Rat1960 wrote:
The Art of the Middle Game by Paul Keres / Kotov ...
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Art-of-the-Middlegame-The-77p3554.htm
Chess book selection Opinion
Sort:
LouStule wrote:
Is “Simple Chess” a good book?
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104258/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review400.pdf
In a previous discussion, someone reported a passage from Pawn Power in Chess by Kmoch: "The lengthening of the rearspan is often favorable, inasmuch as the expansion of territory behind the pawn increases the freedom of the pieces. By the same token, the shortening of the frontspan limits the freedom of the opposing pieces."
I'm not exactly a big fan of that sort of writing, but there nevertheless seems to be a widespread opinion that the Kmoch book is worthwhile.
"... [Pawn Power in Chess] should be on everyone's list [of favourites]. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
Another point of view:
"... Hans Kmoch’s Pawn Power in Chess is considered a classic by many. Nonetheless, most people found it daunting and confusing, given its weird terminology. Also the scope of the book was more theoretical than practical; not an easy book to read and study with. ... must be frustrating to read and study from for those rated below 1700. ..." - Stephen Ham (2000)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708110136/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review249.pdf
Try Winning Chess Strategy by Seirawan.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... "Chess Tactics for Students" ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095447/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review318.pdf
BobbyTalparov wrote:
... "Logical Chess Move by Move" and "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" ... "winning Chess Tactics" ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/
http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_beginner/ev_winning_chess.asp?KATID=BO&ID=BO-Beginner
jambyvedar wrote:
Try Winning Chess Strategy by Seirawan.
http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_beginner/ev_winning_chess.asp?KATID=BO&ID=BO-Beginner
Read winning chess strategies first (sierawan) and then complete book of chess strategies (silman) and then reassess your chess should be manageable, and then amateurs mind, and then complete endgame course(im still on this one) I could be wrong about the order actually but they are all great IMO just buy/borrow them all and start with whichever one is most digestible.
"... 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
JohnMarston1987 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
GMchess_player wrote:
You say you are the best chess player?
I bet not.
You haven't even played a single game. So enough with the lies. I've had enough of that nonsense.
Is not it possible that I post a single message and someone does not accuse me of lying?
The guy was interested in good positional books and 'The Secret of Chess' has the widest available pattern selection.
It has more than 300 main terms, more than a thousand, if you take the subterms into account.
Is that a lie?
It is the simple truth, just look at the TOC.
I have been 2200 OTB 12 years ago, I could very well be 2500 now, without having competed.
It is you who is obfuscated, not me.
But can not people really lead a meaningful discussion?
Say what is wrong with this book, what other books are useful for pattern recognition and why, instead of levelling endless and fully meaningless accusations.
If anyone is lying, that would be you, not me, as your accusations lack substance.
If 1 GM and 2 IMs say the book is worth it, then this must be the case.
Please just leave chess.com. Stop with the shameful self promotion as well please.
OK, Brendan.
Is this your 10th or 20th account?
All I want is Kindaspongey includes me into his list.
Then I will not post any links at all.
kindaspongey wrote:
In a previous discussion, someone reported a passage from Pawn Power in Chess by Kmoch: "The lengthening of the rearspan is often favorable, inasmuch as the expansion of territory behind the pawn increases the freedom of the pieces. By the same token, the shortening of the frontspan limits the freedom of the opposing pieces."
I'm not exactly a big fan of that sort of writing, but there nevertheless seems to be a widespread opinion that the Kmoch book is worthwhile.
"... [Pawn Power in Chess] should be on everyone's list [of favourites]. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
Another point of view:
"... Hans Kmoch’s Pawn Power in Chess is considered a classic by many. Nonetheless, most people found it daunting and confusing, given its weird terminology. Also the scope of the book was more theoretical than practical; not an easy book to read and study with. ... must be frustrating to read and study from for those rated below 1700. ..." - Stephen Ham (2000)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708110136/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review249.pdf
Pawn Power is a great book.
Only 2 problems with it:
- uneasy concept names
- one can discuss on the validity of certain concepts
Otherwise, wherever there is originality, there is value too.
Mar 26, 2018
0
#33
"I have been 2200 OTB 12 years ago, I could very well be 2500 now, without having competed."
You have to wonder what goes someones head, besides air...
Sound logic.
12 years no competition a lot of training make you good.
Fischer got especially strong, when he took a break from chess to analyse more instead of playing in 1963-64.
And even stronger, when he took his second non-play analysis break in 1966-67.
Mar 26, 2018
0
#35
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Sound logic.
12 years no competition a lot of training make you good.
Fischer got especially strong, when he took a break from chess to analyse more instead of playing in 1963-64.
And even stronger, when he took his second non-play analysis break in 1966-67.
On another note...
I purchased your human vs machine book. I have gone over the first 6 games, and honestly? Your analysis, is nothing more than obvious comments on engine moves. Anyone with adequate chess skills could comment on the "what" and "why" on the engine moves.
BS.
You probably bought it, when it was priced at 1 buck, so no big deal.
It is NOT my fault you LACK the necessary level to understand my comments.
Nothing is obvious there, as all the positions are VERY unnatural and unique.
How can one make trivial comments in an unique position?
That easily proves that you simply don't understand my comments.
Learn more, analyse more, and you will see the beauty and reasoning behind my games and commentary.
Certainly you would have liked diagrams with some arrows going across the board.
No, I don't do like that, my books are for thinkers.
"Anyone with adequate chess skills could comment on the "what" and "why" on the engine moves."
So, anyone could easily understand and comment on the moves of SF and, more importantly, the player/entity, who has beaten SF?
You DO realise this is completely insane, right?
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
... All I want is Kindaspongey includes me into his list. ...
Would it appear on the front of the book?
"Possibly of interest" - kindaspongey
So, the correspondence GM has spoken: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RHK64MQ15OJL9/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B074M85CVV
5 stars: "Secret of Chess, vol. 1" is the most useful and interesting book for correspondence players that I have seen in many years.
He also mentions very new concepts.
I was right, the stronger the reviewer, the better the review, so far 2 GMs have commented, both very good.
kindaspongey wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
... All I want is Kindaspongey includes me into his list. ...
Would it appear on the front of the book?
"Possibly of interest" - kindaspongey
I will include you in the introduction, TOC and also the index, if you do something like that.
See what the correspondence GM says about me.
Don't be slow, in 10 years' time this book will be the most famous chess book.
Yes, it's very good. I've played through it several times.