Is it true Capas book is riddled with errors? I heard that perhaps the Cuban was a pretty lazy fellow and that carried across into his written work.
To the OP, I think Seirawan is a good bet for a player starting out. Reinfeld has some very good stuff for beginners/intermediate players (and even beyond probably) for example The Complete Chess Player.
Capa would crush Deep Rybka. Computers just aren't that good yet.
I would recommend it second (but then, I've only read the Capa)... :)
Awesome, thanks! To heckfar with the newer books...I am going to sing some Huey Lewis and go back in time with Capa and Pachman.
But since most games end in midgame, I think for anyone below 1800, studying endgame might not be the best thing at the moment.
Somewhat true. Think of it this way. Endgame and openings are a bit similar in this matter imo. Once you've simply learned the endgame techniques and developed your opening repetoire you will never really have to revisit those ever again until you maybe come up to master levels. So once you got those two down cold you can then concentrate on the rest of the game in peace by improving tactics, positional play, calculation, etc.
So you may say "why not a little endgame and a little opening and a little tactics" at the same time? Because simply sitting down and learning , let's say Silmans Endgame Course up to A class section, will only take you two weekends if you dedicate yourself to it. Same goes to building a reasonable opening repetoire. Once that is done in like a month you can go nuts on everything else and never look back. I found this approach more suiting for me.
Thanks AtahanT for your rather unique insight. This might suit me too, because I keep obsessing about learning openings (even though I am not supposed to at my level) and endgames (even though my games end in the middle). I even thought the same dagnabbin thing and opened a thread about it a while ago...I wondered why I shouldn't just take several weeks to put an opening repertoire for white and black into my chess openings wizard and then drill it daily, so then I could stop thinking about it and attack the rest of chess free and clear.
That being said, I have a hard time believing endgame technique is simple, maybe I just need to dive into it full-force.
Art of Attack in Chess by Vukovic, no question the best 'àdvanced' book i've ever read
Art of Attack in Chess by Vukovic, no question the best 'àdvanced' book i've ever read
There is some good advice in this thread.
So let me ask you, when do you think one should read "Art of Attack" relative to Capablanca, Winning Chess Strategies, Amateur's Mind, and Pachman if you are familiar with any of these?
The Art of Attack seems to get mixed reviews on Amazon. Some people say it is too hard for the lower-level player, yet others say it can be read any time in one's chess development.
The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal has been my bible almost since the time I bought it. I've also caught myself using ideas from David Bronstein's Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953, his Sorceror's Apprentice and Alexander Kotov and Paul Keres' Art of the Middlegame. Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games has probably had some influence on me as well.
That being said, I have a hard time believing endgame technique is simple, maybe I just need to dive into it full-force.
Well endgame technique is "just" how to convert in clear cut situations like K+R vs K+R+pawn or K vs K+pawn or K vs K+B+B. It does not include endgame strategy where you might have several pawns on each side + kings and one minor piece each for example. I'd think of that somewhat as a part of a late middlegame though because you still need plans unlike in clear cut technical endings you do not need a plan, either you know the conversion technique or you don't. You're right, endgames in general is a big subject but in my text above I was only talking about endgame technique and that does not take all that long to get to a decent level and keep it there.
I've enjoyed going through Kasparov's My Great Predecessor's series. Rigamagician- I also agree that the Life and Times of Mikhail Tal is a tremendous classic. I typically enjoy more of the annotated games myself. Although Silman and Heisman both come up with great instructive books, I find myself confused trying to remember everything they tried to teach me. Annotations let me get into the mindset of the better players and lets me see what they see.
In reply to korchnoifan who like annotated games to get into the mindset of the players, my candidate for the best book is "Secrets of Grandmaster Play" by John Nunn and Peter Griffiths. Great games and wonderful notes. I also would mention Larsen's collection of his own games and Paul Keres' collection of his own games.
Modern Chess Strategy--Ludek Pachman (not sure why my favorite book can't be the one I learned the most from, but anyway...)
I own Pachman and have heard multiple great things about the book, but I have been scared to look into it (and I am trying to be good about prioritizing tactics training).
For beginning strategy, I have heard advice to start with Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals, Winning Chess Strategies by Seirawan, and The Amateur's Mind by Silman.
Would you recommend Pachman after the above books are tackled, or between 2 of those books, or as a first book on strategy?
You will be a very unusual sort of chess student if you actually work through books all the way through, one at a time... I find all chess information bounces around and percolates off of other chess information and you go back to things, or you don't understand chapter 3 in book X until sometime in chapter 5 in book Y, a light bulb goes off and you suddenly say: Ahhh! Now that part in book X makes sense...
This is particularly true of Silman IMO. He is an author whose ideas you should test, disagree with, and wrestle with to get the most out of...
I'd start with Amateur's Mind, it's a very provocative book, it inspires further study IMO. Then maybe Seirwan ... Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy covers the territory Silman covers in an somewhat calmer way, but with more room for "exceptions" to the rule. It is IMO good after you've been trying to get Silman for awhile.
I completely agree with Tonydal about a real streak of self-satisfaction in Capablanca's writing, a smugness. But in person I find that in almost all accomplished chess players... Arrogance and chess go together too easily it seems... often times it's just a C-player lording it over E-players!
Appreciate the advice and insight, JG27Pyth, thanks.
I hope to read each book just once and play through the examples and variations, then move on to the next book...no "dwelling" as I like to call it. I figure, like you said, authors will overlap in content, but the abundance of differing presentations and examples may reinforce learning (expertise theory "multiple representations of the same thing"). I have the books you have mentioned and hope to start studying them this summer when time is more of a friend (though not enough to allow me to de la Maza my way through them).
In reply to korchnoifan who like annotated games to get into the mindset of the players, my candidate for the best book is "Secrets of Grandmaster Play" by John Nunn and Peter Griffiths. Great games and wonderful notes. I also would mention Larsen's collection of his own games and Paul Keres' collection of his own games.
I agree. When I was learning the Accelerated Dragon I went through a lot of Bent Larsen's games.
Modern Chess Strategy--Ludek Pachman (not sure why my favorite book can't be the one I learned the most from, but anyway...)
I own Pachman and have heard multiple great things about the book, but I have been scared to look into it (and I am trying to be good about prioritizing tactics training).
For beginning strategy, I have heard advice to start with Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals, Winning Chess Strategies by Seirawan, and The Amateur's Mind by Silman.
Would you recommend Pachman after the above books are tackled, or between 2 of those books, or as a first book on strategy?