Yet another book question - sorry
byzantine
I know that about ten million "which book shall I read?" questions get
posted every day, but I have read the archives a bit and am still
uncertain.
I'm very much a beginner player. (I beat my PalmPilot on level 2 out of 9
and my university housemates had to physically restrain me because I was
that excited). I'm very much a book person, I like reading and owning
books. I'd like something reasonably compendious and "classic" to read to
get me out of the true beginner stages (and maybe give me enough courage
to actually play someone online).
I'm currently looking at buying Lasker's Manual of Chess, but there are some
suggestions that it's a bit dated in both format and some principles that
are stated (does chess really change that much in 30 years?). Is this a
good buy, or are there some other suggestions? Any recommendations would
be nice.
Thanks a lot,
Byzantine
--
"The generation of random numbers is too important to be
left to chance."
- Robert Coveyou
Louis Blair
> I'm very much a beginner player. (I beat my PalmPilot on level
> 2 out of 9 and my university housemates had to physically restrain
> me because I was that excited). I'm very much a book person, I
> like reading and owning books. I'd like something reasonably
> compendious and "classic" to read to get me out of the true
> beginner stages (and maybe give me enough courage to actually
> play someone online).
>
> I'm currently looking at buying Lasker's Manual of Chess, but
> there are some suggestions that it's a bit dated in both format and
> some principles that are stated (does chess really change that
> much in 30 years?). Is this a good buy, or are there some other
> suggestions? Any recommendations would be nice.
_
If I remember correctly, Lasker's book is about 70 years old.
(A bit older if you go back to the original German.)
_
Not too long ago, there was a similar discussion under
the heading, "opinions best 1 volume chess manual covering
the whole game". Here is some of what was written:
2002-08-05 12:32:48 PST
Does anyone have any opinions on the best 1 volume chess manual/book
covering the whole game: openings, middlegame, endgame,
tactics/combinations, positional play, game analysis/study etc etc the
whole shebang?
2002-08-05 16:40:42 PST
Somebody else mentioned:
"Mammoth book of chess- Graham Burgess"
Maybe, give that a try. (It is probably unrealistic
to expect "the whole shebang" in one book.)
2002-08-05 20:41:41 PST
Books that try to cover everything are usually
beginner books.
In the Chess Notes feature at www.chesscafe.com Edward
Winter commented:
"From today's range of chess books for beginners we
believe that one stands out as the best: The Complete
Idiot's Guide to Chess by Patrick Wolff"
2002-08-06 06:02:38 PST
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of something like Lasker's
Chess Manual, or Capablanca's similar book, but probably more modern or at
least in Algebraic Notation. Though I would'nt mind hearing of older ones
as well.
2002-08-06 09:28:10 PST
An alternative might be Seirawan's "Play Winning Chess"
2002-08-06 13:44:29 PST
People don't seem to write books like Lasker's Manual any
more.
I do not think that Capablanca's book had much on
openings. If I remember correctly, he once wrote
that he intended to do a separate book on openings.
(I do not think that it was ever published.)
Modern Chess Strategy by Edward Lasker and
The Game of Chess by Siegbert Tarrasch are
similar in spirit to Lasker's Manual.
How to Win at Chess by Horowitz has a lot in it,
but it is old and for beginners.
2002-08-06 18:02:54 PST
I have the Burgess Mammoth book and I'd
put it about second or third to Em. Lasker's book, as for as overall
coverage and content, but it is in figurine algebraic notation.
2002-08-06 20:32:31 PST
My experience is that books like this are not very
satisfying. Trying to cover a lot in many different
areas tends to mean that no one area is covered very
well.
here are two more old books:
The Art of Chess by James Mason
The Complete Chessplayer by Fred Reinfeld
2002-08-06 22:08:43 PST
Maybe 500 Master Games of Chess.
2002-08-07 08:21:53 PST
Maybe look at Lev Alberts Comprehensive chess course.
There was a similar discussion under the heading, "Beginner's
Sources". Here is some of what was written:
2002-11-28 12:46:44 PST
I would like to learn how to play chess. I know no more than the
basic rules. I picked up "How to Reassess Your Chess" by Silman the
other day. Do you think this book is too advanced?
2002-11-28 17:35:21 PST
The most commonly recommended book for beginners is usually
"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess". Even if you know the
basic rules, it goes into enough depth to teach you plenty.
2002-11-28 20:02:08 PST
"How to Reassess Your Chess"
is too advanced if you've just learned the rules.
I would add Capablanca's Chess Primer as a possible
book to try.
2002-11-28 21:08:47 PST
even if "How to Reassess Your Chess"
is too hard now, it may well become a book that
[one] is glad to have in the future. Many have
expressed such feelings.
2002-11-29 17:48:27 PST
["How to Reassess Your Chess" is]
Waaaay too advanced.
2002-12-02 17:20:19 PST
I have not seen Silman's book, but I understand it is meant for the
advancing club player, someone on their way to Expert and beyond
(maybe that's why I haven't seen it ;-).
When I was very young and learning how to play, my Dad got me "Bobby
Fischer Teaches Chess," and it was a very good beginner's guide.
Later I found "The Penguin Book of Chess Positions," a small pocket
paperback that explains basic tactics and accompanies the ideas with
"find the best move" tactics problems. It is a great book to tote
around and read one or two pages at a time.
Another similar discussion took place under the heading, "Hello!".
Here is some of what was written:
2002-12-15 14:18:59 PST
I've been playing chess for as long as I can remember (I'm 23 now, so that
makes it over 12 years), and have a good grasp of the game, but I've never
really studied tactics, etc.
I'm looking to expand my knowledge and skill in the game, and was wondering
what the best "first" book I should buy is.
2002-12-15 15:11:37 PST
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess by Patrick Wolff"
2002-12-15 15:43:17 PST
Excellent book.
2002-12-15 16:33:24 PST
You say that you know the basics. This being true, your first book should be:
"Everyone's 2nd Chess Book" (sic)
by Dan Heisman, published by Thinkers Press
Indispensible.
2002-12-15 18:22:36 PST
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess by Patrick Wolff
does start with the rules, but it goes well beyond
that. I would suggest, at least, looking at the book
If I remember correctly, it has useful information about
the chess world as well as advice on making good moves.
Anyway, it is hard to suggest a book to someone
without knowing details about their abilities. Maybe
posting one of your games would make it easier for
people to give meaningful advice. The suggestion
of someone else, Everyone's 2nd Chess Book by
Dan Heisman sounds reasonable to me, but I have
never read the book. A sample of Heisman's
writing can be found at www.chesscafe.com
under Novice Nook.
2002-12-16 05:51:28 PST
I'll second the recommendation for Everyone's 2nd Chess Book.
In fact, you may want to go to chesscafe.com and check out Mr.
Heisman's column, the Novice Nook. Go to the archives, where
they have all of his past Novice Nook columns archived and
specifically look up the articles on a generic study plan and book
recommendations.
While you're there, check out the (in)famous article, "400
Points in 400 Days" by Michael de la Maza. Well worth reading
to get a perspective on the importance of tactics, even if you
don't end up following his method of study (most people won't).
2002-12-16 18:04:22 PST
Wolff's book is not just for complete beginners. It is quite suitable for a
person such as you describe yourself. Apart from Wolff, I would take a look
at Logical Chess Move by Move, with good material on attacking motifs and
the rudiments of positional play, and any good collection of tactics:
Either of Reinfeld's "1001" books, "Combination Challenge" by Hays, Laszlo
Polgar's giant "Chess: 5,334 Problems, Combinations and Games." I also
like the series by Fred Wilson, all of which have "303" in the title. The
basic message to anyone looking to get past that stage you describe yourself
in is to immerse yourself in tactics.
2002-12-17 18:41:02 PST
The first chess book I have read was the monstrous-sized Fred Reinfeld book,
I forget the name of it. Maybe it's called "Complete Book of Chess", but I
am not sure. It's still around. I read that whole book, and led me into the
eccentric world of chess, which I have never left!
2002-12-18 12:36:45 PST
I have "The Complete Chess Player by Fred Reinfeld" and Highly recomend it.
It's 300 pages ($10.00), and covers all the major areas. It's thorough
without being overwhelming.
2002-12-20 17:10:54 PST
Perhaps there is a confusion going on here.
"Complete Chess Course" [is] a rather large
hardback by Reinfeld that is not the same as The Complete
Chessplayer.
I have never tried to read the large hardback, but I did
read most of The Complete Chessplayer. It seemed
to me to be a reasonable beginner book. One problem
with it (in my opinion) is that it leaves readers with
the impression that they should study all openings.
I fear that many may have decided to give up on
chess after trying to get through Reinfeld's five
chapter presentation in that book. Other parts of
the book seemed okay to me. Modern beginner
books are probably better, but also more expensive.
I suspect that the large hardback is similar in
quality and faults, except that it is more expensive.
For that kind of money, it is probably better to
go for a more modern book.
2002-12-21 12:22:08 PST
"Complete Chess Course" is probably expensive now. In
my day, when I read it (in 1967, I think), it was much cheaper!
2002-12-23 18:56:03 PST
I would suggest "Reascess Your Chess" and it's companion work book, both
by IM Jeremy Silman.
2002-12-23 19:50:03 PST
Absolutely not!!! "How to Reassess Your Chess" is widely
regarded as a great book on positional play, but if you
don't already have a firm grasp of tactics, it's not going
to help you any. First learn to how to avoid getting
clobbered by basic tactics, then move on to real strategy.
As I said in an earlier post, go with the recommendations
in Dan Heisman's Novice Nook column. His suggestion of
going through John Bain's "Chess Tactics for Students" over
and over to memorize it has helped me immensely.
Yet another similar discussion took place under the heading,
"chess books". Here is some of what was written:
2002-12-31 12:04:02 PST
Hi, if you were to buy only one chess book, which one would you choose?
2002-12-31 13:52:38 PST
The Mammoth book of Chess, by Graham Burgess.
2002-12-31 19:59:28 PST
Yes, I would second that. Good book.
2002-12-31 21:22:00 PST
500 Master Games of Chess by Dr.S. Tartakower & J.DuMont
EVERYTHING A GROWING BOY NEEDS :-)))
Richard B. Becker
>
> Hi,
>
> I know that about ten million "which book shall I read?" questions get
> posted every day, but I have read the archives a bit and am still
> uncertain.
>
> I'm very much a beginner player. (I beat my PalmPilot on level 2 out of 9
> and my university housemates had to physically restrain me because I was
> that excited). I'm very much a book person, I like reading and owning
> books. I'd like something reasonably compendious and "classic" to read to
> get me out of the true beginner stages (and maybe give me enough courage
> to actually play someone online).
>
> I'm currently looking at buying Lasker's Manual of Chess, but there are some
> suggestions that it's a bit dated in both format and some principles that
> are stated (does chess really change that much in 30 years?). Is this a
> good buy, or are there some other suggestions? Any recommendations would
> be nice.
>
you that if you hunt around on the internet for recommendations,
you'll see that many professional chess teachers and book reviewers
insist that The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess is the best book out
there for beginners.
You'll probably want to check out Dan Heisman's Novice Nook column
at chesscafe.com for some great advice for beginner and intermediate
players, as well. Included in his advice is book recommendations and
a general study plan, which are both well worth reading. Go to
chesscafe.com, and click the "archives" link to go hunt for these
older columns.
--Richard
byzantine
Thanks for replying. The date for Lasker's book on amazon was 1969,
obviously referring to that edition's publication date. 70 years is quite an
impressive shelf-life for a book like that!
I found the information that you posted in the archives, but that was one
of the things that confused me. There are so many books mentioned in that
post that I don't know which one to choose! At the risk of exploding out
another huge debate, is there a (rough) consensus? Everyone's 2nd Chess
Book sounds good from that list, but I don't want to miss out on a
better book because I chose randomly.
biff
practical advice, but I'm not sure it's the kind of thing that's going to
make you feel like you're ready to go out and conquer the world. It's kind
of like buying a book about how to play golf -- great stuff, very
informative, but it doesn't take the place of pounding a couple of thousand
balls at the driving range.
For the biggest return on your investment, buy a tactics workbook and go
through it cover to cover two or three times. Takes time, yes, takes
discipline, yes, but it will also improve your play more dramatically than
anything else at this point.
A less-monotonous but still instructive exercise would be to buy a game
collection and play over them. Chernev's Logical Chess is a good choice,
and I think they have an algebraic edition now.
But you really should go ahead and play anyway. Take your lumps, learn from
your losses, savor your wins.
"byzantine" <byza...@rEmOvEnekrodomos.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.01.04....@rEmOvEnekrodomos.net...
Mike Steen
Remember, if you like books--like reading them and owning them--there's no
such thing as "one chess book." The recommendations here are excellent.
Wolff's book is superior, as is Sierawan's "Play Winning Chess" as is
Alburt's "Comprehensive Chess Course." But, as you acquire one or two and
read them through--even if you don't--you'll find yourself drawn to the
chess section every time you walk into Walden's or Barnes and Noble or
Borders. If you leaf through the books and compare their contents to what
you need, you'll soon find yourself dedicating a shelf or two of your
bookcase to chess books. You'll want to have all of Sierawan's books (as
soon as they're back in print). You'll yearn to complete your collection of
Alburt's series. You'll start haunting used book shops for old copies of
Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games." Your hair will gradually grow unkempt,
and a distracted wild look will creep into your eyes. If you're separated
from your books for too long, your hands will begin to twitch and you'll
start plotting knight moves across the checkered tablecloth at the Italian
restaurant where you're supposed to be wooing your wife / girlfriend. You've
entered a perilous zone, Richard. "Chessbibliomania" is not a condition to
be easily dismissed, and research has shown it isn't curable. Maybe you'll
be better off just buying a gin rummy program for your computer and avoiding
this chess book madness altogether. :)
Happy reading!!
Mike
DDEckerslyke
news:pan.2003.01.04....@rEmOvEnekrodomos.net...
> I'm currently looking at buying Lasker's Manual of Chess, but there are
some
> suggestions that it's a bit dated in both format and some principles that
> are stated (does chess really change that much in 30 years?). Is this a
> good buy, or are there some other suggestions?
IM(H)O Lasker's Manual is very dry with a dated style more likely to put you
off at this stage! I'd say maybe this book should be part of your purchases
at the next level, ie after you've absorbed something like The Complete
Idiot's Guide which may well be your best one volume purchase at this stage.
At least one other post mentioned tactics practice. Again this is *very*
sound advice but only if you already know what pins, forks, skewers,
deflection etc are.
HTH
DD
Tapio Huuhka
with great prizes -- just compare with the garbage some publishers tend to produce
nowadays.
Mixing these two lists would make one hell of a chess course with the added benefit of
mind-boggling descriptive notation and avoiding US authors entirely (I'm sure you will
spot the exceptions.) Maybe two endgame books of more modern calibre would complete the
course nicely. The names of Averbakh, Keres, Shereshevsky, Dvoretsky (or should I write
Dvoreckij) and Müller&Lamprecht spring to mind.
Textbooks:
1. How Not to Play Chess by Eugene A. Znosko-Borovsky
2. Common Sense in Chess by Dr. Emanuel Lasker
3. Lasker’s Manual of Chess by Dr. Emanuel Lasker
4. The Art of Chess Combination by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky
5. The Middle Game in Chess by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky
6. The Art of the Middle Game by Paul Keres, Alexander Kotov
7. Modern Chess Strategy by Ludek Pachman (I was a little bit reluctant to include
this crippled version of Complete Chess Strategy)
Game collections:
1. Rubinstein’s Chess Masterpieces: 100 Selected Games by Hans Kmoch
2. The Immortal Games of Capablanca by Fred Reinfeld
3. My Best Games of Chess, 1908–1937 by Alexander Alekhine
4. Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master by Dr. J. Hannak
5. Botvinnik: 100 Selected Games by Mikhail Botvinnik
6. Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953 by David Bronstein
If you can get Masters of the Chess Board by Reti, that would fit in nicely as number 1
(naturally, there's the Finnish edition "Shakkilaudan mestareita" and the original
German one available.)
Tapio
byzantine
Thanks for the brilliant response. I've gone for the "Complete Idiot's
Guide to Chess" and have come across a copy of Alburt's "Comprehensive
Chess Course" as well. There goes my exam revision.
Hopefully I'm starting down a wonderful road to obsession. :o)
Southpaw
start with the Wolff book, but after it I would go for Dan's "Everyone's
2nd Chess Book" as (amazingly enough) a 2nd book. If you get down
everything in there, you can comfortably venture online, and probably start
kicking most arses.
"byzantine" <byza...@rEmOvEnekrodomos.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.01.04....@rEmOvEnekrodomos.net...
Yeh Right
news:eIBR9.2166$Xy2.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net:
I concur.
'Tis a slippery slope indeed.
Best to stay away.
Take it from one who got too close to the edge.
(190 volumes and can't wait until the next 2 arrive in the mail!!)
--
Regards,
Yeh
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?"
-Nick Lowe
"Why must I lose to this idiot????"
-Aron Nimzowitsch
John Macnab
book and I loved it! At the time I was reading the novels of Hermann
Hesse and found Lasker completely congenial. If you dislike early 20th
century late (post-) romanticism, avoid the book.
By the way, the correct copyright date is 1947.
As a beginning player, you need not worry about the datedness of the
book; it contains more than enough material to get you to a decent class
of play.
Good luck!
John
Louis Blair
> I'm currently looking at buying Lasker's Manual of Chess, but
> there are some suggestions that it's a bit dated in both format and
> some principles that are stated (does chess really change that
> much in 30 years?).
I wrote:
> If I remember correctly, Lasker's book is about 70 years old.
> (A bit older if you go back to the original German.)
John Macnab wrote:
> the correct copyright date is 1947.
_
Lasker died in 1941.
In the bibliography of Hartston's book, The Kings of
Chess, one can find:
"Manual of Chess by E. Lasker (London 1932)."
John Macnab
imprint is 1947. Lasker's forward to the English edition (which he
translated/rewrote himself) is dated 1932 (Making Louis Blair's "about
70 years" a very good guess). The preface to the German edition is
dated October, 1925. My apologies for not looking beyond the copyright
page.
John