Thanks.

Now I know. (And knowing is half the battle.)

Maybe someone could clue me in: How does Silman's "Imbalances Method" work?  Is it comparing imbalancing elements in the position on a quantitative basis, like 1:1?  "I have doubled iso pawns but he has an exposed king", so they cancel each other out?  Or is it comparing things on a qualitative basis, like "My Kingside majority, khight outpost, and more sound structure seems to hold the balance vs. his tremendous piece activity and 2 bishops?"   

If it's the former, I'd say it might be a bit superficial.  But if it's the latter, then only an highly experienced player knows how subtle positional factors compare in various concrete situations based on vast experience and exposure to chess.

Just wondering...I'm a bit skeptical, but I'd like to know what's up.

-SC

DAX wrote on 10/31/05 at 19:18:23:



Wow that's alot of reading!

I'm working on my game too but I only study books on the endgame and tactics right I'm reading basic chess endings by Reuben Fine/ revised by Pal Benko it's a huge book, it will take me 3 years to pour through all it's material I also watch GM Roman Dzindzichashvili's dvds on the endgame they helped me improve my game alot I was 1320 when I bought them my rating has increased steadily with time and alot of hard work I'm now rated 1770 over the board.

Hello All:

Been thinking about how I study chess books and then I found this thread. I enter moves from strategy books into Chessbase with comments and variations. It takes some time. So I am wondering is this method way too slow? Katar's method (see quote below) seems to leave out entering the comments, etc. So it would seem a faster way to get through a book?

1) Any thoughts on which approach is best for going thru a book?

2) How important is it to review say strategy material at later times? It seems important to me as otherwise you forget many ideas. But I cannot say I know how memory concepts relate to studying positonal material. I can imagine that review is important with opening lines. Any thoughts.

Time is precious so trying to figure out a reasonable approach before I embark on this chess road again.

Thanks, Gerry

[quote author=katar link=1130804304/0#5 date=1130867349]
I'm doing the same home study course, sorta.  I'm going for less quantity but hope to compensate with more depth.  I finished "Art of Checkmate" last weekend.  My method is this:  play through each game and all variations from the book.  Close the book, replay the game and think about the evaluation after every move.  If i forget something, I look at the book, clear the board and start over!  (It's not rote memorization, but learning how moves fit into a plan.)  I have a superb memory so I usually get it right on the 1st or 2nd try.

Hi DAX!

I remember reading this thread and decided to revisit it. How are your studies coming along ? Are you growing tired of such intense studies or are you asking for more?

Castlerock,

As anyone whose been to my study can attest, most of my books haven't just been read, but thumbed through countless times.  I do know that people use books as a sort of wallpaper, but with my limited budget I only buy books I intend to read and use.

I know I'm in the minority though.  I have been to the houses of some avid chess players who have thousands (literally) of chess books.  Some of them spend more time cataloging them than opening them.  This is a fine pasttime, but is not to be confused with playing or studying.  This is collecting.

You're right though, this does belong in another thread.

I don't think you can go wrong with multiple books on the openings you play so long as you put the effort to mine their treasures. You do raise an interesting point as to limiting ones library. Chess information abounds in the age of misinformation! I think we can all admit in our earlier years of play we grabbed all the books a top notch grandmaster would recomend for study! I learned a great deal from this trap though......I learned the style of play I feel most comfortable with and as time wore on I have limited my purchases to new  books on my openings, & game collections of players who's style mimics my own. 

If I were to have a hand in a new players education I guiess it would be fairly simple process. Obviously have him read some begginer books to aquire the basic knowledge. From there I would have him play through a great many game collections from players of very different styles coupled with a good deal of over the board/computer play. From here it would be easy as he would have an idea of what style of play & positions
he feels comfortable in.....opening selction would be simple and from there further study could be limited to a few books on the middlegame (Euwe's),  some positional & tactical books (more in whatever style he plays), and a  basic endgame book followed by Dvortskys endgame manual!

"I belive in GM Mecking's advice that chess players should devote the majority of their study time on their openings of choice! It saves time both over the board and off...belive me!!!!! " -- cjb1617

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I so much agree with cjb here.

For this reason (I don't think this is off-topic) I strongly disagree with John Watson (another great chess writer).   He has often said he prefers opening books without complete games, 'cause it leaves more room for variations.  I want the complete, well annotated, games.  (Remember, I'm a class player.)  This gives you a feel for the flavor of the whole game springing from the opening, through the middle game and on to the end game.

I'm sure if you took some kind of poll about advice as to what to study you'd get a majority suggesting tactics and endgames.  Middlegames and endgames are variable, but every game starts with an opening.  If your study time is limited, by studying your chosen opening by playing through complete games played with that opening, you get the whole thing.  A decent beginning is not a bad thing to have when you are playing OTB and your clock is ticking.

With study time severly limited, it seems to me that this approach just makes good sense.  'Course, if you plan to become World Champion you might opt for a different approach.

And here's a place where I wish I were better at taking my own advice:  Probably any chess player can list off the top of his head a couple of dozen really good books that really merit study.  But I'm guessing it would be more profitable to cut back to just a few books and study them intensely rather than spending your meager time flitting through a whole library of chess books, regardless of how good they are.

The challenge then becomes much more difficult:  how to select the one book, or three books, or five books, that you're going to spend your limited time on to the exclusion of groaning shelves of other good books.

I have a very limited chess opening repertoire, and I still have at least three books for every opening I play.  I guess that blows the limited book idea out of the water right off the rip, but, nevertheless, I still think it has merit.  That, and concentrating your study time on your openings -- with complete games.