FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
2.Heisman's Improving Chess thinker to see how class A and experts think differently and how to better emulate them. Also evaluate flaws in your own thinking process."
This is also the way Silman writes in his books and it is highly regarded as a good way to take a given position and see how players of differing strengths see (or don't see) how to procede. I find it very helpful as well as interesting reading.
I have a rating of about 1850 and I think it's almost impossible to go higher than that without a coach AND hard work. Books can help , of course , but they are not enough. When I reach 1850 I get crushed by higher rated people and I move back... The same happens to tactics... 1850-1900 and then back because of failures.
The same thing with Blitz (bullet is a complete disaster for me because of my tablet pc and slow connection).
Bridging the gap between the intermediate and the master level is just not easy...
You're looking for miracles so...
Author: several guys.
You do notice, though, that you're answering people who were posting here several years ago...
Don't stop the hype
Yeah , that's an old forum. Didn't notice.
A big difference between masters and everyone else is their knowledge of the endgame.
. . . and their grasp of the middlegame. And their grasp of the opening. And their positional understanding. And their tactical vision. And . . .
You are actually very wrong and he is right.
Could be. At my level, though (below master-class), it seems that most games are decided by tactical blunders in the middlegame, rather than long-term endgame play.
Either way, I still firmly believe that master-level players have a firmer grasp of all areas of the game, from studying each phase in particular (and not just a trickle-down effect simply from endgame study).
Back to the topic of the thread, I'd recommend books like "Reasess Your Chess" by Silman, and "My System" by Nimzo—books that teach you a positional and strategic understanding that can be applied to all phases of the game.
"I am living proof that the NM level can be reached without focusing more on endings than the other 2 phases of the game . I have focused the bulk of my chess study time on middlegames and openings with the least amount of time going to endings and this has resulted in the ending being my weakness when compared to the other two phases , most of my wins come in the middlegame and I try to play my games in such a way that a crisis is reached in the middlegame because at my age I no longer have the stamina/energy to play long drawn out endings anyway." - NM Reb (~5 weeks ago)
"Look through Chapter 4 and you will get a good idea of how sloppy your endgame play can be. ... do national masters come into their own here? Can we claim to be strong players in the endgame at least? Alas, the answer is a resounding no! ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
What It Takes to Become a Chess Master by GM Andrew Soltis (2012)
Reaching the Top?!: A Practical Guide to Playing Master-Level Chess by NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2016)
By the way, a cautionary tale might be of interest. About 4 years ago, a player in the 1900s announced his intention to try to become a master and regularly report on his progress. His rating went down and, as far as I can tell, never got back to the level of the number given in the first report. After about ten months, the writer wrote about the size of the world compared to the game, and, as far as I can tell, stopped writing the reports.