It would be great if there was "one book" for advanced beginners/intermediates, like Halliday & Resnick for University physics course. Did you use one book to get you from 1400 to 1600. If so, what was it?
Another how to improve thread, with a (long) story by a new member
Sort:
@Mal_Smith: In School / University i liked to have a good textbook with exerices, which were good enough to also solve the tasks in the exams. Especially mathematics and physics. So i like to have that kind of book. Teach me something and ask me to solve the exercises. And then give me a exam! You could check http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/docs/14/artur_yusupovs_awardwinning_training_course/
for your pupose (from 1400 to 1800) could be all you need. BUT some expierenced coaches say that first series is for someone with 1700 or 1900 FIDE-Rating, not to get 1500 (as yusupov writes in the german edition) Some chapters are very challenging for me with FIDE around 1800, some are easy.
I believe the tendency is to begin a book and quit mid stream and then move to something else or read it all but not learn the material.
I fully believe there are a few predominant lessons that can be extracted from my thread.
1. Learn tactics, not just how to perform them or to find them, but through repetitious exercise know instinctively that they exist. The daily dosage of tactics keeps that visualization of tactics fresh. There is not much argument on this facet of the game. This generally separates the class b players from the class c players.
2. Strategy is very important but requires a very acute focus and should be completed. It's more important at higher ability levels because your opponent is likely to be good enough in tactics that you have to achieve a tactical situation more gradually. This is less important that tactics but more important than opening theory. This usually separates the class a players and above from class b players.
3. Openings range from not important to critical and a very minimal amount of study should be placed in openings until being beyond my current goals. This separates master level players from experts, along with strategy
4. Endgame is fairly clear cut and also not much discussion required because of the simplicity of positions, this is also why beginners are urged to study this - it's easier because of the concepts are mostly straight forward. I believe within a class it separates the players within their class but by itself it doesn't separate any class.
I fully believe there are a few predominant lessons that can be extracted from my thread.
1. Learn tactics, not just how to perform them or to find them, but through repetitious exercise know instinctively that they exist. The daily dosage of tactics keeps that visualization of tactics fresh. There is not much argument on this facet of the game. This generally separates the class b players from the class c players.
2. Strategy is very important but requires a very acute focus and should be completed. It's more important at higher ability levels because your opponent is likely to be good enough in tactics that you have to achieve a tactical situation more gradually. This is less important that tactics but more important than opening theory. This usually separates the class a players and above from class b players.
3. Openings range from not important to critical and a very minimal amount of study should be placed in openings until being beyond my current goals. This separates master level players from experts, along with strategy
4. Endgame is fairly clear cut and also not much discussion required because of the simplicity of positions, this is also why beginners are urged to study this - it's easier because of the concepts are mostly straight forward. I believe within a class it separates the players within their class but by itself it doesn't separate any class.
@zac_howland: My english is maybe every thing than well readable, sorry for that! I agree with you that working with nothing else then HtRYC makes no sense. In the paragraph just over what you have quoted i suggested to do tactics daily, and endgames e. g. twice a week, strategy and game collections once a week. So that could be four books which one works with in one week.
keisyzrk wrote:
solskytz wrote:
<Jengaias> You have studied "How to Reassess your Chess" quite deeply - and I have to respect this. Indeed, the IQP is not always a bad thing to have, and stressing only its negative aspects certainly doesn't paint an objective picture.
I studied his endgame book, and have been following his articles here at chess.com - as well as his chess mentor lessons. He's always interesting, and like every work on strategy - you are always invited to beat your brain against his and see what comes out.
I also read "The Amateur Mind" - and he makes very valid points there as well, such as the importance of writing your thought process out in detail - where he shows how the higher-rated players see and understand more when analyzing positions. It was a very enjoyable reading as well.
Based on how you jump to conclutions I'm not suprised you like these crappy Silman books. Waste of money. For what it's worth I don't like you or Jengaias. You're both total dufusses.
Except for cheaters, there's probably nothing worse than a titled player that insults other users, including fellow titled players that make useful contributions to the site, in a thread started by someone looking to improve. I don't know what the site's policy is regarding this kind of behaviour, but chess.com would be a better place with you banned.
And to address your comments about Silman, HTRYC is recommended among others by two of the most respected authors in the chess community: GM Jacob Aagaard in "Excelling at Positional Chess" and GM John Nunn, who is a harsh critic of books he considers bad, in "Secrets of Practical Chess". Also, last but not least IM John Bartholomew, a YouTuber that is great at explaining his thought process for beginners and has helped me a lot said in a Q&A that he has read all of his books and articles. Call me crazy but I think I'd rather follow their advice than yours.
Sincerely, an (ex)lurker from lichess.
RampartRocker wrote:
keisyzrk wrote:
solskytz wrote:
<Jengaias> You have studied "How to Reassess your Chess" quite deeply - and I have to respect this. Indeed, the IQP is not always a bad thing to have, and stressing only its negative aspects certainly doesn't paint an objective picture.
I studied his endgame book, and have been following his articles here at chess.com - as well as his chess mentor lessons. He's always interesting, and like every work on strategy - you are always invited to beat your brain against his and see what comes out.
I also read "The Amateur Mind" - and he makes very valid points there as well, such as the importance of writing your thought process out in detail - where he shows how the higher-rated players see and understand more when analyzing positions. It was a very enjoyable reading as well.
Based on how you jump to conclutions I'm not suprised you like these crappy Silman books. Waste of money. For what it's worth I don't like you or Jengaias. You're both total dufusses.
Except for cheaters, there's probably nothing worse than a titled player that insults other users, including fellow titled players that make useful contributions to the site, in a thread started by someone looking to improve. I don't know what the site's policy is regarding this kind of behaviour, but chess.com would be a better place with you banned.
And to address your comments about Silman, HTRYC is recommended among others by two of the most respected authors in the chess community: GM Jacob Aagaard in "Excelling at Positional Chess" and GM John Nunn, who is a harsh critic of books he considers bad, in "Secrets of Practical Chess". Also, last but not least IM John Bartholomew, a YouTuber that is great at explaining his thought process for beginners and has helped me a lot said in a Q&A that he has read all of his books and articles.Call me crazy but I think I'd rather follow their advice than yours.
Sincerely, a lichess player who created an account just to combat your unjustified hate.
___________________
Maybe if you had read Nimzowitsch My System. The section on the IQP and its descendants you could see Silman's myopic outlook. He is trying to sell a book.
I believe that is what keisyzrk is trying to say.
Come on, like every other profession, professional chess is an old boys club. They all praise each others books, because they are in the club! OK it may be a bad book, but they would lose club membership if they pointed that out.
I love professional mavericks like keisyzrk who are prepared to risk their club membership by dissing what they think is bad, without worrying about the consequences for their club membership. So leave him alone! I also trust the "non professional" who has studied the recommended book avidly and found it wanting, and state that bluntly, in detail. With several doing that here, this is a good thread!
Apr 20, 2017
0
#69
solskytz wrote:
But you are right - there may be other reasons to criticize Silman. It's not necessarily jealousy.
I can imagine some of these reasons - but will write no further, as again, I can't imagine any VALID reason for criticizing that author.
Anyone know what solskytz is alluding to here? I can understand not liking an author's books, but I've never really understood the level of vitriol that some people reserve for Silman
@fieldsofforce
He could have said that without insulting those who disagree with him.
@Mal_Smith
Yes, but there are also exceptions. IM John Watson, for example, got into a conflict with GM Jacob Aagaard after he criticized the new translation of "My System" published by Quality Chess (cofounded by Aagaard) and yet they both recommend HTRYC. What does that tell you? Another example is "Revolutionize your chess" by Moskalenko, which was criticised by many reviewers who have given good reviews to previous books written by him. Or let's take the case of Andrew Soltis where there's basically a consensus in the chess world that his opening books are written to make a quick buck and are bad but the rest are worth buying and even coaches like Dvoretsky loved them. And the most important counter-argument is the fact that both Aagaard and Nunn have written books on the middlegame and positional play. If HTRYC is that bad why didn't they recommend their own books?
RampartRocker wrote:
IM John Watson, for example, got into a conflict with GM Jacob Aagaard... and yet they both recommend HTRYC. What does that tell you? ... both Aagaard and Nunn have written books on the middlegame and positional play. If HTRYC is that bad why didn't they recommend their own books?
They might both like Silman's book, alternatively, both might want to be members of Silman's club! Recommending one's own books looks like blatant self promotion, if overdone.
I must ask, if Silman books are not universally popular, what books have comparable content?
I've seen those books suggested in many threads, Pachman's series was recommended earlier. It's fine to discredit one book, but what about a counter proposal? I'm just curious and feel others may come across this information in future.
I've seen those books suggested in many threads, Pachman's series was recommended earlier. It's fine to discredit one book, but what about a counter proposal? I'm just curious and feel others may come across this information in future.
On structures and strategy i would mention https://www.newinchess.com/The_Power_of_Pawns-p-9034.html
The author (german GM Jörg Hickl) recommends "My System" and Kmochs "Pawn Power in chess" for further reading.
On thinking process i like Dan Heismans Novice Nook articles: http://web.archive.org/web/20140625052220/http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Novice Nook or if you like to read a physical book: https://www.everymanchess.com/a-guide-to-chess-improvement-the-best-of-novice-nook
"... 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)
"... 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
I am going to revive this semi old thread so some people might get some value out of the thread and to let those who participated see that I was serious in my goals and intent to study. I moved from a 1271 rating to pending rating of 1541. (+270)
My online blitz games are not good examples of my play, however the longer 60 minute time control online games are more reflective. I have played in two (2) USCF tournaments since I made this original post. I have added link to my history: tournament history
What have I done in the last 7 months?
I have made a commitment to studying tactics (this can be seen on my stats)
I have read many of the Dan Heisman Novice Nook articles, and implemented "real chess"
I have committed to 3 openings, one for white and one for black in response to e4 and one for d4
I have made notes and utilize appropriate time management, analyzing my games and using my mistakes to add to my own "hall of shame" to study and prevent in the future.
I hope someone else can gain from the contents of this thread!
Nov 19, 2017
0
#76
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
Silmans endgame book is just right for him actually. Silman has it set up for all levels of play. I would recommend skimming through the parts for lower levels to be sure you haven't missed anything.
Yeah.. Don't do read those books^.
The player recommending them should be 2000+ easily if he/she has digested the material thoroughly from any two of those books, but instead plays rapid at a lower level than you do (checking out the recent rapid games).
Imbalances by silman is a *difficult* book which I didn't finish because I skipped many parts of it because it was too difficult for me. This was back when I was 1900s, and I'm considering trying to read it again at my current level.
Speed chess is hardly a credential.
Wow, discussion No. 1.000.002 about Silman
@boyersi: Two or more times a had 100 or more chess books in my bookshelf and a lots of programms in on my computer. I'm back to less than twenty books and will give some of them to my chess clubs for our juniors, but no detailled opening works! There is no point in having ten books on strategy or 50 opening books. That just confused too much.
The only books i am now sad about i have given them away are game collections; i remember i owned Bronsteins Sorcerer's Apprentice and Zürich 53, Fischers 60 Games and Tals Life and games. You can use that kind of book everytime, like urk suggested.
You sometimes need some master games or you want to study a opening line. E. G. you want to choose a line against King's gambit and play over some games. Or you have a unknown opening position, your opening book doesn't helps you and you look how masters played that position. But that stuff is also available online! A chess engine and / or a database program is also free, use SCID instead of chessbase. You could also download some stuff. Very few people really need a MegaBase with 6 million games.
At this time you are just starting out. Start out to establish a daily routine. E. g. like half an hour tactics, then playing training games (better one 15+10 than two 10+0!), then take a look at your played games and learn from your mistakes. Endgames, Strategy, Playing over master games from game collections, and so on are nothing for daily work. You could do two endgame one strategy and one master games session each week.
When you go to club and play there, do just your daily tactis routinet that day.
And last but not least: Only work with on one book on a theme!
This means that you work on one book from front to back cover, maybe even twice, and only then go to another book. So you don't confuse yourself by reading one chapter in a silman book, then look into "My system", go back to Silman, look into Kmochs book and so on...