Lasker has a good book with some top down theories, Like for instance a pawn is worth three tempi in the opening.
In reality any top down theory one reads is not a substitute for ability.
Often times, colleges have professors with less experience teach freshmen classes while the most knowledgeable professors are reserved for teaching more advanced students. This seems reasonable - the assumption being that beginners only need someone who isn't a beginner to teach them. However, that approach is often questioned by some of the best universities in the world where the most experienced/tenured professors teach introductory courses (MIT, Yale, Caltech, etc). ex. Feynman teaching intro to physics. A beginner is more apt to ask a wider range of possible questions that need to be answered with the greatest possible breadth of perspective so as to set them on the right track with proper context for subsequent studies.
Even I can see that this mother - daughter question, or top down thing isn't going to make your learning skate like grease on a steel roof. You've got to recognize what's happening on the board. Do whatever it takes. But right, I know you're just entertaining us with theories, not solving the world's chess problem.
The title "Move first, think later" only refers to the order how Hendriks presents the learning material in his book.
The reader must solve the exercises before he reads the explanations of the author.
The title "Move first, think later" actually only means "First think about a position for yourself and then read what the author/chess teacher/engine sees in this position".
It is rather a description of the thinking process. Lists won't bring you very far, it is meant for beginners. Carlsen and Kramnik always stress their "random" and messy thinking like we all do. So messy thinking is just fine, it will become a educated trial and error approach. Just solve many exercises but don't make your thinking too rigid.
The most valuable quote from the book "Move first, think later" is the following one :
" For the reader of chess books who wants to raise his level, this means that he will have to start working on the material, and shouldn't expect too much from the text part. Not a very pleasant message for the many readers who skip the games, fragments and exercises in their search for that one magic word that is to be the key to a higher level. "
After I read these words I was even able to work on Silman's "How to reassess your chess. 4th edition".
I simply skipped all text parts and went directly to the exercises and then to the solutions.
Hendriks delivers good examples and horrible content about thinking and chess history.
If you look at the development of the psychology of thinking Kotow could only become well known because he was a world class player. The chess community shows two weaknesses adoptiong his stuff the way it did. There was a lack of self-observation and the wish to avoid looking at the work done so far.
The work done so far showed that normative approaches weren't really successful. Do step 1, do step 2, do step 3 looks simple and it always guides off-track, if the problem is not that simple. So an empirical approach was to search.
The idea looking at the position (=situation), thinking or trying something, evaluatiung this, going back and rethink or act then is the natural approach and there is nothing new in Hendricks about this. Tisdall is much better.
His article in New In Chess Magazine is awfull. Again good examples and he sells the idea that the followers learned by the predecessors. /sarcasm Sensational stuff!!! You will have never read this before since Emanuel Lasker. /sarcasm
If you want well selected and commented chess content for players 1800+ his books are allright. Some discussion of content is not wrong but arbitrary and free from scientific thinking. His prejudices overwhelm him again and again. So take his content with care, if you take it!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.