Originally posted by Mark LynchOld notation, or more accurately "Descriptive notation" was created by aliens for the sole purpose of making chess seem as difficult as humanely (alianiely?) possible so that chess would be abandoned and the minds of humans would be dulled to prepare for an invasion! 😲🙄 It is a true feat in the design of un-intuitive and confusing code!
Sorry but what is the difference?
Seriously, if you want to learn descriptive notation *shudder*, you can find stuff about it on the net. For example: http://chess.about.com/library/ble21brd.htm (scroll down the page for descriptive notation)
But if you do get a chess book, I do heartily recommend making sure it's in algebraic notation.
-Jarno
I have never found a chess book that I could call the best, there are too many I could recommend, I think it all depends on how advanced a player is as a reader of these books are.
I have got most of this books mentioned in this thread and think the majority of them could possibly fall into the category of best chess book. I do particularly like the nimzo book but as yet not incorporated it into any of my strategies.
Books I would like to mention that I think are really good but are aimed at the inexperienced player are the Yasser Seirawan series
Winning Chess Tactics
Winning Chess Openings
Winning Chess Endings
Winning Chess Brilliancies
I bought these for my 11 year old nephew a few months ago, and now he is an accomplished player, he was maybe equivilant of an 1200 RHP rating before reading these books now he plays like a 1400-1500 player. I just thought I mention these for the inexperienced bunch reading this thread as some of the books mentioned may be too much for some players
-Robbo
Originally posted by PyrrhoAt the risk of showing my age, MOST chess books I read as a child were in descriptive notation. All my old games (played at school) were written down in descriptive notation. It never once harmed the longevity of chess.
Old notation, or more accurately "Descriptive notation" was created by aliens for the sole purpose of making chess seem as difficult as humanely (alianiely?) possible so that chess would be abandoned and the minds of humans would be dulled to prepare for an invasion! 😲🙄 It is a true feat in the design of un-intuitive and confusing code!
If the entire history of chess was telescoped into a single year, algebraic notation would have become popular this morning. Most of the old masters must be turning in their graves to find the evocative 1. P-K4 P-K4 relagated to a mere 1. e4 e5.
Although far less beautiful, algeraic notation is far more efficent and thus appropriate for the computer age - it would be sheer murder for our poor computers to interpret PGN-like files in descriptive notation.
But as with miles, yards and feet most humans had no such problem.
Its the Imperial measurement of chess.
Originally posted by GatecrasherIt is possible to learn, of course. I bought some chess books in a second hand shop a while back and they were in this notation. I found myself paying more attention to whether my moves were correct rather than trying to understand what was being said. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄😲
At the risk of showing my age, MOST chess books I read as a child were in descriptive notation. All my old games (played at school) were written down in descriptive notation. It never once harmed the longevity of chess.
If the entire history of chess was telescoped into a single year, algebraic notation would have become popular this morning. Most of ...[text shortened]... , yards and feet most humans had no such problem.
Its the Imperial measurement of chess.
Long live Algerbraic Notation!
Originally posted by eyeqpcAre there any books that you have read yourself that u would like to recommend for stronger players?
I have never found a chess book that I could call the best, there are too many I could recommend, I think it all depends on how advanced a player is as a reader of these books are.
I have got most of this books mentioned in this thread and think the majority of them could possibly fall into the category of best chess book. I do particularly like the nimzo bo ...[text shortened]... reading this thread as some of the books mentioned may be too much for some players
-Robbo
The best chess book ever is a series of 5 small books.They start with the board,the pieces and mate and end with strategy,attack on the king and endgames.They are titled 'Lekker schaken',written by R;Brunia and C.van Wijgerden.Sorry,but to my knowledge they are only printed in dutch.
If it must be just one book then I agree with eyegpc,there are just too many excellent books to pick just one.
Lord Lot.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotDo you have any suggestions for a slightly more advanced level. Im not a begginner but no master either (as u know 😉).
The best chess book ever is a series of 5 small books.They start with the board,the pieces and mate and end with strategy,attack on the king and endgames.They are titled 'Lekker schaken',written by R;Brunia and C.van Wijgerden.Sorry,but to my knowledge they are only printed in dutch.
If it must be just one book then I agree with eyegpc,there are just too many excellent books to pick just one.
Lord Lot.
Anyone reccommend an opening book? I've seen a few but never bought one, they look too much like the phone book!
Originally posted by marinakatombAh,you want books.Ok,here are my suggestions for players at approx. my level:
Do you have any suggestions for a slightly more advanced level. Im not a begginner but no master either (as u know 😉).
Anyone reccommend an opening book? I've seen a few but never bought one, they look too much like the phone book!
for the middlegame: 'Zurich international chess tournament' by David Bronstein.Truly an exceptional book,I don't think you will find another book that even comes close.Also look at 'best games' books from players you like.One learns a lot by just going over games of the best players.
'Chess middlegames' by Laszlo Polgar.4158 diagrams for you to solve.Bit pricey but if you buy it you will never need any other trainingbook on middlegames.
for the endgame: 'Pawn power' in chess by Hans Kmoch.Classic and a must have for the serious player.Descriptive notation though,that's what's holding me back from working my way through it 🙁
'Improve your endgame play' by Glenn Flear.Covers all aspects and I garantuee it will improve your play 🙂
'Chess endgames' and 'Chess' by Laszlo Polgar.Same comment as I gave to his other book.
'Chess endgame quiz' by Larry Evans.200 diagrams with endgame positions for you to solve.I thought I was pretty good in the endgame,at least for someone at my level,but I found myself unable to solve diagram 3.Need I say more?
for the attack: 'Art of attack' by Vladimir Vukovic is an obvious candidate.But it may be a bit difficult for players like us.
'How to become a deadly chess tactician' and 'Essential chess tactics' both by David Lemoir.Excellent books,and clearly explained so us lesser gods can understand.
mixed topics: 'Chess fundamentals' by José Raul Capablanca.Now available in algebraic notation!
'Best lessons of a chess coach' by Sunil Weeramantry and Ed Eusebi.Haven't read it yet,but looks very good.
'The life and games of Mikhail Tal' along with a selection of his games the book features an 'interview' with Tal.He speaks about his career and gives lots of anecdotes.A very fun read 🙂
'Better chess for average players' by Tim Harding looks intresting too but I haven't gotten around to that one yet.
If you want a suggestion on an openingsbook I'd have to know which openings you play.Personally I prefer the everyman products,their books focus on understanding,not memorizing lines.They explain it clear and simple,books average at,say,200 pages and certainly are no 'phone books' 😉
Lord Lot.
Originally posted by marinakatombi have a suggestion 4 openings moves...book is called....unorthodox chess openings...by...Eric Schiller its really good...i guarantee it
Do you have any suggestions for a slightly more advanced level. Im not a begginner but no master either (as u know 😉).
Anyone reccommend an opening book? I've seen a few but never bought one, they look too much like the phone book!
:'( sdh :'(
It's hard to say what is the best chess book ever. Different books have different purposes. Some are better for teaching, some are purely informational, others are hard to classify. I tend to like "My System", mainly because I play a positional style. For me, it might be the best. For someone who plays an attacking style, it probably would not be.
I remember buying "Reassess Your Chess" by Silman based on a reccomendation by another player. Found it interesting, but the concept of imbalances he wrote about I had already encountered (tho under a diffetent name) in a book titled "Point Count Chess" by Horowitz/Mott Smith I picked up in the 70s (Actually published in 1960).
In any event, whatever one might say is the best chess book ever is, in the end, going to be pretty subjective.
Originally posted by GatecrasherThis is true of course - the alebraic notation is a new arrival in chess, and descriptive notation has great historical significance. True also that if that's what you're given, no options, you'll most probably learn it to the point when eventually it is easy for you to read. But I would say that algebraic notation is an improvement not only for the benefit of computer programmers having to implement chess sites and programs, but also for anyone new to the game.
At the risk of showing my age, MOST chess books I read as a child were in descriptive notation. All my old games (played at school) were written down in descriptive notation. It never once harmed the longevity of chess.
If the entire ...[text shortened]... ad no such problem.
Its the Imperial measurement of chess.
Algebraic notation is extremely easy to learn - when I first encountered it, I found it so intuitive that I didn't actually feel that I needed to learn it. I knew the names of the pieces, and I could see the grid with the letters and the numbers, and besides a couple of exceptions (castling and en passant), deciphering the notation was as easy as 1+1. 🙂 I felt like I already knew the notation though it was the first time I read it.
Try that with descriptive notation... my brain still hurts when looking at it. 😉
Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder... to me, descirptive notation appears merely messy, while agebraic notation holds beauty in it's simplicity. This of course is a subjective thing - had I began, and spent years with chess working only with descriptive notation, I'd probably agree with you. Likewise I suspect that had you learned algebraic notation to begin with, and worked only with that, and then encounter descriptive notation, you too would be cursing the devious foces that inflicted such a beast on your eyes! 🙄
-Jarno
I just bought two books by JM Jeremy Silman - The Mind of the Amateur, and somethinglike 'Complete Guide to Chess Strategy'. I've only just started reading them, but have already learnt a lot. Particularly something that's been puzzling me for quite a while: once you've navigated the opening ok, how do you decide on a plan for the middlegame? These books contain info i've not seen anywhere else, and the first one shows lots of examples between how amateurs look at chess positions, and how serious players might. I think i'm going to learn a lot of stuff here that will make me a far better player.
On the descriptive vs algebraic thing -- I still prefer descriptive notation on the grounds that it is simply more intuitive because it actually describes the relationship between the pieces. When one is first studying chess, one has to take a second to think which pawn, for example, is the G pawn. One knows where the king's knight is already, one doesn't have to count from the end of the board to find it. :-)