Originally posted by BrinsleleafActually "300 chess games" was written by Tarrasch
Just another thought...you could always try the book "three hundred chess games" (or is it 500!?) by Tartakower....vast amounts of 'classic' games, but organized by opening (so you'll get a reasonable idea of what sort of game to expected from various openings). AND...you can probably pick it up quite cheaply...
It covers games from really early (Stau ...[text shortened]... Ah...the good old days....
Hope this helps (in some strange tongue-in-cheek way.....).
Originally posted by BrinsleleafThe book you're referring to is one of my all-time favorites! It's called "500 Master Games of Chess" by Tartakower and DuMont. Hundreds of the greatest games ever played prior to about 1950 are in the book. The annotations are both entertaining and instructive.
Just another thought...you could always try the book "three hundred chess games" (or is it 500!?) by Tartakower....vast amounts of 'classic' games, but organized by opening (so you'll get a reasonable idea of what sort of game to expected from various openings). AND...you can probably pick it up quite cheaply...
It covers games from really early (Stau ...[text shortened]... Ah...the good old days....
Hope this helps (in some strange tongue-in-cheek way.....).
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchI think he was talking about Tartakower's "500 Master Games of Chess," which I highly recommend to the neophyte. The Tarrasch also book has excellent analysis, and is to be recommended.
Actually "300 chess games" was written by Tarrasch
Edit: Please disregard, I didn't see the above postings on this subject.
Originally posted by Arctic Jacknintendo have a new chess game with tutors for the novice and pro.....look it up.
How would I go about learning an opening? I've no idea where to start. I know the real basics like control the centre, knights before bishops etc but I always end up in trouble early on against anyone half way decent. Is there a book recommended that runs through openings in general that gives you information on each one. Sort of like a stepping stone before you actually choose an opening.
Originally posted by BrinsleleafSince you enjoyed my last analogy, here is another: Chess is like soccer. For example, I'm often asked by parents of some budding child prodigy how their wunderkind can get better at chess. I usually defer to the youth and ask them what they like best about the Royal Game. They invariably tell me they love to attack. It is rare indeed when one tells me they love to sit back and defend long enough to watch their opponent spend their energy and damage their pawn structure because they like to see the look on their opponent's face when they launch an irresistible counterattack that overwhelms the opposing army and results in either a checkmate or gains a significant material advantage that is child's play for them to convert to a win. About this time, I tell the parent of the future world champion that chess is a lot like soccer. For instance, if I were their child's soccer coach and he or she were good only at one position, say forward, then they wouldn't be much use to me if I was short a midfielder or a defender, or even a keeper and needed to adjust the line-up. I would have to call upon someone else to play that position for them. Moreover, in soccer, very little of the game is spent in situations where our one-dimensional forward is racing towards the goal and given an opportunity to score. When one takes up soccer, in order to increase your utility to your team, and your ability as a player, you have to be able to play many positions well. The same applies in chess. Attacking is nice and all good players have to be able to execute an attack well, but, you're not always going to be able to attack – you need to be able to defend well. Then there are quiet positions where you need to be able to move without disrupting the equilibrium or spoiling your position. Then, there's my favorite part – the endgame. Every great player has been good in the final phase of the game. One needs to know how to play Rook endings, Pawn endings and Queen endings well (learning this phase requires studying a lot of material from textbooks, game positions and endgame studies). Next, you need to know how to play positions with the two Bishops…and recognize those positions where the two Knights are superior. The same applies to openings: one must master open, closed, semi-open and semi-closed openings. In other words, the key to becoming a good chess player (or soccer player) is universality -- especially at the higher levels. Former World Champion Boris Spassky is a good example of a chessplayer who could do it all. Early in his career, he was an attacking genius (of the same caliber as Alekhine and Keres). Later, he learned to play the endgame well. In the twilight of his career, he switched over to closed, positional openings with either Black or White. Many great players follow this same pattern of development.
...Oh and by the way (and as I said above, I found your post really interesting, so please don't take this personally), I really hated your parallel to musical instruments! AND..., I hated it because unfortunately you're right! I live in France now, and that's exactly how kids learn to play an instrument...first you learn to read music, then you learn s ...[text shortened]... until you really like it and are sure that you want to learn it, THEN you start to study...