Chess: want to get better fast

[Popinjay]

Can all the chess gurus check this thread out?

my post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1485637&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#Post1485672)

I usually hate crossposting but I thought OOT was the proper place for the thread at first, but was told that this forum was the best. Not wanting to miss out on some good advice I linked the thread in OOT here just so I could consolidate all replies in one thread.

[Dynasty]

Practice (1) tactics, (2) tactics, and (3) tactics.

A good first step is buying a problem solving book. I reccomend Combination Challenge! by Lou Hays.

[Reef]

on the board experience is key

get a tactics book, get a chess program so that you always have an opponent better than you to play. (I don't believe you learn much by playing weaker opponents). Go over your live games after and analyze them - stronger the person analyzing, the better.

[parachute]

What Dynasty said, but I would add (4) tactics.

Combination Challenge is great but might be a little over your head right now (it's a good mix for me and I'm 1800). Winning Chess Tactics by Yasser Seirawan is supposed to be great and is probably more around your level.

[ElSapo]

Get "How to Reassess Your Chess," by Jeremy Silman. Fantastic book which will help you take a look at all aspects of your game.

Tactics and puzzles are probably a good way to short-term get better, but it's like poker -- ultimately, instead of a pre-flop chart you'll want to understand the strategy and long-term aspects of the game.

Silman's book is a good start. A membership in the Internet Chess Club is also great, though you can probably get about as much value off YahooGames as a beginner. ICC offers some databases and other features that will be more helpful as you improve. Its well worth the annual fee.

ElSapo

[MicroBob]

Dynasty (and others as well) are better chess players than me as I am just a mere 1400 USCF when I was last rated in 1999 (a bit better since then with ICC-only play though)....but I'm offering my two-cents anyway.


Combination Challenge is one of my faves as well.
After a few of those you just start seeing all kinds of possibilities all over the board.

Reinfeld's 1001 probs book is good....but is very similar so this is kind of obvious.


For beginner to almost-intermediate I recommend the Andy Soltis books on a couple of openings. Less likely to be TOO far over your head for the most part.
They're not exactly the most expert of texts....kind of like the Lee Jones WLLHE of chess-opening books (although I would rate them a little bit higher than that). They won't make you a grandmaster but they will generally be pointing you in the right direction.


Even more beginner-ish then that are many of Bruce Pandolfini's books.
ABC's of Chess is the book I would use and recommend if I were teaching a relative newbie or if I were coaching/instructing a junior-high or even a high-school chess team.
But some of the other Pandolfini books like his end-game stuff and chess-openings Traps and Zaps can provide good insight too I think


I'm also a fan of some of the classics....Alekhine's Greatest Games books for example.


Now...if only I had the time and patience to make my way through all of these books I could guarantee I would raise my piddly-little rating.

[Baulucky]

1-Pick a White opening system and a Black defensive system, and become equal to the best in the world with that simple system.
2-Tactics practice a lot and then more.
3-Get an end game book and become equal to the best in the world at endgames.

That should put you over ELO2000. I don't know about higher than that.

[JaBlue]

I wrote this in your other post so I will copy/paste it in case you didn't see it in the other one. This should also benefit the other players who haven't seen it there and are not masters yet /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Here it is:



You are 1150? This means that a lot of the things suggested here will be of almost no use to you. Anything by Dvoretsky is going to be miles over your head. Once you become an A-class player, say 2000+, these materials will be very valuable.

Until then, there are many things you should do.

1) Don't get caught up in opening study. This simply won't do anything for you right now - your opponents don't know any opening theory, and therefore whatever you learn will be close to a complete waste.

2) TACTICS! Most games you win at this level will be because of tactics. They are ESSENTIAL. Get the manual of combinations vols. 1 and 2 from Convekta www.convekta.com (http://www.convekta.com) CT-art 3.0 is also very good but will probably not be useful until after the completion of volume one of the manual of combinations. Solve all of them in volume one and then move on to volume two. Also Reinfeld's 1001 Winning Chess Sacrafices and Combinations and Patnufieffs The Art of Combinations is very good. Reinfelds book is very good for beginners and should probably be used before moving on to volume two of the manual of combinations.

3) Studying the actual games: Right now it is very important to understand what was happening in chess 150 years ago for you. If you look at current grandmaster games, you may be entertained, but you will probably have no idea going on [I feel this way often and many here would call me a strong player at 2350!]. Get a collection of the games of Paul Morphy and analyse them.

4) Analysing your own play. This is the key to becoming a strong player. Look at the games you played and analyse them (especially your losses). Where did you go wrong? How did you lose?

Also I forgot to put it in the list, but learn basic endgame play. Do you know what the Lucena position is? Can you checkmate with two bishops and a king against a lone king or a knight and bishop against a lone king? Get an elementary endgame book. Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual was suggested earlier, but you need something much more down to earth for your level.

6) Once you feel like you understand how Morphy played and you feel as if you have a decent grasp of tactical concepts - i.e. you can solve easy problems (forced mate in 5, get decisive position in 3) you should be introduced to modern play. This will come from the most instructive chess book ever written, Aron Nimzowitsches My System.


Good luck in your quest for chess glory. Remember the most important thing is constant effort put into the game. It is much better to put in a half hour every day of the week than to put in a two hour session and a one and a half hour session on two seperate days of the week.

Good luck.

[vulturesrow]

My comment crossposted as well:

Ja,

Great post. A good endgame book for beginners is Pandolfini's Endgame book. One of the few of his books that dont suck. Good games collections for beginners: Logical Chess Move by Move, Best Lessons of a Chess Coach, Master vs. Amateur. Also the Mammoth Book of the Worlds Best Chess Games can provide lot of value to all levels of experience, mostly due to the awesome blend of analysis and commentary it gives. I am working through this book right now and I can for certain it has improved my game.

[Shoe]

I haven't played chess in years, but this thread has gotten me interested in it again, I plan to play on yahoo for awhile to try and get a grasp of it (until I feel I can advance past the beginner stage). Then I will probably purchase a book or two. Just a quick question before I get started. Is there a set rank for what the pieces are worth, or is it all subjective? By this, I mean, is it worth sacrificing a bishop to capture a knight, or vice versa? This is how I would rank the pieces (from most valued to least valued): Queen, Rook, Bishop, Knight, Pawn. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Gazza]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a set rank for what the pieces are worth, or is it all subjective? By this, I mean, is it worth sacrificing a bishop to capture a knight, or vice versa? This is how I would rank the pieces (from most valued to least valued): Queen, Rook, Bishop, Knight, Pawn. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Queen =9 to 9.5
rook =5
bishop 3 to 3.5
knight 3
pawn 1

This is the generally accepted scale of what the pieces are worth but there are situations, most often when a king is in danger, when these values become pretty irrelevant.

I didn't realise there were posters discussing chess here. I'm a grandmaster by the way so when you get a bit better you can go buy some of my books!

Gazza

[AviD]

I haven't played chess in quite a few years, but I used to play quite alot...mainly on ICC.

Always seemed like good competition on there, I guess I was average...I did spend alot of time reading and playing. I never did realize a true rating for myself as I mainly played online, but ICC rated at me at like 1600 where Yahoo's chess rated me at like 2000+ which I thought was silly. Realistically I was probably like 1400 player! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Interestingly, when I was at college and bored on a Thursday night, I would go play the chess team (wasn't on it, just sat in and played a few games). None of them were mind blowing, but a grandmaster used to come in and play all of us at the same time. That was cool, but he was the only one I lost to...and he wasn't on the team! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway, how I learned to play quickly was reading alot and playing alot. I started by playing chess games/computers and learned how they countered my moves and started applying their moves and then learned how they countered their own moves, etc, etc, etc...until I got to a level of playing somewhat like they did. Then I found some books, and started applying advanced tactics, openings, middle game, end game, traps, etc...and just kept building on that.

But like all things, the BETTER your competition is, the better you will have to perform and you will get. I liken it to basketball in highschool where I rarely played with kids my age. Instead I played with a friend or two and a bunch of adults that were much better than us to start. As the weeks passed, we upped our game and were able to hang with them...and really beat the pants off our other friends.

So the best teacher is experience and the best medium is playing at a higher level than you are currently at because you will be forced to learn quickly and think far, far ahead in order to win.

And as you are put in tougher situations, you will be able to think and adapt at much higher levels. I remember when I started, seeing 5 moves ahead on the board was like a 10 minute ordeal. A year later, seeing 20 moves down the road was now a few minutes.

That's my .02

[Gazza]

[ QUOTE ]
A year later, seeing 20 moves down the road was now a few minutes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post except for your last line. I have been a chess pro for twenty years and I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have had to calculate twenty moves ahead. Whilst there are certain positions where it is relatively easy to do so it is a pointless exercise from a practical point of view. Most strong players base their decisions on their general understanding and intuition, backed up by a lot of precise and relatively short variations which they can calculate very quickly

Gazza

[AviD]

Hehe sorry I was in a bit of a rush for a meeting (that got cancelled, really threw a number out there)...but you are right. For the most part you don't need to do that, but I have run through the combinations at times if I think I've landed against some serious opposition and start out-thinking myself (looking ridiculously far into the game) and missing things that are more important in the next 5 moves rather than 15+ down the road.

The gist was that when I first started (pretty much in anything {gaming, poker, chess}, trying to "think" about what to do was overwhelming...seemed almost impossible on some fronts (like with gaming FPSs mainly - your thoughts are going a million miles an hour, reaction and hand/eye coordination, etc)...but once you get accustomed to it your level of comprehension and ability elevates significantly to where you do these things with little thought.

Chess is an intense mind game, and I always enjoyed that about the game. I can remember my first "live" match vs a college hallmate my freshman year. I think the game lasted about 4 hours and I won it, which was a great feeling since my friend had played for many years. But I basically locked myself in my room playing chess computers until I was confident I could bring him a decent game, and it was a good game. Of course I was the one that took forever to move from the beginning to the end, he only slowed down towards the middle to end game.

Nevertheless, it is a great game...but eventually I got too heavily into gaming and then moved on to poker and never got back at chess. I'd imagine right now I couldn't beat an 800 rated player! /images/graemlins/grin.gif