"... 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
Another how to improve thread, with a (long) story by a new member
Sort:
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!
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.
<<<My attacks seem predicated on my opponent making a mistake. I can win when he or she doesn’t make a blunder and if simple combinations are available. My opening lack of knowledge seems to lead to an absence of a plan.>>>
Ignore the others because it's all random noise. You can't study chess properly without studying the openings, because the best process is to follow master games and see how they develop the openings and how a plan is gradually formulated. Don't bother following games without an easy-to-follow narrative, and if you find yourself following a game that you simply don't understand, then scrap it and try another, because not all master games are played according to a coherent plan, even though they may pretend they are.
As you become familiar with the basic patterns you encounter, you will recognise them and find yourself thinking for yourself more and more fluently. All attacks depend on the opponent making a mistake. The trick is to apply pressure in such a way as to get your opponent to make these mistakes. The way that pressure is best applied to achieve this varies with the nature of the position. I spent this evening at our local chess club. I played five 20 minute games with the person, a little younger than me, who taught me to play chess over 25 years ago. I just pressurised his position consistently, aiming to create weak spots and so on and sure enough, in four of those five games he manoeuvred himself into a difficult position and then blundered.
I don't think I'd want to trust some of the authors you mention, to the exclusion of others. There's far too much emphasis on the extremely lightweight stuff put out by Silman. You could do better with people like Karpov and Nunn.