How to read chess book and not be overwhelmed • page 3/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

... Often it's really hard to accept that what they need to hear/read is something you know to be imprecise, incomplete or technically incorrect. ...
httpscolon//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvypKtPhRU0

@mkubecek said in #20: > ... Often it's really hard to accept that what they need to hear/read is something you know to be imprecise, incomplete or technically incorrect. ... httpscolon//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvypKtPhRU0

kindaspongey edited

#22

"... Despite the obvious advantages of occasionally going to the extreme, I suggest a norm of getting out a chessboard, playing each move, reading what the author has to say about the move, and then making the next move. At this rate, it should only take 20-40 minutes to play over an annotated game. game. I am often asked, 'But should I play out all the analysis lines?' The answer is, 'Of course, if you want to, but it is not absolutely necessary.' I would play out any analysis line that answers a question you don’t understand. ..." - Reviewing Chess Games by NM Dan Heisman (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
By the way, in #12 , I attempted to quote a comment, from Chernev's book, on the move 5 Nxe5. I accidentally left out the last sentence. It was: "A safer continuation is 5 Bxc6 dxc6 6 Nxe5." I just thought that I would take advantage of this opportunity to let you all know.

"... Despite the obvious advantages of occasionally going to the extreme, I suggest a norm of getting out a chessboard, playing each move, reading what the author has to say about the move, and then making the next move. At this rate, it should only take 20-40 minutes to play over an annotated game. game. I am often asked, 'But should I play out all the analysis lines?' The answer is, 'Of course, if you want to, but it is not absolutely necessary.' I would play out any analysis line that answers a question you don’t understand. ..." - Reviewing Chess Games by NM Dan Heisman (2005) https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf By the way, in #12 , I attempted to quote a comment, from Chernev's book, on the move 5 Nxe5. I accidentally left out the last sentence. It was: "A safer continuation is 5 Bxc6 dxc6 6 Nxe5." I just thought that I would take advantage of this opportunity to let you all know.

swimmerBill

#23

Lots of ways to read any book depending on what you want to get out of it.
.
One classical suggestion is to cover up the next move and play ''guess the move''. I hear that a lot but only know 1 person who says he does it [but he is a GM!]. (There is 1 well known mathematician who learned math that way starting with calculus: covering up proofs and doing them himself . If he couldnt he'd slide the cover page down 1 line, read and try again.)
.
FWIW, I get out a board and move the pieces. Most of the moves, I do what kindaspongy notes Heisman suggests above. On critical ones, I try to understand the move by trying to show its wrong or asking ''What if this instead?'' If it's complicated I want to understand WHY the GM though to include THAT move in his candidate moves to analyze. I do it by looking at variations until I start to understand a bit what in the position makes that idea natural.
.
Another way is to set up a study with the game. Click thru it, adding your explanations, then add the GM's explanations, then turn on the computer analysis and add those.
.
Others think generally about the positional features and try to let the tactics emerge from those.
.
If it's a game important to a variation I play myself, I take out a postal chess stamp set and record positions with tactics I didnt see first time thru and key moves I also didnt find.
.
But just playing thru, moving the pieces, looking at where they go and the patterns of play is by itself very valuable.
-Bill

Lots of ways to read any book depending on what you want to get out of it. . One classical suggestion is to cover up the next move and play ''guess the move''. I hear that a lot but only know 1 person who says he does it [but he is a GM!]. (There is 1 well known mathematician who learned math that way starting with calculus: covering up proofs and doing them himself . If he couldnt he'd slide the cover page down 1 line, read and try again.) . FWIW, I get out a board and move the pieces. Most of the moves, I do what kindaspongy notes Heisman suggests above. On critical ones, I try to understand the move by trying to show its wrong or asking ''What if this instead?'' If it's complicated I want to understand WHY the GM though to include THAT move in his candidate moves to analyze. I do it by looking at variations until I start to understand a bit what in the position makes that idea natural. . Another way is to set up a study with the game. Click thru it, adding your explanations, then add the GM's explanations, then turn on the computer analysis and add those. . Others think generally about the positional features and try to let the tactics emerge from those. . If it's a game important to a variation I play myself, I take out a postal chess stamp set and record positions with tactics I didnt see first time thru and key moves I also didnt find. . But just playing thru, moving the pieces, looking at where they go and the patterns of play is by itself very valuable. -Bill