Study openings or endgames?
Sort:
The Steps method are great.
kindaspongey wrote: "... Can you quote a specific kindaspongey sentence that recommended the Yusupov series?"
BobbyTalparov wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote: "What you were referring to is a bit irrelevant. The original post is written by a new player asking what he should study. The Yusupov books are great, but I would not hand them to a beginner."
It seems to me that #37 was relevant to #34 and #53 was relevant to #52. Can you quote a sentence from this thread where anyone set out to hand the Yusupov books to a beginner?
See post #1. Anything that advocates for more advanced material is irrelevant to his question.
The sentence containing Yusupov is a question that does not recommend the Yusupov series to anyone. Neither #37 nor #53 recommended the Yusupov series. Post #1 was not by me.
Sep 12, 2018
0
#43
kindaspongey wrote:
kindaspongey wrote: "... Can you quote a specific kindaspongey sentence that recommended the Yusupov series?"
...
…
The sentence containing Yusupov is a question that does not recommend the Yusupov series to anyone.
There are people on these forums who want every question to devolve into personal discussions. This isn't about them.
Let's focus on the question that was asked.
@BobbyTalparov does raise a legitimate issue with the steps method. But it is still a good starting point. You don't have to buy the complete series.
Another good series that starts at the beginner level is Susan Polgar's books. You can probably find some of these resources at your local library and not have to pay a penny. Or a krona.
Here's a link to amazon.com's sample of Polgar's first book for beginners. Yes, she starts with basic checkmates.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1941270212/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
Click on the "look inside" tab to see some of the contents.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
The sentence containing Yusupov is a question that does not recommend the Yusupov series to anyone.
Yes, you responding to a your post, which was a response to your post, which was a response to your post with the quote from Yusupov regarding his first book. Since the first post was not relevant, none of the subsequent ones are, either.
I don't see the word "recommend" anywhere after the word, "yes", in your latest contribution. Have you decided that you do not want to try to support the idea that I recommended the Yusupov series to anyone? Do you dispute the relevance of #37 to #34? Do you dispute the relevance of #53 to #52?
kindaspongey wrote (#55): "... Can you quote a sentence from this thread where anyone set out to hand the Yusupov books to a beginner?"
SmyslovFan wrote (#56, ~6 minutes after #55):
By inference, you did, @kindaspongey. You recommended the Yusupov series in a thread written by and for a beginner. ...
After quoting parts of kindaspongey #61, SmyslovFan wrote (#64): "... There are people on these forums who want every question to devolve into personal discussions. …"
If someone is going to publicly accuse me of recommending the Yusupov series in a thread written by and for a beginner, it seems to me to be reasonable for me to point out that the accusation is groundless.
"... It's possible to be informative without getting personal." - SmyslovFan (#76, below)
TL_The_Legend wrote:
Learn openings FIRST! Endgame knowledge will be useless if you don't get to the endgame!
With even a little bit of improvement, one has a fair chance of encountering things like rook-and-king-against-king situations. It might be really annoying to not know what to do. Even apart from that, it might be helpful to practice with the individual pieces.
Sep 12, 2018
0
#47
Also, if you can't tell by looking whether a particular ending is won or drawn, your middle-game play will be rather random.
Not too long ago, I faced a position where it turned out to be very important to know about the rook-pawn-and-wrong-bishop ending. Still, it might be understandable if an absolute beginner wants to wait for a little while before studying that sort of thing.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Play a few games, study them, find out what you're lacking in your own game, and work on your weakest link. This is advice that Garry Kasparov and others recommend.
I completely agree with this; however, you can be 99% certain that a beginner is lacking in 2 key areas: tactics and endgames.
That is the problem with the self appointed trainers like Smyslov Fan. They have no idea what they are talking about.
Kasparov's advice was not an advice for beginners. It was an advice for advanced players.It is of course stupid to say to a beginner to play a few games analyse them and see on what he is lacking.
Tell me please have you ever seen a beginner that he isn't lacking in everything?
Was it you who suggested that a player could try to get a better understanding of a game by posting it at chess.com? Come to think of it, was it also you who criticized a game-poster for not doing more work on it first?
Sep 12, 2018
0
#50
DeirdreSkye wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Play a few games, study them, find out what you're lacking in your own game, and work on your weakest link. This is advice that Garry Kasparov and others recommend.
I completely agree with this; however, you can be 99% certain that a beginner is lacking in 2 key areas: tactics and endgames.
That is the problem with the self appointed trainers like Smyslov Fan. They have no idea what they are talking about.
Kasparov's advice was not an advice for beginners. It was an advice for advanced players.It is of course stupid to say to a beginner to play a few games analyse them and see on what he is lacking.
Tell me please have you ever seen a beginner that he isn't lacking in everything?
The OP is rated +1000 and has played more than 200 games on this site. My recommendation to him stands. It's true, an absolute beginner should start with learning the moves, then the basic checkmates, and so on. The books by Susan Polgar are a good place to start for a player rated ~1000 here. In fact, her books are also good for someone who has just learned the moves.
It's possible to be informative without getting personal.
Sep 12, 2018
0
#51
need a match with opening specialist vs endgame specialist. lets settle this.
What about a place in the competition for someone with this sort of attitude?
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... or you are trying to sell books ...
I am not trying to sell books.
FredPhillips wrote: "need a match with opening specialist vs endgame specialist. lets settle this."
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
What about a place in the competition for someone with this sort of attitude?
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca
… All things that have been said are not for beginners. ...
It did not occur to me that FredPhillips had a beginner competition in mind. Perhaps I should have thought of that, but even a beginner might try to spend some time on each of opening, middlegame, and endgame after looking at something like Capablanca's Primer of Chess.
FredPhillips wrote: "need a match with opening specialist vs endgame specialist. lets settle this."
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
What about a place in the competition for someone with this sort of attitude?
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca
... Capablanca is talking for advanced and top players in this specific quote, not for beginners. ...
What about the "weak player"s?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
… Many claim they want to improve but hardly one out of 100 is willing to do what it takes. ...
Do players have a logical reason to try to satisfy the DeirdreSkye notion of improvement?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
What about a place in the competition for someone with this sort of attitude?
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca
… Nonsense like "do whatever you want" can no longer be considered even remotely serious. … they say the convenient " what ever you do it's the same" ...
Does that represent your reading of the Capablanca quote? Do players have a logical reason to try to satisfy the DeirdreSkye notion of remotely serious?
Klauer escribió:
@SmyslovFan is right in the summary of his posts.
- It's about players on a level around 1000 (or less).
- Chess is a game. So study what you like.If you don't like it, you won't do it.
- The books he recommends start with basic mates and basic tactics.
Play and analyze your games with someone in real life. This is fun. Learn ideas, not lines and moves.
Chess should be full of joy not of pain, that is right!
Endgame. Too many players have a weak endgame and a reliance on opening theory. Following opening principles will serve you well in most situations.
kindaspongey wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
What about a place in the competition for someone with this sort of attitude?
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca
… Nonsense like "do whatever you want" can no longer be considered even remotely serious. … they say the convenient " what ever you do it's the same" ...
Does that represent your reading of the Capablanca quote? Do players have a logical reason to try to satisfy the DeirdreSkye notion of remotely serious?
"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and opening must be studied in relation to the end game". - Capablanca