I'm learning from a Jeremy Silman book published in the 90s. It has definitely improved my game, even though I've only done a few chapters. There's clearly a ton of basic, fundamental stuff that was known about chess in the last century that I'm completely ignorant of because I'm a low rated player.
I value good writing that's presented in a way that educates the reader in an optimal way. I care less about the perfect move. If it's good enough for a chess master from a few decades ago, then it's good enough for me, especially since I'm so low rated.
I value good writing that's presented in a way that educates the reader in an optimal way. I care less about the perfect move. If it's good enough for a chess master from a few decades ago, then it's good enough for me, especially since I'm so low rated.
<Comment deleted by user>
the question is not unique to chess. it is pretty much universal. does history matter? claiming that the answer is "no" is dangerously foolish. chess is no exception. the past teaches us about methods and a method is something that transcends time.
I think the tweet was wrong
We should never forget our culture and most importantly books written before 2000 are also very beneficial and detailed.
Last but not the least culture is very important.
(It's according to me)
We should never forget our culture and most importantly books written before 2000 are also very beneficial and detailed.
Last but not the least culture is very important.
(It's according to me)
Oracle chess of engine, is that chess theory?
I think old logical thinking can't ever be made wrong. If it was also fully logical in making the assumptions explicit and there was a way to adapt to expanded human knowledge.
Is it possible that this engine check concern is about instances of moves in instances of games, more than the chess theory such example might have been meant to introduce? This is something that I do not like about most chess books, old or new, that they sprinkle chess theory hidden within chess full game examples first. There are exceptions and they can be figured out by reading front matter of each chapter versus the games examples in support of those front matter. There was that person or maybe more than one, and I never get to match this adage that if you really understand something, one might not need to bury it in examples... (I cheated... that was not the adage!).
or there are books that will be ageless, because they are logically explicit or working from endgame theory.... Notice the difference there, we do have EGTB, but it does not beat those endgame books about human logic that includes spatial reasoning that EGTB and engine might only contain without displaying (as some other chess knowledge not the topic here).
I think old logical thinking can't ever be made wrong. If it was also fully logical in making the assumptions explicit and there was a way to adapt to expanded human knowledge.
Is it possible that this engine check concern is about instances of moves in instances of games, more than the chess theory such example might have been meant to introduce? This is something that I do not like about most chess books, old or new, that they sprinkle chess theory hidden within chess full game examples first. There are exceptions and they can be figured out by reading front matter of each chapter versus the games examples in support of those front matter. There was that person or maybe more than one, and I never get to match this adage that if you really understand something, one might not need to bury it in examples... (I cheated... that was not the adage!).
or there are books that will be ageless, because they are logically explicit or working from endgame theory.... Notice the difference there, we do have EGTB, but it does not beat those endgame books about human logic that includes spatial reasoning that EGTB and engine might only contain without displaying (as some other chess knowledge not the topic here).
It's like if Christof Sielecki suggests to study at school immediately quantum mechanics without classic physics.
@rauzerberg said in #8:
> It's like if Christof Sielecki suggests to study at school immediately quantum mechanics without classic physics.
Well, I would not mind both at the same time. or in some chaotic looping pseudo-parallel way, I end up doing that anyway with what comes my way... so pouring in some stuff which might already have lots of analogies within (not just from inheritance, but perhaps because the object of both things is the same cosm). Wave physics, particles motion physics, and the math. The Hamiltonian (why not do qualitative theory of dynamical systems at the same time so we could skip some distractions).
I do not think that the order is important (and the above is just about hindsight seeing they feed each other and could be compacted, but that would be having no theory of learning that includes how we develop as still individual animal human beings). But not having that included in some study regimen would strengthen the myth of we know chess, now. They all thought they knew chess then. I think being humble is seing how the knowers of then could handle the unknown with some insight from their known is something to keep building.
I guess I am not in the realm of improve thyself by reading books.. I am more into what the books are saying about chess for ever (for all?). Which is my curiosity, I use playing as entertainment, and testing myself and testing the board and testing the theory (in no order). But do I wish the theory could stand by itself a bit more in presentations as books succeed each other. (In reality, I would not complain, if I did not see that there was already some hope in that direction, per my few recent peeks, mentor guided, I could not do the monk work it implies).
Maybe there is a floating variable about books, that all authors might have been themselves struggling from within: what is the target audience? is it just individuals at each generation trying to improve their own playing hide to glory of podium nature? Is there some generational intent, about sharing knowledge that might raise the general population knoweldge of chess, so that while gladiator industry keeps going, future generations would not have to always be padawans, redoing the same thing from generation to generation.. Isn't it what culture has been about?
> It's like if Christof Sielecki suggests to study at school immediately quantum mechanics without classic physics.
Well, I would not mind both at the same time. or in some chaotic looping pseudo-parallel way, I end up doing that anyway with what comes my way... so pouring in some stuff which might already have lots of analogies within (not just from inheritance, but perhaps because the object of both things is the same cosm). Wave physics, particles motion physics, and the math. The Hamiltonian (why not do qualitative theory of dynamical systems at the same time so we could skip some distractions).
I do not think that the order is important (and the above is just about hindsight seeing they feed each other and could be compacted, but that would be having no theory of learning that includes how we develop as still individual animal human beings). But not having that included in some study regimen would strengthen the myth of we know chess, now. They all thought they knew chess then. I think being humble is seing how the knowers of then could handle the unknown with some insight from their known is something to keep building.
I guess I am not in the realm of improve thyself by reading books.. I am more into what the books are saying about chess for ever (for all?). Which is my curiosity, I use playing as entertainment, and testing myself and testing the board and testing the theory (in no order). But do I wish the theory could stand by itself a bit more in presentations as books succeed each other. (In reality, I would not complain, if I did not see that there was already some hope in that direction, per my few recent peeks, mentor guided, I could not do the monk work it implies).
Maybe there is a floating variable about books, that all authors might have been themselves struggling from within: what is the target audience? is it just individuals at each generation trying to improve their own playing hide to glory of podium nature? Is there some generational intent, about sharing knowledge that might raise the general population knoweldge of chess, so that while gladiator industry keeps going, future generations would not have to always be padawans, redoing the same thing from generation to generation.. Isn't it what culture has been about?
I like the picture of chess evolution, it's great!
İlginç ama gerçek