I am not sure about the "not enough example" (maybe i should re-read, I read this some while ago, for me it is a while ).
I find it is not the number of examples but the first exposure clarity of concept versus the likely hood of encoutner, and then the encompassing the context or instriincing chess board complexity of a concept, with a minimal amount of exmaples well chosen and trimmed from full game dispersion of issues (if needed resuse dispersed segments and put full game in some end of book appendice, and put the illustrious names as limited 2D writtent signalling resource there too.
I think the main problem is putting the examples before the cart, and using sacro-religiously the names of the players and the full games. It breaks the efficienty of first-exposure claraity, and then buried the gist of the emergeant logic intended to be communcated.
I have limited first hand exposure but I did have a bunch of second hand discussions with jomega whose whole coursework is abiding but integrated and comparing to his full critical thinking and chess loving power (which is a lot to my point of view, I like to discuss with jomega, for nothing will get passed his critical ability, well, it might be my delusions, at times, we might find out they were not, and we are all fallible, but I can take the stick of logic, when needed).
The only book of strategy so far, both second hand (with help not getting bugged down in examples, before the other more important concepts). is that book of FLores on named pawn structures. The inversion from concept (which title of book being altready about PS, might be forcing as the main topic) to games. .
the games are not redundant clump of them. . They seemed there to be a parsimonious but big enough "cerning" of the already structured and present concepts and ideas that are claimed or reported from GM integration, as logically (or probably logically) related to the seeable named PS as abstract in the face, first thing.
Now I should re-read. in conclusion. not the quantitiy, the quality. and also horse to cart thing. (and also , burying concepts in full game examples). perhaps instead of naming a study chapter or a diagrame by the player, use fragments of games. for their ideas as titles. and in fine print honor the game creartors.
but i really like better crafted non realistic positions in general. a least for first exporuse of the core concept. then mutations.
go itno the details of mutatis mutandis. teach mutatis mutandis. I hope I did not actuall say the same thing as the blog.. :)
And this is impulsive. as often. I am screaming, kind of.
PS: hiccup: crafted caricatrues of board positoins can do wonders. (I think Nimzo did that, and named pawns structure are some of that). But even non-legal things. Humorous, shocking positions. they can strecth the mind of the adult learner. Then need that more than kids. Kids will do it in spite of their elders knowing best. One might think that this would only work for tactical concepts. But I would say that plans problematic emphasis can be also made models on the board. I think some tight problems like the Backay composition, can be viewed as caricatures, as there is no way a human can calculate that thing. One has to make minime versions of bigger than turn by turn thinking about it. maked chunks that might be more numerous than the final hindsight stiched version, which we keep only looking at post-game. as it it was all the chess that went through our heads in the foward or foresignt actual problem of learning. single game and all our past games bearing on our future games, if one has to go improver restricton of the problem of learning. I do agree with other blog though, about not the mistake focus, but the spectrum of strengths and weaknesses, whch mistakes as patterns, and using self as best judge (and if not, training one self to find the most lost or blundered positoin in a full game, that would fit with the internal model of chess not being just a rating.. But why here. because a book, might need to be able to be adaptive. And not rely too much on its physical stream contraint. A good effort TOC. and index not of the player names. but as much care usually put onto those, instead put it on the ideas and concepts in the fragments.). please copy paste this. I am running on fumes..
I find it is not the number of examples but the first exposure clarity of concept versus the likely hood of encoutner, and then the encompassing the context or instriincing chess board complexity of a concept, with a minimal amount of exmaples well chosen and trimmed from full game dispersion of issues (if needed resuse dispersed segments and put full game in some end of book appendice, and put the illustrious names as limited 2D writtent signalling resource there too.
I think the main problem is putting the examples before the cart, and using sacro-religiously the names of the players and the full games. It breaks the efficienty of first-exposure claraity, and then buried the gist of the emergeant logic intended to be communcated.
I have limited first hand exposure but I did have a bunch of second hand discussions with jomega whose whole coursework is abiding but integrated and comparing to his full critical thinking and chess loving power (which is a lot to my point of view, I like to discuss with jomega, for nothing will get passed his critical ability, well, it might be my delusions, at times, we might find out they were not, and we are all fallible, but I can take the stick of logic, when needed).
The only book of strategy so far, both second hand (with help not getting bugged down in examples, before the other more important concepts). is that book of FLores on named pawn structures. The inversion from concept (which title of book being altready about PS, might be forcing as the main topic) to games. .
the games are not redundant clump of them. . They seemed there to be a parsimonious but big enough "cerning" of the already structured and present concepts and ideas that are claimed or reported from GM integration, as logically (or probably logically) related to the seeable named PS as abstract in the face, first thing.
Now I should re-read. in conclusion. not the quantitiy, the quality. and also horse to cart thing. (and also , burying concepts in full game examples). perhaps instead of naming a study chapter or a diagrame by the player, use fragments of games. for their ideas as titles. and in fine print honor the game creartors.
but i really like better crafted non realistic positions in general. a least for first exporuse of the core concept. then mutations.
go itno the details of mutatis mutandis. teach mutatis mutandis. I hope I did not actuall say the same thing as the blog.. :)
And this is impulsive. as often. I am screaming, kind of.
PS: hiccup: crafted caricatrues of board positoins can do wonders. (I think Nimzo did that, and named pawns structure are some of that). But even non-legal things. Humorous, shocking positions. they can strecth the mind of the adult learner. Then need that more than kids. Kids will do it in spite of their elders knowing best. One might think that this would only work for tactical concepts. But I would say that plans problematic emphasis can be also made models on the board. I think some tight problems like the Backay composition, can be viewed as caricatures, as there is no way a human can calculate that thing. One has to make minime versions of bigger than turn by turn thinking about it. maked chunks that might be more numerous than the final hindsight stiched version, which we keep only looking at post-game. as it it was all the chess that went through our heads in the foward or foresignt actual problem of learning. single game and all our past games bearing on our future games, if one has to go improver restricton of the problem of learning. I do agree with other blog though, about not the mistake focus, but the spectrum of strengths and weaknesses, whch mistakes as patterns, and using self as best judge (and if not, training one self to find the most lost or blundered positoin in a full game, that would fit with the internal model of chess not being just a rating.. But why here. because a book, might need to be able to be adaptive. And not rely too much on its physical stream contraint. A good effort TOC. and index not of the player names. but as much care usually put onto those, instead put it on the ideas and concepts in the fragments.). please copy paste this. I am running on fumes..
I agree with the blog post. I don't know a good very strategy book. Several are OK, but suffer from the defects you mention + VOLUME.
What an amateur player needs is a large collection of practical strategic examples. I'm thinking of the way a good tactics book might look but with strategic puzzles.
A good book on tactics might have mates and non-mate sections organised by theme. A very brief explanation of each and then lots of practical examples. This is important in order to provide concrete patterns in which to study. A strategic book should look the same. Instead, what you get is an annotated game looking at a rare Karpov knight manoeuvre or a complex game by Kramnik. Hardly apt for most of the intended audience.
I've thought about writing such a book myself in the same style, perhaps, as Common Chess Patterns. However, the difficulty lies in at least two areas.
One. Strategic concepts are not always concrete. There are there often several ways to advance the position. That rook sac in the Sicilian (for example) is not always the ONLY way to go. If there are several playable ideas then it will not work as a puzzle. The strategic move has to be CLEARLY better than any other move in the way winning a clean piece is. In my experience in setting puzzles, if something is not clearly better then it does not work and you will get lots of complains. Even if it is clearly better, you will still get negative feedback if there is another playable move. For example, if there is a mate and a clean win of a rook, then you will get feedback on why the win of a rook is not acceptable. So I hate to wonder what the feedback would be on something potentially much, much more subtle.
Two. I just don't know enough strategic ideas AND they often tend to be opening orientated. That Bxf6, Nd5 idea is a basically a complete waste of your time if you don't play 1. e4 an the open Sicilian. So you would be providing lots of examples that will be much of a waste of time for many people. Whereas, pins, skewers, mates etc, apply to everyone, the same can't be said for a large collection of strategic/positional patterns. I suppose you could organise them by opening structures like the Rios book, but then much of the book still won't be that relevant to all parties.
Another reason actually is that opening and tactical market just sell more books than a book on strategy. If you want to write a chess book that sells then you just write an opening one like everyone else....put 'Killer' or 'Crushing' in the title and double your sales. Pessimistic? No, that's just the way it is. Do you want to invest 8 months to a year + of your time investing in a project that's not going to sell and get complaints at the end of it? Authors have to think of the practicalities of the project.
You would have to introduce a position and say 'Here is a position, can you think of a way to sac a piece and create activity on the queenside?' Then you could show your rook sac idea in the Sicilian, but still you'd have to concede also there are several ways to play here and as such it just waters down your example. You are also then in danger of doing what Hendriks says when he talks about finding a position to fit a theme. It's potentially a bit artificial or forced.
It's hard. That's why there aren't any books like this.
What an amateur player needs is a large collection of practical strategic examples. I'm thinking of the way a good tactics book might look but with strategic puzzles.
A good book on tactics might have mates and non-mate sections organised by theme. A very brief explanation of each and then lots of practical examples. This is important in order to provide concrete patterns in which to study. A strategic book should look the same. Instead, what you get is an annotated game looking at a rare Karpov knight manoeuvre or a complex game by Kramnik. Hardly apt for most of the intended audience.
I've thought about writing such a book myself in the same style, perhaps, as Common Chess Patterns. However, the difficulty lies in at least two areas.
One. Strategic concepts are not always concrete. There are there often several ways to advance the position. That rook sac in the Sicilian (for example) is not always the ONLY way to go. If there are several playable ideas then it will not work as a puzzle. The strategic move has to be CLEARLY better than any other move in the way winning a clean piece is. In my experience in setting puzzles, if something is not clearly better then it does not work and you will get lots of complains. Even if it is clearly better, you will still get negative feedback if there is another playable move. For example, if there is a mate and a clean win of a rook, then you will get feedback on why the win of a rook is not acceptable. So I hate to wonder what the feedback would be on something potentially much, much more subtle.
Two. I just don't know enough strategic ideas AND they often tend to be opening orientated. That Bxf6, Nd5 idea is a basically a complete waste of your time if you don't play 1. e4 an the open Sicilian. So you would be providing lots of examples that will be much of a waste of time for many people. Whereas, pins, skewers, mates etc, apply to everyone, the same can't be said for a large collection of strategic/positional patterns. I suppose you could organise them by opening structures like the Rios book, but then much of the book still won't be that relevant to all parties.
Another reason actually is that opening and tactical market just sell more books than a book on strategy. If you want to write a chess book that sells then you just write an opening one like everyone else....put 'Killer' or 'Crushing' in the title and double your sales. Pessimistic? No, that's just the way it is. Do you want to invest 8 months to a year + of your time investing in a project that's not going to sell and get complaints at the end of it? Authors have to think of the practicalities of the project.
You would have to introduce a position and say 'Here is a position, can you think of a way to sac a piece and create activity on the queenside?' Then you could show your rook sac idea in the Sicilian, but still you'd have to concede also there are several ways to play here and as such it just waters down your example. You are also then in danger of doing what Hendriks says when he talks about finding a position to fit a theme. It's potentially a bit artificial or forced.
It's hard. That's why there aren't any books like this.
Let’s see you write a great strategy book if you criticise those.
Does it have to be moves as the main entity? Could we not talk about the many possibilities of a current position continuations?
I know the usual way is to pick one opening line and feel safe in there, I do, I use the opening explorer to feel safe, in the most foggy position of all positions, the very first position. Where all strategies and plans are possible.
I find that opening stuff should be last in a strategy book... lol. last is study chronological order. Parole de non-expert apremant. And the opening explorer does allo putting that years in the future. While still getting to see the positions first and the moves, well, they are only candidate moves, the position they give is still what the explorer allow me to condier as the move. I do have the time to do that. I actually like correspondance not as the pinnacle of knowledgeship and exhaustive nooks and crannies discussion, but as allowing me to separate the type of problems a learner might have about different chess time scales (depth), which is also related to the human time scale of the thought process. I use puzzles for tactical blunders of my own, and corresponace with explorer for the more long term blunder study, if we have to speak from the best play ceiling all the time.
a good point I would say, as maybe long arc non-turn by turn thinking might afford to consider the notions of room and criticality more that the best move, and its narrow hindsight point of view of learning. I will leave this as mysterious as it sounds. Signed: The annoying correspondence Lichess player.
I know the usual way is to pick one opening line and feel safe in there, I do, I use the opening explorer to feel safe, in the most foggy position of all positions, the very first position. Where all strategies and plans are possible.
I find that opening stuff should be last in a strategy book... lol. last is study chronological order. Parole de non-expert apremant. And the opening explorer does allo putting that years in the future. While still getting to see the positions first and the moves, well, they are only candidate moves, the position they give is still what the explorer allow me to condier as the move. I do have the time to do that. I actually like correspondance not as the pinnacle of knowledgeship and exhaustive nooks and crannies discussion, but as allowing me to separate the type of problems a learner might have about different chess time scales (depth), which is also related to the human time scale of the thought process. I use puzzles for tactical blunders of my own, and corresponace with explorer for the more long term blunder study, if we have to speak from the best play ceiling all the time.
a good point I would say, as maybe long arc non-turn by turn thinking might afford to consider the notions of room and criticality more that the best move, and its narrow hindsight point of view of learning. I will leave this as mysterious as it sounds. Signed: The annoying correspondence Lichess player.
@ChristmasHums said in #4:
> Let’s see you write a great strategy book if you criticise those.
I literally gave THREE reasons above why it's hard to write a good strategy book. Did you even read my post or are you just being trollish?
> Let’s see you write a great strategy book if you criticise those.
I literally gave THREE reasons above why it's hard to write a good strategy book. Did you even read my post or are you just being trollish?
Hellstens mastering chesd stratedgy is good
Examples and min 20 tests on the material
Examples and min 20 tests on the material
I agree with "not enough example"
Write the book, Nate! I would buy it
Best!