I know it's no substitute for playing, but I'm a big reader when it comes to
learning new things, so I like having books on the subject as well.

I have read Learn Chess: A Complete Course and am reading Logical Chess:
Move By Move. The former I found extremely helpful in learning the basics,
but at the same time very tedious with all the move lists. It wasn't exactly
"readable" at times because there were pages of moves that you had to wade
through. The latter is very fascinating but not a good book to start with
(so in my case, as my second book, it's great).

What I'd like is another beginner/intro book that will re-explain the basics
but in a more readable way than Learn Chess. I'm not averse to studying
example moves and diagrams, of course, but I don't want to be overwhelmed
with them. I want something that is more readable from front to back.

Any recommendations? Is the "Back to Basics" series any good?

Thanks!

On Aug 20, 10:07*am, "John Salerno" wrote:

What I'd like is another beginner/intro book that will re-explain the basics
but in a more readable way than Learn Chess. I'm not averse to studying
example moves and diagrams, of course, but I don't want to be overwhelmed
with them. I want something that is more readable from front to back.

Any recommendations? Is the "Back to Basics" series any good?


Note that here in rgc, you will get reams of
recommendations to read the same books
that old timers themselves first read, even
though those books are now seriously dated.
Just try to keep in mind the fact that lots and
lots of books have been written since then,
by a wide variety of different authors who
were not limited to descriptive notation or
discussions of the orthodox Queen's Gambit
declined versus "1. P-Q4", or the double
King-pawn openings versus "1. P-K4!".

If you were to play in a modern tournament,
for instance, you would invariably run into
the dreaded Sicilian "Defense" (don't be
fooled-- you are under attack!) and the very
popular Nimzo-Indian and King's Indian
"defenses" (again, do not be fooled).

I hesitate to give specific names of books,
because for one, I am no expert on the
quality of beginner books, and also because
of the fact that I have been out of active
chess for a while and so my own version of
what is "new" is now a bit dated.


-- help bot

On Aug 20, 10:07*am, "John Salerno" wrote:
I know it's no substitute for playing, but I'm a big reader when it comes to
learning new things, so I like having books on the subject as well.

I have read Learn Chess: A Complete Course and am reading Logical Chess:
Move By Move. The former I found extremely helpful in learning the basics,
but at the same time very tedious with all the move lists. It wasn't exactly
"readable" at times because there were pages of moves that you had to wade
through. The latter is very fascinating but not a good book to start with
(so in my case, as my second book, it's great).

What I'd like is another beginner/intro book that will re-explain the basics
but in a more readable way than Learn Chess. I'm not averse to studying
example moves and diagrams, of course, but I don't want to be overwhelmed
with them. I want something that is more readable from front to back.

Any recommendations? Is the "Back to Basics" series any good?

Thanks!

I have not read it, some highly recommend "The Complete Idiot's
Guide to Chess" by GM Patrick Wolff:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/best.html

On Aug 20, 5:38 pm, help bot wrote:

Note that here in rgc, you will get reams of
recommendations to read the same books
that old timers themselves first read, even
though those books are now seriously dated.
Just try to keep in mind the fact that lots and
lots of books have been written since then,
by a wide variety of different authors who
were not limited to descriptive notation or
discussions of the orthodox Queen's Gambit
declined versus "1. P-Q4", or the double
King-pawn openings versus "1. P-K4!".

At a beginner's level, it hardly matters.

Also, most of these older books are cheap (like the Dover books) and
attempt to teach. I'm spending time now with Korn's The Brilliant
Touch in Chess, its entertaining and instructive.

Play at GetClub. And tell me if you can win the Beginner Level or not?

By playing just 10 games at GetClub you will learn and enjoy more than
what you may learn from a old book.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

wrote in message
...
On Aug 20, 10:07 am, "John Salerno" wrote:
I know it's no substitute for playing, but I'm a big reader when it comes
to
learning new things, so I like having books on the subject as well.

I have read Learn Chess: A Complete Course and am reading Logical Chess:
Move By Move. The former I found extremely helpful in learning the basics,
but at the same time very tedious with all the move lists. It wasn't
exactly
"readable" at times because there were pages of moves that you had to wade
through. The latter is very fascinating but not a good book to start with
(so in my case, as my second book, it's great).

What I'd like is another beginner/intro book that will re-explain the
basics
but in a more readable way than Learn Chess. I'm not averse to studying
example moves and diagrams, of course, but I don't want to be overwhelmed
with them. I want something that is more readable from front to back.

Any recommendations? Is the "Back to Basics" series any good?

Thanks!

I have not read it, some highly recommend "The Complete Idiot's
Guide to Chess" by GM Patrick Wolff:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/best.html

I [ROFL] see that in a survey conducted by Chessbase by Edward Winter,
Complete Idiot can in number one. This must be an inconvenient fact to said
Winter who writes on abstruse historical matters, however well.

But the thing with chess students is not to respond to their questions of
what they don't themselves know by citing complete idiocy-type titles. One
needs to ask them why they ask?

Is it to gain a greater rating, more understanding of the game, or what?

Typically lower rated players want cheap entries to success. What is merely
popular promises that.

What actually promotes their progress in chess are 4 things; to better
appreciate tactical opportunities, to gain a knowledge of the /principal/ of
openings [a strategic mention], to play chess and assess how well their
learning is reflected in what happens, and lastly an understanding of the
difference between strategy and tactics, one being an understanding of the
purpose of any series of moves, the other being the means of doing so.

Phil Innes

On Aug 21, 10:01*am, SBD wrote:

At a beginner's level, it hardly matters.


Wrong. Suppose you are a rank beginner
and you "study" an entire book which focuses
primarily on the double-King-pawn openings
(both sides) and the Orthodox QGD (again,
both sides), and then enter your first rated
tournament. You will invariably run into a lot
of openings which old-timers dismissed as
junk, and thus you will have no "bearings",
no idea of what is going on.

With more recent works, you will still be
exposed to all those "classic" openings,
but in addition, you will get a much more
rational view of what has been played
more recently-- a more balanced view
where the almost religious doctrine of
"1. P-K4!" has been revised (to say the
least) or thrown out.

There is a powerful tendency for people
to believe that what was good enough for
their daddy, is good enough fer them and
good enuff fer everyone else! Some will
even buy the same brand of car, one
generation after another-- even junk brands
like, say, Chrysler. But it doesn't have to
be that way; given some reflection, we can
overcome these ingrained weaknesses
and get better tuned in to reality.

For this reason, I expect that Patrick
Wolff's "Guide to Chess" or Yasser
Seirawan's many beginner books will
prove to be better balanced than almost
any of the outmoded books which filled
the shelves a half-century ago. More
recently, many, many spots on the
shelves of bookstores have been taken
up by such authors as Eric Schiller or
Ray Keene-- men who just "churn out"
material rather than artistically crafting
their works with blood, sweat and tears.

The attitude "it doesn't matter" fits in
with quantitative thinking; the idea is that
poor books can be digested and then
eventually, good ones will be stumbled
upon. But I prefer a more qualitative
approach: keep the junk away and only
feed oneself the good stuff. To me, the
bad chess books are akin to corrosives;
they corrupt or confound the mind,
making them counter-productive as
tools.


-- help bot

On Aug 21, 6:21*pm, "Chess One" wrote:


*http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/best.html

I [ROFL] see that in a survey conducted by Chessbase by Edward Winter,


Make up your mind-- you can't have it both ways.


Complete Idiot can in number one.


"...came in at number one."


This must be an inconvenient fact to said
Winter who writes on abstruse historical matters, however well.


Too many style issues to cover here. As
I write, Mr. Winter is said to be preparing a
full analysis of Mr. IMnes' writing skills (or
rather, the lack thereof) for publication.


But the thing with chess students is not to respond to their questions of
what they don't themselves know by citing complete idiocy-type titles. One
needs to ask them why they ask?


One also needs to ask: why can't Dr. IMnes
write sensible sentences which simply express
his often silly ideas in comprehensible English?


Is it to gain a greater rating, more understanding of the game, or what?


I have to admit, I agree with Dr. IMnes that
understanding and ratings are two entirely
different things; especially since I so often
lose to idiots these days, who are my vast
inferiors in terms of chess understanding!


Typically lower rated players want cheap entries to success.


Money; what we really want is more prize
money. Stop funneling all the prizes upward,
to those who can easily make money giving
chess lessons!


What actually promotes their progress in chess are 4 things; to better
appreciate tactical opportunities


Very good, thus far.


to gain a knowledge of the /principal/ of
openings [a strategic mention]


Needs translation into the language you
started the sentence with. (Never switch
languages intra-sentencia, capishe? You
savvy?)


to play chess and assess how well their
learning is reflected in what happens


Agreed.


and lastly an understanding of the
difference between strategy and tactics, one being an understanding of the
purpose of any series of moves, the other being the means of doing so.


Fair dinkum.


-- help bot

"Sanny" wrote in message
...
Play at GetClub.

No.

By playing just 10 games at GetClub you will learn and enjoy more than
what you may learn from a old book.

Wrong. Simply *playing* before knowing what I'm doing right or wrong will
not help me.

Bye

Bye.

On Aug 21, 9:54 pm, help bot wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:01 am, SBD wrote:

The attitude "it doesn't matter" fits in
with quantitative thinking; the idea is that
poor books can be digested and then
eventually, good ones will be stumbled
upon.

No, that, isn't the point, these older books are not "poor." They are
dated but not poor.

The basics then are the basics now. And that isn't "old" thinking, it
is correct thinking.

I'm not saying they are better than Seirawan or Wolff, I am saying
they are cheaper and serve about the same purpose.

Or perhaps you have some information about these "poor" books?