Good chess books for beginners

[fnord_too]

I have Pandolfini's Endgame Course somewhere I think.

[smilingbill]

I think we have some problems with the definition "beginner" here. Beginner as I understand it knows just the moves and not much further. In this stage the important thing is: tactics, tactics and tactics.
The usual way to learn tactics, and the right way in my coaching experience, is by playing lots of games with post mortem analysis and doing tactics exercises. Maybe studying openings a couple of moves deep is ok too in order to get experience in "real" chess positions. And basic endings like mating with different piece combinations. (I think this can be done with the failure-and-learn method from the games, though)
Studying stuff like in-depth strategy, openings and more complex endgames kinda goes to waste without the basic foundation to back it up. I think with basic tactics alone a player can get to 1600 USCF level at least.

[smilingbill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get a good endgame book.

You'll get a lot of draws just cause some ppl can't finish the damn job.

[/ QUOTE ]
Name a good endgame book. I have Fine's and it's classic and thorough but I can't read the effing thing to save me. How does N and B mate a lone K? Fck if I know, I still can't do it. I hear Pandolfini had a good one though.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a good player, Muller/Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings is a must have. I haven't read Chess Endings Made Simple by Ian Snipe but from the reviews I've seen it seemed like a good beginner book.

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get a good endgame book.

You'll get a lot of draws just cause some ppl can't finish the damn job.

[/ QUOTE ]
Name a good endgame book. I have Fine's and it's classic and thorough but I can't read the effing thing to save me. How does N and B mate a lone K? Fck if I know, I still can't do it. I hear Pandolfini had a good one though.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a good player, Muller/Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings is a must have. I haven't read Chess Endings Made Simple by Ian Snipe but from the reviews I've seen it seemed like a good beginner book.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree you definitely need Mueller and Lamprecht. I don't know what to recommend to a complete beginner -- almost all of the very basic chess books cover the same kind of ground, so I don't think there is any outstanding book.

[dmk]

do you guys agree w/ endgames being the first thing to learn? i have pandolfini's endgame book and its very easy to read/understand.

[amplify]

[ QUOTE ]
do you guys agree w/ endgames being the first thing to learn? i have pandolfini's endgame book and its very easy to read/understand.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's kind of like golf. Everybody wants to crush the driver, and everybody wants to rule at the Dragon Sicilian. But most stokes are taken with the putter, and many games are lost because of a lack of positional understanding leading to common endgame situations. Unfortunately, the metaphor breaks down because you always get to putt, but tactical miscalculations prevent endgame possibilities most of the time.

[smilingbill]

first basic tactics, then everything else

[ivaluebet]

Learn BASIC endgame material. Like opposition, How to mate with KRxK, KQxK.

You don't need to know KBNxK, KBBxK [censored] like that is unecessary. After you learn basic endgames just do ALL TACTICS.

Basic opening Principles are good. Develop towards middle, bishops before knights. Stuff like that, but no reason for a beginner to be studying lines.

TACTICS TACTICS TACTICS

Everything in chess stems from tactics basically.

I used to have this checklist of generic chess tips. I've looked everywhere and can't find it for the life of me. Both online and a hardcopy version. I"ll continue looking.

[MelchyBeau]

understanding chess move by move

[RoundTower]

For the last 3 years I have worked as a chess coach. Mostly I teach beginners aged 7-12.

I am still undecided over what the best order to teach concepts is. Nimzowitsch's idea is that one should study the endgame first in order to know what positions to aim for from the middlegame. Then study the middlegame, so you know what you want to achieve out of the opening. I think this is fundamentally sound but not good for teaching kids.

With the kids I tend to do a mix of:
1) basic endgame positions (KQ v K, KR v K, KP v K). Also some tactical situations with reduced pieces that are technically endgames, but the motifs might be more likely to occur in the middle game.

2) basical tactical strokes, one or two move combinations leading to mate or winning a piece, enough for them all to be familiar with the ideas of fork, pin, skewer, discovered attack.

3) short games usually involving mate in the opening or at least by move 25. Explain some ideas in the openings, why some moves are good and others are bad, with lots of results-oriented analysis.

Occasionally I teach smaller sessions with older kids or more advanced players (1400 maybe). Then I usually concentrate on tactics, but some of them have a good grasp of combinational play and need to learn some very basic positional ideas. Also sometimes they have specific questions about the opening or endgame or positional play. If I had a structured course with kids of this strength I would do a few classes on tactics and then do the endgame - middlegame - opening in that order.

My advice to anyone who considers themselves a beginner, or even a bit better than a beginner, is always to practice tactics. Understanding how to get an edge as White in the Dragon or understanding all the nuances of KRPPPP vs KRPPP is no good because usually you will either drop a piece in the middlegame, or will miss an opportunity to win a piece in the middlegame (just as bad but many people don't realise this).