Going through "Logical Chess Move by Move" Irving Chernev.

lorjamon

Hello everyone, this is my first post on the forum so i will introduce myself. I'm Federico from Argentina, English is my second language, but I will make an effort to be clear.

So, I'm a beginner. I'm rated 1530 on lichess (Classic), and I have all the beginner questions.  But today I wanted to discuss the book on the title.

I'm on game 14 of the book and I think so far I get the idea of the author. I think he is trying to expose the reader to exemplary games in order to teach very important concepts (i.e., king safety, inducing or avoiding the perpetually weakining of the pawn structure of the castled king). I think the book is very good in that sense and I haven't read even half of it  yet so I'm hoping to learn a lot more.

But nervertheless, I have some concerns about the way I am reading the book (my approach). At first I was going through every variation on my head (I'm lazy to do it on the board and I thought it might help my concentration), but now I'm actually just moving the pieces and reading the commentary, just ignoring the variations. I feel kinda bored, really wanting to jump to the next topic. 

This raises the question about the proper way of studyng a chess book, am I just wasting my time by not going through every variation? I don't really think so but I think this is a good question.

I also wanted to say that I have improved A LOT lately, not only my results (that for me is secondary in this stage) but in the way I understand the game. My instruction has been: this book, the ChessMaster game academy tutorial by Joshua Waitzkin, a lot of youtube videos from Ben Finegold and commentary on games by other players.

So, I would like to know what has been your experience with this book if you have read it, or your story and opinion with chess books in general, or commentary about your own experiences on learning the game.

 

THANKS

 

2Late4Work

Good question. I am also curious about that book. 

I think, without being sure, when I read in my book, Silman-The Amateurs Mind I only move the mainlines, but reading all. If I am not sure I will move the pieces around. 

It takes alot of time, so I have only read like 100 pages. But more of the tips and highlighted stuff without games, moves and etc. 

It takes me around 1 hour to read 10 pages and also move the pieces. So I guess it`s for the patient people. 

Ziryab

My advice is found in this book review:

 

Logical Chess: A Book Review

 
logical.jpg
Irving Chernev, Logical Chess: Move by Move (1957) has earned its place as a classical text that is often recommended to players who seek to improve their chess skills. Batsford converted the descriptive notation in the original to algebraic and published their updated edition in 1998.

I have vague recollections of studying portions of this text in the 1970s, but cannot recall whether I owned a copy or used one from the library.* A couple of years ago, I picked up the Batsford edition and it has been sitting on my shelf collecting dust.

In mid-December, I started going through the book systematically. First, I study each game without reference to the text. When I believe that I have identified the critical turning points, the main positional ideas, and the key tactical alternatives, I read through Chernev's annotations.
 
Read the rest at http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/01/logical-chess-book-review.html
SmithyQ

Many side variations can be safely ignored, not just here but in most books.  They are similar to footnotes in research articles: important, and they can enhance the overall impact of the article, but you can learn almost all you need to know in the main text.  Certainly you shouldn't focus on the footnotes more so than the main article, and the same for chess.

I generally look at side-variations only if a) the author says straight away this is important, or b) if I'm curious about a particular move and a side-variation covers it.  Many times an author will write, "And Black has a strong attack, for instance XYZ..."  If I can see the attack and agree it is strong, then I don't need to look at this variation.  If I have doubts, or think White can defend, then I look at it.

Don't worry: skipping variations won't harm your future elo.  In school, you could get a great mark without reading every single word in the textbook; same with chess books.  Of course, if you find it interesting, do it, but there's no obligation.

Morphys-Revenge

LCMBM is an incredible chess book. Extremely instructive.  I have a collection of about 100 Chess books. The first time Read it was about 35 years ago. I have read it cover to cover at least three times. I don't Know that you need to play thru every variation the first time. However, with openings explorers, engines, databases, etc. It is very easy to now. Back in the day, many people used to play over the games with two boards. On the first board it would contain the position in the main line, and you would use the second board to play out the sub-variations.

 

It probably sounds like a lot of work and it was. But there is something to actually "seeing" the sub-variations in your mind's eye. So I would ultimately recommend playing out the variations at least on your second time thru the book.

 

 

 

 

I don't t

kindaspongey
lorjamon wrote:

... now I'm actually just moving the pieces and reading the commentary, just ignoring the variations. I feel kinda bored, really wanting to jump to the next topic. 

This raises the question about the proper way of studyng a chess book, am I just wasting my time by not going through every variation? ...

I think it depends a lot on the particular book that you are reading. It seems to be a common practice to skip a lot when reading an opening book, but, if I remember correctly, I played over all the lines in the Chernev book. It seemed to me that he did not overdo it in the way that some authors do.

lorjamon

Thank you for all the comments. 

I've noticed that I can go through some variations on my head without moving the pieces and without feeling overwhelmed. When I started I was like "e4"... and looking at the board, now its easier. Now I realice that this comes not only by getting used to read the variations but also because of the better understanding of what's going on in the board.

So, I think there's a way to approach a chess book for the first time but the real knowledge comes by actually doing it, with time you eventually get used to it and becomes easier. 

I was thinking on studiying a basic ending book after this one, I find it more attractive than tactics. What do you think?

 

MustangMate

Irving Chernov is the among the best. Clear and concise.

My all time favorite is "The Chess Companion."

Included are stories about chess and it's players.

 

NYCosmos
lorjamon wrote:

Hello everyone, this is my first post on the forum so i will introduce myself. I'm Federico from Argentina, English is my second language, but I will make an effort to be clear.

So, I'm a beginner. I'm rated 1530 on lichess (Classic), and I have all the beginner questions.  But today I wanted to discuss the book on the title.

I'm on game 14 of the book and I think so far I get the idea of the author. I think he is trying to expose the reader to exemplary games in order to teach very important concepts (i.e., king safety, inducing or avoiding the perpetually weakining of the pawn structure of the castled king). I think the book is very good in that sense and I haven't read even half of it  yet so I'm hoping to learn a lot more.

But nervertheless, I have some concerns about the way I am reading the book (my approach). At first I was going through every variation on my head (I'm lazy to do it on the board and I thought it might help my concentration), but now I'm actually just moving the pieces and reading the commentary, just ignoring the variations. I feel kinda bored, really wanting to jump to the next topic. 

This raises the question about the proper way of studyng a chess book, am I just wasting my time by not going through every variation? I don't really think so but I think this is a good question.

I also wanted to say that I have improved A LOT lately, not only my results (that for me is secondary in this stage) but in the way I understand the game. My instruction has been: this book, the ChessMaster game academy tutorial by Joshua Waitzkin, a lot of youtube videos from Ben Finegold and commentary on games by other players.

So, I would like to know what has been your experience with this book if you have read it, or your story and opinion with chess books in general, or commentary about your own experiences on learning the game.

 

THANKS

 

 

I actually have a copy of that same book in my hand as we speak. As for game 14 - that one is really in depth compared to the other games. What I did is go through that game the first time ignoring any alternative move suggestions. Then a few days later I went back and ran through it again, but this time I followed the moves but then I also ran the alternate moves.

I took 2 pages at a time otherwise my brain would have melted. happy.png

A quick way to do a game like that is to use chess dot com's Explorer option (LEARN - EXPLORER). You can make moves and take them back as needed.

MustangMate

Irving Chernev lists the Greatest Game of Chess Ever Played as:

Bogolyubov vs. Alekhine - Hastings, 1922 

PawnstormPossie

My general suggestion is to use at least 1 board the first time. You don't have to cover each and every variation, the main text is what the focus is anyway. Understanding the basics for now is important.

Read next time without a board (if you can). If there are times you need a board, fine. But moving pieces in a game isn't allowed and can lead to poor visualization skills.

And now I read post #8

MustangMate

"There is an epic grandeur about the following game which inspires awe as well as admiration. Alekhines subtle strategy involves maneuvers which encompass the entire chessboard as a battlefield. There are exciting plots and counterplots. There are fascinating combinations and brilliant sacrifices of Queens and Rooks. There are two remarkable promotions of Pawns, and a third in the offing, before White decides to capitulate." - IC

jeroen_n75

I am not really sure what “the” correct way is, but what I do is to look up the game in my database on go through the game two or maybe three times pretty fast. This way I already have some ideas on where the critical moves are. After this I go through the game and follow the main line and read the text provided. Only if I think there are other moves that are viable I check the subvariation(s). I do not really see a reason to go through each and every side step provided by the author. 

Nwap111

I agree with Spongy, that it does depend on the book and that Chernev does not overdo it. I cannot count the many times I 've read this book and his Golden Dozen. Right now I am re-reading the book, so message if you want to discuss a particular game. Further, your approach is the best if you want to improve. Visualizing is difficult but is one big reason players lose games, poor visualizing. It is good practice to read books "blind" especially the variations. Good luck.