Chess books?

[Pokerpun]

Chernev is good for a guy at your level - Irving chernev really gets his love for the game over to the reader in his books.

"The 62 Most Instructive Games of Chess ever Played" is real inspiring

[tagWAG]

[ QUOTE ]

Logical chess move by move, by Chernev, algebraic edition. Easily the best book you could read at this stage of your development.


[/ QUOTE ]

True. Inspiring and a great place to start.

Then, if you are bright and motivated, read 'Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy' - Watson. This is an absolutely fantastic overview of modern chess strategy. There is no better strategy guide.

And if that has you hooked, then 'The Road to Chess Improvement' Yermolinsky is another insightful and beautiful book.

Don't waste time on random endgame or opening books. Remember chess is art, so find an author/ artist who inspires you.

[checkmate36]

Tactics are very important.

http://www.chesstactics.org/ is one of the best sites I have seen. Lots of good stuff if you have the time.

[BigF]

One book that'll gain you at least 200 points: Sharpen Your Tactics by Anatoly Lein.

[MicroBob]

geez guys. books that will 'improve his game 200 points' doesn't sound at all appropriate for this novice player who doesn't even have a rating and perhaps hasn't even read any books with any chess notation yet.
Not positive though not having dug through a lot of the books mentioned either in a long time or ever.

But I'm pretty darned sure that some of the books recommended are too advanced for the OP's purposes.

Curtains will hopefully respond to this thread. I'm going to PM him.

To the OP - Curtains is a pretty well known chess player who now plays poker full-time. He also has a lot of experience teaching chess to kids, novices and intermediate players.
So whatever he recommends then pretty much just do that.


Also - to all the chess aficiandos in this thread:
There was a recent thread in the News, Views, Gossip forum that may be of interest to you.
Two high-stakes poker-players are talking about chess. One of them declares he oould beat ANYBODY if he was given rook odds. They bet $50k on it.
Curtains was 'hired' to prove him wrong.
Reading the whole thread will take you at least an hour I'm guessing. But it's fascinating stuff.

Or you can skip to near the end of the thread and find the article on the US Chess website that Curtains wrote about the whole affair.

[Pokerpun]

Maybe the following is off topic so feel free to move it to a more suitable forum.

Watching the ME final table today really bought home to me what an intellectualy unsatisfying game poker is compared to chess, it is only the fact that I can make a bit of money at poker, which none but the very best at chess can, that led me to switch allegiances - the commentary on TV and internet radio on the final Table were just so bland compared to the complexity of what a commentary on e.g.Kramnik vs Anand would have been.

[CurryLover]

I would second the recommendation for Simple Chess by Michael Stein.

A brilliant book. Really good at explaining the basics of strategic thinking to beginners/intermediate players.

[iveyleague24]

Well it's not a -book-, but really should supplement any literature you are studying with Dan Heisman's "Novice Nooks" over there at chesscafe.com. Trust me, it's very good, insightful, and concise info. It's Chess's equivalent of the SSNL digest collection.

[checkmate36]

Another good post by MicroBob!!

Now I have to dig up that post. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Also, my link was to free info that OP can digest at the beginner level that will get OP off and running with the big dogs if he puts in the time and effort.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
the commentary on TV and internet radio on the final Table were just so bland compared to the complexity of what a commentary on e.g.Kramnik vs Anand would have been.

[/ QUOTE ]

That says more about the commentators and their intent than it does about the game. TV commentary could be good if the intent was there, but it's 99.9% bland, basic, rubbish. Hellmuth seems to be a decent commentator, in comparison to the others I've heard. He at least tries to read the players, using things like board texture, and discussing the impact of new cards on the situation.

I think you have to already be a pretty decent player to understand chess commentary. It's not beginner friendly. Poker commentary seems to be with the intent of aiming it at the absolute beginner without showing them the level of thought that can go into the play of a hand, and attracting suckers into the casinos.