just played chess. I was good, but really, not that good, one player who played me said that my chess was very flawed, which he believed didn't even resemble an actual chess game. Perhaps he was right in his assessment, perhaps not.
After the Military when I was about the age of 22 I started playing chess at a local Starbucks. There I played against a variety of opponents, however, one of them is a good friend, who is to this day, a lot better than I am. I learned a lot from him, and greatly increased my rating on yahoo chess after playing against him for a long time. My rating on yahoo chess during the military was about 1000, and after playing against my friend at Starbucks and everyone else there, my rating jumped to 1300. Of course, this is a long time ago, on a different platform, those numbers today don't mean that much, but only as a general reference.
Years later I tried to go to yahoo chess again, after playing a lot on chess.com. (My rating on chess.com fluctuated from 1100-1200 at the time.) My rating was plummeting on yahoo chess, probably because now most people on there used engines, so I stopped using yahoo chess. It seems like my rating at this point went down, but I'm sure I knew more about chess. This was the time where I learned that it was more readily available to learn about chess so since more people knew about chess, it was easier to get to higher ratings, thus, more people at the lower ratings, new more, thus, my rating, though I knew more about chess, stayed the same, simply because I wasn't taking measures to try and be better at chess. I just merely played.
Eventually, I heard about the Prodigy Program. Since I got into the Prodigy program, I stopped fluctuation from 1100-1200 and started fluctuating from 1300-1500. I learned a lot of basics on the Prodigy program, but alas it is very expensive and very intensive, I'm the type of person that cannot study something for more than 3 hours every day. I know at one point if I want to get better at chess I will have to do that, maybe the time is now to do, but I also understand that I have to build up to something like that.
Years passed and I stayed mainly at the same rating. I learned more about chess, but because I didn't try and get better and never played regularly everyday online I did not see improvement. Perhaps the reason why I didn't improve was that I haven't been focusing on the long game. That is most likely the reason. The problem is when I play long chess I don't usually use all my time I blitz out the game and lose when I have 13 minutes left on my clock. On the flip side of the coin when I tried to think about new concepts that I was learning about the time, I started to incorporate a "checklist," I lost a 30-minute game with time while my opponent had over 15 minutes left on his clock. So I know, when one tries to really think about their moves, and incorporate those "checklists," 15|10, or 30 minutes, is just not enough time to think.
I have "ideas" on how I can improve. I have booklists. I have tactics. I have endgames. What I may not have is the time...
If I can travel back in time and go to my 8-year-old self and try and instruct him on his game, I would tell him to go over as many annotated master games as he could and go over a book called Chess Fundamentals. There is a person here on chess.com that is trying to advertise his youtube channel focusing on a checklist of 25 things to think about when thinking of a chess move. But what this person doesn't know, is that this has already been done. Chess Fundamentals has a lot more to think about than just a 25 item checklist. It teaches and all-around opening middle game endgame basic chess crash course. There is more to learning chess than just memorizing a 25 move checklist, and I believe Chess Fundamentals, does a good job at least of giving the basics. I would also tell him to look over Simple Chess. A lot of people advocate getting Yasser Seirawan books, However, I think they are redundant of you buy those and the ones I just mentioned. It's a matter of user preference. I would advise people to take a look at the table of contents of books before you buy them, and their reviews if there are any. I'm not trying to say it is a bad idea to look at the videos of this guy. I'm sure he has a kind heart and wants beginners below the 500 level to improve, however, I do not believe someone rated 1200 has knowledge enough to say something like, "Beginners learn nothing from going over master games." I say this because I think going over annotated master games is the very best thing anyone can do to improve in chess. Why? Because the moves are explained by professionals, and not any moves, first-rate moves, not second rate moves, which is what you will get from studying games from the 1500 level as a 500 rated player. I would say that is a beginner at the 500 level were trying to learn from a 1500 rated game, he would need to be under the guidance of at least a 2000 rated player, to properly understand everything in the game. People at those ratings, especially if they don't study master games, have "quirks," in their play, that need to be explained. I would also pick Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess as a premier tactics book for my younger self, and also Fred Reinfeld's Winning Chess. Why that book? Because I think Reinfeld is a good author. But someone else might like Yasser Seirawan's tactics book better. I never read Yasser Seirawan's tactics book, so I can't speak for it for myself, however, I'm sure it is up to par with the Reinfield book. I'm not trying to tell people what books to buy, just that these would be the books I would recommend to my younger self. I know I would have liked these books. Of course, more books would be added to this fictional list I am devising for myself, but this isn't an article about giving a book list to people. I am not a master, and this is not a lecture. This is simply a warning.
If you want free advice then get it. But know that you get what you pay for.
https://www.chessvl.com/ This site has a good crash course to chess for someone rated below 900 that wants to get to at least the 900 level.
Chess Fundamentals now only cost 3 dollars.
They are very cheap. I would advise you to get these instead if you are a beginner. Why? Because they are done by masters. Again I'm not trying to down this ben guys videos. I'm sure they have some value if the beginner watches them, it's just that masters have already done this for you, and you could get their advice, even for free. So take your pick.
The pro's and cons of going through the free route when you gain your chess education
The free route is good at the beginner level because anything will allow you to improve. However, as you get better, you will need more stuff, and it will be more costly. There is plenty of free resources beginners. What beginners at the forum don't really understand is that they can just google a chess topic, and maybe get video courses designed to teach that particular topic. Before you go to the forums and ask a question, google that question first, and see what you get. You may be surprised.
My view is that a beginner doesn't really need to spend any time at all in the opening phase of the game. He will get more bang for his buck by studying annotated master games. However, nowadays opening books are a collection of annotated master games. So it's really up to the beginner to choose which route to take, so long as he doesn't try to just memorize a bunch of lines. However, it doesn't hurt to spend time on the openings as a beginner, just know that in my opinion, as well as two masters, think that you get more bang for your buck, studying annotated master games. I think that is the worst mistake a beginner can make, not studying annotated master games. Ben, wherever you are, I hope you take this as a grain of salt at least, and maybe start to study master games yourself.
To all, thank you, and enjoy getting better at chess!
First and foremost, I would like to tell my tale. I would like to explain how I got introduced to chess, and how my chess progressed through the years at a very slow pace, and how now I am trying to improve even more.
When I was about 8 years old my brothers got interested in chess and started to teach me how to play. I learned how to play very fast, and remember being confused at first when understanding pawn moves, but I caught on. We also had a computer program that we played against on occasion. My favorite computer AI was Roswell, who always won, I eventually stopped playing against the computer because I could never beat Rowell, though I am certain now I can manhandle him.
Anyway, it got to the point where I started beating my brothers and they stopped playing me. We also grew out of chess. I occasionally played more against the computer but I could never beat Roswell.
Years later after high school, I joined the military, and during a day pass, we spent time during basic training playing chess with each other. I was able to beat anyone who played me, except for one person, who claimed to be a former youth chess champion, who I believe I was letting it "easy on me," though he still won.
After basic and advanced individual training I went to Korea and worked as a security guard. There, since I often worked the night shift, I had time to play chess. So I did, and I played a lot of games during the night shift. During that time I believe I got better, but I will still at the beginner stages really, and I cannot really know for certain what exactly was my rating, but I know I knew nothing about the opening phases of the game. I didn't even read any chess books, nor did I know of any "checklist" to be mindful of. I just played chess. I was good, but really, not that good, one player who played me said that my chess was very flawed, which he believed didn't even resemble an actual chess game. Perhaps he was right in his assessment, perhaps not.
After the Military when I was about the age of 22 I started playing chess at a local Starbucks. There I played against a variety of opponents, however, one of them is a good friend, who is to this day, a lot better than I am. I learned a lot from him, and greatly increased my rating on yahoo chess after playing against him for a long time. My rating on yahoo chess during the military was about 1000, and after playing against my friend at Starbucks and everyone else there, my rating jumped to 1300. Of course, this is a long time ago, on a different platform, those numbers today don't mean that much, but only as a general reference.
Years later I tried to go to yahoo chess again, after playing a lot on chess.com. (My rating on chess.com fluctuated from 1100-1200 at the time.) My rating was plummeting on yahoo chess, probably because now most people on there used engines, so I stopped using yahoo chess. It seems like my rating at this point went down, but I'm sure I knew more about chess. This was the time where I learned that it was more readily available to learn about chess so since more people knew about chess, it was easier to get to higher ratings, thus, more people at the lower ratings, new more, thus, my rating, though I knew more about chess, stayed the same, simply because I wasn't taking measures to try and be better at chess. I just merely played.
Eventually, I heard about the Prodigy Program. Since I got into the Prodigy program, I stopped fluctuation from 1100-1200 and started fluctuating from 1300-1500. I learned a lot of basics on the Prodigy program, but alas it is very expensive and very intensive, I'm the type of person that cannot study something for more than 3 hours every day. I know at one point if I want to get better at chess I will have to do that, maybe the time is now to do, but I also understand that I have to build up to something like that.
Years passed and I stayed mainly at the same rating. I learned more about chess, but because I didn't try and get better and never played regularly everyday online I did not see improvement. Perhaps the reason why I didn't improve was that I haven't been focusing on the long game. That is most likely the reason. The problem is when I play long chess I don't usually use all my time I blitz out the game and lose when I have 13 minutes left on my clock. On the flip side of the coin when I tried to think about new concepts that I was learning about the time, I started to incorporate a "checklist," I lost a 30-minute game with time while my opponent had over 15 minutes left on his clock. So I know, when one tries to really think about their moves, and incorporate those "checklists," 15|10, or 30 minutes, is just not enough time to think.
I have "ideas" on how I can improve. I have booklists. I have tactics. I have endgames. What I may not have is the time...
If I can travel back in time and go to my 8-year-old self and try and instruct him on his game, I would tell him to go over as many annotated master games as he could and go over a book called Chess Fundamentals. There is a person here on chess.com that is trying to advertise his youtube channel focusing on a checklist of 25 things to think about when thinking of a chess move. But what this person doesn't know, is that this has already been done. Chess Fundamentals has a lot more to think about than just a 25 item checklist. It teaches and all-around opening middle game endgame basic chess crash course. There is more to learning chess than just memorizing a 25 move checklist, and I believe Chess Fundamentals, does a good job at least of giving the basics. I would also tell him to look over Simple Chess. A lot of people advocate getting Yasser Seirawan books, However, I think they are redundant of you buy those and the ones I just mentioned. It's a matter of user preference. I would advise people to take a look at the table of contents of books before you buy them, and their reviews if there are any. I'm not trying to say it is a bad idea to look at the videos of this guy. I'm sure he has a kind heart and wants beginners below the 500 level to improve, however, I do not believe someone rated 1200 has knowledge enough to say something like, "Beginners learn nothing from going over master games." I say this because I think going over annotated master games is the very best thing anyone can do to improve in chess. Why? Because the moves are explained by professionals, and not any moves, first-rate moves, not second rate moves, which is what you will get from studying games from the 1500 level as a 500 rated player. I would say that is a beginner at the 500 level were trying to learn from a 1500 rated game, he would need to be under the guidance of at least a 2000 rated player, to properly understand everything in the game. People at those ratings, especially if they don't study master games, have "quirks," in their play, that need to be explained. I would also pick Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess as a premier tactics book for my younger self, and also Fred Reinfeld's Winning Chess. Why that book? Because I think Reinfeld is a good author. But someone else might like Yasser Seirawan's tactics book better. I never read Yasser Seirawan's tactics book, so I can't speak for it for myself, however, I'm sure it is up to par with the Reinfield book. I'm not trying to tell people what books to buy, just that these would be the books I would recommend to my younger self. I know I would have liked these books. Of course, more books would be added to this fictional list I am devising for myself, but this isn't an article about giving a book list to people. I am not a master, and this is not a lecture. This is simply a warning.
If you want free advice then get it. But know that you get what you pay for.
https://www.chessvl.com/ This site has a good crash course to chess for someone rated below 900 that wants to get to at least the 900 level.
Chess Fundamentals now only cost 3 dollars.
They are very cheap. I would advise you to get these instead if you are a beginner. Why? Because they are done by masters. Again I'm not trying to down this ben guys videos. I'm sure they have some value if the beginner watches them, it's just that masters have already done this for you, and you could get their advice, even for free. So take your pick.
The pro's and cons of going through the free route when you gain your chess education
The free route is good at the beginner level because anything will allow you to improve. However, as you get better, you will need more stuff, and it will be more costly. There is plenty of free resources beginners. What beginners at the forum don't really understand is that they can just google a chess topic, and maybe get video courses designed to teach that particular topic. Before you go to the forums and ask a question, google that question first, and see what you get. You may be surprised.
My view is that a beginner doesn't really need to spend any time at all in the opening phase of the game. He will get more bang for his buck by studying annotated master games. However, nowadays opening books are a collection of annotated master games. So it's really up to the beginner to choose which route to take, so long as he doesn't try to just memorize a bunch of lines. However, it doesn't hurt to spend time on the openings as a beginner, just know that in my opinion, as well as two masters, think that you get more bang for your buck, studying annotated master games. I think that is the worst mistake a beginner can make, not studying annotated master games. Ben, wherever you are, I hope you take this as a grain of salt at least, and maybe start to study master games yourself.
To all, thank you, and enjoy getting better at chess!