I think the first steps in teach people about the rook is:
1. What is called.
2. Where it goes at the beginning of a game.
3. How it moves.
4. How to castle.
I call rooks as elephants & bishops as camels. I learnt it that way.
Towers and pointed head dudes? :-)
I think the first steps in teach people about the rook is:
1. What is called.
2. Where it goes at the beginning of a game.
3. How it moves.
4. How to castle.
I call rooks as elephants & bishops as camels. I learnt it that way.
Towers and pointed head dudes? :-)
"... Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is an example of a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"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
"... If you’re looking for an opening book, you should seek out well-known opening theoreticians. 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
Maybe Reassess Your Chess is for intermediate players to advanced level but it is an excellent book that is instructional.
I think the first steps in teach people about the rook is:
1. What is called.
2. Where it goes at the beginning of a game.
3. How it moves.
4. How to castle.
I call rooks as elephants & bishops as camels. I learnt it that way.
Rooks are still elephants in some parts of the world. The bishop goes by many names, even in western Europe.
I think the first steps in teach people about the rook is:
1. What is called.
2. Where it goes at the beginning of a game.
3. How it moves.
4. How to castle.
I call rooks as elephants & bishops as camels. I learnt it that way.
Rooks are still elephants in some parts of the world. The bishop goes by many names, even in western Europe.
True. 
Somehow, calling them elephants makes more sense to me. I think a Rook means chariot in Persia. But, its thought of as a seige tower in Europe. So, calling it as Rook while building it to look like a seige tower is interesting.
Also, never understood why a bishop is fighting the war.
During the Crusades, Bishops were vital participants of the Christian armies.
The crusaders couldn't slaughter without the promise of the absolution.
Thats true, but Bishops are not supposed to actively fight wars, right? So, how come these bishops on the chess board capture pieces just like other pieces?
Chess is an abstract game. Don't get too caught up in the comparisons to war or you'll suffer the fate of the worst chess writer ever, Franklin Knowles Young.
Chess is an abstract game. Don't get too caught up in the comparisons to war or you'll suffer the fate of the worst chess writer ever, Franklin Knowles Young.
Who was the author that wrote a chess book full of incomprehensible math jargon?
Yes, this is him! I'd forgotten the name.
Chess is an abstract game. Don't get too caught up in the comparisons to war or you'll suffer the fate of the worst chess writer ever, Franklin Knowles Young.
Chess was invented to practice battle plans and chess remained relevant and popular for that reason. I don't see how comparisons to a war would be futile.
Chess is an abstract game. Don't get too caught up in the comparisons to war or you'll suffer the fate of the worst chess writer ever, Franklin Knowles Young.
Chess was invented to practice battle plans and chess remained relevant and popular for that reason. I don't see how comparisons to a war would be futile.
Go ahead and read Franklin Knowles Young. That will convince you of the futility of maintaining comparisons.
It's been a long time since elephants and camels were particularly useful in war. Even if they were, Young's expositions reveal the flaws in maintaining the comparisons.
Chess is an abstract game. Don't get too caught up in the comparisons to war or you'll suffer the fate of the worst chess writer ever, Franklin Knowles Young.
Chess was invented to practice battle plans and chess remained relevant and popular for that reason. I don't see how comparisons to a war would be futile.
Do you really believe that? Have you ever played chess? Have you ever looked at, and thought about, what makes battlefield maneuvers effective?
Chess is an abstract game. Don't get too caught up in the comparisons to war or you'll suffer the fate of the worst chess writer ever, Franklin Knowles Young.
Chess was invented to practice battle plans and chess remained relevant and popular for that reason. I don't see how comparisons to a war would be futile.
I found one of Franklin Young's books on a friend's bookshelf last night after Christmas dinner. Believe me, it's futile. I have never seen a denser knot of incomprehensible gobbledygook in my life, and would have sworn off the game forever if that had been my introduction to it.
Silman the Best 
Chess was invented to practice battle plans ...
Evidently, you know something that is unknown by all historians who have studied the topic. Perhaps there is benefit to being unencumbered by a need for evidence.
Dan Heisman's article is very useful.....I might have Capablanca's book hiding upstairs (and there is what appears to be a scanned in copy available for Kindle (or kindle app) for 99cents.) I also ordered a modern translation of Nimzowitsch's classic My System.
Update: I did find it....unfortunately it uses an old style notation and is a bit hard to read (Instead of a-h it uses the pieces ...eg...p-k4)
Pachman is indeed excellent. Out of the many books I've read to help me improve (including those on openings, endings, middle games, tactics, strategy, etc.) it is the one that has helped me most (and by a country mile, I might add). The problem for many younger players is that it has only ever appeared in English in the old descriptive notation. I would say that Pachman is best read by anyone who is at the upper end of intermediate and upwards. Worth learning descriptive notation if only to read this classic.
I think the first steps in teach people about the rook is:
1. What is called.
2. Where it goes at the beginning of a game.
3. How it moves.
4. How to castle.
I call rooks as elephants & bishops as camels. I learnt it that way.