Perhaps we can agree that enough has been posted for others to make a judgment. About 2 hours ago, Tigerfunx told us of a decision to go with the Coakley book.
"Have fun with it. 
" - Klauer (to Tigerfunx)
I need a book...
Sort:
"... This is a question of content, not of age. …" - Klauer (~5 hours ago)
BobbyTalparov wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
How many pages are there in the Tarrasch chapter on the opening? Has there been considerable change in opening practice over the last 80 years?
This question strikes of someone who has not read the material and is simply going off what is in the table of contents.
Apparently, you do not currently want to dispute the validity of the question.
chess fundamentals by capablanka or chess manual by lasker
For someone your level, I would recommend Jacqueline Susann's "Valley of the Dolls". If you post your address, I'll send you my old paperback copy if I can find it.
"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ..." - from Capablanca's A Primer of Chess
"... For let’s make no mistake, what ground Capablanca covers, he covers well. I enjoyed reading Capablanca’s presentation of even well-worn and standard positions. ...
Still, when compared with other instructional books for beginners and intermediate players, Capablanca’s Chess Fundamentals would not be my first choice. Other books cover the same or similar ground with a less confusing structure and more thoroughness. The following works come to mind as equal or in some ways superior: Lasker’s Common Sense in Chess; Znosko-Borovsky’s series of books; and Edward Lasker’s Chess Strategy. Later works that equal or surpass Chess Fundamentals would include Reuben Fine’s Chess the Easy Way and any number of Horowitz tomes.
Capablanca’s work has historical interest and value, of course, and for that reason alone belongs in any chess lover’s library. But there are better instructional books on the market. Certainly the works of Seirawan, Silman, Pandolfini, Polgar, Alburt, etc. are more accessible, speak a more modern idiom, and utilize advances in chess teaching and general pedagogy, etc. ..." - David Kaufman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20131010102057/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review564.pdf
And Lasker's Manual of Chess:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104828/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review658.pdf
Reassess Your Chess is a classic read. Here you can get it for 10 dollars! A real steal!
The best is strategy and tactic books.
Sep 20, 2018
0
#70
I think he meant that the main purpose of endgame study is to better understand chess, not just to win more endgames.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
… cognitive scientists suggest that the best way for a chess player to develop his skills is to go from the simple to the complicated. It's what they call the "improving spiral" and they more or less agree with Capablanca's suggestion that endgame must be studied before everything else.
I am not sure Silman ignores all this or he pretended that he ignored all this but Capablanca was not the only one that suggested chess study must begin with the endgame. Averbakh , Smyslov, Levenfish and Tarrash were of the same opinion and Dvoretsky starts his series of books School of Chess Excellence with endgame analysis. ...
Can you identify a specific IM Silman sentence contradicting the idea of going from the simple to the complicated? Can you identify a specific IM Silman sentence contradicting the idea of beginning chess study with the endgame?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
…. many great teachers and trainers before and after Silman authored books and not even one of them accepted or mentioned rating categories. ...
Is an idea necessarily bad if it has not been previously tried? How many post-Endgame-Course authors have undertaken to produce a book going from beginner-endgame knowledge to over-2000 endgame knowledge? If an author does not use the Silman idea, could that be a matter of a simple different preference instead of strong disapproval?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
… Here is what Jonathan Hawkins says:
"I filled notebook after notebook with endgame analysis. This is what led
to my biggest improvement. It also felt as if my better understanding helped me to
assimilate more knowledge."
Is this from that Amateur to IM book? Do you have some reason to believe that IM Silman has a major disagreement with Hawkins about the sort of effort involved in becoming an IM?
i cant pkay chess, pliss teach for me
Sep 21, 2018
0
#75
TheSultan31003 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
IpswichMatt wrote:
I think he meant that the main purpose of endgame study is to better understand chess, not just to win more endgames.
Exactly , along with developing important skills. That is why none of the great players and trainers of the past or the present categorise endgames according to ratings.
Dvoretskys manual is geared at 2200 rated players. How will someone who is a 1000 learn from that book?
Doesn't it make more sense to learn the lucena position or philidors position before they tackle complex endings involving very advanced theory? Seems like endgame theory based on the theoretical knowledge at a particular rating would make the most sense.
The problem we humans have is...we LOVE to over evaluate our abilities. Its not just here, but its everywhere. I go to tournaments, and you will see some kid buying a book that is way above their skill level. Why? Because it works for high level players. No one likes to look in a mirror and say: "You know...you're not as good as you think you are"
Again: Do you have an idea why you don't get it?
I have an idea that you wanted to make a post that doesn't discuss issues.