How do I study a chess book
Sort:
I recently bought Fred Reinfeld 1001 Winning chess sacrifices and combiniations, when I opened the book, it wasnt in standard notation but descriptive. its also very tricky and I dont understand how some of these puzzles work for those who've read this book, and other chess books with descriptive notation, how can I study this to its maximum benefit.
Mar 18, 2023
0
#2
You'll need to learn descriptive notation. While inferior to algebraic, it is not too difficult.
The book itself is simple. Problems are to be solved. They are arranged by tactical theme. It tells you which side has the move. You only need to read the notation to see whether you are correct.
I just saw a copy of Horowitz' Chess Openings theory and practice in my local second hand book store. Even though it may be a bit dated for stronger players (original print was 1964) it explains a wide range of openings very well. In my mind there is only one problem: It uses the descriptive chess notation, and I grew up with algebraic (I am old, but not that old). Such a bummer, because I really don't have time to translate this tome.
Ziryab wrote:
You'll need to learn descriptive notation. While inferior to algebraic, it is not too difficult.
The book itself is simple. Problems are to be solved. They are arranged by tactical theme. It tells you which side has the move. You only need to read the notation to see whether you are correct.
Did you learn descriptive notation just to read pre-1990 chess books? I can't justify the time for myself, but kudos to anyone who gets it.
h4java wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
You'll need to learn descriptive notation. While inferior to algebraic, it is not too difficult.
The book itself is simple. Problems are to be solved. They are arranged by tactical theme. It tells you which side has the move. You only need to read the notation to see whether you are correct.
Did you learn descriptive notation just to read pre-1990 chess books? I can't justify the time for myself, but kudos to anyone who gets it.
It takes roughly 5 minutes to learn. Maybe that's too much by today's standards.
magipi wrote:
h4java wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
You'll need to learn descriptive notation. While inferior to algebraic, it is not too difficult.
The book itself is simple. Problems are to be solved. They are arranged by tactical theme. It tells you which side has the move. You only need to read the notation to see whether you are correct.
Did you learn descriptive notation just to read pre-1990 chess books? I can't justify the time for myself, but kudos to anyone who gets it.
It takes roughly 5 minutes to learn. Maybe that's too much by today's standards.
Thanks for the advice and endorsement. I understand the descriptive notation when I look at the wikipedia page. That doesn't mean that I can visualize a Sicilian defense in my head when I see the game written out in descriptive notation. With algebraic notation I can get pretty far without looking at the board too much.
Mar 25, 2023
0
#8
h4java wrote:
I just saw a copy of Horowitz' Chess Openings theory and practice in my local second hand book store. Even though it may be a bit dated for stronger players (original print was 1964) it explains a wide range of openings very well. In my mind there is only one problem: It uses the descriptive chess notation, and I grew up with algebraic (I am old, but not that old). Such a bummer, because I really don't have time to translate this tome.
This book was my daily study in high school in the 1970s when I was supposed to be doing math and English.