As I already said, it depends on your level of playing OTB chess.

But the books I can recommend to anyone are:

Nimzowitsch, Aron - My System
Watson, John - Secrets Of Modern Chess Strategy
Baburin, Alexander - Winning Pawn Structures
Sokolov, Ivan - Winning Chess Middlegames, An Essential Guide To Pawn Structures
Bronstein, David - Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953
Nunn, John - Understanding Chess Middlegames

...as well as Artur Yusupov's "Beyond The Basics" and Mark Dvoretsky's "School Of Chess Excellence" series.

MartinC wrote on 01/19/13 at 11:50:19:


Very True. Thats why Human Interaction so necessary. I never trust on analysis of an unaided engine.

Yes those looked like good, human moves  

It was white's play which seemed rather comptuerish. (And he was seemingly by his own admission experimenting a bit.). 

In particular a human would have been very reluctant to take on that pawn structure unless they were sure they were going to be able to free themselves with f4. Well just maybe h4,Bh3 instead.

If white can't do that then he may as well resign So indeed once you were theatening f4 you'd likely have seen quite drastic measures against it.

Computers have always had something of a blind spot about these sorts of trapped pieces. And of course are known not to do so well early in the game

Well, I didn't want to start a war or something..
And I didn't want to spoil this topic, too..
All I wanted was to tell you why Bibs reacted like this.
It seems he, as well as I, didn't like your assessment of the position from this game of yours.
Please, don't take it as offence! I won't give you advice anymore.
And even if the engines are better than humans in the middle game I'll continue to learn how to play it, study plans and pawn structures.
Poor Carlsen, if he doesn't know how to operate with an engine!

Vass wrote on 01/18/13 at 08:01:51:



First I don't recall you in chess.com. Yes I know you in immortal chess forum as I am one of the oldest guy there.
Well It is not advised to advise someone who knows about something already. It won't work.

What Bibs was trying to say is that computer chess engines are not all in chess. First, a player has to learn some chess basics. It's absolutely necessary to step on the firm ground. Then you'll be able to use your chess knowledge when corresponding with the powerful "calculators" such as Houdini, Rybka and alike. I use this word, because all these engines are just calculators and they cannot replace in full the absence of chess understanding. They don't make plans - they just calculate moves - kind of type...if this - then that. Ok, you may say they calculate in depth 35-36 plys and no plans are needed. Wrong, completely wrong! Plans are always needed in chess...and the calculators are the ones that can help you to achieve your plans, not the opposite.

I myself play OTB in open tournaments. Due to time constraint I shifted from OTB to CC since 5 Years. So I am not a computer chess ignorant. As I have OTB skills I have lots of books and I still study but I study only endgames as I feel Its where engines fail (If they do and they do). In opening no engines are optimized for it for the piece probability. They rule in Middle game. Yes They are calculators. But they are better than Humans as far as Tactics is concerned. To be able to play in CC a more Computer knowledge is required than Chess Knowledge. Thats what rules in Freestyle or advanced chess. Humans use it to assist the game not to use it to copy paste. A good cc player does that -  steer the game to a position where engines fail (or rule if he has better hardware.)

Ok, you can say that Houdini or another modern chess engine can beat Carlsen very easy. Yes, maybe, but believe me, if Carlsen could have a much weaker engine from time to time just to calculate some tactics while playing against Houdini, I doubt if Houdini can even make 33% against him in any possible match between them!

Absolutely wrong. If Carlsen doesnot know how to operate a program his GM skills are waste. He wont go more than 5% wins. A better software + Hardware + Computer operating skills rule against Super GM and computer program Noob. Seems you have no idea what you are talking.
Let Me give an example. Have you heard of ZackS ? two amateurs(in chess) winning 1st freestyle chess tour involving GMs and IMs ?
Then read here.
I dont deny that chess knowledge helps but computer chess knowledge is important too. I there still read endgame books of Averbakh and Dvroetsky.
Gone are the days when human exeled against computers. This is now an necessary evil in CC.

Hi, Master Om!
First we "met" each other at chess.com, then here and as well as some computer forums, too..
I respect your chess addiction, as well as your addiction to the computer chess.
But, let me say something! Take it as a good advice from a friend!
What Bibs was trying to say is that computer chess engines are not all in chess. First, a player has to learn some chess basics. It's absolutely necessary to step on the firm ground. Then you'll be able to use your chess knowledge when corresponding with the powerful "calculators" such as Houdini, Rybka and alike. I use this word, because all these engines are just calculators and they cannot replace in full the absence of chess understanding. They don't make plans - they just calculate moves - kind of type...if this - then that. Ok, you may say they calculate in depth 35-36 plys and no plans are needed. Wrong, completely wrong! Plans are always needed in chess...and the calculators are the ones that can help you to achieve your plans, not the opposite.
I for one, read Nimzo's "My System" book in 1978 (and many, many books as well) and my chess playing before and after that was completely different. Many years after, my first engine was Fritz 5.32 version and I was able to observe its weaknesses very easy because of my chess knowledge I had acquired. Ok, you can say that Houdini or another modern chess engine can beat Carlsen very easy. Yes, maybe, but believe me, if Carlsen could have a much weaker engine from time to time just to calculate some tactics while playing against Houdini, I doubt if Houdini can even make 33% against him in any possible match between them!
By the way, I see you are deep into the correspondence chess.. It's my obsession, too. 
I have some very good relationship with some of the best correspondence chess players in the world - mostly Russians (I speak Russian language fluently) as well as the best Bulgarian correspondence chess players, too. We often communicate in some closed forums sharing some knowledge and experience to each other. Anyway, I can guarantee you, that if you don't acquire at least the basic chess principles, even with your multi, multi-core computer you won't achieve more than 2400 ICCF ELO. Such players we use to call them "operators". Sometimes operators can even win against a strong player, but that will be an exception to the common rule. And not a slightest chance for an operator to even reach some higher levels! 
An advice as a friend: if you are really addicted to the correspondence chess, do not waste your time playing some games against some anonymous players which you accidentally meet through various chess forums! Just start working over your overall chess knowledge (reading books and so on..) while taking an account in ICCF and start playing for real! With your multi-core computer you can easily reach a good rating (say, 2250 ICCF), which would give you a chance to play against some really strong correspondence chess players. In the meantime, if you start to work on your chess understanding, your chess knowledge will raise to some level which will help you to progress more and more..
That's all I have to say! And please, don't take offense on Bibs or me, or whoever which wastes time to advise you to teach! 

Are PCs really used in this way? I despair.
Sigh.
Point forward and press? Houdini is an analytical engine. 
Not a bazooka. This isn't the truck blowing up scene from the end of Beverley Hills Cop. 
I give up. 
Well, good luck with the 'analysis'. I depart these shores.

Master Om wrote on 01/17/13 at 13:59:32:


I do presume you are joking. 
'Analysis'?!
I wish to be helpful below. It is meant to be frank, not unkind, I earnestly assure.
As kylemeister has suggested elsewhere I think, it really is necessary for many people here to:
1) switch off the PCs
2) put the opening books away
and...
3) get out the Chernev, Reinfeld books. Study some basic chess.

Bibs wrote on 01/17/13 at 12:38:24:


May be. But my analysis didnot find any fault. The real good move was h5!!. It was not found by any top 5 engine I used.

Agree, h3 just seems terrible.

Yes, please, that would be very interesting! And a great game btw.

OK. Looking forward to seeing all this in your book (bying one definitely

BPaulsen wrote on 11/06/12 at 19:56:01:


This is nice to hear, but hard to believe. 1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 g6 ( 2.-f5 3.Nc3 is strong) and now either 3.e4 Nf6 or 3.c4 f5 

Indeed 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 is mainly problem for g3 KI-indian players.....

LostTactic wrote on 11/06/12 at 23:59:33:


I still have analysis on the Symmetrical English 4 Knights and Maroczy Bind to finish in full (this was my equivalent of saving the easiest for last, but now that I've said that watch some sideline cause me two weeks of work). After that, just a couple of Slav related sidelines, and then anything else I catch that I feel is worth inclusion. The rest is done as far as analysis is concerned.

Then there's improving the explanations that go with the evaluations, etc. I have no clue when it's finally going to wrap up. It's the first and last time I set the bar this high for a book (setting out to find += everywhere is a fool's errand, which makes me a fool, but damned if I didn't try).

I salute all authors of ambitious white repertoire books after this experience.

1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 does not allow a Leningrad transposition (white can always sidestep advantageously).

1.Nf3 g6 (posing the Grunfeld/harmless English question) 2.e4 is not headed towards a harmless Pirc. If I can ever get "Play 1.Nf3!" finished, then everyone will get to see what I mean. That chapter made me happy to write, not least of all because it varied significantly from Khalifman's 4.c3 recommendation, and still resulted in a nice edge.

WSS wrote on 11/05/12 at 18:21:58:


On an occasional 1.-d4 I would even be happy as white to find a line that gives comfortable/sterile equality. But the space advantage can easily turn the long term changes for black.

I'm afraid you're right... I was trying to multiplex and I must have lost track of the original point!   

After 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 is a common and effective move.

Bill

TN wrote on 11/05/12 at 11:54:53:


I took a quick look in my databases and 2...d4 appears to be very rarely played - and not by higher rated players.  In correspondence players prefer 2...Nf6, 2...c5 and 2...c6 with obvious transpositions.

Doesn't White retain his normal edge after 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 d4 3.c3 c5 4.cxd4 cxd4 5.Bg2 Nc6 6.Qa4 Qd5 (or 6...d3 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.Nxc6) 7.0-0 Bd7 8.d3?

Bill

You might want to think about 1.Nf3 d5 2.e3 as well. But I agree that 2...d4 completely neutralises the Reti as a try for an edge and remains for me one of the main drawbacks of 1.Nf3 (without transposing to 1.d4). The KIA is a regular blitz/rapid choice of the world's elite so there's no reason you can't make a weapon out of that like Michael says.

1.Nf3 d5! 2.c4?! d4! =

Are the marks above too provocative, or is it really so, that white had better to play 2.d4? I'd like to see 2.c4 to work, as it e.g. avoids the sharpest open catalan lines. Also, after 2.-dc 3.e4!? is interesting.

Delchev's speculative line has at least been refuted: http://www.chess-stars.com/Reti_letter.html

3.g3 Nc6 seems very easy and equal for black. 4.Bg2 e5 5.0-0 Nf6 6.d3 and now  6.-a5, 6.-Bd6 and 6.-Nd7 are all very safe for black. White can easily be soon a little worse.