Chess lessons.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Hi Willy,

I recommend John Nunn's Understanding Chess Move by Move:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Chess-Move-John-Nunn/dp/1901983412

I also recommend a smaller book from Lars Bo Hansen, which is a written version of 4 of his private lessons:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-GM-Lars-Hansen/dp/1480171913/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425198142&sr=1-9&keywords=lars+bo+hansen

Hope this helps!

Paul

Does the chess rating of the players make much difference as to how well they teach? Both these guys are around 2600, quite a bit lower than the top dudes. Would the top dudes be better teachers? Say the 2750 crowd?

From what I've heard, as long as they're substantially stronger than the student, what matters more is a player's teaching strength. It's like a computer. Is it worth a substantial amount more to buy Komodo rather than, say, Rybka? They teach at similar levels despite the rating difference, and at a certain point it doesn't matter anymore ratingswise.

Originally posted by HikaruShindo
From what I've heard, as long as they're substantially stronger than the student, what matters more is a player's teaching strength. It's like a computer. Is it worth a substantial amount more to buy Komodo rather than, say, Rybka? They teach at similar levels despite the rating difference, and at a certain point it doesn't matter anymore ratingswise.

How about the teacher's teaching strength?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you can teach it.

Originally posted by Eladar
How about the teacher's teaching strength?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you can teach it.

Exactly, I know a couple of my professors in uni may have known their stuff in their field
but when it came to teaching it, they weren't so great.

There's no substitute for experience.
Just keep playing, challenge yourself, and the learning will follow.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Does the chess rating of the players make much difference as to how well they teach? Both these guys are around 2600, quite a bit lower than the top dudes. Would the top dudes be better teachers? Say the 2750 crowd?

The short answer is "no". Hansen at his peak was in the top 70 or so (more than sufficient), and I think John Nunn may have been in the top 4. Nunn has won so many book awards that recommending him was almost a "duh" moment on my part!

I think Nunn peaked at 2605, back when being over 2600 was the "super elite".

Rating inflation has driven up GM ratings (partly due to "rating inbreeding"- I think Kramnik went almost two decades without playing in an Open until recently), so I would mentally subtract 150 points or so from the current top players to make any kind of rough comparison- and it would still be rough.

Even more abstractly, I do not believe that higher rating = better teacher at all when talking about IM strength and up. IM Dvoretsky is generally considered to be one of the top trainers ever, and he is an IM. It's a different skill set.

Even at patzer level, I know more than one player who is better than I am at the game, but they lack the ability to speak coherently about the game. They know what they do, but they lack the ability to communicate it.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
The short answer is "no". Hansen at his peak was in the top 70 or so (more than sufficient), and I think John Nunn may have been in the top 4. Nunn has won so many book awards that recommending him was almost a "duh" moment on my part!

I think Nunn peaked at 2605, back when being over 2600 was the "super elite".

Rating inflation has driven up GM ...[text shortened]... coherently about the game. They know what they do, but they lack the ability to communicate it.

Yeah, it must really suck to have such a poor rating as to be a mere international master like Dvoretsky🙂

So it seems rating doesn't matter as far as teaching skills go.

I wonder if there is a chess coach teachers rating out there?

Like Dvoretsky could be a 2800 on that scale and Nunn a 2700 or something?

Id like to thank everyone for their replies it's very kind, I'm still looking for someone to teach me, or someone to just have a game over a beer or three.

I appreciate all the help and my copy of understanding chess came this morning.

Many thanks,

Willy....

Originally posted by Sirdubalot
Id like to thank everyone for their replies it's very kind, I'm still looking for someone to teach me, or someone to just have a game over a beer or three.

I appreciate all the help and my copy of understanding chess came this morning.

Many thanks,

Willy....

At your level the game is all about board vision and not giving your pieces away.

Seriously that's about it. A great way to develop your eye and learn tactics which will allow you to avoid giving your pieces away and allow you to take the other guy's is to do tactics puzzles on the internet an hour or so each day you want to train.

Chesstempo is great because these decisions should not be timed as much as they are on that other site.



After white plays 6.d4 what threat is he making? What is the problem with black's pieces that if nothing is done will result in black giving up a piece after white's next move?

After white plays 18.Nc3d5, what is his threat? What is it about black's position that white can take advantage?

At your level the game is pretty even right now. In the next couple of moves the game is all but lost. You found black's error in this game and took advantage to go on to win. In my earlier example you failed to see the threat and let white pull the trigger and you went on to lose.


One other question, which piece do you think is more powerful for you? A knight or a bishop? In this game the knight was king, but for the most part which is the better piece for you?

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Hi Willy,

I recommend John Nunn's Understanding Chess Move by Move:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Chess-Move-John-Nunn/dp/1901983412

I also recommend a smaller book from Lars Bo Hansen, which is a written version of 4 of his private lessons:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-GM-Lars-Hansen/dp/1480171913/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425198142&sr=1-9&keywords=lars+bo+hansen

Hope this helps!

Paul

What is the difference between Nunn's book and Chernev's "Logical Chess Move By Move"?

Edit: I notice that in the section on positional chess, Nunn covers many of the same things Nimzowitsch does in "My System" with the addition of color complexes, the isolani, the two bishops, queenside attack and the bad bishop.

Hi Eladar,

Many thanks for your post, may I ask if the examples you have posted are games I have played in, it would be good to see how they played out so I can have another look at them.

Many thanks,

Willy.....

Ps, please don't think me impolite I'll have a study and report back.

Originally posted by iChopWoodForFree
What is the difference between Nunn's book and Chernev's "Logical Chess Move By Move"?

I have both now, so I'd be interested to know.

Originally posted by Sirdubalot
I have both now, so I'd be interested to know.

My guess is they are similar but Nunns book would have more modern ideas and theories in it. From the table of contents i think it would be wise to work through Chernev's book then get a thorough understanding of the ideas in "My System" and then tackle Nunns book but Paul Leggett may know better than I as i assume he has all of these books and has read them.

Originally posted by Sirdubalot
Hi Eladar,

Many thanks for your post, may I ask if the examples you have posted are games I have played in, it would be good to see how they played out so I can have another look at them.

Many thanks,

Willy.....

Ps, please don't think me impolite I'll have a study and report back.

Look at the problem on the board, not how it played out. It is too late after the mistake has been shown. At that point you've dug yourself a big hole and can only hope for your opponent to blunder the game back into your hands.

Look at the final positions and see the black weakness in both. If white had the next move, what would that move be? It would result in a forced loss of material for black. It won't take a piece immediately, but will force a loss of the piece on the next move.

When you are able to see these dangers on the board, you will know how to exploit them and know how to defend against them. Until then you are playing blind chess which means you will lose pretty much all the time to people who can see.

Once you can start seeing, you can start losing to 1500's instead of 1300's. When you get even better you can lose to 1700's instead of 1500's and so on and so forth. The up side is that you will be able to beat higher rated people more consistently too.

Originally posted by Eladar
At your level the game is all about board vision and not giving your pieces away.

Seriously that's about it. A great way to develop your eye and learn tactics which will allow you to avoid giving your pieces away and allow you to take the other guy's is to do tactics puzzles on the internet an hour or so each day you want to train.

Chesstempo is great ...[text shortened]... s pieces that if nothing is done will result in black giving up a piece after white's next move?

So after white plays 6.d4 there is a direct threat on the black pawn on e4, having looked at it black has to do something now as whites next move will probably be 7.d5 developing a pawn fork on the knight and bishop on c 3 and 5.

I'm not 100% certain what black should play but my thoughts lead me to e5 x d4 threatening the knight on c3 and removes the possibility of the pawn fork. Blacks pawns will be doubled up on the d file, I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing to be honest.

Regards

Willy.....