29 Oct 06
I just started reading The Complete Chess Course (about the first 90 pages. It seems OK, but I think he uses too many examples to get his ideas across. (They get too repetitious.) I sure hope it gets better, hehe. I previously read a Cecil Purdy book and liked it better than TCCC.
I think I enjoyed the short bio of Reinfeld on the Chessville site more than I'm enjoying his book, lol -
http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/PastPawns/FredReinfeldChessWriter.htm
29 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad RookThe Bar Steward! I didn't realise it until I read that page, but his "How to Think Ahead in Chess" was responsible for me playing the Stonewall Attack for the first five years of my chess career.
I just started reading The Complete Chess Course (about the first 90 pages. It seems OK, but I think he uses too many examples to get his ideas across. (They get too repetitious.) I sure hope it gets better, hehe. I previously read a Cecil Purdy book and liked it better than TCCC.
I think I enjoyed the short bio of Reinfeld on the Chessville site more th his book, lol -
http://www.chessville.com/misc/History/PastPawns/FredReinfeldChessWriter.htm
This opening ruins your chess, and there's no knowing how many bright young chess player have been crippled by this travesty of an opening. The problem is, it works against weak players. I've beaten countless rabbits with the Stonewall Attack, but it is completely useless against anyone beyond average club player standard, and teaches you nothing whatsoever about the finer points of chess.
For five years I either mated my opponent with a standard Bxh7 sac or else scrambled around trying to swap off my weak pawns and pieces in the hope of getting a draw. The "spectacular" wins make it all but impossible to stop playing this garbage opening, and it takes an enormous effort to start playing proper openings where you have to think for yourself.
Fred Reinfeld and Raymond Keene. Have you ever seen them in the same room together? I didn't think so.
29 Oct 06
Originally posted by Fat LadyHeh, they're both a bit of a joke as far as I'm concerned, but I respect that they play chess quite well.
The Bar Steward! I didn't realise it until I read that page, but his "How to Think Ahead in Chess" was responsible for me playing the Stonewall Attack for the first five years of my chess career.
This opening ruins your chess, and there's no knowing how many bright young chess player have been crippled by this travesty of an opening. The problem is, it w ...[text shortened]... and Raymond Keene. Have you ever seen them in the same room together? I didn't think so.
Stonewall Attack is pretty weak, too many holes, I like the KG because I think it has the opposite effect of actually teaching proper opening play, center control, open files for rooks, and focal points. Unlike the Ruy Lopez which is very advanced.
29 Oct 06
Originally posted by Pavlo87Do they make them in algebraic notation? I saw them at the bookstore but they were in discriptive notation.
I haven't read any of Reinfeld's books besides his puzzle ones so i can't really judge him on those. But his "1001 winning chess sacrifices and combinations" and his "1001 brilliant ways to checkmate" are very good though in my opinion.
29 Oct 06
Originally posted by Falco LombardiOnly descriptive notation that i know of. All the books i own of his are like that at least. But it's pretty easy to learn though. Here's an explanation on reading it.
Do they make them in algebraic notation? I saw them at the bookstore but they were in discriptive notation.
QR1=Queen(side) rook, square 1(a1)[on the Queen's side of the board]
QR2=Queen(side) rook, square 2(a2)[on the Queen's side of the board]
QR3=Queen(side) rook, square 3(a3)[on the Queen's side of the board]
QR4=Queen(side) rook, square 4(a4)[on the Queen's side of the board]
etc.,etc.
QN1=Queen(side) Knight, square 1(b1)[on the Queen's side of the board]
QN2=Queen(side) Knight, square 1(b2)[on the Queen's side of the board]
QN3=Queen(side) Knight, square 1(b3)[on the Queen's side of the board]
QN4=Queen(side) Knight, square 1(b4)[on the Queen's side of the board]
etc.,etc.
QB1=Queen(side) Bishop, square 1(c1)[on the Queen's side of the board]
Q1=Queen, square 1(d1)[on the Queen's side of the board]
================================================
K1=King, square 1(e1)[on the Kings's side of the board]
KB1=King(side), Bishop square 1(f1)[on the Kings's side of the board]
KN1=King(side), Knight square 1(g1)[on the Kings's side of the board]
KR1=King(side), Rook square 1(h1)[on the Kings's side of the board]
29 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by buddy2A "mediocre" player? He was probably IM strength, although they didn't have that title when Reinfeld was in his prime.
Reinfield was my first book. He was a great populizer, but a mediocre chess player. I think it was third book of chess or second or fourth, whatever. Later he put them all in one book, the Complete book of Chess.
I think that his"The Complete Chessplayer" is a great book.
Reinfeld's "The Complete Chess Course" is very similar to I. A. Horowitz's "How to Win at Chess." I prefer the Horowitz book, although careful study of either book should bring you at least to 1600 level.
30 Oct 06
In 1950 Reinfeld was 6th on the USCF rating list at 2593, but after that no longer played. I believe he had a career plus score against Reshevsky back when Reshevsky was the top US player. I tried the Stonewall Attack based on his recommendation. Most opponents played either …g6 or an early …Bg4, both of which put the whole system in the dumper.