Two Potentially Promising Books

Sort:
Chicken_Monster

These two books caught my eye, and I thought I would share them. I have them on my to-read list...just not sure how high on the list they should go.

Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition: Key Moves and Motifs in the Middlegame Paperback – November 7, 2014 by International Master Arthur van de Oudeweetering 

and

The Inner Game of Chess: How to Calculate and Win Paperback – December 7, 2014 by Andrew Soltis

Sqod

Those sound good, thanks. I'll try to find some library copies.

Realistically, though, I expect to be very disappointed. *No* book has ever told me how to do the one thing I most want to do, and what most others want to do, too: improve tactical lookahead. Nobody is approaching that skill in a scientific, analytical manner, for my taste. The same with pattern recognition: for a book to be really good and practical for pattern recognition it would have to have at *least* dozens, better hundreds, maybe even thousands of patterns with more text telling how those patterns relate than text filling up the book with explanations of individual games. No author is approaching that topic correctly, either, for my taste. Some author needs to start thinking like a programmer if they want to make progress in such chess instructional material.

----------

(p. 51, 1977 ed.)
The road to mastery for man and machine

The process of choosing a move seems to involve perception as a primary
component, and in particular, the recognition of thousands of stored pat-
terns. It may seem surprising, but chess is not so much a game of deep
thinkers as one of skilled perceivers. Perception apparently holds the key to
understanding why the master barely glances at a position before seizing
on the correct move, where the novice spends hours staring at a position
and never generates the winning move.
   Perception operates in two main areas: generating plausible moves
and statically evaluating terminal positions. Not only will a plausible
move be perceived more quickly by the master, but his long experience
with many patterns on the board (50,000 or more) translates into the
advantage of being able to evaluate the resulting positions more readily.
   The process of searching through the tree of possibilities, i.e., dynamic
search, is surprisingly similar for both master and class player. They both
search to a similar depth; they both examine about as many moves. The
reason they end up with different moves is that one goes down blind
alleys whereas the other examines the critical variations.
   How does the master build up this repertoire of patterns and chess-
specific knowledge? Simon and Chase [84] suggest that it is a matter of
practice. You cannot become a concert pianist by practicing one hour a
day. Similarly you do not become a master chess player by thinking about
chess one hour a day. Simon and Chase observed that it apparently takes
a player nearly a decade of intense preoccupation with playing chess to
become a Grandmaster--even child prodigies like Capablanca, Reshevsky,
Fischer, and others were not exceptions.
   Practice does not mean staring at and memorizing 50,000 patterns. It
means learning to recognize types of positions and the plans or playing
methods which go with them. The reason why the information necessary to
become a master does not appear readily in chess books is that it is
(p. 52)
primarily nonverbal; many patterns are difficult to describe in common
language terms. Apparently, advice should take the form of: when you see
this (pattern description), consider trying this plan. (Some current chess
books are attempting to use this approach.) Also, the heuristics which
appear in chess books are just not precise enough to cover the many
concrete situations which occur over the board. Only the slow process of
storing and classifying thousands of patterns seems to work.
   As de Groot put it, for the master player "there is nothing new under
the sun" ([31], p. 305]). Each position summons up typical playing
methods or plans. Perception leads to playing method, which leads to search
for the effects of specific moves.
   This analysis may offer a rather discouraging picture to chess player and
programmer alike. Unless somehow we can systematize and classify
thousands of patterns and their appropriate playing methods, there is
going to be no shortcut to mastery of chess. Kotov [60] has outlined what
he feels are the fundamentals for becoming a Grandmaster. They can be
summarized in five points:

1. Know opening theory
2. Know the principles behind typical middle games positions (methods
and moves)
3. Be able to assess a position accurately
4. Be able to hit the right plan demanded by a given position
5. Calculate variations accurately and quickly

   Almost all of these principles can be subsumed under three general
principles: recognize patterns, know their value, and know their corre-
sponding playing methods.

Frey, Peter W, ed. 1977. Chess Skill in Man and Machine. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Doirse
Chicken_Monster wrote:

These two books caught my eye, and I thought I would share them. I have them on my to-read list...just not sure how high on the list they should go.

Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition: Key Moves and Motifs in the Middlegame Paperback – November 7, 2014 by International Master Arthur van de Oudeweetering 

and

 

The Inner Game of Chess: How to Calculate and Win Paperback – December 7, 2014 by Andrew Soltis

I have both books.  I am almost done with the Soltis book, and have skimmed the pattern recognition book.  The Soltis book -- like all of his books -- is awesome.  Clearly written and insightful.  

The second book is only about middle game patterns and is a bit denser, but looks OK.  I'd recommend instead another book by Soltis "100 Chess Master Trade Secrets".  I got all three books for christmas and finished reading the 100 secrets first (am on Soltis' inner game book now).

Doirse
Sqod wrote:

Realistically, though, I expected to be very disappointed. *No* book has ever told me how to do the one thing I most want to do, and what most others want to do, too: improve tactical lookahead. Nobody is approaching that skill in a scientific, analytical manner, for my taste. 

what do you mean?

I_Am_Second
Chicken_Monster wrote:

These two books caught my eye, and I thought I would share them. I have them on my to-read list...just not sure how high on the list they should go.

Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition: Key Moves and Motifs in the Middlegame Paperback – November 7, 2014 by International Master Arthur van de Oudeweetering 

and

 

The Inner Game of Chess: How to Calculate and Win Paperback – December 7, 2014 by Andrew Soltis

The middlegame book that really clicked with me was:

 

Chess Training for Post-beginners: A Basic Course in Positional Understanding 

 

 Yaroslav Srokovski

Sqod
Doirse wrote:

what do you mean?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-tactics-in-real-games

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-are-some-problems-harder-than-other-problems

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/list-of-tactics-from-palatnik-amp-alburt

"Tactics" is a catch-all word that tacks on a lot of extra concepts to what computer programmers would call "lookahead." Pure tactics should be pure lookahead, not a mixture of lookahead with stored patterns. At the very least those two need abilities to be separated, otherwise you can't even measure how well somebody can do lookahead.

Doirse

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what you mean.  

Sqod
Doirse wrote:

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what you mean.  

That's because I don't understand your question. Exactly what part do you not understand?

Doirse

Well, let's start with this statement: "Pure tactics should be pure lookahead"

Sqod

Read the above book quote. When humans do tactics, they're not just relying on lookahead: they're relying partly on memory. When you mix two different skills together, it's difficult to say how good a person is at either skill. In this case if a person solves chess puzzles well it's not clear why, since it could be due to either lookahead, memory, or a combination of both. Until we know which one in which mixture, we can't definitely say what it takes to get better at chess. That's the unfortunate state of current chess instruction now.

Scannerman

Sqod have you read Understanding chess tactics by Martin Weteschnik??

Sqod
Scannerman wrote:

Sqod have you read Understanding chess tactics by Martin Weteschnik??

No, I haven't seen that book but I'll look for it. My claim still stands, though: I believe the only way to test and measure pure lookahead in humans is by a special computer progam dedicated to that one task. If I had time or money I'd write such a program, but I don't have either.

Doirse

I re-read the book quote, and nowhere in it does it define the terms "lookahead" or "pure tactics" that you have used.  

It sounds to me like the authors (nearly 40 years ago) were talking about the general process of calculation.  At least that's how I read it.  

I'm not trolling you.  I'm really trying to understand your point but I still don't get the key terms you are using.  I have read a lot of books but have never heard those terms used before, so I'm trying to understand what you mean.

chess2Knights

Chicken, I do not know of either book but I like the titles. Tactics is indeed mostly practice. Math helps.

Chicken_Monster

How does math help exactly?

chess2Knights

Kind of hard to explain. Calculation is a similar thought process. Ability to count well. Not talking Alegebra, trig or even geometry but those who are good at math seem to have better chess skills. Memory of course you understand but math skills seem to be in the same part of the brain as chess skills. I know some will dispute this but it is true that a relationship does exist.

Chicken_Monster

I believe it. Analytical minds excel at math and chess. Left-brain oriented folks.

There was recently a big debate on this site as to whether artistic people or those who are mathematically inclined are better at chess. My guess would be that "math people" on AVERAGE are better, but I have absolutely no evidence to back that up. I'm sure there are some very creative and artistic people who are brilliant at chess. Would love to see some statistics. Woops ... there I go with math talk ...

chess2Knights

Many of your world champs and your regular grandmasters excelled in Math.

Chicken_Monster

I can't seem to find famous left-handed GMs with a quick search...but they must be out there (left-handed folks are often more artistic and creative, and the right hemispheres of their brains are usually dominant)...

leiph18

Supposedly there is a higher % of left handedness in chess players than in the normal population.

I happen to know Garry Kasparov is left handed. Don't know any others.

Right vs left brain is a bit silly anyway.

Broad generalizations are often made in "pop" psychology about one side or the other having characteristic labels, such as "logical" for the left side or "creative" for the right. These labels are not supported by studies on lateralization, as lateralization does not add specialized usage from either hemisphere.[2] Both hemispheres contribute to both kinds of processes,[3] and experimental evidence provides little support for correlating the structural differences between the sides with such broadly-defined functional differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function