Do you like chess?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Do you like chess?

I've been playing chess from a young age but I've been on and off with it all my life, playing a lot in spells and then not doing so for a year and so on. I used to play at a fair amateur standard I think but I've not played in a while, and having had a few games this week appear to be very rusty indeed/hopeless.

I used to follow the chess a little and think it's fascinating game. I'm also always amazed just how unbelievable the top players are, bordering on genius really considering some of the things they can do.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to see if Litnetters are chess fans or not.

[NikolaiI]

Yep I love chess. Studied it for a few years, I was the high school state champion when I was 14.. I wasn't great though, and my best rating was around 1820 and my playing dropped off sometime when I was 15. One of the best things about chess was getting to meet GMs, over the years I got to meet and talk with, via our club, Gufeld, Baburin, Blatny, and some of the top women players. Meeting Gufeld was one of the best experiences.. he was witty, funny, and just crazy brilliant at chess.

[Helga]

it is a game that has always fascinated me but I never truly learned, my brother tried to teach me as a kid but then we just stopped and I kinda forgot but it is something I might want to learn if I had a good teacher (patient one too, I can be slow).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yep I love chess. Studied it for a few years, I was the high school state champion when I was 14.. I wasn't great though, and my best rating was around 1820 and my playing dropped off sometime when I was 15. One of the best things about chess was getting to meet GMs, over the years I got to meet and talk with, via our club, Gufeld, Baburin, Blatny, and some of the top women players. Meeting Gufeld was one of the best experiences.. he was witty, funny, and just crazy brilliant at chess.

Wow that's amazing.


it is a game that has always fascinated me but I never truly learned, my brother tried to teach me as a kid but then we just stopped and I kinda forgot but it is something I might want to learn if I had a good teacher (patient one too, I can be slow).

I think the learning of chess is easy, the rules and general ideas/strategies, it's the complexity beyond that that's the hard bit. As a well known saying suggests that "chess takes a minute to learn but a lifetime to master".

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I love Chess. I'm not good, as I don't play enough, but I enjoy it. Lately me and my dad have set up a chess set and have been playing the same game for a few months now, each of us making a movie every few days or so.

[Buh4Bee]

I love the idea of chess and have even played, but I am not skillful enough to think out all the possible strategies. You have to be a good algebraic thinker.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No you don't, unless you're playing someone above your level. I just play casually, and all I have to do is pay attention to the board and not make any obvious mistakes. I think the biggest mistake people make is getting caught up in attempting to do one thing, like getting a checkmate, they stop paying attention to everything else. That's my main problem, at least.

[NikolaiI]

When asked, "How is that you pick better moves than your opponents?", I responded: I'm very glad you asked me that, because, as it happens, there is a very simple answer. I think up my own moves, and I make my opponent think up his. - Alexander Alekhine
:)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1012578

[tonywalt]

I like the game alot and play on chess.com. This gives me tons of games, if I want, but there again I just don't know anyone personally who plays the game.

So, I opt for playing Poker because there's a helluva bunch of people on the Island who play.

[Ecurb]

I like chess (I'm not any good -- I beat most other people who haven't studied the game, and lose to pretty much anyone who has). However, I prefer bridge. Chess demands too much concentration. The strengths of bridge over chess:

1) It's a team game. That's fun because communicating is a fun thing in lots of games (team sports, for example, which I like better than individual sports). In addition, bridge isn't quite as ego-involving because you can always blame your partner for defeat.

2) The amount of concentration varies. Some hands, it's like chess. You have to be 100% concentrated. On other hands, you can relax a bit more. Also, you get to be dummy 1/4 of the time.

3) It's more varied. The hands are always different. In chess, a lot of openings are the same.

The weakness of bridge is there's a considerable learning curve before you can enjoy playing. Because of the partnership aspect of the game, you need to learn basic bidding before you can even get started.

[Emil Miller]

Chess is the greatest game ever invented. I used to play it years ago but I haven't played it for a couple of years. I was never very good and lost more often than not because I was an attacking player and based my game on tactics at the expense of strategy, all my opponent had to do was to keep his head under attack and wait for the inevitable mistake. Whenever I met someone who played a similar game to myself, it became a war of attrition in which white usually won. If the positions became too convoluted, I was usually the first to simplify but the end game was still pretty nerve racking.
I have played against the computer but it's not like sitting opposite a real opponent. There are some interesting biographies of the great players.

[NikolaiI]

I like the game alot and play on chess.com. This gives me tons of games, if I want, but there again I just don't know anyone personally who plays the game.

So, I opt for playing Poker because there's a helluva bunch of people on the Island who play.

FICS - Free Internet Chess Server, at freechess.org, is a great place to play.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh a lot of people seem into chess then.


Chess is the greatest game ever invented. I used to play it years ago but I haven't played it for a couple of years. I was never very good and lost more often than not because I was an attacking player and based my game on tactics at the expense of strategy, all my opponent had to do was to keep his head under attack and wait for the inevitable mistake. Whenever I met someone who played a similar game to myself, it became a war of attrition in which white usually won. If the positions became too convoluted, I was usually the first to simplify but the end game was still pretty nerve racking.
I have played against the computer but it's not like sitting opposite a real opponent. There are some interesting biographies of the great players.

Yes I agree, it has to be one of the greatest games ever invented if not the greatest game. I agree about playing over the board Vs a computer, definitely not the same but a computer is still good for practise. I wouldn't mind reading some biographies actually as there are some colourful and quirky characters in the chess world, I'll have a look around or if you've got any particular suggestions in mind I'll consider those. I've read one on Bobby Fischer before; I don't think there can be many as mad as he was.


FICS - Free Internet Chess Server, at freechess.org, is a great place to play.

Yes this is the one I used to play on.

[MystyrMystyry]

Traditional chess is something I got pretty good at in primary school, then abandoned it for more sociable options in high school. There's a computer chess machine I came across in an op shop which beat me on on every level except 1 and 11, so I replayed 11 and won again - ah, right.

Later I found a cool computer simulation space chess with lasers and rocket launchers to vaporise the opponents which was fun, but impossible on anything other than level 1 and 11 (go figure)

I met a Chinese bloke with a Chinese Chess set, but I don't think he understood the rules because I won the first game - and he seemed to be confused about what a particular piece's moves were. I may investigate it if something turns up.

[JuniperWoolf]

I really like chess pieces. They're so cool, you can think up some intricate symbolism for them and I've seen some fantastic sets (my uncle has one that was hand carved from stone to look like real people and only cost him $120 - I used to have a girl crush on the Black Queen).

As for the game itself, I could take it or leave it.

[MarkBastable]

I tend to agree with Raymond Chandler, who said:

Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you'll find outside an advertising agency.

[MystyrMystyry]

You could apply that to virtually every human undertaking. I think there needs be a further option: Do you like the idea of chess rather than chess itself?

Hand up!

[JuniperWoolf]

My boyfriend forces me to play. I get pretty bored about halfway through the first game, once I tossed his queen in a pond.

[NikolaiI]

You could apply that to virtually every human undertaking. I think there needs be a further option: Do you like the idea of chess rather than chess itself?

Hand up!

Chess is wonderful for the development of the mind... I agree with you there, that you could apply that to every human undertaking. Chess is definitely an abstract world, but it is a richly beautiful one; it has math involved, as well as beauty and art in the game; that's why people have loved it so much throughout the centuries. It's also spectacular that so much information can be contained in a chess game, and recorded with such ease and kept indefinitely. You can see the brilliancies of Botvinnik, Alekhine, Fischer, as well as Morphy, or the earliest recorded games of Gioachino Greco.. the game record survives intact and you can replay history as it occurred...

For me, I don't know specifically how to differentiate the idea of chess and chess, I think they're fairly closesly related; but chess itself is what I've loved. It was awesome to learn and grow at. It requires a lot of discipline to study, yet it's immensely rewarding when you reach new levels. One of the great things about it is, there's never a ceiling of how good you can be. I guess a lot of things are like that, but chess seems to be a particularly striking example. It's true, the old saying, "Chess is a sea in which an gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe."

[tailor STATELY]

Love the game.

My father taught me when I was young and I played on the High School chess team, usually the lower ranking boards competitively. We had some strong upper board players that really rocked propelling our team to best in our league at least 1 of the 3 years I played (can't remember if we won my sophomore or junior years for some reason). I did manage a tournament win playing black in 4-moves (Scholar's Mate); but my opponent was literally dragged from the halls when the other school couldn't field a full team, and I naturally took advantage.

I did play a M once (Jude Acers http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home ) in a small exhibition match at our small town community center (he played 10-12 opponents simultaneously or so if I recall correctly) and I was quickly dispatched.

I play the chess puzzles at http://www.shredderchess.com/daily-chess-puzzle.html every day to keep my wits sharp; and found out recently that Windows 7 has a good chess game & tutorial. Played 2 quick games at level 2 (beginner) this past week and won both games just trying it out. Good little game - wish I had it on my XP machines.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Emil Miller]

Yes I agree, it has to be one of the greatest games ever invented if not the greatest game. I agree about playing over the board Vs a computer, definitely not the same but a computer is still good for practise. I wouldn't mind reading some biographies actually as there are some colourful and quirky characters in the chess world, I'll have a look around or if you've got any particular suggestions in mind I'll consider those. I've read one on Bobby Fischer before; I don't think there can be many as mad as he was.


Like a number of players, Fischer was certainly a weirdo and I didn't expect him to beat Spassky in Iceland but, like Lasker before him, he used psychological warfare to win. A good biography to read is Paul Morphy (The Pride and Sorrow of Chess) by David Lawson about the first world champion. I did have a book of potted biographies from Morphy to Botvinik that was a great read, but after a second reading I gave it to somebody else and I don't recall the title. One story I recall was that of Capablanca, surely one of the most incredible intellects ever, who had never played the game and was watching his father playing a friend. He was caught in a particularly difficult position and unable to work out what to do next; his son leaned across the table and made the move which enabled his father to win. Capablanca was six-years-old at the time.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Chess is wonderful for the development of the mind... I agree with you there, that you could apply that to every human undertaking. Chess is definitely an abstract world, but it is a richly beautiful one; it has math involved, as well as beauty and art in the game; that's why people have loved it so much throughout the centuries. It's also spectacular that so much information can be contained in a chess game, and recorded with such ease and kept indefinitely. You can see the brilliancies of Botvinnik, Alekhine, Fischer, as well as Morphy, or the earliest recorded games of Gioachino Greco.. the game record survives intact and you can replay history as it occurred...

For me, I don't know specifically how to differentiate the idea of chess and chess, I think they're fairly closesly related; but chess itself is what I've loved. It was awesome to learn and grow at. It requires a lot of discipline to study, yet it's immensely rewarding when you reach new levels. One of the great things about it is, there's never a ceiling of how good you can be. I guess a lot of things are like that, but chess seems to be a particularly striking example. It's true, the old saying, "Chess is a sea in which an gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe."

Well put, I very much agree with all of that. Chess is certainly a blend of both sides of the brain, calculation and creativity.


I tend to agree with Raymond Chandler, who said:

Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you'll find outside an advertising agency.

Humbug!


Like a number of players, Fischer was certainly a weirdo and I didn't expect him to beat Spassky in Iceland but, like Lasker before him, he used psychological warfare to win. A good biography to read is Paul Morphy (The Pride and Sorrow of Chess) by David Lawson about the first world champion. I did have a book of potted biographies from Morphy to Botvinik that was a great read, but after a second reading I gave it to somebody else and I don't recall the title. One story I recall was that of Capablanca, surely one of the most incredible intellects ever, who had never played the game and was watching his father playing a friend. He was caught in a particularly difficult position and unable to work out what to do next; his son leaned across the table and made the move which enabled his father to win. Capablanca was six-years-old at the time.

Thanks, I downloaded a sample of the Paul Morphy book last night and starting reading that, but I'll have a general "Fischer" round. I remembered the biography on him that I had read previously was Bobby Fischer Goes to War by David Edmonds and John Eidinow and I would recommended that to anyone interested in him.

Another book I would recommend is The Chess Travellers Quiz Book by Julian Hodkinson (British GM). It's a good puzzle book.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-Travellers-Quiz-Cadogan-Books/dp/1857440307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319888526&sr=8-1

I've had this book for about 15 years it's had some use as well. It's ripped to shreds and covered in oil (because I used to take it into work and read it instead of working) it's definitely my worst kept book. It differs from other chess puzzle books, and there are loads out there, in that you if you wish you can mark your scores and work out a loose rating based on your performance, I never much bothered with that, but the option is there. It gets increasing difficult as you go on so that I only really got about two thirds of the way through it. There's also a mix of classic and modern games with little bits of interesting anecdotes throughout if I remember correctly. A good book of it's type.

I think a book/website I would be interested in would be to learn how to convert small advantages into wins. There are many books around with puzzles and strategies, much like the one above, where you see sensational endings, sacrificial stokes and so on, but not many of the more "boring" a pawn in front/better postion convert to win types. As attractive and useful as the former books are, I think the latter types would be of more general practical use. I might have a look around for one of those.

Oh, I have a book Better Chess for Average Players by Tim Harding, I might have a little re-read of that. I can't remember it being quite what I'm thinking of though.

[Emil Miller]

I think a book/website I would be interested in would be to learn how to convert small advantages into wins. There are many books around with puzzles and strategies, much like the one above, where you see sensational endings, sacrificial stokes and so on, but not many of the more "boring" a pawn in front/better position convert to win types. As attractive and useful as the former books are, I think the latter types would be of more general practical use. I might have a look around for one of those.

That's what a lot of players would like. I think there's much in the theory that games are won by the accumulation of small advantages but that sort of play is at the mercy of the unexpected combination that surfaces in the middle game and ruins the painstakingly established pawn structured position. However, unless mate occurs reasonably quickly, pawn play obviously becomes more vital as the board is cleared.
The thing that's most amazing to me is the infinite variety of moves in chess. There's that story about a wandering mendicant who, a couple of thousand years ago, arrived at a village in India where nobody had ever heard of the game. He taught the village Chieftain to play and told him that the moves were infinitesimal. The Chieftain looked at the 64 squares and said he didn't believe it. The mendicant asked him to place two grains of rice on the first square and double up for each subsequent square. When the Chieftain had done so there were enough grains of rice to cover England to a depth of 35ft. It's obviously apocryphal but does give some idea of the colossal potential of the game.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I have enjoyed chess, we played among the family during my teen years.
My son became mildly interested a few years ago, rekindling my interest, but that has since waned.
Though I would be quite rusty, I would still enjoy a game today.

.

[MarkBastable]

He taught the village Chieftain to play and told him that the moves were infinitesimal.

Infinitesimal (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinitesimal)is exactly what he didn't say they were.

[David Lurie]

I have read maybe 500 chess books - history, opening theory, endings and all the rest - so I guess I like chess and I have studied it with love for many years, I had reached a very good understanding of the game (looking at a GM game I could fathom what was going on) but I have always been a poor OTB (Over The Board) player - just short of a 1900 Elo - I have fared a little bit better in CC (Correspondence Chess) achieving a 2140 ICCF Elo and winning a few tourneys, but nowadays I am inactive as a player because a few years ago my bad results made me lose my motivation, I remain an aficionado of the game and I especially enjoy playing 3 0 blitz games OTB and on line (when I was stronger I paid to play at ICC, the free FICS now is more than adequate to my declining skills).
In my opinion the best book about Fischer is Frank Brady's Profile of a prodigy.

[Emil Miller]

Infinitesimal (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinitesimal)is exactly what he didn't say they were.

It's obviously apocryphal

[prendrelemick]

Yes, especially Wensleydale.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, especially Wensleydale.

You're not suggesing that the cheese doesn't actually come from there.

[NikolaiI]

Like a number of players, Fischer was certainly a weirdo and I didn't expect him to beat Spassky in Iceland but, like Lasker before him, he used psychological warfare to win. A good biography to read is Paul Morphy (The Pride and Sorrow of Chess) by David Lawson about the first world champion. I did have a book of potted biographies from Morphy to Botvinik that was a great read, but after a second reading I gave it to somebody else and I don't recall the title. One story I recall was that of Capablanca, surely one of the most incredible intellects ever, who had never played the game and was watching his father playing a friend. He was caught in a particularly difficult position and unable to work out what to do next; his son leaned across the table and made the move which enabled his father to win. Capablanca was six-years-old at the time.

Fischer didn't just win becauase of psychological warfare. Yes, he acted way, way out of line and shouldn't have been allowed to continue the match. However, that doesn't detract from his genius. He beat Larsen 6-0, Taimanov 6-0, and Petrosian 6.5-2.5, a total score of 18.5-2.5 against three of the top grandmasters in the world - a feat that has simply never been done before or since. As a friend of mine said, "Fischer played about 200 points higher than the competition and drug the world with him."

He was erratic, unstable, paranoid, in the final match, yet he was brilliant.

[MystyrMystyry]

I recall someone describing the problem as 'it isn't with chess being too long for life, but that life is too short for chess' (an afficianado might know who said it). And that's the main issue since I can remember - there just isn't time. Apparently it's a pretty big pursuit in prison for this reason: lots of slow time to kill.

There's the quote by someone else about there being more possible moves than grains of sand - now I'd be open for a game at the beach any time (which is the place where I tend to embrace my personal insignificance anyway), but on a computer these days give me Human Revolution or Alpha Protocol!

[Emil Miller]

Fischer didn't just win becauase of psychological warfare. Yes, he acted way, way out of line and shouldn't have been allowed to continue the match. However, that doesn't detract from his genius. He beat Larsen 6-0, Taimanov 6-0, and Petrosian 6.5-2.5, a total score of 18.5-2.5 against three of the top grandmasters in the world - a feat that has simply never been done before or since. As a friend of mine said, "Fischer played about 200 points higher than the competition and drug the world with him."

He was erratic, unstable, paranoid, in the final match, yet he was brilliant.

I didn't mean to imply that Fischer wasn't a great player but Spassky's demeanour throughout the contest was such that I thought he should have won. Fischer demeaned his victory, in the eyes of those watching, by his attitude which was as you have described. One wonders what the outcome would have been had he played without the histrionics.

[symphony]

I love chess and I so wish I could play it, I mean, actually play it. I know the rules and all, but I'm pathetic really. I remember this last summer when my best friend came in for a visit, we used to go to a nearby 24/7 café in ungodly hours (2am, 4am...) with a chess board that we recently bought. Luckily he loves chess too, and he's on the same level as I - well, more or less. And although we could easily play against each other on our computers (via chessmaster or something), the idea of playing on a real board was just different, so we bought it even though both of us were badly broke. It was awesome. :)

[MarkBastable]

It's obviously apocryphal

Ah - so he apocryphally used a word that means the opposite of what he was trying to express, but the chieftain apocryphally knew what he'd intended.

Incidentally, the rice-on-a-chessboard legend - which usually involves the inventor of chess and the potentate for whom he invented it - is a story about the power of exponentials, not about the complexity of the game. It's the movement of the pieces that leads to the almost infinite number of variations, not the number of squares on the board. If it was the number of squares on the board, then draughts (or checkers, if you prefer) would have an almost infinite number of moves too. Which it doesn't. Even apocryphally.

[JuniperWoolf]

Incidentally, the rice-on-a-chessboard legend - which usually involves the inventor of chess and the potentate for whom he invented it - is a story about the power of exponentials, not about the complexity of the game..

Right, it makes the same point as the old scenario: "which would you prefer, a lump sum of a million dollars or a penny doubled each day for a month?"

[Calidore]

If it was the number of squares on the board, then drafts (or checkers, if you prefer) would have an almost infinite number of moves too. Which it doesn't. Even apocryphally.

In fact, a group of computer guys cracked checkers a few years ago. Using their program, a computer can now play a perfect game.

[Big Dante]

It's fantastic, I played throughout primary school but haven't played in a while since I'm at college. Might be time to get back into it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I, unlike most anything else, can't play chess on a computer, whether my opponent is the computer or someone real. There's something about having an actual board with actual pieces, and having a person sit across from you who you can look at and chat with. I think facing your opponent is a huge part of chess--much like poker--unless I'm the only one who pays attention to my opponent's face and eyes. Plus, I always lose on a computer.

[Emil Miller]

Ah - so he apocryphally used a word that means the opposite of what he was trying to express, but the chieftain apocryphally knew what he'd intended.

Incidentally, the rice-on-a-chessboard legend - which usually involves the inventor of chess and the potentate for whom he invented it - is a story about the power of exponentials, not about the complexity of the game. It's the movement of the pieces that leads to the almost infinite number of variations, not the number of squares on the board. If it was the number of squares on the board, then draughts (or checkers, if you prefer) would have an almost infinite number of moves too. Which it doesn't. Even apocryphally.

It is nothing to do with squares on the board although the chieftain thought it was. The exponentiality of the rice grains was to show that the chieftain didn't understand that within that exponentiality chess pieces have an infinite number of moves.

[Taliesin]

Chess is a nice tactical game, although I usually don't play it while I'm sober, mainly for two reasons - first,when I lose I can always blame the alcohol and second, I play more bravely (or foolhardily) when somewhat tipsy - don't know whether that means that my game is better, but it's certainly more interesting.

Oh, and if you assume the following two rules
1) When a board position has repeated 3 times, the game is a draw.

2) When 50 moves have been made on each side without the exchange of a piece or the advancement of a pawn, the game is a draw.

then chess doesn't have an infinite number of moves. It is bounded by about 10 to the power of 17 000, I think, which, although a rather large number, is still finite.


However, wouldn't call it the best game in the world, since that spot is in my mind reserved to Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)), a game that is older than chess, has simpler rules than chess and is much more complex than chess. (best humans are no match for best chess computer programs where even middle-level professional Go players can beat - Go is considered the last stronghold of abstract strategy games that humans still hold; the game tree is much, much larger, the average number of possible moves in a given state is 300 compared to 40 of chess et cetera)

But since it is harder to find people who play Go than people who play chess, then it might even be that I play chess more often than Go, haven't really counted.

[Emil Miller]

Chess is a nice tactical game, although I usually don't play it while I'm sober, mainly for two reasons - first,when I lose I can always blame the alcohol and second, I play more bravely (or foolhardily) when somewhat tipsy - don't know whether that means that my game is better, but it's certainly more interesting.

Oh, and if you assume the following two rules
1) When a board position has repeated 3 times, the game is a draw.

2) When 50 moves have been made on each side without the exchange of a piece or the advancement of a pawn, the game is a draw.

then chess doesn't have an infinite number of moves. It is bounded by about 10 to the power of 17 000, I think, which, although a rather large number, is still finite.


However, wouldn't call it the best game in the world, since that spot is in my mind reserved to Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)), a game that is older than chess, has simpler rules than chess and is much more complex than chess. (best humans are no match for best chess computer programs where even middle-level professional Go players can beat - Go is considered the last stronghold of abstract strategy games that humans still hold; the game tree is much, much larger, the average number of possible moves in a given state is 300 compared to 40 of chess et cetera)

But since it is harder to find people who play Go than people who play chess, then it might even be that I play chess more often than Go, haven't really counted.

It is correct that a position repeated 3 times equals a draw but it usually occurs in a perpetual check situation in which no side can win.
It is highly unlikely that 50 moves would be played without a piece being exchanged or a pawn being advanced.
Nothing is infinite except for space, but within the context of board games the number of possible moves are to all intents and purposes as numerous as makes no difference, with the possible exception of computer chess of course where number crunching is a major determinant of play.

[Taliesin]

Nothing is infinite except for space

As a mathematician, I would disagree (e.g there are "games" which could go on forever), but this would take us heavily offtopic, so I'll better be silent. (also since I can't be bothered to argue about the platonic and intuitionistic schools of thought)

[Emil Miller]

As a mathematician, I would disagree (e.g there are "games" which could go on forever), but this would take us heavily offtopic, so I'll better be silent. (also since I can't be bothered to argue about the platonic and intuitionistic schools of thought)

I should have added time as well.

[MystyrMystyry]

I was going to say time alone, and then realised that it's a construct limited to itself, from universe to universe.

Only infinites are sets within given parameters. Thus rock formations are infinite, human faces are infinite - but best of all musical possibilities are infinite.

[The Comedian]

I don't really like chess. But I've never really enjoyed any sort of game like that: board games, cards (of any type), checkers, . . . . Even in college, when my friends played chess and cards a a lot, I usually found something else to do because I found the sitting around, taking turns, worrying about this move or that move. . .insufferable.

[Alexander III]

My mother loves the game and forced it upon me as a child. I have always and will always detest chess. I find the game mindnumbingly dull. It does not give me any sensation in the least. It is simply logic in game form. I simply can't undestand the beauty in it or how one could find it fun.

The roullete and blackjack table - that is what I love. It gives you sensations, chess is like timid masturbation in front of the computer, the casino is like passionate sex.

In conclusion, God I hate chess.

[Emil Miller]

Here is a very short and also very famous game. Looks easy doesn't it?
But how many people could have forced the king onto that square and then sacrificed a queen so that his opponent was checkmated by two bishops in just 12 moves?

http://youtu.be/FKUr699k9CY

[LitNetIsGreat]

My mother loves the game and forced it upon me as a child. I have always and will always detest chess. I find the game mindnumbingly dull. It does not give me any sensation in the least. It is simply logic in game form. I simply can't undestand the beauty in it or how one could find it fun.

The roullete and blackjack table - that is what I love. It gives you sensations, chess is like timid masturbation in front of the computer, the casino is like passionate sex.

In conclusion, God I hate chess.

Maybe being forced into playing chess didn't help you with liking the game?

I don't like the casino or gambling. There's a thrill in it for sure but you have to lose in the long run.

I don't agree that chess is just logic though. Chess for me is a combination of logic and creativity. It certainly helps if you can calculate deeply, but if you need some creativity, something extra special to think differently and outwit your opponent. (See the link below.)

I also like the quiet and peaceful mind that comes after a game of chess; it's very refreshing.


Here is a very short and also very famous game. Looks easy doesn't it?
But how many people could have forced the king onto that square and then sacrificed a queen so that his opponent was checkmated by two bishops in just 12 moves?

http://youtu.be/FKUr699k9CY

[Delta40]

I used to play chess alot when I was younger but having children had an irreversible effect on my ability to concentrate on one thing for any great length of time, which chess demands. I had a game with a friend last year and while the pot boiled, the washing was going and a moody teenager argued with me between moves, well, guess who won?

Perhaps later I'll take it up again. I like the strategic thought required of the game but now is not the time. The best I can do is play snap or fish with a pack of cards!

[LitNetIsGreat]

I used to play chess alot when I was younger but having children had an irreversible effect on my ability to concentrate on one thing for any great length of time, which chess demands. I had a game with a friend last year and while the pot boiled, the washing was going and a moody teenager argued with me between moves, well, guess who won?

Perhaps later I'll take it up again. I like the strategic thought required of the game but now is not the time. The best I can do is play snap or fish with a pack of cards!

Oh boy kids are such a drain, so tiring and demanding. I swear I'll have grey hair by the time I'm 34.

Maybe you could try getting into blitz chess in pockets of free time? You can build up from there. I don't know how I feel about blitz chess really, it's practical to play that way on the Internet, but I'm with those I think who prefer longer games over the board someplace quiet. I wonder if blitz chess really helps within longer games anyway? Maybe to a certain degree, surely, but they're different muscles being exercised I think. I personally don't like the 5/10 minute blitz games as time then becomes a big factor, I prefer something with an accrued time, like 5 min plus 5, which means you gain 5 seconds with each move, reducing the pressure of time greatly.

[Delta40]

Thanks for the tip. I'd never heard of blitz chess.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thanks for the tip. I'd never heard of blitz chess.

No worries. Blitz chess seems to be the norm on the internet for obvious reasons really. One site, FICS - The Free Internet Chess Server is a good place to explore further, as well as others, some of which have been mentioned earlier.

[Taliesin]

...I wonder if blitz chess really helps within longer games anyway?...

Not certain about blitz chess, but the people I used to play Go with discouraged me from playing blitz Go, saying that it will teach me the wrong instincts - stuff that only works because people don't have time to think about it. One will start believing and feeling that these kinds of things work and are good when they're in fact not.

Then again, have no experience with blitz chess so maybe it doesn't hold for chess.

EDIT: THen again, in the case of new players there's the proverb that one should lose one's first 50 games as fast as possible...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Not certain about blitz chess, but the people I used to play Go with discouraged me from playing blitz Go, saying that it will teach me the wrong instincts - stuff that only works because people don't have time to think about it. One will start believing and feeling that these kinds of things work and are good when they're in fact not.

Then again, have no experience with blitz chess so maybe it doesn't hold for chess.

EDIT: THen again, in the case of new players there's the proverb that one should lose one's first 50 games as fast as possible...

Yes I think your instinct is right on this (or at least I think the same way). I'm not criticizing blitz chess at all, I've had loads of games and it is exciting (hey Alex try it maybe) but I also think the danger is that you can pick up bad habits. It is also easy to make silly mistakes which can undermine your confidence.

[Lokasenna]

I love the idea of chess - I'm just spectacularly bad at it. For some reason, I just don't seem to have the right mindset for it.

[lawpark]

I think positional players play blitz chess better ... I personally have trouble about speeding up when it comes to the point of needing to make calculations about tactical moves. In opening it is just about what you generally a comfortable able ...

[NikolaiI]

Not certain about blitz chess, but the people I used to play Go with discouraged me from playing blitz Go, saying that it will teach me the wrong instincts - stuff that only works because people don't have time to think about it. One will start believing and feeling that these kinds of things work and are good when they're in fact not.

Then again, have no experience with blitz chess so maybe it doesn't hold for chess.

EDIT: THen again, in the case of new players there's the proverb that one should lose one's first 50 games as fast as possible...

There are lots of mixed opinions on blitz chess. Botvinnik once said, upon being asked about it, "Yes, I have played a blitz game once. It was on a train, in 1929." I love that quote. I think that if you're a serious player, wanting to get good, then you shouldn't play games with less than a 10 minute time control. The reasons are basically as you stated, specifically, you don't learn anything because you're not really thinking about your moves. You learn bad habits and what not.

On the other hand, it's possible to play 5 minute games very well, if that's your goal. But a lot of work is required and you have to really focus. I have a friend who's an A player, who says that he plays tournaments to improve his speed chess, and he plays speed chess to improve his Bughouse! And when he plays tournaments he rarely uses more than 10-15 minutes of his clock. That's not that unusual, but to still play a good game, which he does, is.

Also there's the killer instinct involved.. matching wits with someone who is near your strength in speed games, can really build your desire to be better, for competition's sake. I've done that with a friend, played quite a few blitz games that were real contests to us, since we're about the same level, and it gave me incentive to study and improve, even years later. So, there's nothing wrong with blitz, especially if that's your goal in itself. But it's easy to just play reactive chess, not thinking deeply. It takes extra work to think intelligently in a blitz game, because it requires doing so very quickly. It's common to slip into playing bad moves because of not thinking, and when that happens, you hurt your game.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I rarely ever play with a clock. Actually, the only time I did, it was in chess club. When with friends, I don't really see a need for it.

[Big Dante]

I rarely ever play with a clock. Actually, the only time I did, it was in chess club. When with friends, I don't really see a need for it.

Ahhh I remember the good old clock.

I won a match in Grade 6 because my opponent forgot to finish their turn :biggrinjester:

[David Lurie]

Here is a very short and also very famous game. Looks easy doesn't it?
But how many people could have forced the king onto that square and then sacrificed a queen so that his opponent was checkmated by two bishops in just 12 moves?

http://youtu.be/FKUr699k9CY

(to the eyes of the modern day player) it looks silly, nowadays sacrificing material (the knight) like that makes no sense at all, and that ridiculous defense is nowhere to be found, maybe not even at 1300 Elo level.

[Emil Miller]

(to the eyes of the modern day player) it looks silly, nowadays sacrificing material (the knight) like that makes no sense at all, and that ridiculous defense is nowhere to be found, maybe not even at 1300 Elo level.

I agree but it is easy to say with hindsight.

[LitNetIsGreat]

This week I have been getting more and more into chess again and trying to learn, and re-learn, some of the openings positions and theory, bit by bit. I find the opening theories really interesting, though there's a hugh amount of it out there and you hardly know where to start.

On a different issue and the point of my post really, here is a test I found which estimates your ELO rating which some might be interested in. There are ten situations where you have to input your next move and then it calculates your rating based upon them.

http://www.chessmaniac.com/ELORating/ELO_Chess_Rating.shtml

I scored 1500 which is about an average club player standard I think. This seems about right to me at present as I am rusty and have been away from it for too long. I don't think I've got much brain power left to get much higher either, but as long as I still keep beating my brother (75%+ success rate) that's all that really matters!

Edit: sorry the link should now work.

[Taliesin]

I guess that it might be a tad annoying that I write in this thread mainly from the viewpoint of a Go-enthusiast who wonders about whether similar things hold for chess(e.g I recently learned that there was some kind of hypermodernism opening school happening in chess relatively around the same time as shinfuseki happened in Go) - but - is it common in chess clubs and players who take a more active interest in chess to review their played games?
I have played quite a number of chess games in my life (although at a rather low level) and I don't think I have ever seen anyone doing a review. However, both when I happened to frequent a Go club and also in other happenstances, it seemed that reviewing a played game is relatively commonplace. Might be though that I have played chess with the wrong sort of people who don't have the reviewing habit, but maybe there really is no reviewing custom in chess culture. Can anyone with more experience shed light on this question?

PS:A propos reviewing, someone noted that playing blitz games is not bad if you review the games, which, I guess, is true.

[Sancho]

I've always thought chess a lovely game.

And I've always stunk at it. But then chess is a medieval game of war (isn't it?) and I'm a modern man, so I figure my style of play would work just fine if I could call in some Close Air Support from time to time, when I get myself in a tight spot.

Whoa! I just a picture of George Clooney in Oh Brother Where Art Thou, "We're in a tight spot, boys."

[LitNetIsGreat]

I guess that it might be a tad annoying that I write in this thread mainly from the viewpoint of a Go-enthusiast who wonders about whether similar things hold for chess(e.g I recently learned that there was some kind of hypermodernism opening school happening in chess relatively around the same time as shinfuseki happened in Go) - but - is it common in chess clubs and players who take a more active interest in chess to review their played games?
I have played quite a number of chess games in my life (although at a rather low level) and I don't think I have ever seen anyone doing a review. However, both when I happened to frequent a Go club and also in other happenstances, it seemed that reviewing a played game is relatively commonplace. Might be though that I have played chess with the wrong sort of people who don't have the reviewing habit, but maybe there really is no reviewing custom in chess culture. Can anyone with more experience shed light on this question?

PS:A propos reviewing, someone noted that playing blitz games is not bad if you review the games, which, I guess, is true.

I've never played Go, I'm not even sure what it is, but yes there is a hypermodern school in terms of chess opening strategy kicked in arond the 1930s. Yes it's a very common thing for players to review their games certainly, though it depends upon how seriously you take it, the occasional player is not likely to review their own games, but the club player or tournament player certainly will.

I've found that Blitz chess can be good to work through different openings as well, you know to get a feel for them.

[NikolaiI]

I guess that it might be a tad annoying that I write in this thread mainly from the viewpoint of a Go-enthusiast who wonders about whether similar things hold for chess(e.g I recently learned that there was some kind of hypermodernism opening school happening in chess relatively around the same time as shinfuseki happened in Go) - but - is it common in chess clubs and players who take a more active interest in chess to review their played games?
I have played quite a number of chess games in my life (although at a rather low level) and I don't think I have ever seen anyone doing a review. However, both when I happened to frequent a Go club and also in other happenstances, it seemed that reviewing a played game is relatively commonplace. Might be though that I have played chess with the wrong sort of people who don't have the reviewing habit, but maybe there really is no reviewing custom in chess culture. Can anyone with more experience shed light on this question?

PS:A propos reviewing, someone noted that playing blitz games is not bad if you review the games, which, I guess, is true.

No, it isn't annoying at all! It's most fascinating. I like Go very much but I've only played it a couple of times.

Yep, it is simply that your friends in chess didn't review, or more commonly put, go over their games. Club and tournament players often do. However, even among tournament players perhaps a majority do not go over their games very much. What's much more common, and you'll see much of this, is for players to go over grandmaster games, or notable games from an event. And if someone has a "brilliant" victory, or a big upset (a win over a higher rated player) then they will likely show off their game to anyone willing to look at it. In tournaments, it's very common practice for players to go over their just finished games in a post mortem analysis.

It can be very good in improving your game; I'm sure that once you get past A player to expert level and beyond, it becomes more and more important. Akiba Rubinstein, a grandmaster from the early 20th century, would spend two weeks on one of his games alone.


This week I have been getting more and more into chess again and trying to learn, and re-learn, some of the openings positions and theory, bit by bit. I find the opening theories really interesting, though there's a hugh amount of it out there and you hardly know where to start.

On a different issue and the point of my post really, here is a test I found which estimates your ELO rating which some might be interested in. There are ten situations where you have to input your next move and then it calculates your rating based upon them.

http://www.chessmaniac.com/ELORating...s_Rating.shtml

I scored 1500 which is about an average club player standard I think. This seems about right to me at present as I am rusty and have been away from it for too long. I don't think I've got much brain power left to get much higher either, but as long as I still keep beating my brother (75%+ success rate) that's all that really matters!

I've also been getting back into it..

Yes, opening theory is really vast. I think the best advice I heard in regards to the opening is to pick a player you like, anyone, Kortchnoi, Karpov, Botvinnik, whomever, and then try to learn their most common openings. Also, if you're serious about getting better, there's a way of improving that's vastly superior to the rest; that is to memorize grandmaster games. It's a lot of work at first but in my experience, there's absolutely no parallel for improving your strength.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No, it isn't annoying at all! It's most fascinating. I like Go very much but I've only played it a couple of times.

Yep, it is simply that your friends in chess didn't review, or more commonly put, go over their games. Club and tournament players often do. However, even among tournament players perhaps a majority do not go over their games very much. What's much more common, and you'll see much of this, is for players to go over grandmaster games, or notable games from an event. And if someone has a "brilliant" victory, or a big upset (a win over a higher rated player) then they will likely show off their game to anyone willing to look at it. In tournaments, it's very common practice for players to go over their just finished games in a post mortem analysis.

It can be very good in improving your game; I'm sure that once you get past A player to expert level and beyond, it becomes more and more important. Akiba Rubinstein, a grandmaster from the early 20th century, would spend two weeks on one of his games alone.



I've also been getting back into it..

Yes, opening theory is really vast. I think the best advice I heard in regards to the opening is to pick a player you like, anyone, Kortchnoi, Karpov, Botvinnik, whomever, and then try to learn their most common openings. Also, if you're serious about getting better, there's a way of improving that's vastly superior to the rest; that is to memorize grandmaster games. It's a lot of work at first but in my experience, there's absolutely no parallel for improving your strength.

Yes thanks I will add that to my list of things. I have been spending 2-3 hours a day working on my chess, more at the weekends 5+ as I'm now completely addicted. I am determined to get better at it. I want to aim for a standard around 1800 which should be achievable with work and effort I think. At my level now it is mainly about avoiding big errors and having a good practical knowledge of openings and end game theory as well as general tactical know how and strategy.

I have joined chess.com as there are loads of great things on that site such as the videos, the mentor program, computer analysis etc, etc so that is a good source as well, you have to pay to access the full stuff, which I think I'll end up doing, but for just now I can access the free stuff for a while.

I'm also sampling several chess books at the moment, there's a huge body of books on chess it is somewhat difficult to know where to start but I'm particularly looking at the endgame ideas just now, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Pandolfini's Endgame Workshop both sound promising. I like the idea of going through entire games though, especially looking at one particular player or opening. This is advice that I have seen repeated quite a lot.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

.Yes thanks I will add that to my list of things. I have been spending 2-3 hours a day working on my chess, more at the weekends 5+ as I'm now completely addicted...

...I'm also sampling several chess books at the moment, there's a huge body of books on chess it is somewhat difficult to know where to start...

Neely,
I suggest you start here; a must read that I rediscovered last night when taking a dose of antacid in the form of Goldsmith. (Faulkner has been giving me heartburn)

Upon opening the book, it naturally parted at Vida’s Game of Chess and I thought of you. If you aren’t familiar with it, I believe you would enjoy it, perhaps at your next bathing.

Here’s the link to the Online Literature text:

http://www.online-literature.com/oliver-goldsmith/2112/

I copied a few excerpts:

“ARMIES of box that sportively engage
And mimic real battles in their rage,
Pleased I recount; how, smit with glory's charms,
Two mighty Monarchs met in adverse arms,
Sable and white; assist me to explore, 5
Ye Serian Nymphs, what ne'er was sung before.
No path appears: yet resolute I stray
Where youth undaunted bids me force my way.
O'er rocks and cliffs while I the task pursue,
Guide me, ye Nymphs, with your unerring clue. 10
For you the rise of this diversion know,
You first were pleased in Italy to show
This studious sport; from Scacchis was its name,
The pleasing record of your Sister's fame…”


“…Sixty-four spaces fill the chequer'd square;
Eight in each rank eight equal limits share.
Alike their form, but different are their dyes, 25
They fade alternate, and alternate rise,
White after black; such various stains as those
The shelving backs of tortoises disclose.
Then to the gods that mute and wondering sate,
You see (says he) the field prepared for fate. 30
Here will the little armies please your sight,
With adverse colours hurrying to the fight…”


“…But the fierce Queen, whom dangers ne'er dismay,
The strength and terror of the bloody day,
In a straight line spreads her destruction wide,
To left or right, before, behind, aside. 135
Yet may she never with a circling course
Sweep to the battle like the fretful Horse;
But unconfin'd may at her pleasure stray,
If neither friend nor foe block up the way…”

[LitNetIsGreat]

Chess poetry! Now there's an interesting mix.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Neely,
Forgive me for belaboring this poem, but I have had too nuch wine tonight.
Nevertheless, as I comtinued through the piec I found this stanza that reminded me of the Illiad.
It may not offer much help in terms of "nuts and bolts" strategy against your next opponent, but if you were to recite this, it may have offer some psychological advantages:

"...Who first, great Queen, and who at last did bleed?
How many Whites lay gasping on the mead?
Half dead, and floating in a bloody tide,
Foot, Knights, and Archer lie on every side. 380
Who can recount the slaughter of the day?
How many leaders threw their lives away?
The chequer'd plain is fill'd with dying box,
Havoc ensues, and with tumultuous shocks
The different colour'd ranks in blood engage, 390
And Foot and Horse promiscuously rage.
With nobler courage and superior might
The dreadful Amazons sustain the fight,
Resolved alike to mix in glorious strife,
Till to imperious fate they yield their life."

.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely,
Forgive me for belaboring this poem, but I have had too nuch wine tonight.
Nevertheless, as I comtinued through the piec I found this stanza that reminded me of the Illiad.
It may not offer much help in terms of "nuts and bolts" strategy against your next opponent, but if you were to recite this, it may have offer some psychological advantages:

"...Who first, great Queen, and who at last did bleed?
How many Whites lay gasping on the mead?
Half dead, and floating in a bloody tide,
Foot, Knights, and Archer lie on every side. 380
Who can recount the slaughter of the day?
How many leaders threw their lives away?
The chequer'd plain is fill'd with dying box,
Havoc ensues, and with tumultuous shocks
The different colour'd ranks in blood engage, 390
And Foot and Horse promiscuously rage.
With nobler courage and superior might
The dreadful Amazons sustain the fight,
Resolved alike to mix in glorious strife,
Till to imperious fate they yield their life."

.

Love the poem.:cornut: It sounds like the result of a few blitz games I had earlier today of players rated above 2000!! Yes I was destroyed of course but it was useful slaughter.

I think I am about up to the standard I was a few years ago again, minus bits of opening theory that is. I am completely addicted and even dreaming of knights, pawns and the chequered board! I must and have reduced my beer intake though as beer and chess do not mix. In the Christmas holidays I am determined to put in around 7/8 hours chess study and games a day at least.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Well, all I can say is you must be going full bore with chess, if you are willing to cut back on drink. Good luck and keep us posted on your victories and annhilations.

[cacian]

I have to say I cannot work it out.
It is too difficult for my 'concept ability'.
I have tried a couple to times but I gave up.
If I compare to it DOMINO, which I find quite tedious as a game, chess has more to it.

[NikolaiI]

Yes thanks I will add that to my list of things. I have been spending 2-3 hours a day working on my chess, more at the weekends 5+ as I'm now completely addicted. I am determined to get better at it. I want to aim for a standard around 1800 which should be achievable with work and effort I think. At my level now it is mainly about avoiding big errors and having a good practical knowledge of openings and end game theory as well as general tactical know how and strategy.

I have joined chess.com as there are loads of great things on that site such as the videos, the mentor program, computer analysis etc, etc so that is a good source as well, you have to pay to access the full stuff, which I think I'll end up doing, but for just now I can access the free stuff for a while.

I'm also sampling several chess books at the moment, there's a huge body of books on chess it is somewhat difficult to know where to start but I'm particularly looking at the endgame ideas just now, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Pandolfini's Endgame Workshop both sound promising. I like the idea of going through entire games though, especially looking at one particular player or opening. This is advice that I have seen repeated quite a lot.

Wow, that's wonderful Neely. It's great to hear someone else who shares a deep passion for chess! I really know the enjoyment you're experiencing. Getting to 1800, studying with such a passion in my formative early teen years, was one of the absolutely most important experiences of my life - for so many reasons, far more than I would list here. Now I'm working 12 hour days or I would write more; and even study more, but I just wanted to write a quick note, I've been meaning to for a couple days.

Oh also - Alekhine's games are some of the best for studying. There's a book Alekhine's Best games of Chess, I think it's like... 1909-1937 maybe.. that has two volumes in one, a green tome. I highly recommend studying his games, for their tactical brilliancy. The openings aren't always modern, but you can employ a few of the lines to sound effect, like Qe2 in the Spanish game, instead of Re1, seems to throw people off somewhat.

Well I've got to go..

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, all I can say is you must be going full bore with chess, if you are willing to cut back on drink. Good luck and keep us posted on your victories and annhilations.

Thanks. I am tending to just have the one beer and to save it while about 11.00, usually a Belgian, a Sierra Nevada or a Golden Hen at the moment. No chess after 11.00 as I start to dream dancing chessboards and things chess related. I read a bit instead.


Wow, that's wonderful Neely. It's great to hear someone else who shares a deep passion for chess! I really know the enjoyment you're experiencing. Getting to 1800, studying with such a passion in my formative early teen years, was one of the absolutely most important experiences of my life - for so many reasons, far more than I would list here. Now I'm working 12 hour days or I would write more; and even study more, but I just wanted to write a quick note, I've been meaning to for a couple days.

Oh also - Alekhine's games are some of the best for studying. There's a book Alekhine's Best games of Chess, I think it's like... 1909-1937 maybe.. that has two volumes in one, a green tome. I highly recommend studying his games, for their tactical brilliancy. The openings aren't always modern, but you can employ a few of the lines to sound effect, like Qe2 in the Spanish game, instead of Re1, seems to throw people off somewhat.

Well I've got to go..

Wow that's a great story. I want to get to around the 1800 (good club player) standard by about this time next year. I think this is quite workable with the effort I'm willing to put in.

Thanks a lot for your time and suggestions. I am going through 2/3 master games a day in the week - different players, different openings etc as part of my study. I will give Alekhine a shout, either in that book or I'll check out an online database. I also have a bumper book of top master games. I'm sure several of his are in there as well.

Thanks again.

[NikolaiI]

Wow that's a great story. I want to get to around the 1800 (good club player) standard by about this time next year. I think this is quite workable with the effort I'm willing to put in.

Thanks a lot for your time and suggestions. I am going through 2/3 master games a day in the week - different players, different openings etc as part of my study. I will give Alekhine a shout, either in that book or I'll check out an online database. I also have a bumper book of top master games. I'm sure several of his are in there as well.

Thanks again.

Oh I haven't told you any of my story, but it's true that chess has been a big part of my life. I was a little off on what the price of the Alekhine book costs online, maybe I got it cheap somehow, or maybe I spent that much for it. There are many good books. There are some bad books though, as well.

The book I would want to most study, that is also very rare and difficult to find to purchase, isn't one book but 5 I think, or 4, in the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings.. they simply give positions with long move combination solutions.
The second best study material is undoubtedly Chess, by Lazlo Polgar, of book of mostly mates in 2 and 3, starting with simple mates in 1. The book also has 60-100 or some complete games... er, give or take a few dozen. It's simply one of the best books to ever study. My friend who gave me one said if I read through it completely, I would just immediately jump 400 points. I don't know if I would quite say 400 points, but it's something like that.

After that, or along with studying mates in 2, you should go over grandmaster games, particularly the world champions. It can never hurt to begin by learning Alekhine, Botvinnik, and Tal, the attacking masters. Ultimately it's not a bad idea to study all of the world champions. Once you choose some grandmaster to study, like Alekhine or Keres; and it can be more, but it's very good to initially start with one or two. Then go over their games, enough times to be able to play them through. If you can memorize two or three, esp. while you are going over mates, then you will experience a big increase in understanding. If you memorize 5 or 6, and go over mates for a couple of weeks, you'll experience a huge increase in skill and understanding in chess.

Also if you really want to improve, it's not a bad idea to focus on serious games for a while, and study the rest of the time. Gufeld actually told me, that if someone played chess 23 hours a day for a certain number of months, then played against someone who studied chess 1 hour a day for also that number of months; then the person who had studied one a hour a day would - I don't remember the word, exactly, but shred, devastate. Basically wipe the floor with them. He said, basically, if you want to improve, playing is not that important, and you should just study, study, study. And if you do play, play serious time controls, and go over your games in depth and scrutinizingly.

[EDIT]
Chess Informants are really good. They're a Russian publications, it comes out twice a year, I believe; and they go back many years. They have the important games that were played by the top ranked international GMs, with annotations in symbol form. The games and the annotations are really the best, and this is one of the most amazing study materials, the more so as the games are very interesting and entertaining to see.

New In Chess magazine; this is one of the best publications on chess I have seen. One of the things I learned from New in Chess, and my chess coach, is to write Ne4 instead of Nxe4, or even Nxe4+. You still do Nfe2, but you don't write any x's or +'s. The reason is that you give enough information by writing Ne4, whether it is check or capturing a piece. Truly though this is definitely subtle, it does improve my game that I am using the most efficient method of writing my moves down, while they are not.

NIC (New in Chess) Yearbook This is a terrific work. It is published ever year. Each Yearbook has sections on various openings. All I can really say is that it has terrific, great grandmaster games focused on specific lines, such as a particular defense against the Benko gambit. The games are great, and the annotations are very good. The wide range of contributors has advantages and disadvantages. At times it can seem dry, but it is overall such a complete representation of a particular line, that I'm inspired to study carefully.

[EDIT 2]
It matters much what chess books you study. There are a few that you should read, but also there those that you shouldn't ever read or waste your time with, some that may actually hurt you because of having false information. My Systemby Aron Nimzovich is one book that every player simply must read sometime during the 1300-1600 range if they want ti improve beyond it. It's an important step that can actually add 2 or 3 or even more hundred points to someone's rating. The reason is which, without the understanding the tenets of position play, one can't reach into the 1600 range and beyond.

But if one can learn the fundamentals and advanced concepts of positional play, then one can reach the 1600 and 1800 levels of play very easily. On the other hand, almost all of your games until you're rated 2000 will be decided based on tactics, rather than positional play. As you improve, a few more games will be won positionally. But tactics still linger, affecting every positional move.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh I haven't told you any of my story, but it's true that chess has been a big part of my life. I was a little off on what the price of the Alekhine book costs online, maybe I got it cheap somehow, or maybe I spent that much for it. There are many good books. There are some bad books though, as well.

The book I would want to most study, that is also very rare and difficult to find to purchase, isn't one book but 5 I think, or 4, in the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings.. they simply give positions with long move combination solutions.
The second best study material is undoubtedly Chess, by Lazlo Polgar, of book of mostly mates in 2 and 3, starting with simple mates in 1. The book also has 60-100 or some complete games... er, give or take a few dozen. It's simply one of the best books to ever study. My friend who gave me one said if I read through it completely, I would just immediately jump 400 points. I don't know if I would quite say 400 points, but it's something like that.

After that, or along with studying mates in 2, you should go over grandmaster games, particularly the world champions. It can never hurt to begin by learning Alekhine, Botvinnik, and Tal, the attacking masters. Ultimately it's not a bad idea to study all of the world champions. Once you choose some grandmaster to study, like Alekhine or Keres; and it can be more, but it's very good to initially start with one or two. Then go over their games, enough times to be able to play them through. If you can memorize two or three, esp. while you are going over mates, then you will experience a big increase in understanding. If you memorize 5 or 6, and go over mates for a couple of weeks, you'll experience a huge increase in skill and understanding in chess.

Also if you really want to improve, it's not a bad idea to focus on serious games for a while, and study the rest of the time. Gufeld actually told me, that if someone played chess 23 hours a day for a certain number of months, then played against someone who studied chess 1 hour a day for also that number of months; then the person who had studied one a hour a day would - I don't remember the word, exactly, but shred, devastate. Basically wipe the floor with them. He said, basically, if you want to improve, playing is not that important, and you should just study, study, study. And if you do play, play serious time controls, and go over your games in depth and scrutinizingly.

[EDIT]
Chess Informants are really good. They're a Russian publications, it comes out twice a year, I believe; and they go back many years. They have the important games that were played by the top ranked international GMs, with annotations in symbol form. The games and the annotations are really the best, and this is one of the most amazing study materials, the more so as the games are very interesting and entertaining to see.

New In Chess magazine; this is one of the best publications on chess I have seen. One of the things I learned from New in Chess, and my chess coach, is to write Ne4 instead of Nxe4, or even Nxe4+. You still do Nfe2, but you don't write any x's or +'s. The reason is that you give enough information by writing Ne4, whether it is check or capturing a piece. Truly though this is definitely subtle, it does improve my game that I am using the most efficient method of writing my moves down, while they are not.

NIC (New in Chess) Yearbook This is a terrific work. It is published ever year. Each Yearbook has sections on various openings. All I can really say is that it has terrific, great grandmaster games focused on specific lines, such as a particular defense against the Benko gambit. The games are great, and the annotations are very good. The wide range of contributors has advantages and disadvantages. At times it can seem dry, but it is overall such a complete representation of a particular line, that I'm inspired to study carefully.

[EDIT 2]
It matters much what chess books you study. There are a few that you should read, but also there those that you shouldn't ever read or waste your time with, some that may actually hurt you because of having false information. My Systemby Aron Nimzovich is one book that every player simply must read sometime during the 1300-1600 range if they want ti improve beyond it. It's an important step that can actually add 2 or 3 or even more hundred points to someone's rating. The reason is which, without the understanding the tenets of position play, one can't reach into the 1600 range and beyond.

But if one can learn the fundamentals and advanced concepts of positional play, then one can reach the 1600 and 1800 levels of play very easily. On the other hand, almost all of your games until you're rated 2000 will be decided based on tactics, rather than positional play. As you improve, a few more games will be won positionally. But tactics still linger, affecting every positional move.

Thanks a lot. I’m reading several smaller chess books at the moment. I’m a bit all over the place with them really. I am reading around essential end game knowledge (I can’t remember the name of the actual book as it is upstairs) as well as several others, 25 Openings and several puzzles/tactics and grandmaster game books, Better Chess for Average Players and one or two others. I’m also following the videos on Chess.com and tactics trainer/mentor program there as well and I'm going to be subscribing fully on the site soon to take full advantage of these extra features (£64 for the year).

My System by Aron Nimzovich and Winning Chess Tactics (Winning Chess Series) by Yasser Seirawan are two books that have been mentioned as great or even essential, so I will certainly get those after I have got through most of these others (which shouldn’t take too long). I will also take a look at those other suggestions. Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is another I have heard is good/essential (so many essentials!)

So you suggest mainly tactics and master games as the best way to develop from where I am at the moment (somewhere between 1300-1500, with a lower rating for Blitz, as an estimate)? Would you go through master games with one or two particular openings to become more familiar with those (say something like the Ruy Lopez and the Sicilian) or is the opening not so important in going through the master games, just the games themselves? I’ve heard that studying master games and tactics is a must thing at my level of play so it sounds like very good advice, as is committing games to memory which I’ve not thought of but now seems like an obviously sound thing to do.

With 2-4 hours weekdays and 5-6 hours+ free at the weekends (on average) what do you think is the best study plan? How much openings do I need at this level? I read that someone of my standard should only really need to focus on one or two solid and obvious attacks for white and defences for Black, of e4/d4 more important is the opening principles which I am comfortable with. How about end game study? Anyway, what do you make of this plan then, based upon suggestions?

Week day (more at the weekend):

Memorise one master level game (1 hour?)
Go through several tactical mates (1-2 hours through the day)
A little end game/opening study (30 min)
Videos/blitz chess/online study (?)

I have also been playing blitz games every day, but I will stick to longer games at the weekend as this makes far more sense. The Chess.com site has a computer analysis program which you can use to analyse your own games which seems excellent (you need to subscribe to get unlimited analysis of a 2500 rated computer) but there is little point with blitz, which I play but don’t really like. What’s your take on chess computers generally? Would you adjust that plan at all?

I’m also following and enjoying the London Chess Classic at the moment with live internet feed. The commentary is sometimes useful and following the games slowly as they happen is quite instructive.

http://www.londonchessclassic.com/index.htm

I’m hearing a lot about weak squares in my chess reading at the moment, especially in relation to pawn moves. I can see the obvious advantage of a knight locked in the centre or taking advantage of ridiculous pawn storms, but finding smaller subtleties is not as easy to spot or even see when explained. I suppose this will become clearer.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. I’m going to certainly start memorising the master games. Though it is difficult to know which games exactly. I’ll start with Alekhine and just pick one from the book I have. I’m worried that those games are going to be too sensational though, blazing sacrificial play or obscurer games, which as exciting as those might be, I’d surely be better going through standard but good games do you think?

Thanks for your help.

Edit: oh the Bobby Fischer goes to War documentary (available on i-player for those who have it, BBC 4) is an excellent and highly recommended programme, for those interested in chess or not.

[NikolaiI]

Thanks a lot. I’m reading several smaller chess books at the moment. I’m a bit all over the place with them really. I am reading around essential end game knowledge (I can’t remember the name of the actual book as it is upstairs) as well as several others, 25 Openings and several puzzles/tactics and grandmaster game books, Better Chess for Average Players and one or two others. I’m also following the videos on Chess.com and tactics trainer/mentor program there as well and I'm going to be subscribing fully on the site soon to take full advantage of these extra features (£64 for the year).

My System by Aron Nimzovich and Winning Chess Tactics (Winning Chess Series) by Yasser Seirawan are two books that have been mentioned as great or even essential, so I will certainly get those after I have got through most of these others (which shouldn’t take too long). I will also take a look at those other suggestions. Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is another I have heard is good/essential (so many essentials!)

So you suggest mainly tactics and master games as the best way to develop from where I am at the moment (somewhere between 1300-1500, with a lower rating for Blitz, as an estimate)? Would you go through master games with one or two particular openings to become more familiar with those (say something like the Ruy Lopez and the Sicilian) or is the opening not so important in going through the master games, just the games themselves? I’ve heard that studying master games and tactics is a must thing at my level of play so it sounds like very good advice, as is committing games to memory which I’ve not thought of but now seems like an obviously sound thing to do.

With 2-4 hours weekdays and 5-6 hours+ free at the weekends (on average) what do you think is the best study plan? How much openings do I need at this level? I read that someone of my standard should only really need to focus on one or two solid and obvious attacks for white and defences for Black, of e4/d4 more important is the opening principles which I am comfortable with. How about end game study? Anyway, what do you make of this plan then, based upon suggestions?

Week day (more at the weekend):

Memorise one master level game (1 hour?)
Go through several tactical mates (1-2 hours through the day)
A little end game/opening study (30 min)
Videos/blitz chess/online study (?)

I have also been playing blitz games every day, but I will stick to longer games at the weekend as this makes far more sense. The Chess.com site has a computer analysis program which you can use to analyse your own games which seems excellent (you need to subscribe to get unlimited analysis of a 2500 rated computer) but there is little point with blitz, which I play but don’t really like. What’s your take on chess computers generally? Would you adjust that plan at all?

I’m also following and enjoying the London Chess Classic at the moment with live internet feed. The commentary is sometimes useful and following the games slowly as they happen is quite instructive.

http://www.londonchessclassic.com/index.htm

I’m hearing a lot about weak squares in my chess reading at the moment, especially in relation to pawn moves. I can see the obvious advantage of a knight locked in the centre or taking advantage of ridiculous pawn storms, but finding smaller subtleties is not as easy to spot or even see when explained. I suppose this will become clearer.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. I’m going to certainly start memorising the master games. Though it is difficult to know which games exactly. I’ll start with Alekhine and just pick one from the book I have. I’m worried that those games are going to be too sensational though, blazing sacrificial play or obscurer games, which as exciting as those might be, I’d surely be better going through standard but good games do you think?

Thanks for your help.

Edit: oh the Bobby Fischer goes to War documentary (available on i-player for those who have it, BBC 4) is an excellent and highly recommended programme, for those interested in chess or not.

Hm. I haven't gone over Seirawan's book. So I can't attest to it being an "essential" book. I will state, though, that in general there are fewer "essentials" than are hailed that. In other words, there are more books that self-proclaim and are proclaimed by others as "essential" than really take that place. In Endgames, Ruben Fine's book, Chess Endings, is the classic comprehensive work, which I would almost call an essential, and Averbakh's series of books is also incredibly good. I have heard good things about Dvoretsky's book though, I think.

Again, I have to tell you, Chess, by Lazlo Polgar (the father of Judit and Susan Polgar), is unequivocally the best book - as far as your return on investment for your studying time.. But you already said you were going to study mates.

I think your schedule is very good. When I was about at your level, I studied somewhat similar to this. I would spend 30 minutes or an hour on mates, and one or two on grandmaster games, and time on other things..

Openings - I've always paid a fair amount of attention to openings, I love them and learning them accurately. I think you are right to relegate it to only 30 minutes. I think you should not be as rigid with your opening theory (plan). I think you should study it as you are inspired to; for instance, you get captivated by the Sicilian, or the French, or the Petrov, and then you learn that line really well. So study openings when they strike you, and with your own style. Opening theory is vast, so I advise you take your own approach to it. What I've said should help, though. You will definitely find as you move up in strength, your understandings of all openings will increase. I had a love for the openings, so I learned most of them - maybe 10 or 12 main ones - fairly well.

A friend of mine told me once, "You should learn all lines 10 moves in, and the ones you love 20 moves." I used this guideline sometimes. The reason I suggest to study them as you're inspired to, partly, is because if you don't do this; it's easy to think of the openings as dry, and something you don't want to work on. But if you are inspired or passionate about them, then it doesn't seem like that at all.

About chess computers - Fritz is the best that I know of. When I was doing this ten years ago, I got Fritz 6 from my coach, and spent hours on it. It's the best program there is.. it's nearly the strongest computer, and the interface is as good as it gets in terms of ease to use ... and good features like "full analysis" is one of the most useful functions. They have come out with many more versions, and I was a little surprised to see there's a Fritz 12 by already. But I looked and it looks like on Amazon Fritz 9 is very cheap, only $4. I don't know if it's that cheap where you are. But if you feel like investing $10 or so, Fritz is by far and away the most valuable chess program that I know of. There are also other programs like Shredder that are essentially the same, they use the same software and a comparable engine.

I wouldn't adjust your plan really. If it were me, I wouldn't have a specific time set for videos or online study. As I said, where you are now I believe blitz will mostly hinder you. Playing blitz occasionally with a much stronger player isn't bad, and can be good. But playing with bad players will hurt more than help. In fact, if you only played with someone 1800 or over, and before long 1900 and over, that would actually be very good. Sometimes people don't think about this, but the strength of who you play is actually very important. If you could only play with people 400 points stronger than you, you would always improve more quickly than anyone else going through the same rankings.

No, I really meant that I think Alekhine games are best. Botvinnik's games are near there. They are not simply tactical - they are positional at times; but they are simple, strong, brilliant chess. Alekhine's games are bold and clear and brilliant; you'll understand the devices he uses, and probably enjoy them greatly. You'll learn patterns and tactics and theory and everything- endgames- from Alekhine. You'll understand how his moves makes sense, and this is the important thing. Really you can gain more understandings from him than you probably will elsewhere.

They are also extremely beneficial because of how his opponents played. There are some dense tactical calculations in Alekhine's games and work, it's true. But also an important part is how his opponents played - Alekhine was world champion, but they were the leading players of his day. And yet - they make errors that many of your opponents will make, they make the same kind of moves and mistakes.

I guess I didn't emphasize clearly the value of his annotations. That's one of the main things about the book.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hm. I haven't gone over Seirawan's book. So I can't attest to it being an "essential" book. I will state, though, that in general there are fewer "essentials" than are hailed that. In other words, there are more books that self-proclaim and are proclaimed by others as "essential" than really take that place. In Endgames, Ruben Fine's book, Chess Endings, is the classic comprehensive work, which I would almost call an essential, and Averbakh's series of books is also incredibly good. I have heard good things about Dvoretsky's book though, I think.

Again, I have to tell you, Chess, by Lazlo Polgar (the father of Judit and Susan Polgar), is unequivocally the best book - as far as your return on investment for your studying time.. But you already said you were going to study mates.

I think your schedule is very good. When I was about at your level, I studied somewhat similar to this. I would spend 30 minutes or an hour on mates, and one or two on grandmaster games, and time on other things..

Openings - I've always paid a fair amount of attention to openings, I love them and learning them accurately. I think you are right to relegate it to only 30 minutes. I think you should not be as rigid with your opening theory (plan). I think you should study it as you are inspired to; for instance, you get captivated by the Sicilian, or the French, or the Petrov, and then you learn that line really well. So study openings when they strike you, and with your own style. Opening theory is vast, so I advise you take your own approach to it. What I've said should help, though. You will definitely find as you move up in strength, your understandings of all openings will increase. I had a love for the openings, so I learned most of them - maybe 10 or 12 main ones - fairly well.

A friend of mine told me once, "You should learn all lines 10 moves in, and the ones you love 20 moves." I used this guideline sometimes. The reason I suggest to study them as you're inspired to, partly, is because if you don't do this; it's easy to think of the openings as dry, and something you don't want to work on. But if you are inspired or passionate about them, then it doesn't seem like that at all.

About chess computers - Fritz is the best that I know of. When I was doing this ten years ago, I got Fritz 6 from my coach, and spent hours on it. It's the best program there is.. it's nearly the strongest computer, and the interface is as good as it gets in terms of ease to use ... and good features like "full analysis" is one of the most useful functions. They have come out with many more versions, and I was a little surprised to see there's a Fritz 12 by already. But I looked and it looks like on Amazon Fritz 9 is very cheap, only $4. I don't know if it's that cheap where you are. But if you feel like investing $10 or so, Fritz is by far and away the most valuable chess program that I know of. There are also other programs like Shredder that are essentially the same, they use the same software and a comparable engine.

I wouldn't adjust your plan really. If it were me, I wouldn't have a specific time set for videos or online study. As I said, where you are now I believe blitz will mostly hinder you. Playing blitz occasionally with a much stronger player isn't bad, and can be good. But playing with bad players will hurt more than help. In fact, if you only played with someone 1800 or over, and before long 1900 and over, that would actually be very good. Sometimes people don't think about this, but the strength of who you play is actually very important. If you could only play with people 400 points stronger than you, you would always improve more quickly than anyone else going through the same rankings.

No, I really meant that I think Alekhine games are best. Botvinnik's games are near there. They are not simply tactical - they are positional at times; but they are simple, strong, brilliant chess. Alekhine's games are bold and clear and brilliant; you'll understand the devices he uses, and probably enjoy them greatly. You'll learn patterns and tactics and theory and everything- endgames- from Alekhine. You'll understand how his moves makes sense, and this is the important thing. Really you can gain more understandings from him than you probably will elsewhere.

They are also extremely beneficial because of how his opponents played. There are some dense tactical calculations in Alekhine's games and work, it's true. But also an important part is how his opponents played - Alekhine was world champion, but they were the leading players of his day. And yet - they make errors that many of your opponents will make, they make the same kind of moves and mistakes.

I guess I didn't emphasize clearly the value of his annotations. That's one of the main things about the book.

Thanks. That's interesting about not playing against weaker players, that's something I hadn't considered.

The books. I can't find Ruben's Chess Endings after a quick look on Amazon. I'll look out for that in more depth later then. Alekhine's book. I see so his annotations are a fundamental part as well. I will have a look for his book as well. Is this the Lazlo Polgar book you mean?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-5334-Problems-Combinations-Games/dp/1579125549/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323176454&sr=8-1

This is a massive book. I will get this as it is obvious you think this is important. The only thing that put me off was the mates in 1 and 2 which I would find too easy and the fact that I have other tactic books, but there is a lot of other things to go on here I suppose - it clocks in at over a 1000 pages!

So the essentials would be:
Ruben's Chess Endings
Chess 5334 Polgar
My System and the Alekhine's book?

I have Fritz GM Delux edition from a while back, but I think it is a budget version and you need a degree in computing to work the interface. I will try one of the other Fritz versions, either 6-11 (the new one is quite expensive I believe).

Good idea about the openings. I'll follow those when I hit on a particular theme or idea from a work, as and when. I'll give a little more time to the endings in that slot.

I worked through the Grunfeld - Alekhine match from 1923 which I have almost committed to memory yesterday. I think that I was a little optimistic in learning it in an hour, especially when you take into account some of the main variations. I'll aim for one game over two days I think. I also just found the game on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgnrxJ2Sy_w

Brilliant use of the knights in the centre, taking advantage of some early deliberations with white, such as the Rc1 move. Great ending too.

Must dash, thanks again.

[NikolaiI]

Thanks. That's interesting about not playing against weaker players, that's something I hadn't considered.

The books. I can't find Ruben's Chess Endings after a quick look on Amazon. I'll look out for that in more depth later then. Alekhine's book. I see so his annotations are a fundamental part as well. I will have a look for his book as well. Is this the Lazlo Polgar book you mean?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-5334-Problems-Combinations-Games/dp/1579125549/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323176454&sr=8-1

This is a massive book. I will get this as it is obvious you think this is important. The only thing that put me off was the mates in 1 and 2 which I would find too easy and the fact that I have other tactic books, but there is a lot of other things to go on here I suppose - it clocks in at over a 1000 pages!

So the essentials would be:
Ruben's Chess Endings
Chess 5334 Polgar
My System and the Alekhine's book?

I have Fritz GM Delux edition from a while back, but I think it is a budget version and you need a degree in computing to work the interface. I will try one of the other Fritz versions, either 6-11 (the new one is quite expensive I believe).

Good idea about the openings. I'll follow those when I hit on a particular theme or idea from a work, as and when. I'll give a little more time to the endings in that slot.

I worked through the Grunfeld - Alekhine match from 1923 which I have almost committed to memory yesterday. I think that I was a little optimistic in learning it in an hour, especially when you take into account some of the main variations. I'll aim for one game over two days I think. I also just found the game on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgnrxJ2Sy_w

Brilliant use of the knights in the centre, taking advantage of some early deliberations with white, such as the Rc1 move. Great ending too.

Must dash, thanks again.

Oh, I got the name of Fine's book wrong, I'm sorry! It is Basic Chess Endings. It looks like there's only one edition available, and costs a few pounds. I wish it were cheaper but I guess not there.

Yep that's the one! Chess: 5334 ... etc. Oh the mates in 2 are not all that easy! Unless you are far quicker than I am, some of them you will get easily but many or most will take a few minutes. It is safe to say however quick or slow they are, you'll do them more quickly as you improve.

The mates in 1 of course, are, simple, but there's only 150 or so of them, while there's a couple or a few thousand mates in 2. They are simple but it doesn't hurt to go over them anyway, as it only takes a few minutes to do all of them.

Yes those are the books I would call essential. Once someone gets over 1700, I think Chess Informant becomes valuable. I know I already said quite a bit about Alekhine's book, but I meant to say more last post, I just had to go. But just, I did fail to emphasize that his annotations are the best part. He annotated every game of 220+ total. And his annotations are very edifying, cogent, and entertaining. They are brilliant, really, and very educating. I don't think any player has done anything similar. Botvinnik has a book of his 100 best games, I believe. And they are some if not all annotated; and that's a book I want to study in depth one day. But Alekhine's annotations are especially good.

That Gruenfeld-Alekhine game is nice. It's interesting and good, but it's not one of his best. The first 10, 20 games in each section of his book are all really good.

Yep, Fritz is easy to use, with a great interface. Any Fritz between 6-9 will work. Chessbase, a companion program to Fritz, is the best program I know of cataloging, viewing, editing and storing and accessing games, and managing and editing databases. There should be a Chessbase Light version, but I don't know how easy it to download - sometimes easier, sometimes more difficult. If you can get it, it's some of the best software out there.

Besides viewing and editing games and databases, you can also use chess engines - there are several that come free with it, some like Crafty, and I think Fritz 5.32 is on there for free. I used to run engine tournaments; and once I had something like 30-40 engines, 6 or 7 varieties, and then a ton of versions of Crafty (Crafty 19.11, Crafty 19.19, etc...) and I would hold huge tournaments. I would do all different times controls, sometimes 2-1, 3-1, and watch the engines play each other while I went to sleep. And I would set the better ones in small tournaments on serious time controls, and watch and study the games. It was fascinating to me, I would set the tournament running in the morning, go to school and anxiously wait to get back home to see who won it, who beat who, and to go over the games.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Great thanks again. I'll track down that endgame book later. Does it matter which version of the Alekhine's Best games of Chess I get? It seems that there's two installments in lots of different editions?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Alekhine%27s+Best+games+of+Chess

Which one? The latest edition?

[NikolaiI]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Best-Games-Chess-1908-1937/dp/0486249417/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1323231461&sr=8-11

This is the one I was thinking of. It is a little pricey though. I wish it were cheaper.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thanks a lot. I've ordered it along with My System. I also bought The Art of Attack in Chess as looked good as well. I'll get the other two recomendations soon as well when I run out of tactics/mates and finished my other books. That should just about set me up for a good long while and hopefully push me towards 1800 with study over 6-12 months.

Edit: Memorising the master games is fantastic for the openings in particular, though valuable for everything. I can't wait for the Alekhine book to come.

[prendrelemick]

My boyfriend forces me to play. I get pretty bored about halfway through the first game, once I tossed his queen in a pond.


Ah yes the famous "Throw Queen into Pond" gambit.:p

[Emil Miller]

This week, the German magazine Der Spiegel has an interesting article concerning Armenia, where chess has recently been introduced as part of a child's education in schools. From the ages of 7-10 all children have lessons in chess twice a week in a bid to improve their intellectual development. The man behind the scheme is a grand master and winner of the Chess Olympiad who, under government aegis, has instructed 1360 teachers in the art of teaching chess to children.
I doubt if it would work here though; after all, what use is chess to someone who wants to be a pop singer or a footballer?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ah yes the famous "Throw Queen into Pond" gambit.:p

Ha, ha. I have tried to get Mrs Neely into chess for over 15 years, it hasn't worked though as she prefers games where she "doesn't have to think"...


This week, the German magazine Der Spiegel has an interesting article concerning Armenia, where chess has recently been introduced as part of a child's education in schools. From the ages of 7-10 all children have lessons in chess twice a week in a bid to improve their intellectual development. The man behind the scheme is a grand master and winner of the Chess Olympiad who, under government aegis, has instructed 1360 teachers in the art of teaching chess to children.
I doubt if it would work here though; after all, what use is chess to someone who wants to be a pop singer or a footballer?

Oh yes I have read about that. Chess is the Armenian national sport and there are some top Armenian chess players - Levon Aronian is the best, currently rated just over 2800, third in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levon_Aronian

It is wishful thinking that something so beneficial could be introduced here though. Such a thing is far too logical a move. Shame.

I've been following the London Chess Classic this week (as I am now hopelessly addicted to chess as I was when I was younger). Young Luke McShane, British part-time player is up there with the very best in the world, what a talent and great stuff.

[kensington]

This week, the German magazine Der Spiegel has an interesting article concerning Armenia, where chess has recently been introduced as part of a child's education in schools. From the ages of 7-10 all children have lessons in chess twice a week in a bid to improve their intellectual development. The man behind the scheme is a grand master and winner of the Chess Olympiad who, under government aegis, has instructed 1360 teachers in the art of teaching chess to children.
I doubt if it would work here though; after all, what use is chess to someone who wants to be a pop singer or a footballer?


When I first read this, I thought it said America (as in USA) instead of Armenia. And I thought, "This is fantastic! Maybe they will begin to teach them to spell the word 'chess,' too. Have they discovered a new medication to give the kids to stop them from screaming enough to learn something?"

[Emil Miller]

I've been following the London Chess Classic this week (as I am now hopelessly addicted to chess as I was when I was younger). Young Luke McShane, British part-time player is up there with the very best in the world, what a talent and great stuff.

I'm probably showing my age here but when I used to play, Nigel Short was the British chess wunderkind.

[LitNetIsGreat]

When I first read this, I thought it said America (as in USA) instead of Armenia. And I thought, "This is fantastic! Maybe they will begin to teach them to spell the word 'chess,' too. Have they discovered a new medication to give the kids to stop them from screaming enough to learn something?"

Ha, ha, I know what you mean, I really do. No, instead the new policies will probably be do show them more videos or something, like in the UK or to dress up as dancing bananas.


I'm probably showing my age here but when I used to play, Nigel Short was the British chess wunderkind.

Yes, Short is fighting for last place in the London Classic as the 'old man' of English chess at the moment. He is really looking out of it and is probably finished now in all serious competitions. At his best he did beat Kasparov a few times and other top players and was Britain's top player, probably ever, but in all reality he was always well behind the top players. I remember his championship match against Kasparov in '93 when he got slaughtered really, one win, but slaughtered. Luke McShane looks to be the greatest player in English history already potentially. He's not even a full-time pro and he is already playing equal with the world's top players. Of course there is plenty of time for it all to go 'belly up'.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, Short is fighting for last place in the London Classic as the 'old man' of English chess at the moment. He is really looking out of it and is probably finished now in all serious competitions. At his best he did beat Kasparov a few times and other top players and was Britain's top player, probably ever, but in all reality he was always well behind the top players. I remember his championship match against Kasparov in '93 when he got slaughtered really, one win, but slaughtered. Luke McShane looks to be the greatest player in English history already potentially. He's not even a full-time pro and he is already playing equal with the world's top players. Of course there is plenty of time for it all to go 'belly up'.

You are right, it's true that some brilliant players suffer burn out but let's hope it doesn't happen to McShane.
Anyhow, I tracked down the book that I mentioned earlier in this thread which is a must read for anyone with an interest in the game.
It's called 'Kings of Chess' by William Hartston and is a terrific page turner.
I'm going to get hold of a copy to read again although it is 20 years since I last read it.

Here's one comment, taken from the Amazon site, with which I agree entirely:

I can't believe how much I enjoyed this book! I picked it up because I was interested in a little bit of the medieval background of chess; but once I started, I couldn't stop. Hartston does a marvelous job of bringing out the humanity of all the world chess champions and explaining how these characters shaped the history of the game. Each of the Fathers of chess is given a chapter or two that describes his life, career, and influence--on and off the chess board. Far from being a mere timeline of successive champions, the book highlights the rise and fall of each champion in a form of dynamic history.

While each chapter offers a sample from the champions' games, it is not necessary to work through them. In fact, the book can be thoroughly enjoyed without any understanding of chess at all. However, I do recommend studying the Morphy game. It is short, elegant, and chock full of amazing features and sheer genius. (Having thrived before the age of "official" champions, Morphy was somewhat unknown to me. This book gave me so much appreciation for him, that now I don't hesitate to look upon him as my chess hero.)

This is one of those rare books that I hated to have end. It is still provoking daily thoughts even weeks after I've read it. I will definitely read it again.

[NikolaiI]

Thanks a lot. I've ordered it along with My System. I also bought The Art of Attack in Chess as looked good as well. I'll get the other two recomendations soon as well when I run out of tactics/mates and finished my other books. That should just about set me up for a good long while and hopefully push me towards 1800 with study over 6-12 months.

Edit: Memorising the master games is fantastic for the openings in particular, though valuable for everything. I can't wait for the Alekhine book to come.

You're welcome! It's clear you have caught the chess "bug." I hope you will find Alekhine's work as rewarding as I did; and chess in general. I was thinking about it riding home in the rain this morning. Some of the most incredible, wonderful moments of my life occurred when traveling for chess, or thinking about it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I’m bumping this up to give an update and maybe some of our newer members are interested in chess.

Anyway, at the start of the year I set myself the target of achieving the standard of an 1800 rating. I worked like mad at the start of the year, and then slumped a little in the middle, but have begun to pick up once again. There is still a month and a half of the year left to reach this target however it is pretty clear that it is unlikely I am going to get even close to this. I estimate that I am only somewhere between 1400-1500 (based on online ratings and tests) and have only progressed slightly throughout the year. During the earlier part of the year I think I overcomplicated things; read too many books and tried to do too many things – falling into the typical novices trap of looking at openings for one (and playing too many blitz games) so that it just didn’t work.

The highest point of the year has to be drawing in an online correspondence match with an IM (International Master rating well over 2000+.) He was playing a 1000 games at once though and for all I know it could have even been a mouse slip, so I don’t take too much to that, but at least I didn’t get destroyed.

So, I am now back on the chess hunt and more determined than ever to reach that 1800, doable but decent target, and I’m focusing on tactics, tactics and more tactics to help get me there. Nothing but tactics for at least the rest of the year and no more blitz games. I’m now aiming to break the 1800 barrier by July of next year.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've found an absolute gem of a series on You Tube for anyone wanting to improve their chess skills. Here's the first video (of 260 odd it seems):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaUocxAu38Y

They just consist of live blitz commentary from someone called Jerry (rated 2200+), but it is the 'out loud' strategic thinking that goes with them that I have found particularly useful. I'm working my way through the lot to help improve my strategic eye, along with doing tactics in books and online (and playing blitz as I can't kick the habit). Enjoy.

[cacian]

I guess if one does not like chess then what could be the next game up?
Poker I reckon. I don't quite get it either but I would prefer it to Chess.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I guess if one does not like chess then what could be the next game up?
Poker I reckon. I don't quite get it either but I would prefer it to Chess.

~Actually there is a link between chess mastery and poker. There are a number of top chess players who have switched over to playing poker because there is often much more money to be made there. I read the other day that there's maybe only the top 50 players in the world who can make a decent living from chess - other GMs have to turn to coaching/teaching etc to make it pay.

I've played a bit of online poker before and done OK, but I'm not prepared to take a risk with gambling so I don't play any more. Chess is the thing anyway. I'm back to putting in 4/5 hours study a day, more at the weekend.

[cacian]

Hi Neely I never knew people played chess for money.
Four to five hours of chess study must be quite hard. How are you thought? Or how do you learn?
Are there statistics of risks and winnings?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hi Neely I never knew people played chess for money.
Four to five hours of chess study must be quite hard. How are you thought? Or how do you learn?
Are there statistics of risks and winnings?

Oh yes there's a professional circuit but there's not much money in it, outside of a few top ranking events. There are very few who have made serious millions out of it though, Garry Kasparov is one very notable exception. The current top ten probably do OK as well, but apart from that, there's no real future in it which is why many young gifted players don't pursue chess careers. The current best British player, Luke McShane for example is a market trader and only plays chess on occasion.

Chess study is not hard because it is something that I enjoy doing.