Sanju_1996d wrote:
blitz chess kills your ideas.
I completely agree, but what does it have to do with the topic?
The biggest lie about chess
Sort:
Many opening books will end a minor line or variation with, "And Black has the initiative and the preferable game," often without comment, sometimes without even referencing the rest of the game. In these cases it is annoying, but I wouldn't call it a lie.
More damning, I'd say, is the age old practice of analyzing a really fun game into the middlegame, seeing some amazing tactics, and then the annotator writes, "Black is winning, and the rest is just a matter of technique." The next twenty moves are then presented without comment. This is especially egregious if some of these 'just a matter of technique' moves have ! attached to them.
One reason I'm not the best at endgame play is simply because of this: so much endgame technique is just presented, never explained, and so it's that much harder to learn.
May 3, 2017
0
#24
There is some truth to the books glossing over key points and declaring a position won or one side having an advantage. In on book about the Caro-Kann, it says that if White plays Nf3 at a certain point it allows Black to get his QB outside his P-chain before playing e6 - one of the key goals of the Caro-Kann and then doesn't pursue the line any farther, simply saying "If Nf3, all of Black's problems are solved."
No, one of Black's problems are solved and it will make it easier to reach equality and a playable middle game, but some pointers on how to get there would help!
Q+K vs. R+K
May 3, 2017
0
#26
SmithyQ wrote:
Many opening books will end a minor line or variation with, "And Black has the initiative and the preferable game," often without comment, sometimes without even referencing the rest of the game. In these cases it is annoying, but I wouldn't call it a lie.
More damning, I'd say, is the age old practice of analyzing a really fun game into the middlegame, seeing some amazing tactics, and then the annotator writes, "Black is winning, and the rest is just a matter of technique." The next twenty moves are then presented without comment. This is especially egregious if some of these 'just a matter of technique' moves have ! attached to them.
One reason I'm not the best at endgame play is simply because of this: so much endgame technique is just presented, never explained, and so it's that much harder to learn.
Exactly my point.
May 3, 2017
0
#27
jengaias wrote:
The biggest lie about chess is that a book(or many books) can make you a better player.
The book doesn't make you better.The work you will do in the analysed games and how deeply you will try to understand the positions is what will make you a better player.
That is why , the most important things in a book , are :
a)The selected games
b) the annotations and
c)the silence of the author.
The really good author can use his "silence" to stimulate student's will to learn and understand.If a book fails in that , then it fails in probably the most important function of a chess book.
.
The author must give the information the student needs to understand the subject but at the same time "invite" him to analyse on his own in order to deeply understand the position.
So if you expect to become better by just reading a chess book , you are just fooling yourself.
I do not expect books to magically make me better without any effort. That would be foolish. However, comments like "and white's initiative leads to an easy win" or "the rest is a matter of technique" are not helpful at all. Of course I am not asking for the author to anotate every single move, but if he gave some guidelines it would be appreciated.
It reminds me of the infamous "the proof is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader" found in too many math books.
May 3, 2017
0
#28
kingofshedinjas wrote:
You might be familiar with the following expressions:
"X has an overwhelming position"
"With this move, X gets the initiative and easily wins"
Typically found in any chess book or article, they are two of the biggest offenders ever seen in chess literature. Before you start whining and calling me a "materialistic pig" or something worse, let me explain this point properly.
When the word "initiative" is mentioned, one can be pretty sure that the author will soon move to another topic. Often used as a way to stop talking about a position, when one does not want to make an effort and calculate the lines that lead to the win. This is what the initiative is about. A smokescreen. And when the smoke disipates, a new, usually unrelated position appears. So the author can sell the book saying it contains "more than X positions about whatever" without properly explaining them.
If an author ends the analysis with "and white is clearly better" and you have no idea why white is better, then you are weaker than the author's target audience. Try reading an easier book.
May 3, 2017
0
#29
thegreat_patzer wrote:
POOF
thats ok. the socks will come and the voices will multiply...
anyways I like the OP's post. thas is a great one. there is NO such thing as initiative. Magnus surely lives by that principle....
If I didn't know you better I'd say this is a troll comment.
May 3, 2017
0
#30
jengaias wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
You might be familiar with the following expressions:
"X has an overwhelming position"
"With this move, X gets the initiative and easily wins"
Typically found in any chess book or article, they are two of the biggest offenders ever seen in chess literature. Before you start whining and calling me a "materialistic pig" or something worse, let me explain this point properly.
When the word "initiative" is mentioned, one can be pretty sure that the author will soon move to another topic. Often used as a way to stop talking about a position, when one does not want to make an effort and calculate the lines that lead to the win. This is what the initiative is about. A smokescreen. And when the smoke disipates, a new, usually unrelated position appears. So the author can sell the book saying it contains "more than X positions about whatever" without properly explaining them.
If an author ends the analysis with "and white is clearly better" and you have no idea why white is better, then you are weaker than the author's target audience. Try reading an easier book.
Well done. That's the worst advice ever given.
Of course I mean after they try to figure it out. If it's a total mystery to them, then they should try something easier. The idea that any book or analysis is accessible to any player is a big disrespect for the complexity of chess.
May 3, 2017
0
#31
Kingoftheshedinjas is hilarious in this comment. I remember feeling exactly like that way back... A really great way of putting it!
"When he starts talking about the initiative, you know that he's going to talk about something else"...
That's real funny and so true!
But probably the purpose of that book is not to teach a player what to do with an initiative - but to discuss types of position and find out who's better - and when a strong player can see that one side is active and the other is passive - that's all that strong player needed to evaluate the variation.
May 3, 2017
0
#32
solskytz wrote:
Kingoftheshedinjas is hilarious in this comment. I remember feeling exactly like that way back... A really great way of putting it!
"When he starts talking about the initiative, you know that he's going to talk about something else"...
That's real funny and so true!
But probably the purpose of that book is not to teach a player what to do with an initiative - but to discuss types of position and find out who's better - and when a strong player can see that one side is active and the other is passive - that's all that strong player needed to evaluate the variation.
Yes. And after a lot of experience. A lot of trial and error. A lot of analysis... a player can be confident that a position is winning (and that they're good enough to prove it) just because initiative. It's not something you can prove with a little analysis, it's something a player has to learn on their own.
May 3, 2017
0
#33
An author cannot give a full analysis of all games in for instance a repertoire book. This is also not the aim of such books. You still have to play chess after the opening. A repertoire book should give an orientation for the opening and some general plans how to play the middle game and sometimes the endgame. A weak player will mostly lose against a strong paper even after getting the better position after the opening.
May 3, 2017
0
#34
<Kingofshedinjas> (this time without "the")
1) The reason why some authors don't mention how difficult K+Q vs. K+R is, is that many of these books are pretty old - and the complexity of that endgame was better appreciated when computers began to play it strongly (that's what I think - but I may be wrong here).
2) The sub-anything player DOES need to improve his positional skills, that's for sure!
3) It really depends which position. Sometimes "the win is easy" and it's real easy for a strong player. Sometimes they say "initiative" - and then it's as you say - chances to win for the stronger side, chances to draw for the weaker side - but one will make up one's mind accordingly if one wants to enter that position voluntarily...
4) Using the I-N-I-T-I-A-T-I-V-E is quite a challenge for the inexperienced player, and causes miles of embarrassment. If you want to learn about it - get a book that helped me a lot in this regard: the 1000 best shortest games of chess, by Irving Chernev.
This is a book of miniatures, lasting from 4 to 24 (or 25, can't remember) moves. Generally, people win early in the opening either because someone forgot a queen or a mate - or because - guess what?
Someone developed their pieces better, pushed the enemy pieces to the side, got a better center, weakened the enemy king somewhat, prevented castling, sacrificed a pawn or more to secure those advantages.
You don't even need 1,000 examples of this to start getting a better feel for "initiative". Study 150 or 200 - you will quickly begin to see how a couple of extra tempi can be useful to torture an opponent for an entire game. Sometimes initiative wins games quickly - and sometimes the torture can be continued all the way to the endgame.
May 3, 2017
0
#35
<The_Chin_of_Quinn> Having the initiative doesn't always lead to a win. It can lead to better chances, it can lead to the more comfortable position, it can lead even to drawing chances when some deficits exist...
But it's true - one does develop a feel for it as one improves, studies games, analyzes with strong players etc.
May 3, 2017
0
#36
I don't mean initiative is always winning of course. But sometimes that's all it takes, and there's no single line to prove it.
May 3, 2017
0
#37
jengaias wrote:
Respecting the complexity of chess is a huge mistake that many do and remain patzers for all their life.My trainer , a very good IM told me that the first book he read was Pachman's Complete chess strategy.
There was a time when easy books didn't exist.People learned chess from Lipnitsky , Averbakh , Keres, Pachman and others.These times produced great players like Capablanca,Fischer , Karpov , Kasparov and many others. How did they do it?
There is a single fundamental truth that most seem to ignore.You improve in chess if you push your mind to think harder.Looking for easier books is not the answer.The last think a chess student wants is to take it easy.Looking for the correct books is the answer and where most fail.
It used to be most books were aimed at beginner, or advanced beginners. Pachman's book(s) are great, but not so dense that near beginners wouldn't benefit. These days most books are still at that level, but now we also have advanced books. Some books will simply be too hard.
You say your trainer's first book was Pachman, but you don't mention his level when he read the book.
You say these times produced strong world champions, well of course. I don't see what the ability of super rare geniuses has to do with books for the common man. Better would be to argue that the average level of players back then was higher.
May 3, 2017
0
#38
I guess since most books are aimed at class players, my advice will be bad most of the time. More often than not a challenging book will be useful if the student works at it. Better advice would have been to read reviews and choose books wisely, and of course others who said that sometimes explaining initiative is not the aim of the book you're reading.
May 3, 2017
0
#39
With_every_step wrote:
"If an author ends the analysis with "and white is clearly better" and you have no idea why white is better, then you are weaker than the author's target audience. Try reading an easier book."
Perhaps Weaver Adams should have a rating of at least 4000.
Or Franklin Knowles Young 
May 3, 2017
0
#40
By the way, <Kingofshedinjas> - try to play a number of those positions, where you don't understand what to do with the "initiative" or why the position is "overwhelming", against Stockfish - for both sides.
Stockfish should generally beat you, of course - but that's not the point.
The point is that for the first several moves, you put yourself in the weaker side's position, and see how quickly Stockfish makes your position intensely uncomfortable, wins material or attacks your king.
Then try again that same position as the stronger side. You can try Stockfish's own strategy against Stockfish itself. Probably you won't win it - but again, you will get a feel of how you are pressing.
You can switch sides as many times as you like, learning all the time - and also learning to appreciate the difference in potential and feel between white and black in that position.
There will also be cases when the author was wrong and there is actually no real initiative, of course. These should be in the minority.
You might be familiar with the following expressions:
"X has an overwhelming position"
"With this move, X gets the initiative and easily wins"
Typically found in any chess book or article, they are two of the biggest offenders ever seen in chess literature. Before you start whining and calling me a "materialistic pig" or something worse, let me explain this point properly.
When the word "initiative" is mentioned, one can be pretty sure that the author will soon move to another topic. Often used as a way to stop talking about a position, when one does not want to make an effort and calculate the lines that lead to the win. This is what the initiative is about. A smokescreen. And when the smoke disipates, a new, usually unrelated position appears. So the author can sell the book saying it contains "more than X positions about whatever" without properly explaining them.
Play the MAIN lines and your problem is solved.
This thread is not about openings.