books

Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca. Botvinnik thought quite highly of it, said it was "the best chess book ever written". It's not a big book, but it has great tips and is easy to understand, unlike some of the monstrosities that will just collect dust after you buy them.
It is a beginners book, to be sure, but if Botvinnik liked it so much, it's gotta be worth having.

Originally posted by Talisman
If you're reading books that tell you there's no need for extensive calculation, you're being seriously mislead!
The truth of any given position is in the variations. No amount of thoughtful moves will ever change that.

have you read any of Alexander Bangiev square strategy theory? if not what gives you the audacity to comment on something that you have never read or studied? its an assumption that you are making and as any student of Platonic philosophy will tell you, it is futile and dangerous to base anything on an assumption, is it not?

the truths of any given position are not entirely in the variations, that again is a piece of nonsense! the variations are merely used to validate further any choices that we have made after first and foremostly seeking weaknesses in our opponents respective areas which is done by looking at it positionally. let me enlighten you, for example we play 1.e4, why? what variation is there to calculate when making this move? thats right none at all, so then why do we make it? is there not other criteria that must be used to evaluate the position, and this is done not through the calculation of variation as you suggest, but positionally, is it not? there is a weak pawn on f7, is there not? there is a weak pawn on c7, is there not? this understanding leads us to target these areas theoretically at first, we are thinking in general terms but trying to act in a concrete way.

i am not a great fan of silman but its this type of thinking that he is arguing against, i take, he takes, i take he takes etc etc. its useless in the formation of planning and strategically makes no sense whatsoever. if you want to go on viewing chess in this way then i wish you well, i myself need reasons for considering any moves and viewing things first and fore mostly positionally, (Bangiev is entirely different from Silamn in this regard), basing our choice of candidate moves according to positional dynamics, using calculation to validate and check these candidate moves, which may or may not be tactical combination's, and then and only then deciding on the actual game move.

i realize that this approach calls for more than studying tactical exercises and may seem unnatural and counterproductive at first, however, tactics spring from good positions and good position arise from tactics, the two are intrinsically linked, no one can deny, but basing decisions on simply looking at variations is seriously lacking and if you are reading books that tell you otherwise then its you that is being seriously misled - regards Robert.

Assuming 'Reassess your chess' is talked about here I feel it's treated a bit unfair.Sure,you must look for tactics first but what do you do when there are none?Heads I move a bishop,tails I move a knight?
If you constantly miss 2-3 move tactics you're not the right audience for the book.That doesn't mean the book's bad.
I have to admit I haven't read it but from what I've heard it does a good job in trying to guide people in positional play.The thing with a book like this is (a) you have to be ready for it (b) the method used has to appeal to you.

Originally posted by Katastroof
Assuming 'Reassess your chess' is talked about here I feel it's treated a bit unfair.Sure,you must look for tactics first but what do you do when there are none?Heads I move a bishop,tails I move a knight?
If you constantly miss 2-3 move tactics you're not the right audience for the book.That doesn't mean the book's bad.
I have to admit I haven't read i k like this is (a) you have to be ready for it (b) the method used has to appeal to you.

I meant The Amateur's Mind which is aimed for lower intermediates up & really should have a disclaimer in massive bold type in the introduction something along the lines of:
Only follow the strategic advice in this book after you have thoroughly checked for any tactics for both in any given position.

To quote from p.3 "[/i]Before you get carried away, let me remind you: DON'T look at individual moves! In fact, never calculate until you understand the basic components (imbalances) of the position.[/i]"

Hmmm Mr. Silman. So my clock is running down & my opponent makes a move that after a brief calculation of forcing moves would reveal a # in 2 threat. So I look for imbalances first & waste time instead.
Ok - you're the International Master so that must be correct... 🙄

its an incredibly interesting debate, this seeming interplay between positional/strategic concepts and tactics.

In a sense it can be viewed historically, for example after the death of Alexander Alekhine , that master of combination, a new era of 'scientific' chess as espoused by Botvinnik appeared, then there was Tal of which Botvinnik himself stated: "I was surprised by his ability to figure out complex variations. Then the way he sets out the game; he was not interested in the objectivity of the position, weather it's better or worse, he only needed room for his pieces. He was tactically outplaying me and I made mistakes."...

Tal changed the world of chess back then... many players thought a new era of attacking play was at hand, and some chess coaches went so far as to insist that their students play aggressively and sacrifice whenever possible... But as Tal put it: "These poor young students must have breathed a sigh of relief when I lost the title back to Botvinnik (in 1961)... Now they could go back to learning to play calm positional chess again"...

and it seems the two will forever be promulgated by there respective adherents!

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
I meant The Amateur's Mind which is aimed for lower intermediates up & really should have a disclaimer in massive bold type in the introduction something along the lines of:
[b]Only follow the strategic advice in this book after you have thoroughly checked for any tactics for both in any given position.

To quote from p.3 "[/i]Before you get carr ...[text shortened]... t & waste time instead.
Ok - you're the International Master so that must be correct... 🙄[/b]

Ah,ok.Know nothing about that one.From a practical viewpoint that is indeed dodgy advice.

Originally posted by diskamyl
I got most out of Chessmaster tutorials. Actually I owe most of my enthusiasm for this game to that program, and Josh Waitzkin for making chess very interesting.

Seconded. As a beginner go with that !! After that tactics tactics and maybe Irnev Chernev's Logical chess move by move

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
This is what I don't understand about Silman's approach.
He says that in any given position you should first look for imbalances.
What good is this in OTB when you waste time because the first thing you should be looking for are tactics for both sides via check/captures/threats?

If I remember correctly, Silman gives a mention (at least in 'Reassess Your Chess'😉 to scanning the board for tactics first. I think he quotes Larry C. to look for "cheapos", or something like that.

So yes, first you need to look for tactics in a position, including all potential themes (pins, skewers, deflections, decoys, 'Evaluate all captures and checks' - Purdy, etc.). Silman then tries to direct you to a method of what is the best strategic plan.

Note in any strategic methodology, in OTB play you don't go through the full analysis every move. The point is to understand the position and make a move that improves yours.

I like Silman's method, even if he seems a bit strange in other aspects. He managed to organize much of what I learned but didn't understand in 'My System' and other positional tomes.

His books aren't the greatest ever, I like Euwe & Nimzo's positional books better, but his writing is easy to understand and was a great help when learning the basics of a position.

btw, I also learned a lot from Fine's Middlegame book. As in his better known endgame book, he explains things in logical fashion. However, don't buy the algebraic version - it was poorly done, with errors and other changes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have you read any of Alexander Bangiev square strategy theory? if not what gives you the audacity to comment on something that you have never read or studied? its an assumption that you are making and as any student of Platonic philosophy will tell you, it is futile and dangerous to base anything on an assumption, is it not?

the truths of any gi ...[text shortened]... ing books that tell you otherwise then its you that is being seriously misled - regards Robert.

Well I have to admit to never having read the book that you are referring to and to be honest i never intend to. I was simply responding to your comment and i quote “this is somewhat different in that its aims are to get the student to be self reliant, making thoughtful moves without the need of memorizing a plethora of theoretical lines, extensive calculation or ironically the need for books!"

Different if not down right impossible I’d say. Thoughtful moves without the need for extensive calculation? Well there are of course points in a game where this is possible and the opening few moves are probably the most extreme example of this. I'm not saying long drawn out variations have to be calculated at every turn, obviously this isn't the case, but there are going to be several points in any game where accurate calculation is required to sort the meat from the fat so to speak. Variations are the truth, they never lie, Something either is or it isn't. Positional evaluation may well start you on the road to where you need to start calculating but it will only ever give a general appraisal of matters at hand.

Of course positional considerations have their place; a weak square, superior minor piece, an open file for a Rook. However this type of evaluation is really just a means of narrowing down the possible relevant variations in a position. You simply have to able to calculate to play the game and the more complex a position becomes the deeper and broader that calculation must go. It's a plain and simple fact about this game of ours.

You can play through any annotated master game and find the annotator [if he's so inclined] can do a marvelous job of using mainly prose to explain what's going on. Of course even then you're not getting the full picture, you simply can't be but the words of a Chernev or Purdy can be enough to give you a good feel for what's going on.
Then however they will reach a point in the game that simply can't be explained with words. The annotator has to use those damn awful variations to describe what's going on.

Well my friend, variations and calculation are the language of chess This is fact not an assumption and I honestly think that people who try to promote otherwise are, to be quite honest very misleading.
Good luck with the platonic philosophy by the way.

Originally posted by Talisman
Well I have to admit to never having read the book that you are referring to and to be honest i never intend to. I was simply responding to your comment and i quote “this is somewhat different in that its aims are to get the student to be self reliant, making thoughtful moves without the need of memorizing a plethora of theoretical lines, extensive calculat quite honest very misleading.
Good luck with the platonic philosophy by the way.

Platonic philosophy is a deception in itself, as is many things purporting to impart wisdom but doing none thing of the sort. however this is a chess forum and i have not read him since i was fourteen, a long time ago.

what he does elucidate upon however does have a bearing on chess and was admirably captured by the Scottish philosopher John Stuart Mills on his treatise regarding the nature of genius. this may seem strange but there are many ideas that we take for granted, what Plato, Mills and chess players most notably Fischer did was to question this 'wisdom', thus rather than accepting so called ,'truths', what Mills saw, was what Fisher was to realize and Bangiev is able to crystallize, is that originality of thought is the prime objective! not only is it different and possible but its the only way to facilitate our aims! All else is mere opinion!

Variations and calculation are for you the language of chess, that does not mean that they are for others, for example, to illustrate, the musical notes that we know of are clearly defined and finite, as is musical harmony and composition, what the student must do is arrange these clearly defined and finite notes into sequences which are aurally pleasing and to do so in an original fashion, otherwise what we get is a 'cover', version. Is it not the same with chess, is originality of thought not the prime objective? some may argue that winning is the prime objective, however Fischer has proven that the two are not only conducive for success, but necessary! just ask Scottish grandmaster Paul Motwani, his book, creative original opening lines advocates this approach and even though i have not read it, it surely carries the same spirit of originality in thinking that is to be aimed for.

its a pity you will never embrace Bangiev, understandable though, people generally don't like to have their long held cherished ideas challenged, their thought process examined, after all it takes humility to accept that we are wrong, which in the present climate is sadly viewd as a weakness rather than a strength, never the less, it has been good reading your comments, and interestingly what Bangiev has in my own experience led me grasp is to be able to annotate games of amateurs and masters for myself, something that i was unable to do in the past and which has led to an incredible joy and appreciation for those games. yes i remain a noob, but a rather appreciative and in my own measly world an enlightened one, kind regards robert.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a pity you will never embrace Bangiev, understandable though, people generally don't like to have their long held cherished ideas challenged, their thought process examined, after all it takes humility to accept that we are wrong, which in the present climate is sadly viewd as a weakness rather than a strength, never the less, it has been good readi ...[text shortened]... noob, but a rather appreciative and in my own measly world an enlightened one, kind regards robert.

I've been following these Bangiev Squares discussions with mild interest. Of course, I'm still learning the basics, and as I'm sure you remember, I'm of the conventional belief that tactics take precedence over strategy. (I'm sure neither of us wants to go down that road of discussion again, hehe.)

But I'm willing to keep an open mind about new theories and methods. However, I guess my soul isn't quite as adventurous as yours, since I'm not willing to invest a long period of study in a method that appears to me to not have been endorsed yet by a significant number of strong players and coaches.

I've only seen one review on the method (Chesscafe), and it wasn't too flattering. As far as strong players and coaches are concerned, yes Mr. Bangiev endorses the method, but then he's selling the CDs. I'm not aware of any others that are praising the method. If there are others, I'd be happy to hear about them. And, yes, I am aware of the other RHP thread with you and Ivanhoe, which is a serious discussion of the method. But frankly, after about two or three lines of reading, my eyes start glazing over. 😞

I'm not necessarily saying that I think the Bangiev strategy is a bunch of hooey, but from a practical perspective, I want to see some other strong endorsments of the method before I decide to jump on the bandwagon and invest my study time. But if you derive enjoyment from learning the Bangiev method, then I say, more power to you!

Originally posted by Chipotle
If I remember correctly, Silman gives a mention (at least in 'Reassess Your Chess'😉 to scanning the board for tactics first. I think he quotes Larry C. to look for "cheapos", or something like that.

So yes, first you need to look for tactics in a position, including all potential themes (pins, skewers, deflections, decoys, 'Evaluate all captures and che 't buy the algebraic version - it was poorly done, with errors and other changes.

In Chapter 2 of "Reassess", Silman gives what he calls "the rules of combination" which are a short list of factors that make a combination possible. They are:

1) Open or weakened King. Also includes Stalemated King;

2) Undefended pieces (this does not include pawns!);

3) Inadequately defended pieces.

It's a good list (though I'm not sure I would exclude undefended pawns). He also recommends Kotov's Think Like a Grandmaster though Soltis does critique that book a bit in How to Choose a Chess Move.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In Chapter 2 of "Reassess", Silman gives what he calls "the rules of combination" which are a short list of factors that make a combination possible. They are:

1) Open or weakened King. Also includes Stalemated King;

2) Undefended pieces (this does not include pawns!);

3) Inadequately defended pieces.

I ...[text shortened]... a Grandmaster though Soltis does critique that book a bit in How to Choose a Chess Move.

I haven't read any of Silman's books, but Silman's "rules of combination" sounds a lot like a partial list of Heisman's "seeds of tactical destruction". I think Heisman's idea is that the "seeds" are to be used in sort of an initial evaluation to determine how much time you should invest in looking for tactics and combinations. If "seeds" are present, then tactics are likely to exist, and you should probably spend considerable available time trying to find tactics.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have you read any of Alexander Bangiev square strategy theory? if not what gives you the audacity to comment on something that you have never read or studied? its an assumption that you are making and as any student of Platonic philosophy will tell you, it is futile and dangerous to base anything on an assumption, is it not?

aren't you assuming the bangiev method works here? 🙂

has anybody ever gotten anything concrete out of it? because all I've ever seen are people who admit that it takes a lot of work, and sort of assume it's gonna pay off eventually, even though "they don't understand it fully yet". is there any solid evidence to suggest a bangiev follower has any advantage over a regular student? if one uses a constant amount of X hours of work on bangiev, and the other the same amount on regular analysis on master games (for example), will there be a difference?

because it seems to me every complex way to train is waste of time when there still are simple, straightforward ways to progress. -people did get good already before bangiev.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
I've been following these Bangiev Squares discussions with mild interest. Of course, I'm still learning the basics, and as I'm sure you remember, I'm of the conventional belief that tactics take precedence over strategy. (I'm sure neither of us wants to go down that road of discussion again, hehe.)

But I'm willing to keep an open mind about new theories ...[text shortened]... derive enjoyment from learning the Bangiev method, then I say, more power to you!

hi, Mad Rook, yes i would rather avoid going down that tactics v positional discussion as fun and as animated as it was.

there is actually a great deal of difference in quality between the different cds that he has brought out and there is an incredible amount of repetition between them as well, however, cd 1 is the application of his theory to the study of tactics, cd2 is the application of his theory to the openings, cd 3 is the application of his theory with particular intent for the middle game and cd4 is a rather interesting repertoire for black. cd3 is undoubtedly the most comprehensive and the best.

the discussions that you see between myself and ivanhoe (2100+) rated player look like some strange algebraic code but are in fact incredibly simple, what Bangiev gives is an understanding of why we make every move (this is linked to strategic goals, areas that we wish to control and areas that we wish to attack, generally we control or take possession of specific squares positionally, and we attack specific squares and areas tactically, depending on the principle that if our pieces are to work harmoniously then they must be directed towards a single colour complex, thus we must either be trying to occupy the white squares and attack the black or vise versa, this is borne out that, bishops, pawns and knights can only attack one colour at a time, and if they are to be effective , the must co-operate on a single colour.), this in turn encourages our own thought process and engenders above all originality and confidence.

you say that you are unwilling to invest time in the process, whats six months in chess study time, someone like you could make leaps and bounds and really put the study to effective use, and the beauty of it is, is that you can utilize your own games, tactical puzzles, openings, grandmaster/amateur games etc etc. how many books do you know that discuss the actual thought process, that intellectual mechanism whereby we choose appropriate moves depending on the dynamic criteria of a position? nae we must be content with reams of variations or insipid statements like 'white wishes to stake a claim in the centre', etc etc let me quote you a piece from the introduction and see if you do not agree

'What actually happens when you play chess? You have to make moves. But every move is the result of thought, the end-result of an intellectual effort. Thoughts must always be subordinated to a specific goal or starting point. As Stefan Zweig pointed out, thoughts need a solid base or else they start to spin and create meaningless circles. This intellectual effort, with as a goal the finding of an appropriate move, the actual "chess thinking process" will in future be called "thought process" in short.

But the meaning of this very concept "thought process" is much disputed in chess circles. It is almost impossible to learn anything in chess books about how one thinks or how one learns. Recommendations by experts restrict themselves to laying down the goals of the intellectual effort: evaluating the position, selecting candidate moves, and finally determining the best of the candidate moves. But how you should go about thinking how to achieve these goals is never discussed.

This means that each chess player considers moves in his own particular way, develops his own personal technique for problem solving and acquires his own individual thought process. But there are criteria which are common to all thought processes:

- the position must be evaluated according to definite criteria
- you must always respect the principle "think in general terms, act in a concrete way"
- there must be a baseline.',

has not this been your own experience, as it has been mine, and countless others? respect to you Mad Rook my friend, i admire your honesty and value your thoughts and thank you for such kind comments, its truly refreshing - regards Robert.