Best Annotated Games Collection for Noobs?

@Toscani said in #9:

Maybe something modern that covers chess engine training methods, might interest some.
books.google.ca/books?id=6pFfEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

can also get to look at the kindle sample on pc without browser. (a bit faster than google sampler, and more adjustable to own display preferences...

I looked at the engine 101 section.. nice summaries of the engines.. also it explains where engines get their scores.... TCEC.
I might read more just not to speak vaguely of engine tournaments anymore (i might get surprised at possible changes that may have happened in the constraints since A0 and LC0 were introduced). The categories of competition with or without opening book (reminder that engine may have their own opening biases without books).

I am not sure that without a proper critical understanding of the engine design and output when used outside of TCEC, that one might be equipped to only use engine as trainer.... long story. but I like the 101 style there. don't know yet if critical or aware of styles that these engine may have and possibly instill in their exclusive non critical usage. To use with care, and in a discussion context with other humans always... my almost naive opinion or lasting impression (?).

But the hand crafted notion is reasonably presented. i might use some of the stuff there in my own discussions or notes to self.
not done reading. sorry not really on topic. but not that far out either.. (might be some human annotated machine games).

It seems to make some distinctions about high level difference in approaches to the chess question by engine types. Putting the fundamental differences up front. such as where it gets its "knowledge" from.

I encourage every lichess user of engine analysis to give that sample a try.. just for that introduction.

I've read Logical Chess: Move By Move and I felt it was the right level of difficulty for me. Chernev is clearly talking to beginners, not to fellow experts and masters.
I found it useful

That's the one where he introduces the Dutch Stonewall, right ?

Plus most of my training is based off of computer

@OmarGatlato80 ... Your next book is Capablanca's 60 Best chess Endings in 60 Complete games by Chernev

My 60 most memorable games by Bobby Fischer

Everyone, please don't dump a list of books in here. We can all find lots of books. We need the right ones for our individual levels.

Please state your game ratings, maybe tactics ratings, and other books you read, so we have a better idea what strength you are.

As to the OP, your profile says you are rated 1600. That is not what I'd call a beginner. That is intermediate, maybe novice to some. Please elaborate on your strength so I can better judge your review.

@Chesserroo2 said in #17:

As to the OP, your profile says you are rated 1600. That is not what I'd call a beginner. That is intermediate, maybe novice to some. Please elaborate on your strength so I can better judge your review.

Look at my last game to get a fair idea of my strength :) I’ve just played a handful of 30|20 games here. My rating will stabilize eventually. I’d say I’m about 1450-1500 rapid on lichess.

I play a lot of ‘hope chess’. Still lack the discipline to check the safety of my move, etc. in fact maybe reading any book is useless until I fix this issue...

@ThunderClap said in #15:

@OmarGatlato80 ... Your next book is Capablanca's 60 Best chess Endings in 60 Complete games by Chernev

You know, I tried to read the first game, and I felt lost. I’ll give it another shot though. I have a copy of that book.

@OmarGatlato80 said in #18:

Look at my last game to get a fair idea of my strength :) I’ve just played a handful of 30|20 games here. My rating will stabilize eventually. I’d say I’m about 1450-1500 rapid on lichess.

I play a lot of ‘hope chess’. Still lack the discipline to check the safety of my move, etc. in fact maybe reading any book is useless until I fix this issue...

you may be testing your intuition. unless the hope is about opponent not seeing as much as you. if the hope is about chess mechanics itself not being predictable fully, I would not say this is bad way to progress.... you might identify your weak spots better that way and work on them in slow time controls. The rating can't help you decide what that is though. Same rating can have strengths and weaknesses at different places systematically...

these would be your intuitions blindspots or undiscovered or inexperienced territory (either because new patterns to discover or new position where to apply a pattern out of your set of already discovered (this is model, not the reality necessarily). experts have lots of patterns in that model, but what people often forget to mention, is that those patterns are somewhere on some map contained in some chess position space (the model is usually incomplete to my eyes, i am applying notions from machine learning as well, intuitively maybe). One might have the reflex view of pattern recognition (woodpeckering), but I prefer the machine learning influenced internal model or map where pattern live and evolve, and have range of validity or proximity to best decision. which pattern among the many is most appropriate to jump on given the current position...

this might look off topic. but this sub-thread about which level you are and using rating as a guide makes it on topic. for me.

chess being multi-dimensional. ask A0 or LC0 or NNue. (also the classical hand-crafted SF eval, internally). not that they would know, but the fact that they need to put the full position information into multidimensional euclidian space (discretized) tells you that there is more to ones strength or skill level than the rating... rating = average over all your skill dimensions.