wrote:
I'm a hobby chess player, around 1100, maybe less, maybe more a little
bit.
I want to improve up to 1800 (or more if it's possible, I just want to
keep my target realistic).

Chess is my hobby, so I don't want chess trainers or go into
tournaments, I just play for fun with my friends...

What is the best way to do that? Just play as much as I can?
What books are recommended for an 1100 player?
I have Chessmaster 10th and I'm thinking to buy the Saitek Chess
Academy for this Christmas, but I don't know if it worth it also...

Thanks for your answers!

Im also trying to improve my game and this is what has
helped me.

Books
- Amature Mind - Jeremy Silman
- Reassess your Chess- Jeremy Silman
- learning chess move by move
- Chess master vs Chess amature

Pick one opening for white,
one black defense for e4 one defense
for d4 and buy a opening book on them
(everymans chess books or gambit press books
are good)

avoid eric schiller books

I also use software to learn

Chessmaster tutorials are good, when playing
against chessmaster I tend to pick an opponent that
is 'rated' one or two spots above me.

http://www.personalchesstrainer.com/
I use this program and there is a free demo you
can download

for tactics I would suggest using these
programs

Chess tactics for beginners
http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/...+for+Beginners

CT-Art
http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/...actics+ART+3.0

Finally I would join an online service such as ICC and play daily
against people
then I would save the games and run them through Fritz for analysis
(I don't
care for Chessmasters 'analysis')

As for going into tournaments... they are alot of fun
try one and you may change your mind

Have fun and enjoy cause thats really what it is all about.



J.Lohner
ICC 'Inconnux'

"Inconnux" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I'm a hobby chess player, around 1100, maybe less, maybe more a little
bit.
I want to improve up to 1800 (or more if it's possible, I just want to
keep my target realistic).

Chess is my hobby, so I don't want chess trainers or go into
tournaments, I just play for fun with my friends...

What is the best way to do that? Just play as much as I can?
What books are recommended for an 1100 player?
I have Chessmaster 10th and I'm thinking to buy the Saitek Chess
Academy for this Christmas, but I don't know if it worth it also...

Thanks for your answers!

Im also trying to improve my game and this is what has
helped me.

Books
- Amature Mind - Jeremy Silman
- Reassess your Chess- Jeremy Silman
- learning chess move by move
- Chess master vs Chess amature

Pick one opening for white,
one black defense for e4 one defense
for d4 and buy a opening book on them
(everymans chess books or gambit press books
are good)

avoid eric schiller books

I concur! The same goes for Reinfeld.

wrote:
I'm a hobby chess player, around 1100, maybe less, maybe more a little
bit.
I want to improve up to 1800 (or more if it's possible, I just want to
keep my target realistic)....
===================
The best single improvement method is playing over annotated GM
games. If you are like most of us you will devote more time to that
than tediously going through chess books.
By the way, 1800 is not a strong player. I am 1956 USCF, once 2044,
etc., and I am still a weak player. In my opinion "good" starts at
about 2150. I never got that far.

Old Haasie

Duncan Oxley No@Thanks wrote:
David Richerby is actually one of the few here worth reading.

Thank you.


What is a 106 BCF converted to USCF or FIDE?

I'm sorry but, under EU Human Rights legislation, I'm not obliged to
incriminate myself. :-)

http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/bcftable.html

suggests around 1775 FIDE but, as I recall, the ECF only quotes
conversion formulae for above the level of 150BCF ~ 2000 FIDE.


Actually, who cares why should his rating matter to try to help the
poor chap out?

I think everyone's quite aware that one's rating has nothing to do
with one's posting here, except where posting analysis and similar
things.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Pants (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ well-tailored pair of trousers but it
burns really easily!

wrote:
By the way, 1800 is not a strong player. I am 1956 USCF, once 2044,
etc., and I am still a weak player. In my opinion "good" starts at
about 2150. I never got that far.

Anyone with a dash of modesty will say that nobody who is not at least
a hundred rating points ahead of him can reasonably be called
`good'. :-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Chocolate T-Shirt (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fashion statement that's made
of chocolate but it's huge!

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
I'm a hobby chess player, around 1100, maybe less, maybe more a little
bit.
I want to improve up to 1800 (or more if it's possible, I just want to
keep my target realistic)....
===================
The best single improvement method is playing over annotated GM
games. If you are like most of us you will devote more time to that
than tediously going through chess books.
By the way, 1800 is not a strong player. I am 1956 USCF, once 2044,
etc., and I am still a weak player. In my opinion "good" starts at
about 2150. I never got that far.

Old Haasie

Your rating puts you into the top 5-6% of players. Objectively, that's good.
But I know what you mean.

Get six of the seven the Seirawan "Winning" books and study them cover
to cover in more or less this order. Start with the introductory Play
Chess book, then Tactics, then Strategy, then Endgames, then Openings,
then Combinations. Some of the other books and websites recommended
above are, in my opinion, too advanced for an 1100 player (and if
you're not playing over the board tournaments I'd guess--- not to be
mean, just to be honest--- that your USCF rating would be lower than
1100, maybe 900-1000).

Get on Chess Tactics Server (www.emrald.net) and religiously do no less
than 20 problems every single day without fail, even when you don't
want to. If you do nothing else at all, if you have no time to spare,
at least do this. This took me from an utterly horrid sub 1000 player
to a nearly 1400 player in less than a year, and though (not quite)
1400 is still a sorry rating, I'm moving up faster than I ever
expected.

The blog mentioned above chess-training.blogspot.com has some good
ideas but they seem to apply more to the 1500-1600+ player. But there
are great ideas about budgeting your time and scheduling your training.

As others have said, analyze your games with Fritz or a good tool (not
CM10).

And play tournaments! It's more fun than you can imagine! It's
generally inexpensive entertainment, and you meet other players, get
ideas and tips, and have a good time.

wrote

As others have said, analyze your games with Fritz or a good tool (not
CM10).

Even better, analyze your games WITHOUT Fritz. Engines can become a crutch.
Analyze away from the board, without computer help, then check w/ a computer
to see how you've done.

wrote:
if you're not playing over the board tournaments I'd guess--- not to
be mean, just to be honest--- that your USCF rating would be lower
than 1100, maybe 900-1000).

Why should somebody who doesn't play in tournaments necessarily be
such a weak player? After my first tournament, I had a provisional
rating of about 90BCF (very approximately 1700FIDE).


Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Miniature Apple (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a tasty fruit but you can
hold in it your hand and it's perfect
for your grandparents!

David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
if you're not playing over the board tournaments I'd guess--- not to
be mean, just to be honest--- that your USCF rating would be lower
than 1100, maybe 900-1000).

Why should somebody who doesn't play in tournaments necessarily be
such a weak player? After my first tournament, I had a provisional
rating of about 90BCF (very approximately 1700FIDE).


Dave.

He didn't say that a non-tournament player is NECESSARILY a 1000 player,
only that 1000 is a good guess!

For every non-tournament player who shows up at an event and earns a
1700 rating, there are eleven who show up and earn an 0900.

As an analogy, suppose I offer to flip a fair coin 100 times, and ask
you to guess how many Heads will show up. Suppose further that you
guess "50". If I then flip the coins and it turns out that there were
53 Heads - has it been demonstrated that you made an incorrect guess?
(in the sense that some other guess would have been better)

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/