More to learn from Books or from NIC?

pdve

I feel that NIC is a really useful tool if you really want to get better at chess. I'm speaking of the yearbook actually.

I have just ordered the latest copy and may even subscribe to it if the study goes well and if I feel I benefit. Just looking through the sample pages gave me a great idea of the potential benefits of studying it. Books are narrow minded. You don't get a real idea of all chess openings whereas NIC balances out between different openings. You even have sample games of sub variations.

What do you guys think? Are you familiar with NIC?

kindaspongey
pdve wrote:

... I have just ordered the latest copy [of the NIC yearbook] and may even subscribe to it if the study goes well and if I feel I benefit. Just looking through the sample pages gave me a great idea of the potential benefits of studying it. Books are narrow minded. You don't get a real idea of all chess openings whereas NIC balances out between different openings. You even have sample games of sub variations. What do you guys think? Are you familiar with NIC?

I have only browsed through a NIC yearbook once or twice, but my guess is that it might be worthwhile to ponder this sort of advice.

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... 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
"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

pdve

Well, I also believe that studying openings is an under rated art.

ed1975

New In Chess I believe...

Barefoot_Player

ed,

 

It is New In Chess, a great periodical that first came out in 1984.  I think it's better than the Informants series.

 

pdve
Barefoot_Player wrote:

ed,

 

It is New In Chess, a great periodical that first came out in 1984.  I think it's better than the Informants series.

 

Informant is targeted towards titled players at the very least. A player like me will  not get much going through the labyrinths of annotations.

 

New in Chess is targeted towards club level players.