@chesseater78 It is a good book...I was only responding to @tpr 's ideology that "only the best make good books"
cool
It is good but there are thousands of better ones.
I think he means information-wise. But i think if Capablancas' book was written in the 20s (last century that is..: )), the style may not be all that appealing to modern youth, so to speak. So i can see where you are coming too.
"My System" is an anti beginner's book.
@king-Monti
The point you are trying to make is self-evident and requires little or no argument.
If this is lost on someone, it is more likely than not that no amount of discussion will change that person’s mind for whom the contrary position is an article of faith which is not subject to review, irrespective of any and all evidence to the contrary.
When this happens, a useful course of action is simply to agree to disagree and cross to the other side of the road whenever your paths cross in the future. ;D
Regards, Pix.
Flashy videos appeal more to modern youth. Books are so last century.
I do not know any better ones: I would take Capablanca and Nimzovich over all those Silman/Heisman/Rowson/Hendriks...
Advice taken... 😉 Thanks Pix...
#15 - "The stronger the author, the more he understands. If a weaker author understood more, then he would be stronger himself."
This seems simplistic. A lot of things go into making a really top-level competitive chess player apart from "understanding", however you define that. They need to be willing to put in hard hours grinding away training calculation or studying opening theory, they need physical fitness and mental resilience, tenacity. Competitive play also needs a fairly well-rounded skillset, whereas a writer can focus very much on their particular area of expertise.
I'd also dispute that the depth of someone's understanding is the only factor that determines how well they can teach us. Communicating difficult ideas in a way that someone else can absorb and apply is a difficult skill, and honestly it's insulting to people who put in the time and effort to develop that skill to label them "mediocre" as instructors because someone down the hall who can barely string a sentence together has achieved more in their own practice.
Mark Dvoretsky is a good example of both of these - he was ranked about 35th in the world at the point where he essentially switched his focus from competitive chess to teaching and writing. By his own estimation, he could probably have made it into the top 20 if he'd chosen otherwise: would that have made his books more worth reading, or made him a better coach? Arguably the opposite, as he'd have had less time to develop his skills as an instructor.
The Soviet Chess Primer - Ilya Maizelis
it is the best beginner book i ve seen so far. And even at my level, i can still find so many things to learn in it.
Kasparov says "A remarkable book, from which i learnt to play chess"
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.