I see lots of requests for advice on beginners / improvers books, and just thought I'd chime in with some details of a book that has revolutionised the way i view the game and helped me immensely.
"Simple Chess" by Michael Stean is an absolute winner.
Maybe it's just perfect for the stage of development I'm at, but I cannot recommend this book highly enough for explaining simple positional concepts in a way that is encouraging, logical and achievable.
I struggle with game, as do most "average" players but this guy has given me a sense that the fundamentals of improving your position with every move are within reach of even me. Simple topics. Simple explanations.
The chapter on outposts alone is a revelation - you can see the crucial role that this plays and how the masters set up this defining structural advantage early in the game, then cash-in on it later or completely limit the oppositions moves from that point on.
I have read Seirawan's "Tactics" and "Strategies" books in the Winning..... Series and they too were awesome, but there's something about Steans delivery and manner that sets this book apart.
I know the book has been around a long time and what is exciting for me will be already known by many, but just thought I'd share this with others struggling in the 1400 - 1600 range. I can't say I'm necessarily winning more games against decent opposition (1550 -1700), but the increase in draws is telling me that I'm building a sound positional base from the start that is hard to get past.
There's always books that are great for some, not so for others. feel free to disagree. Just wanted to share my excitement. Cheers. 🙂
"Simple Chess" by Michael Stean is an absolute winner.You are absolutely right!!
It's not for beginners, but it is a great read for understanding positional plans and the execution of them (while being alert for tactics, traps, etc.)
Incredible value for such a great book!
Seirawan's books are good, too.
Originally posted by anthiasI think silman's book is simple enough for 1200+.
They are advanced books.
kotov's book, yes, it's really for advanced players. I myself didn't read it all studying, but just read the texts about how to calculate, candidate moves, move "trees", etc. it helped me a lot.
Originally posted by diskamylThen you're in sharp disagreement with one of the best chess instructors in the USA, Dan Heisman. (He recommends HTRYC and the associated workbook for players rated at least 1650 USCF.) So, should I believe you or Dan? Let me think for a minute...
I think silman's book is simple enough for 1200+.
Originally posted by Mad RookYou responded to diskamyl's claim regarding his opinion that HTRYC is suitable for 1200-players, by noting that NM Dan Heismann's opinion was that the book was only suitable for 1650+ players. Fair enough. But I found your remark: "So, should I believe you or Dan? Let me think for a minute..." to be unecessarily condescending. Why can't you give your opinion (which I happen to agree with in this case) without being flippant and rude? I think that you should apologize on this thread to diskamyl.
Then you're in sharp disagreement with one of the best chess instructors in the USA, Dan Heisman. (He recommends HTRYC and the associated workbook for players rated at least 1650 USCF.) So, should I believe you or Dan? Let me think for a minute...
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI'm around 1550-1600 & really struggled with HTRYC.
You responded to diskamyl's claim regarding his opinion that HTRYC is suitable for 1200-players, by noting that NM Dan Heismann's opinion was that the book was only suitable for 1650+ players. Fair enough. But I found your remark: "So, should I believe you or Dan? Let me think for a minute..." to be unecessarily condescending. Why can't you give y ...[text shortened]... out being flippant and rude? I think that you should apologize on this thread to diskamyl.
Winning Chess Strategy by Sierawan or Modern Chess Strategy by Pachman are much more easy to understand for -1650 players IMO.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerNow that I reread what I posted, I have to agree with you. My remark about believing him or Dan WAS rude and uncalled for, and I apologize to diskamyl. I hope he doesn't harbor any ill will, as it wasn't my intent to attack him personally. I think that I was just so exasperated at the number of people who recommend HTRYC to people who probably would have a hard time digesting it (me included), that I allowed myself to go too far with the caustic comments. Again, my apologies.
You responded to diskamyl's claim regarding his opinion that HTRYC is suitable for 1200-players, by noting that NM Dan Heismann's opinion was that the book was only suitable for 1650+ players. Fair enough. But I found your remark: "So, should I believe you or Dan? Let me think for a minute..." to be unecessarily condescending. Why can't you give y ...[text shortened]... out being flippant and rude? I think that you should apologize on this thread to diskamyl.
Originally posted by diskamylThere have been some people who've disagreed about Kotov's "Think Like a Grandmaster" as well. Jonathan Tisdall rails against it for over 20 pages in the first chapter of his book, "Improve Your Chess Now". And I've run across a bunch of other people who've also had problems with Kotov's methods. I haven't read any of Kotov's books myself, so I can't say. But caveat emptor.
I'd go with "think like a grandmaster" by kotov and "the reassess your chess workbook" by silman.
Originally posted by Mad Rook
I was just so exasperated at the number of people who recommend HTRYC to people who probably would have a hard time digesting it...
Originally posted by synesisI haven't read "Think Like a Grandmaster" either, although I might read it someday. I have heard some people whose opinion I respect say that the book has a few flaws, but despite the flaws, they still recommend it as a classic.
There have been some people who've disagreed about Kotov's "Think Like a Grandmaster" as well. Jonathan Tisdall rails against it for over 20 pages in the first chapter of his book, "Improve Your Chess Now". And I've run across a bunch of other people who've also had problems with Kotov's methods. I haven't read any of Kotov's books myself, so I can't say. But caveat emptor.
The only specific flaw that I'm aware of (not having read Mr. Tisdall's rant) is that, apparently Kotov claims that you should only look at any particular branch of the analysis tree one time. He claims it's a waste of time and energy to go over a branch multiple times. However, studies by De Groot (and reiterated more recently by Gobet) have shown that top-level players often go over analysis branches multiple times, which seems to contradict Kotov's claim.
I think most players will choose a move from the most obvious possibilities, then analyze it to a quiescent position. Most players (including the pro's) will then check the line several times before moving. People aren't like computers. They easily overlook branches of possibilites.
It may be more efficient to analyze a line once, and once only, but since we are human, we check several times. Players who don't, will likely blunder seriously.