Can I add another request - good chess books that you can read without a chess set to follow the moves on (if you're not a competent blindfold player)?
A great example I read recently is "How to choose a chess move" by Andy Soltis. It focuses on single positions starting from a diagram, rather than whole games or long excerpts, and most of the variations are short enough to follow in your head (some only with a bit of effort, for me at least, but that is good training anyway) and where they're not, there is often a repeat diagram. This meant I could read it on the train which, for me, is a huge plus. Also a great, practical book.
-Art of the Middlegame by Keres and Kotov isn't bad, but I don't think you can find it in Algebraic and the only section that I really found a whole lot of extra use for was the chapter about "defending difficult positions"
-I don't really like Alekhine's "My Best Games of Chess" because some of his annotations are outdated (he calls 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. e4? at one point I believe), and according to Silman (I swear I heard him say this in person), he lied a lot about how his games really went (if he found a better line than what was played during the game, he would publish that instead.) But that aside, it's got some great games.
already mentioned that I also support (by experience)
Art of Attack in Chess, Vukovic
How to Reassess Your Chess, Silman
Originally posted by exigentsky There are thousands of chess books, but most fade quickly with time. Here, I am trying to find modern chess books (last 20 years), mainly on strategy, that would be considered exemplary and timeless.
Here are just two I'm considering:
- Reassess Your Chess by Silman
- Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by Watson
Which books would you recommend?
im reading reassess your chess for the first time and its awsome
Originally posted by kmac27 pawn power hans kmoch. many higher players than myself say its a must have.
The critics of this book are turned off by the fact that Kmoch seems to make up his own names for some of the concepts, and I agree that this is somewhat confusing (eg. leucopenia = white square weakness, I think). I didn't have the patience to learn Kmoch's version of chess jargon, so I didn't gain as much from this book as I probably could have. Someone mentioned Pachman's books above, which have been more recently condensed into a single volume which is still excellent. Also, I was surprised to see that nobody mentioned Chernev's classic Logical Chess: Move by Move. Admittedly the games selected for the book are not of the highest quality, and the opening lines played are well outdated, but the meat of the book makes it an invaluable read for beginner level players just for the sake of the repetition rules of thumb. And it can be read without a board.
many masters and grandmasters have their own systems for learning and teaching. i think it has a lot of merit. you can always substute it for what you already know. although it may be confusing at sometimes once you get the concept down its easy to learn from it its already helped my game and i'm only on like page 40. ok instead of calling it a semi passed pawn he calls it a faker or a canditate. how hard is that to learn?
many masters and grandmasters have their own systems for learning and teaching. i think it has a lot of merit. you can always substute it for what you already know. although it may be confusing at sometimes once you get the concept down its easy to learn from it its already helped my game and i'm only on like page 40. ok instead of calling it a semi passed pawn he calls it a faker or a canditate. how hard is that to learn?
forgot something else. also the reason he makes up his own words for different positions and things of sorts is because if your brain can link that type of position with a word and picture it is easier to recall what to do in those situations. so its helpiing you learn the matieral better and keeping it in your head for longer.
Originally posted by kmac27 many masters and grandmasters have their own systems for learning and teaching. i think it has a lot of merit. you can always substute it for what you already know. although it may be confusing at sometimes once you get the concept down its easy to learn from it its already helped my game and i'm only on like page 40. ok instead of calling it a semi passed pawn he calls it a faker or a canditate. how hard is that to learn?
Okay... and in my critical post I clearly stated that it was due to my own lack of patience that I probably did not get as much out of this book as I could have. I still stand by my original criticism that the book had too many made up names (telestops, fakers, rangers, leucopenia, etc). Many strong players say the concepts in the book are good, but many of them also agree that the language is tedious.
Originally posted by BLReid The critics of this book are turned off by the fact that Kmoch seems to make up his own names for some of the concepts, and I agree that this is somewhat confusing (eg. leucopenia = white square weakness, I think). I didn't have the patience to learn Kmoch's version of chess jargon, so I didn't gain as much from this book as I probably could have. Someone me ...[text shortened]... rs just for the sake of the repetition rules of thumb. And it can be read without a board.
For the beginner and intermediate player, Just about anything Chernev wrote is well worth reading. Other great Chernev books:
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played
Chessboard Magic!
Combinations: The Heart of Chess
Twelve Great Chess Players and Their Best Games
Practical Chess Endings
Originally posted by ChessJester I have seirawan "Winning Chess Tactics" and it is a wonderful book. I would assume that "Winning Chess Strategy" by seirawan is just as wonderful.
Winning chess strategies is the best beginner to intermediate strategy book I have ever read!
Masterpieces of Chess Literature
02 May '07 21:11
Back to Top