*OT* good chess books

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I don't think there are any books for people above 2000, unless it is on opening theory or specifically targeted material (like some of Dvoretsky articles.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this can't be true. 2000 is only candidate master (or expert depending on where you live). The 2200s are frequently beating up on the 2000s in the endgame. After studying endgames, I would say that the next thing for the candidate master to study would be endgames. After a thorough examination of this topic, next best bet would be endgames. A 2000 is still guaranteed to have flaws in his game. He should know what they are, if he is honest. If not, he should try to hook up with someone to look at his games and help him out. I had a friend who was stuck at about 2050 who hired a senior master for $15 an hour (10 years ago) to look through his games and make studying suggestions for him. He felt that this money was well spent. The big problem here is that the there is likely to be a reason you are bad at a certain area of the game. You simply don't like it. It will be harder for you to study.

[CalmIxian]

Chess is not a game where you can "work a few good strategies to perfection" it is a constant challenge in which perfection is not involved. Anyway, don't you guys know Kasparov retired? There is no reason to play chess anymore.

[Komodo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would look at Nimzovitch's _My System_, from about 1929, as a good, single-volume all around primer on chess strategy, tactics, and thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read half of that book, and my opinion is that it is just pure crap. Half of the examples is misanalyzed and most of the errors is extremely obvious too. Bye the way, this is the case for most old chess books.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is ridiculous. Let me quote Mikhail Tal on "My System" here:

I regret that I read it first time pretty late (when I was candidate for a master title). Probably because of that I had to discover (by myself) things that were already discovered.

Quote is from Russian publication, so it's not exact but the meaning is the same.

Nor it confusing as other people suggested. If anything, Nimzovich often skips subtleties because they would irritate his point. Obviously certain things you have to take with a grain of sault, but that's with any book. As a book outlining and illustrating many important aspects of the game, it's unmatched. I've been playing chess on and off since about 7 years old and there was only one significant jump in my game - that when I read "My System" (was about 13).


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasnt talking about any subtleties. I was talking about BLUNDERS BLUNDERS BLUNDERS, page after page. If you are not disturbed by hanging pieces and Nimzo calling that brilliant sacrifices, misanalyses of simple endings like king+pawn versus king+pawn, Nimzo putting !! marks to Rubinstein exchanging his good knigth versus a bad bishop and only winning later due to horribly bad play ( Of course Nimzo never mentions any of the obvious drawing lines, which even a complete idiot would have found), overlooking beautiful mating combinations (He even attaches exclamation marks to his own inferior moves!!!).
I have heard that was a good book and finally put some effort into it 3 years ago and wasnt the least impressed. It feels like a quickie produced in a couple of months or so.
I know Petrosian and Tal liked the book, but Im also pretty sure there are many super-GMs who have never bothered about it.


If you are not disturbed by such things, then go ahead reread and enjoy the book.
Komodo

[greygoo]

You just reinforced my point. People above 2000 obviously have weaknesses in their game. But diferrent players have diferrent weaknesses, so you can't address them all. Your example shows exactly that: one person finds a better player to try to work on specific aspects of the game. It is worth mentioning, btw, that hiring a higher rated player to work with you will not guarantee the results. The person hired should be a specialist on the aspect of the game one wants to work on.
Start to study endgame is a little late for candidate, don't you think? I believe Smyslov started learning chess from endgames.
Even opening theory books are suitable for people below 2000 when they use them right. Only instead of precise lines they should look for ideas behind the opening, middlegame plans, etc. Obviously thourough studying of openings for people below 2000 is not a good idea and pretty much everybody will tell you so.
Plus publishing books for very good chessplayers is not economically viable - there are not so many of them in the first place.

[greygoo]

I did address the issue you bring up about Nimzovich skipping some variations if it doesn't reinforce his points. In the case of this book it is probably even recommended, because the goal is instruction and illustration of ideas, not absolutely objective description of position (which is unreachable anyway unless we are talking forced lines, calculated by computer).

Blunders? Sure. I dare you to find a book without any blunders. But since you are talking about so many of them, why don't you recite one just for our amusement. My point is those blunders do not diminish the value of the book much, because it's about concepts, not variations. No matter how many blunders you can count in it, it does not in any way reduce the importance of such concept as blockade, for example.

Exclamation and question marks for moves are purely author's business and you can often see diferrent authors putting diferrent marks on the same move. Funny thing that both can be right, depending on what are they talking about.

I can understand if you don't like the book for whatever reason, but saying that it's terrible is not right. Maybe you just didn't understand it, maybe it didn't click with your perception of the game - I cannot judge from here, but man, your personal experience is not quite enough to be so categorical about the book that has been republished countless times in last 75 years and very, very many strong players were very fond of.

[Komodo]

"Blunders? Sure. I dare you to find a book without any blunders. But since you are talking about so many of them, why don't you recite one just for our amusement."

I dont have the book in front of me. Its in my local library and loaned at the moment, but I can do that if you have the patience to wait until it gets back. It could take some time of course.

"Exclamation and question marks for moves are purely author's business and you can often see diferrent authors putting diferrent marks on the same move. Funny thing that both can be right, depending on what are they talking about."

Putting exclamation marks for interesting, good or only moves is ok, but never for blunders or strategic errors.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey guys,
Ive played a lot of chess, but ive never really read a good book on the subject. I mean i've read like webpages and stuff, and I know a little bit about the game, but I was wondering if anyone could recommend a really good book on chess. lately ive been trying to find info on the queens gambit, but i wanna know more about strategy, middle game, the best opening, etc. i pretty much wanna get a good all around book, and if that doesnt exist, maybe one that focuses on a few good strategies i can work to perfection.
thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Skipbidder's post, and agree with it.

If you're a beginner or slightly above beginner-
Everyone's 2nd chessbook by Dan Heisman

Then I suggest you get these.

1. Winning chess tactics by Yasser Seirawan. Excellent beginner tactics book. Below 2000 level, tactics is what will win you games, adn get you to a high level. Concentrating on openings etc is a waste of effort for lower level players. Tactics is where it's at, as well as learning the basic end games.

2. Logical chess move by move by Irving Chernev. This is a classic book, and covers all parts of the game, taking you through classic games explaining the thinking move by move. It will give you a good understanding of the whole game. It will teach you good solid foundations in how to think and what to look for in making your decision. This is all you need for learning opening play for now. Excellent book.

And some tactics software:

3. CT-Art-3

These will give you an excellent foundation and get you to a high level. Then you can move on to more advanced books such as written by Nimzowitz etc.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
for tactics, people seem to like "Learn Chess Tactics" by John Nunn, and "Winning Chess Tactics" by Seirawin Yasser, which one would be better?

for endings: Yasser also has a book called "endings" that i can get with his tactics book, and then there is the aformentioned "chess endings: essential knowledge" by averbakh...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yasser is an excellent teacher/writer. I don't think you can go wrong with any of his books.

[ QUOTE ]
for the middlegame: the only book i really saw was one called "chess middlegames: essential knowledge" by averbakh, is this one good? does anyone have any other recommendations?

[/ QUOTE ]

A book on tactics will cover the middle game.