Chess Course Books by Lev Alburt

Originally posted by Grandmouster
Just play too much garbage chess on the net

Let's say you just play too much garbage chess.Period.

Originally posted by wormwood
here you go again, throwing wild accusations about my criminal past and multiple accounts?!? very mature. and for the record, my last post was the first one in which I said anything negative about you. that was after several hostile posts from you. you're the one who flipped and started attacking when I merely observed your stats and graph. the numbers are there for everybody to see, disagreeing with them just makes you look stupid.

grow up.

Maybe you need to grow up.
Your just looking for some cheap fame, by riling up the posters. You have nothing positive or constructive to say here, and neither does the other professional troll.
your 15 mins are up youngster, let mommy have the PC back now..

Originally posted by Grandmouster
Maybe you need to grow up.

good comeback.

I would like to add my 2 cents into the original argument (not Lev, but books vrs games). What is a chess book really? It's usually just an annotated grouping of games. In this respect, the only difference between what the mouse and cat are advocating and reading a book is that when you get the move wrong, the author may explain why the other move was played. You may also be better at guess moves because the author has already revealed the key piece of the plan and seeing that, the rest falls into place. The best books may also introduce you to, or formalize concepts such as outpost squares, weak vrs good bishops etc. I prefer annotated games because I can glean this extra understanding. For those who just read the book and don't try to anticipate moves are just trying to get better without working at it. The key is to understand why moves are played and how plans change if differnt moves are played. (at least, in my mind).

Originally posted by zebano
For those who just read the book and don't try to anticipate moves are just trying to get better without working at it. The key is to understand why moves are played and how plans change if differnt moves are played. (at least, in my mind).[/b]

Good post

Originally posted by zebano
I would like to add my 2 cents into the original argument (not Lev, but books vrs games). What is a chess book really? It's usually just an annotated grouping of games. In this respect, the only difference between what the mouse and cat are advocating and reading a book is that when you get the move wrong, the author may explain why the other move was played. ...[text shortened]... hy moves are played and how plans change if differnt moves are played. (at least, in my mind).

I agree, especially as the author can group games into chapters where certain themes stand out. Authors can also explain reasons behind move choices, and after all, you want to think like a Grandmaster, not ape the kind of moves he might play.

Originally posted by masscat
Your rating increase is a real accomplishment, but I think you can do better. My experience was for years I read all the books and was a perennial 1650 (postal and OTB) player until I discovered the key, and my rating started to reflect what I discovered. OTB (which I no longer play peaked at 2095) and my current correspondence rating is 2020. Believe m ...[text shortened]... . Most of what I learned I got from the rare Masters who were willing to share what they knew!

Well, all I know, is one of my above posts in this thread came true. I am now 1603 and climbing. The Lev Alburt Chess course books work. I dedicated two months of my life (1 hour a day study and 1 hour of play), and my rating is rising above 1600s. Just before the beginning of the year, I struggled beating the 1350 level on my dedicated chess computer. It kept rating me at 1350 in 2005. Now, I get rated at 1850 on my chess computer when I beat it on the 72nd level and my rating on RHP is climbing because I take more time now on my moves. I'm not just making all my moves these past two weeks in 30 minutes, but reserving the indecisive moves for the downstairs computers at the library. I do agree, masscat. I think I can climb even higher and I have noticed that there is more to chess than just studying books. I've come to realize one of the most important things is identifying the type of player you are and matching that type of player with the openings one should play. One major reason my rating has climbed is because I am not a positional player, and yet I was playing d4 last year. I completely changed to e4 with the Lev Alburt course, and you can look at my rating (200 points improvement) on RHP.

Originally posted by Grandmouster
Maybe you need to grow up.
Your just looking for some cheap fame, by riling up the posters. You have nothing positive or constructive to say here, and neither does the other professional troll.
your 15 mins are up youngster, let mommy have the PC back now..

Looks like you had a new person to argue with, huh? LOL Cheers!

Originally posted by Ravello
You can't be real,you must be a joke.

I just would like you to refer to my rating now, Ravello. I've been taking a minute or two longer on my moves. I don't want to say "I told you so," but "proof is in the pudding."

Originally posted by powershaker
I just would like you to refer to my rating now, Ravello. I've been taking a minute or two longer on my moves. I don't want to say "I told you so," but "proof is in the pudding."

I am sure if you spent as much time studying chess on any book course you would see a great improvement. You get a book saying how it really does work, then you get everyone who improves after reading it (even by a small amount) saying how they really do work, when most people who do not benefit just walk away without making a fuss, and look for another way to improve. The real reason they have improved is that it is the first time those people have really studied chess, and reap the rewards.

Originally posted by welsharnie
I am sure if you spent as much time studying chess on any book course you would see a great improvement. You get a book saying how it really does work, then you get everyone who improves after reading it (even by a small amount) saying how they really do work, when most people who do not benefit just walk away without making a fuss, and look for another w ...[text shortened]... roved is that it is the first time those people have really studied chess, and reap the rewards.

I can't say I don't agree with those comments, welsharnie. It is odd that you say this. I realized in my studies that things I already knew were just not active in my OTB play. I knew 90% of the stuff Lev Alburt's course when I first started the course, but I wasn't applying those principles. And, I had played through the 100 annotated games in the Lev Alburt course. Once I had completely played through 100 annotated games - studying 1 game a day intensely - I realized I was much stronger all of the sudden. I was seeing improvement. I think the course did three things for me: 1)consolidated what I already learned and knew deep inside and helped me to apply that knowledge 2)associated me visually (through the 100 annotated games) to various traps and zaps, 3)increased my constant awareness of tactical possiblities and clarified opening themes.

Originally posted by powershaker
I can't say I don't agree with those comments, welsharnie. It is odd that you say this. I realized in my studies that things I already knew were just not active in my OTB play. I knew 90% of the stuff Lev Alburt's course when I first started the course, but I wasn't applying those principles. And, I had played through the 100 annotated games in the L ...[text shortened]... ps, 3)increased my constant awareness of tactical possiblities and clarified opening themes.

Exactly, the books are a catalyst. It sparks the improvement process, and speeds it up. Studying chess will always result in improvement in your play (until you reach your potential). The question is whether it does this better than other books.

Don't think I post here with the intention of winding people up. I always post what I think, and will back up my opinions, which I have formed for myself, over 7 years of playing chess regularly at a variety of levels. I don't disagree with people because I don't like them, only because I disagree with their opinions, and I won't flame anyone who disagrees with me if they can provide a decent arguement against what I have said. I will, however, always argue my views as best I can, but can be swayed to another point of view if someone can provide a persuasive arguement (I won't change my opinion just because someone better than me says I'm wrong). Hopefully along the way I can help some people out with problems or queries they have, and that I in turn can learn things myself.

Originally posted by powershaker
I can't say I don't agree with those comments, welsharnie. It is odd that you say this. I realized in my studies that things I already knew were just not active in my OTB play. I knew 90% of the stuff Lev Alburt's course when I first started the course, but I wasn't applying those principles. And, I had played through the 100 annotated games in the L ...[text shortened]... ps, 3)increased my constant awareness of tactical possiblities and clarified opening themes.

Nice work. How about you send those books over to me when your done huh? Either Air Mail or if your driving by into alberta,canada that would be great.

Thanks, Rahim