Since we're on the topic of chess

[greygoo]

[ QUOTE ]
ClaytonN,

For any player below master level, the most important thing to do is practice tactics. An effective way to do this is to solve chess problems. A good book which is loaded with problems to solve is Combination Challenge! by Lou Hays and John Hall.

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO this is really bad advice. Positional understanding is more important. What good tactics will do if one comes out underdeveloped out of the opening?

As far as books go, the best book on general chess principles is probably a classic "My System" by Aron Nimzovich.

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
I suck at chess. I have an IQ of about 130. I'm 18.

I don't want to be a chess freak, but I'd like to know what the hell I'm doing.

Can anyone recommend a good website or book for newbs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I only became interested in chess about 1 month ago; during that time, I have found the following website quite helpful: Test Your Chess.

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
Clayton the first step is to download ICC (Internet Chess Club.) Go to www.chessclub.com , you should find lots of oppurtunities to learn there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bah :0) Why pay when you can get it for free at the Free Internet Chess Server. Although if you really want to improve at chess you're better off finding a local club and going there.

[MicroBob]

The USCF system as best I can recall (fairly similar to FIDE and other systems):


At first you get a 'provisional' rating.
If I am unrated and beat a 1400 rated player I will have a provisional rating of perhaps 1600 (or whatever they give me for a win over a 1400).
If I draw an 1800 then I have 2 games and my rating is now 1700 (averaging the 1600 performance for my win over a 1600....and my 1800 performance for drawing vs. an 1800).


After 20 games you're not 'provisional' anymore.

Regular rated players:
If I'm 1400 and beat another 1400 I get 16 points.

If I'm 1400 and lose to an 1800 or higher (400+ points higher than me) then I only lose 1 point. But if I beat that 1800 or higher player I gain 32 points.
Same for him...except he can only gain 1 point to lose 32 points.
I win 16 points and he losses 16 points if we draw.


If I play a 1600 rated player I believe I can either win 24 points or lose 8 points perhaps (and possibly make 16 points for a draw).


So....if I have a 5-round tourney against these players with these results here's how my rating might bounce around.

vs. 1800 - draw, +16
vs. 2000 - loss, -1
vs. 1400 - draw, 0
vs. 1200 - loss, -24
vs. 1000 - win, +1

My rating dipped 7 points in this tourney.

Of course, it's a bit more precise than that.
If I'm 1396 and playing against a 1354 then I probably get 13 points if I win and drop 19 points if I lose. And I probably lose 3 points if I draw.

Something like that.


I believe it is said that if there is 100 points difference in rating the higher rated player should win 75% of the time.
Win 400 points difference in rating the higher player is expected to win 99% of the time.


The weekend swiss tourneys can be brutal for 2300+ rated players....because if they make one slip-up against a reasonable 1700 rated-player their rating is going to take a hit no matter what else they do.


Garry Kasparov at FIDE 2900 was about as high as it's gotten.
I'm guessing the top USCF ratings are in the 2800 range but I really don't know. Maybe someone got up to 3000 somehow.


Tourneys give prizes to different classes. So if I'm at 1410 and want to participate in a bracket in an upcoming big-money tourney that is under-1400 because I'll have a better chance at making the money I can try losing a few games a couple months ahead of time to 'sand-bag' my rating down to 1395 and suddenly I'm a big favorite in my section to win the prize-money.

I probably wouldn't have had much chance as a 1410 rated player in the under-1600 section. But as a 1395 rated player in the under-1400 section I should be in the running for some cash.


Sand-bagging is a bit of a problem in tournament chess.

[snoopdogg]

The book that helped me most was The Amateur's Mind by Jeremy Silman: Kind of like Theory of Poker in that it helped show you what kind of things to think about over the board.

As far as advice: I would study the endgame and tactics the most. The endgame because it will help teach you about the rest of the game, and tactics because most of your games will still be determined by blunders. Hope this was of some use.

[curtains]

I think tactics and calculation abilities are signifigantly more important than positional play for someone first starting out in chess. Positional play is much easier to learn at a later date, however calculation and imagination are extremely difficult.

Of course very common positional motifs should be understood, but I always place a large precendence on tactical ability for all of my students.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO this is really bad advice. Positional understanding is more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every chess teacher I've met, and I've met lots, would disagree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
What good tactics will do if one comes out underdeveloped out of the opening?

[/ QUOTE ]

For players rated below 1800 (and maybe 2000), it will most likely win you the game.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
I suck at chess. I have an IQ of about 130. I'm 18.

I don't want to be a chess freak, but I'd like to know what the hell I'm doing.

Can anyone recommend a good website or book for newbs?



[/ QUOTE ]

The best advice I could give, is to not start to play chess. It's a collosal waste of time and energy! lol.

Seriously, join a chess club and just play games. The books mentioned above are all good advice. Personally, I like Jeremy Silman as a chess author, but everyone has their own favorite. Finally, www.chessclub.com is about the best place to learn about and play chess online. They've got a free trial period of one week, but if you've got access to infinite email addresses like I do, you can just keep signing up for the trial forever! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] shhhh.

[nate1729]

Silman's books taught me a lot. If I studied them more I'd have learned even more, but I can't stop rereading hold'em for advanced players, etc. Anyway, they gave me at least a solid understanding of what's going on in a chess match.

[David Steele]

You might like the following book:

Best Lessons of a Chess Coach
by SUNIL WEERAMANTRY


While it covers some fairly basic stuff it gets fairly advanced for just one book.

I agree with the tactics study but it is interesting to learn the positional ideas even if you work harder on your tactics for now. This book will have both but you also should get some book that has a ton of tactical postions as an additional book.

D.