Chess Theory

Tony Harmon

unread,

Aug 5, 2002, 1:00:44 PM8/5/02

to

All,

I have been out of the game for around 15 years now. I have re-developed the
bug and am studying again. I'm actually going to attend my first chess club
'meeting' tonight at the local bookstore. Anyway, yesterday I re-read Eugene
A. Znosko-Borovsky's 'How Not to Play Chess', a good read by the way. As I
was reading it hit me, what exactly is chess theory? I know it encompasses
analysis, tactics, goals, etc. But it seems to me to be higher than that.
Can anyone recommend a book or a website?

TIA

JamesGE

unread,

Aug 5, 2002, 2:57:09 PM8/5/02

to

Chess Theory is kinda nebulous.

But I'd recommend "Reasses Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman.
Also, I'd recommond Chessmaster 8000 (or 9000, it comes out in about a
month).

There is an on/off debate about how strong CM8K is compared to Fritz 7 and
other chess programs, but there is no debating how good Chessmaster is for
learning. It has tons of stuff to help you get back into the chess groove.

"Tony Harmon" <atha...@removeshirtswbell.net> wrote in message
news:0by39.11$bC7.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

Kevin Ryan

unread,

Aug 5, 2002, 9:50:48 PM8/5/02

to

Ya know,
I think Chess theory is like Music theory. They can teach you scales to play over chords like major and minor and they sound good, but they can never teach you how to write a melody that comes from beyond.
Yet chess theory will get you farther in chess than any theory will in music.
KR

"Tony Harmon" <atha...@removeshirtswbell.net> wrote in message news:0by39.11$bC7.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

Thomas Bantel

unread,

Aug 12, 2002, 4:32:17 AM8/12/02

to

Tom Ewall wrote:
>
> The first one.
>

I don't think so. What's commonly understood as "chess theory", is the
"group of facts or phenomena" itself and not the "set of statements or
principles" that would *explain* the "group of facts or phenomena".
A real theory would also have to allow for a perfect "chess machine",
at least in theory ;-).

Thomas Bantel

Tom Ewall

unread,

Aug 12, 2002, 5:08:24 PM8/12/02

to

It's both. The principles and the games which illustrate the
principles. This use of the word "theory" is not unique to chess, but
is similar to how the term is used in regards to other games. Indeed,
it would be difficult to imagine discussing the theory of any game
where the best played games would not constitute a part of that
theory.

Thomas Bantel <t...@IPA.FhG.de> wrote in message news:<aj7rqi$1961ip$1...@ID-124295.news.dfncis.de>...

Thomas Bantel

unread,

Aug 13, 2002, 5:03:51 AM8/13/02

to

Tom Ewall wrote:
>
> It's both. The principles and the games which illustrate the
> principles. This use of the word "theory" is not unique to chess, but
> is similar to how the term is used in regards to other games. Indeed,
> it would be difficult to imagine discussing the theory of any game
> where the best played games would not constitute a part of that
> theory.
>

Well, if we had really valid and complete principles, we wouldn't need
illustration ;-) To qualify as a valid theory, the "principles" *must*
at the very least be able to explain all the facts.

Ok, I agree the word "theory" is used differently with regard to chess
and also other games. But IMHO this use is wrong or at least misleading.
There have been attempts to create a real "theory", people like Tarrasch
have tried approaches based on simple evaluation of the pieces and their
positions on the board. Also, computer programs and their evaluation
functions go in the same direction. But to date, AFAIK, none of them can
fully explain all the facts, which is why they have use (additional)
brute force computing.

Thomas Bantel

Timo Saari

unread,

Aug 13, 2002, 12:33:31 PM8/13/02

to

"Thomas Bantel" <t...@IPA.FhG.de> kirjoitti
viestissä:ajai1n$19rstd$1...@ID-124295.news.dfncis.de...

I also find the use of the word "theory" misleading and inaccurate.
A better word might be "heuristics". What is generally known as
"Chess theory" is IMO a collection of heuristic rules.

Timo Saari