Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 03 Aug '06 18:18
    Glancing through the chess books at Amazon, ran across a new one that looked interesting: The Dogs of War. Described as an opening book based on Colle System, encompassing all levels of games--master to tournament player. I'm very much interested in the Colle for over the board play. Checked the reader reviews at bottom. Three which were ecstatic about the book. Noticed it was published in U.S. Written by David W. Hatch and Terese Hatch (presumably his wife, tho not sure). Checked their ratings on USCF web page. It appears that Mr. Hatch has a rating of 1664 and Mrs Hatch in 1200's (USCF). The question that arises--Would the book be of any value, since the suggestions and analysis would be based on at most a 1600's opinion, unless of course he extensively used computers and the research of experts? As an 1800 (USCF) player, would the information be helpful to my game? At first, I thought it was ridiculous. Then on further thought, maybe it would help my game, more than Kasparov (way out of my league) writing about the najdorf and lines 20 moves deep. Any thoughts on this? Incidentally, I don't think this is Mr. Hatch's first chess book.
  2. 03 Aug '06 18:36
    Originally posted by buddy2
    Glancing through the chess books at Amazon, ran across a new one that looked interesting: The Dogs of War. Described as an opening book based on Colle System, encompassing all levels of games--master to tournament player. I'm very much interested in the Colle for over the board play. Checked the reader reviews at bottom. Three which were ecstatic about t ...[text shortened]... . Any thoughts on this? Incidentally, I don't think this is Mr. Hatch's first chess book.
    Let's assume for a second you were unable to trace Mr and Mrs Hatch' ratings.Would you buy the book judging by the reader reviews you read?
    We all like the authors of chessbooks to have a large amount of chessknowledge and skill.But with the current engines analytical skills at our disposal does it really matter?I doubt it.
    Then again,if it's a book full of engine analyses then why buy it?Might as well buy an eric schillerbook *shivers*

    Tell you what,you buy it and let us know if it's any good
  3. 03 Aug '06 19:03
    I shouldn't let the rating bother you.....

    think about it.

    If you gave a 2300 player an hour to analyse a position and gave me (1600) 3 weeks who would make the better analysis of the position?

    I (1600) would have enough time to play practice games, search databases, use computers, consult other players etc, etc, and of course, use my own skill.

    Perhaps, given the extra time I have, it would me that would post the better analysis, then again, maybe not.
  4. 03 Aug '06 19:27
    You shouldn't judge the book by the authors rating. Lets say there are two books intended for players rated below 800. One of the authors is a 1300, the author is a 2600. If I were a player rated below 800, I wouldn't care how highly rated the author is, as long as their method worked.
  5. 03 Aug '06 20:18
    I'd be skeptical. The book has games from Class E players to grandmasters in it, probably annofritzed.
  6. 03 Aug '06 20:23
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    I shouldn't let the rating bother you.....

    think about it.

    If you gave a 2300 player an hour to analyse a position and gave me (1600) 3 weeks who would make the better analysis of the position?

    I (1600) would have enough time to play practice games, search databases, use computers, consult other players etc, etc, and of course, use my own skill. ...[text shortened]... the extra time I have, it would me that would post the better analysis, then again, maybe not.
    probably not. and what if kasparov took three weeks?
  7. 03 Aug '06 20:24
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    I shouldn't let the rating bother you.....

    think about it.

    If you gave a 2300 player an hour to analyse a position and gave me (1600) 3 weeks who would make the better analysis of the position?

    I (1600) would have enough time to play practice games, search databases, use computers, consult other players etc, etc, and of course, use my own skill. ...[text shortened]... the extra time I have, it would me that would post the better analysis, then again, maybe not.
    i think you dont have a right to teach chess unless youre a Master at least, how do they know if they are teaching the right way if theyre not even good themselves?
  8. 03 Aug '06 20:56
    To do Mr. Hatch justice, he does say in the intro., which Amazon allows you to read, that "This book is not intended to be a treatise on theory or a how-to-play-the-opening book,but rather a practical study of the Colle System games played at all levels.' He goes on: "The purpose of this bookis to showcase the Colle System in practical play, to pique your curiosity about this opening system and to motivate, challenge, and inspire you to give this resourceful system a try." In that light, maybe Mr. Hatch does have a good idea for a book. One of the gripes I have with grandmaster opening analysis books is that they ignore many weird, stupid, or bland responses that i run across in over the board play. Let's face it, the common opponents in chess aren't up on the latest cutting-edge lines. They're either playing something they've played for years or something off the top of their heads. I play the most logical (in my mind) move, then later i go to Fritz to check it's database and more often than not, zero games have been played with this line. Maybe we should have more chessbooks like this, who knows?
  9. 03 Aug '06 21:13
    www.beginnersgame.com
    Yes anyone can publish a chess book.
  10. 03 Aug '06 22:41
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    i think you dont have a right to teach chess unless youre a Master at least, how do they know if they are teaching the right way if theyre not even good themselves?
    Your thinkng is flawed.


    Allow me to demonstrate.

    you have $10 and you MUST SPEND IT ON CHESS....

    (also assume you are a 1300 player)

    a number of options present themselves. all of them costing $10

    1) a Hour lesson with Kasparov (2800 player)
    2) 1 single 2 two hour lesson with an IM (2400)
    3) 2 lessons (each 2hrs long) with a Master
    4) 4 lessons (each 3hrs long) with a 1700 player (400 pts above you)

    **all players are equally good at teaching**

    Now ask yourself, as a 1300 player - what is the best way to spend that money in order to improve.

    personally, I think 4, or 3 is the best option in this instance, simply because an hour with kasparov would be wasted on you - in order for you to imporve kasparov would have to spend most of that hour teaching you simple tactics (which the 1700 player could of done).......
  11. 03 Aug '06 23:56
    I woudln't buy the book but you can be a great player for one opening and be bad at all the other ones.

    He might have studied the Colle very deeply but since you don't always get white, his rating suffers. Just a thought.
  12. 04 Aug '06 00:49
    Do you really think, Rahim, you can be a great player in only one opening? So for example, you could be a master playing the Colle and a 1500 in Queen's Gambit? I do agree you could be a little better in one opening because of in depth study. And in the practical world in your opponent knows you're a great Colle player, he'd try to steer it away from normal lines ( I know that's difficult in Colle, but some lines are better than others facing it). This is the same idea that the opening is the main source of a player's strength's and weakness. I think it's pretty much agreed that tactics and strategy are the backbone of a player's ability, and that comes through study and practice of tactics and strategy--not through learning opening lines. I bet half the books marketed are opening books, because they appear to be a quick fix for what's wrong with one's game. In reality a player would be better off reading a Silman or Soltis or whoever. I like the Colle because you don't have to think much, but that could be a habit that could come back to bite you.l
  13. 04 Aug '06 01:36
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    Your thinkng is flawed.


    Allow me to demonstrate.

    you have $10 and you MUST SPEND IT ON CHESS....

    (also assume you are a 1300 player)

    a number of options present themselves. all of them costing $10

    1) a Hour lesson with Kasparov (2800 player)
    2) 1 single 2 two hour lesson with an IM (2400)
    3) 2 lessons (each 2hrs long) with a Master
    4 ...[text shortened]... spend most of that hour teaching you simple tactics (which the 1700 player could of done).......
    it would be more affective to have four lessings three hours long with kasparov, even though it would cost more money, money was not an issue when i made that statement, thats a whole different story lol
  14. 04 Aug '06 03:25
    Originally posted by buddy2
    Do you really think, Rahim, you can be a great player in only one opening? So for example, you could be a master playing the Colle and a 1500 in Queen's Gambit? I do agree you could be a little better in one opening because of in depth study. And in the practical world in your opponent knows you're a great Colle player, he'd try to steer it away from norma ...[text shortened]... on't have to think much, but that could be a habit that could come back to bite you.l
    Sorry I didn't mean master as in master. He might be really really good at one opening.

    I know some people who are brillant in the opening and always get an advantage but lose it in the middlegame and endgame.

    This one person from our club has amazing opening knowledge. You ask him anything and he knows what the name is the stats, which important Gm's play that opening etc...

    In the opening he always get a great position but after that it's all downhill. We told him numerous times if your middlegame and endgame was as good as your opening you would be a master. But he likes studying openings and doesn't waste time on the other stuff and so he is stuck around 1700-1800 always.
  15. 04 Aug '06 04:03
    Originally posted by RahimK
    Sorry I didn't mean master as in master. He might be really really good at one opening.

    I know some people who are brillant in the opening and always get an advantage but lose it in the middlegame and endgame.

    This one person from our club has amazing opening knowledge. You ask him anything and he knows what the name is the stats, which important Gm's ...[text shortened]... enings and doesn't waste time on the other stuff and so he is stuck around 1700-1800 always.
    Similar thing in my chess club. This is pretty amazing. There's this one guy rated about 800. He consistently gets into situations in the openings where he has a far superior position to 1400's, 1600's, and the occasional 1800. But his middle and endgame are so bad that it keeps him an 800. When I tell him this, he shrugs it off and continues to talk to some 1700 of some obscure variation of the french defense.