Chess book suggestions - Chess Forums - Page 4

Chess_fanatics · 2018-07-06T18:58:48-07:00

I have done My system by Aron nimzovich , and did Ameauters mind about half . I'm still doing it . But even though getting 400 points in just 3-4 months , I'm struggling to be in form consistently. Kindly suggest me if i should go for logical chess by irving chernev to keep my game logical

kindaspongey

Jul 27, 2018

0

#61

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Aug 3, 2018

0

#62

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

On the other hand, Smerdon and other reviewers say many positive things, so "not being convinced" is hardly the right term.

What good can it do to normal human being like me?. Who struggle in normal chess theory developed till now and implement it . Would i benifit from ur book ? Which even a grandmaster feels advanced for him ?

This is the same if you ask me what good to me to know there is a country in the world called the US if I live in India.

Those are positive facts - it's always good to know them.

A more relevant question is WHY would you want to learn from a more primitive and LESS EXACT source if you have better options?

Geglecting the book - on purpose or not - is similar to claiming the Earth is flat after seeing space satellite images of it...

Simple curiosity would make me get interested in new discoveries, no matter the field.

I hate to think modern mankind has grown so utilitarian as not to care about anything unrelated to its economic situation, but that might increasingly be the case...

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Aug 3, 2018

0

#63

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

On the other hand, Smerdon and other reviewers say many positive things, so "not being convinced" is hardly the right term.

What good can it do to normal human being like me?. Who struggle in normal chess theory developed till now and implement it . Would i benifit from ur book ? Which even a grandmaster feels advanced for him ?

Im a 1450 rated player playing online only .

I did not ask you to buy the book, did I?

Still, maybe you can get interested one of your cousins...

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Aug 3, 2018

0

#64

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

I guess Smerdon used this particular title/subtitle for the specific occasion of publishing on ChessBase.

This is just a presumption but I am almost certain this is actually the case.

ChessBase would hardly intervene with authors' decisions as to what title to choose for their publication.

If he reiretates my words in the title, than this at least supposes the claim could be valid - it might be wrong, but it also very well could be valid.

Why the validity option is more probable?

Because Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch.

As simple as that.

Of course, this is an open question everyone can answer according to his understanding.

How I wish a 2700+ made a comment on the practical value of the concepts!

Then all of you would know more...

Btw., I would not like to be compared to Nimzovich and Kmoch - those people wrote a century ago, a rook on the 7th is their most salient term and I simply hate that...

Compare me and Nimzovich: that guy writes about blockade.

I mention blockade with CONCRETE VALUES for the particular minor blockers.

As well as couple of different blockade situations.

That makes a BIG difference.

So, if you wish, live with the past.

One way or another, the FUTURE is there for anyone who wants to READ it.

kindaspongey

Aug 3, 2018

0

#65

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

... Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

Do you see any Smerdon sentence mentioning Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Aug 5, 2018

0

#66

This not a quote, as the title features my name as well.

No, there is not, but should there be one?

"The Secret of Chess" is 10 times MORE ADVANCED than what Nimzovich wrote and what Kmoch wrote.

The link between the names and books is precisely the SIMILARITY what concerns originality and new ideas.

Is that insufficient?

Pikelemi

Aug 5, 2018

0

#67

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

"The Secret of Chess" is 10 times MORE ADVANCED than what Nimzovich wrote and what Kmoch wrote.

But they was actually chess players - successful chess players - which makes a huge difference.

kindaspongey

Aug 5, 2018

0

#68

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

... Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

Do you see any Smerdon sentence mentioning Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote: "... No, there is not, ..."

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Aug 10, 2018

0

#69

Pikelemi wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

"The Secret of Chess" is 10 times MORE ADVANCED than what Nimzovich wrote and what Kmoch wrote.

But they was actually chess players - successful chess players - which makes a huge difference.

At the end of the day, you need the knowledge, or you need the author?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Aug 10, 2018

0

#70

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

... Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

Do you see any Smerdon sentence mentioning Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote: "... No, there is not, ..."

You obviously don't understand which is a pity.

Smerdon says my book is original and one of a kind.

My System and Pawn Power are also original and unique.

Really FAIL to see the connection?

Frequently, the strongest statements are the ones that are JUST hinted.

That is what literature is all about, that is what class is all about and that is what a strong statement is all about.

madratter7

Aug 10, 2018

0

#71

At the end of the day, the knowledge needs to be implementable in a game setting, OTB. That as I see it is the big problem here.

Taskinen

Aug 10, 2018

0

#72

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

... Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

Do you see any Smerdon sentence mentioning Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote: "... No, there is not, ..."

You obviously don't understand which is a pity.

Smerdon says my book is original and one of a kind.

My System and Pawn Power are also original and unique.

Really FAIL to see the connection?

Frequently, the strongest statements are the ones that are JUST hinted.

That is what literature is all about, that is what class is all about and that is what a strong statement is all about.

I could write a chess book too, and I can tell you, grandmasters would say it truly is one of a kind as well! Whether or not they would consider it to have any practical value for a chess player is a totally different story.

Chess_fanatics

Aug 10, 2018

0

#73

Then make some practice books lyudmil .

pdve

Aug 10, 2018

0

#74

always study books that are a bit higher level than where you are. hence i recommend sokolov's books. sacrifice and initiative in chess or chess middlegame strategies.

kindaspongey

Aug 10, 2018

0

#75

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

... Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

Do you see any Smerdon sentence mentioning Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote: "... No, there is not, ..."

You obviously don't understand which is a pity.

Smerdon says my book is original and one of a kind.

My System and Pawn Power are also original and unique.

Really FAIL to see the connection?

Frequently, the strongest statements are the ones that are JUST hinted.

That is what literature is all about, that is what class is all about and that is what a strong statement is all about.

My concern has been with trying to clarify whether or not Smerdon mentioned Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email. You can claim whatever you like about what you think Smerdon was hinting.

kindaspongey

Aug 10, 2018

0

#76

http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Sacrifice-and-Initiative-in-Chess-77p3825.htm

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/984.pdf

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7665.pdf

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7787.pdf

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Sep 5, 2018

0

#77

madratter7 wrote:

At the end of the day, the knowledge needs to be implementable in a game setting, OTB. That as I see it is the big problem here.

In what possible way.

If it tells you to look for connected pawns, and other chess books don't do that, and bearing in mind that connected pawns are all to frequent in chess, featured in each and every game, the knowledge is not only implenemtable but very very useful.

Some people might get scared by the different approach and precise values.

Look at the patterns, man!

Remember just them, leaving aside specific values and considerations (which might sound a bit philosophical) and your strategic play ( but also some tactical features) will TREMENDOUSLY improve.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Sep 5, 2018

0

#78

Taskinen wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

... Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

Do you see any Smerdon sentence mentioning Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote: "... No, there is not, ..."

You obviously don't understand which is a pity.

Smerdon says my book is original and one of a kind.

My System and Pawn Power are also original and unique.

Really FAIL to see the connection?

Frequently, the strongest statements are the ones that are JUST hinted.

That is what literature is all about, that is what class is all about and that is what a strong statement is all about.

I could write a chess book too, and I can tell you, grandmasters would say it truly is one of a kind as well! Whether or not they would consider it to have any practical value for a chess player is a totally different story.

So just do it.

But I doubt that very much...

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Sep 5, 2018

0

#79

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

sahilchoudhary0609 wrote:

You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal

That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?

Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.

At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,

the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?

Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?

... Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...

Do you see any Smerdon sentence mentioning Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote: "... No, there is not, ..."

You obviously don't understand which is a pity.

Smerdon says my book is original and one of a kind.

My System and Pawn Power are also original and unique.

Really FAIL to see the connection?

Frequently, the strongest statements are the ones that are JUST hinted.

That is what literature is all about, that is what class is all about and that is what a strong statement is all about.

My concern has been with trying to clarify whether or not Smerdon mentioned Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email. You can claim whatever you like about what you think Smerdon was hinting.

In that case you might have simply read the whole article...

He might have mentioned them and also said my book has nothing in common with them, or, the other way round, not mentioned them and STILL claimed the books bear lots of similarities.

What's important is the implied/logical meaning and not the dry superficial wording.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Sep 5, 2018

0

#80

Here one more good book which will teach you practically everything about tactics: https://www.amazon.com/Neverending-Tactics-3003-Positions-Perfection-ebook/dp/B07GQ8KH9F

The paperback version weighs 5 pounds.