Originally posted by steven9Well, there are always the classics like Nimzowitch's "My System". On the other hand, some of them are kind of a slow read. I recommend, Yasser Serawain's (sp?) book from the Everyman Chess series called "Tactics". Very easy read and teaches some invaluable tactical ideas. You may also want to check out CT-Art...great computer program ($26 on amazon.com) that teaches chess tactics. I'm a beginner myself, and I've been told over and over again that the fastest way to improve is by studying tactics.
Does anyone know of any good chess books to buy..
Yasser Seirawan's 'Winning chess...' series seems very good.I'm working in the one about endings right now.Excellent material and clear explanations.He really seems to know how to teach chess,which is not as common as you might think.I assume the other books are at an equally high level.
Other than that,I was going to give you links to some earlier threads,which I kept in a textfile,this question has popped up numerous times before,but I seem to have lost that file 🙁
If you see a book called "Rapid Chess Improvement" by Michael de la Maza (published by Everyman Chess), check it out...
The author is a player who improved his rating by 700 points over a two year period, basically by studying tactics. He actually invented a study plan (which uses CT ART, a chess program with over 1,000 tactical puzzles) which, if followed, can vastly improve your game...
There are a number of problems with Chess Books today, mainly being that , once you learn the basic moves and rules of the game, there is really no clear way to continue your study of the game... most of us buy chess books that we like,or that look interesting, which allows us to increase our chess knowledge, but not necessarily our chess understanding.
de la Maza points out that, at the class level, openings really don't matter (of course, you should always follow opening PRINCIPLES), but it is not necessary to memorize a myriad of openings in order to become an Expert player (the author became an Expert without knowing any openings, not even the Ruy Lopez). The reason is that, in games between Class players, there are too many tactical blunders for the opening to be of much importance. Silman echoes this in his books, and even Kasparov says that openings "really don't matter at the beginning level".
The author gives you a lot of ideas in how to study tactics, and even outlines the exact program he used to improve his rating by 700 points in two years (he moved into the 2000 range during that time). Also of note is the fact that he was in his early 30s when he embarked on this
program.
If you're wondering how I'm doing on this program, I'm not, at the moment. I picked up the book last summer, and was setting up a program to study tactics the way he did, but unfortunatley, we were hit by Hurricane Charley on August 13, 2004, and our house (not to mention our lives) are just getting back to normal now. I hope to pick up on this study program, but even the little I've been able to do has helped a lot. Our newspaper prints a Chess Problem every day, and I'm able to solve most of them in less than a minute. I don't even have to look at the "clue" they give, all I look at is which side has the move.
But seriously, if you are looking for a good book on how to improve your game quickly, this is a good place to start.
I also recommend "Win at Chess" by Ron Curry. Very good intermediate book, he covers all aspects of the game,and tells you how his game improved at each level (he's over 2000), and what he learned at each level (the importance of planning, the importance of knowing tactics, etc). It's a good read.
Silman's books are a good read too, I think, but de la Maza points out that if you pick any position in Silman's books and play the side that is winning (according to Silman), you'll usually find that a strong computer program will bust Silman's "plans" wide open. In other words, the computer will not play the same moves that Silman assumes you should play. I've tested a number of Silman's analyses with CM 10th Addition, and de la Maza is correct. This is not a knock on Silman or his books, because the same thing will happen with a lot of Middlegame Strategy books, when analyzed with a good chess program.
Tactics is something that you can teach yourself. And knowing tactics is the key to winning 95% of the time (especially in games involving "class" players - i.e. under 2000 rating).
But yes, "Rapid Chess Improvement" by Michael de la Maza and "Win at Chess" by Ron Curry...check them out if you see them in a store.
Originally posted by TheBloopI have a dozen dozen chess books. Knowing which to recommend requires more information. What aspects of your game do you wish to improve?
If you see a book called "Rapid Chess Improvement" by Michael de la Maza (published by Everyman Chess), check it out...
I don't think you can go wrong studying classic games: the ones that most masters have memorized. The World's Gretaest Chess Games by Burgess, Nunn, and Emms contains 100 such games.
Read the review of de la Maza's book at www.jeremysilman.com before you drop any money for his book.
Michael de la Maza has not played a rated game since some time before he published his book. Why is that?
You can look at his tournament history at www.uschess.org.
Originally posted by WulebgrI briefly took a look at Silman's review...I'll read it in full this weekend...
I have a dozen dozen chess books. Knowing which to recommend requires more information. What aspects of your game do you wish to improve?
I don't think you can go wrong studying classic games: the ones that most masters have memorized. The World's Gretaest Chess Games by Burgess, Nunn, and Emms contains 100 such games.
Read the review of de la ...[text shortened]... blished his book. Why is that?
You can look at his tournament history at www.uschess.org.
Silman gets a wee bit sarcastic, suggesting that he'll write a book called "Grandmaster In Two Weeks" and get Bobby Fischer to endorse it...
de la Maza never said that going from 1300 to 2000 was easy...what's Silman's problem? Is he upset because someone invented their own program that they used to go from 1300 to 2000 in two years (not two weeks, Jerry, two YEARS..Y-E-A-R-S). Or was he upset because de la Maza said one critical thing about Silman's books (as well as other books on Middlegame strategy)?
de la Maza went from 1300 to 2000 in two years...that's the bottom line... I don't think that one should blow off the idea that this is possible...I'm not saying I'm going to do that...the main point that de la Maza was making is that tactical weakness is the main weakness of "Class" Players, and decide virtually every game played between class players...and his program can help eliminiate tactical oversights, and thus, improve one's rating (since you're not dropping pieces en prise).
Thanks for pointing out the review from Silman's site... I'm bookmarking every chess site I hear about, and I didn't have his yet... I'll look forward to reading the rest of his review...
Two final points... de la Meza was about 30 years old when he did this... everyone told him it was impossible, that players that "old" can't improve that much... he proved them wrong, that's all. His book is just one of thousands of resources out there...
You are also quite correct in saying that the original poster needs to know what area of his game he wants to improve. That's an important key in figuring out what kinds of books to buy.
There is a difference between chess Knowledge and Understanding...It's always nice to know that you need to create, for example) Knight Outposts (knowledge)... the key is, how do you do it (Understanding)?
And finally, I don't knwo why de la Maza hasn't played a rated game in a while? But I'm not sure that's relevant to what he actualy accomplished.
Have a good one!
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf
the above will tell you all you need to know about maza's method without buying the book. the book doesn't contain the tactical puzzles you will need to run through the course, your expected to find those yourself. i had a flick through the book in a shop and wouldn't buy it, there is a huge amount of padding for what is really a simple idea: study tactics like a madman and you'll improve.
i wouldn't recommend ct-art 3 for the original poster, it's fairly advanced tactics, i struggle on level 3 on a lot of the tactics. it's a great program but for an advanced beginner i'd recommend convekta's 'chess tactics for beginners' which contains around 1300 easier tactics. i'd simply do them over and over until you can do even the higher level puzzles in a couple of minutes or less.
Originally posted by TheBloopSilman and others contend that de la Maza gave up chess because his method--both the tactical training and the thinking technique he advocates during competition--destroys the allure and fun of chess.
And finally, I don't knwo why de la Maza hasn't played a rated game in a while? But I'm not sure that's relevant to what he actualy accomplished.
If you reduce de la Maza's ideas to "study tactics like a madman" then he has said nothing worth paying for. Everyone who writes about chess has noted the importance of tactics. The questions one must consider concern how to study tactics, and how to balance such study with learning principles of strategy.
I tried de la Maza's method for about three months (based on the Chess Cafe article). The intensity of the method reached a point after that time when work and family precluded continuing with the training. I spend some time nearly every day working tactical problems, but de la Maza's method is not practical.
Originally posted by WulebgrI definitely agree that de la Maza's method is not practical for most people (myself included). At 45, I don't see myself running through 1000+ tactical problems in one day, as is required by the seven circles program. If I were to do the full program, it would be a lot more spread out than five months.
Silman and others contend that de la Maza gave up chess because his method--both the tactical training and the thinking technique he advocates during competition--destroys the allure and fun of chess.
If you reduce de la Maza's ideas to ...[text shortened]... king tactical problems, but de la Maza's method is not practical.
It's important to note that de la Maza admitted he was not a "Master", but merely an "Expert". And his book was aimed at Adult Class players who wanted to improve rapidly. And tactical blunders do decide virtually every game between class players. He went from 1300 to 2000 without knowing ANY "real" openings...although he obviously knows opening principles.
I don't know if any IM or GM will ever write a book explaining the exact step by step method they used to go from 1000 (or whatever) to IM / GM... if one ever did, it would probably sell a lot of copies... I'd love to know how much work was necessary to reach IM or GM levels...not that I would ever DO that much work... but it would be interesting to know. But we probably never will know.
Finally, de la Maza pointed out that while some teachers (e.g. Pandolfini) are known for their work with young players, and others (Dvoretsky) are known for helping strong players become world-class players, there are no instructors who are known for their ability to help adult class players achieve rapid improvement. That's all he set out to do.
I think that, if nothing else, Maza's method does point out that chess is 90% tactics, at least at the class level. Knowing the openings really only comes into play at the IM or GM levels, due to all of the tactical errors found in Class play. Although, it is very important to know good opening principles.
I like Silman's books myself..I have 4 of them (Reassess Your Chess, The Amatuer's Mind, Complete Book of Chess Strategy, and Reassess Your Chess Workbook). I also have several of Pandolfini's books (The ABCs of Chess; Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps; Chessercizes; The Chess Doctor, as well as a couple of others.
I have Capablanca's "A Primer of Chess" as well as a couple of Reinfeld Books. I have about 20 books by various other authors.
I love reading about chess almost as much as playing it.
TheBloop,
I think you're wrong about the openings. Tactical manuevers are difficult to set up against a well-prepared opponent, and being prepared yourself makes it very difficult for your opponent to get an edge. I think that studying, even memorizing opening theory will improve your game somewhat dramatically on any level. Investigating the openings and paying a lot of attention to detail is fun; it's what you need to be doing in each and every one of your games.
Originally posted by TheBloopI'm wondering if you read de la Maza's article "400 points in 400 days" as well. I've heard that the book does not add much that is of substance to this article, which basically spells out his method. Not having read the book though, I'm in not position to judge. I do believe the method has a lot of merrit though and am trying a sort of modified version of it It would be great if there was some sort of discussion group for those interested in de la Maza's method, to see how various people have modified things to fit their lifestyle and the results they got etc.
I definitely agree that de la Maza's method is not practical for most people...