Jupp53 wrote on 03/19/19 at 21:25:52:


I think Seirawan's endgame book is a good shout. Really easy to read and understand. Not as large as the Silman book either, if that matters to someone.

The discussion in this thread about Amateur's mind has made me dig my copy out. Having flicked through it last night, I may actually read it.

Jupp53 wrote on 03/19/19 at 21:25:52:

By Seirawan's book you mean Winning Chess Endings, I guess?

I was going to comment on the irony that Silman actually co-wrote a lot of Seirawan's Winning Chess series, but I checked and Silman is not credited on the endgame book.

I know many people dislike Silman's verbose writing style, but I actually enjoy it. I prefer his rants to Lakdawala's, for instance. Silman's humorous asides and stories usually are connected to the chess struggle, they're not just random trains of thought.

PS OK, you can add the basic pawn endgames as well - King and Pawn vs. King, and  Lucena and Philidor if they have started playing adult tournaments. The rest after that is useful, but not essential.

I wasn't sold on The Amateur's Mind either. The idea is actually a good one: Give the same positions to players on different levels, get them to think out loud while they play them out, and compare.

But I think Silman made one big mistake: He put the examples of "correct" play (GM/master level; the original game the position was taken from) first. It would be much more instructive to start with the weakest players and follow their thoughts without already knowing the "solution", then moving gradually upward to better and better chess. And more instructive still to try to solve each position before seeing how other players approached it.

Jacob Aagaard's Inside the Chess Mind is a better execution of the same idea, with better insight into how players actually think. He explicitly advises solving the positions yourself first, and then presents the attempts of his test subjects (from beginner to strong GM) ordered roughly by how good each attempt was. Though Aagaard's 10 test positions are on average a lot more tactical than those in The Amateur's Mind.

I liked Silman's Reassess your Chess. After reading it, I found that i played some of my best chess at a couple of tournaments despite having had a break from competitive chess for about 2 years on both occassions.

I tried to read the Amateur's mind but didnt really get into it. I've flicked through his endgame book and have it on my shelf. I think it reads well, and if i wasnt too lazy would very much enjoy studying it.

This topic is a little off track in some answers.

One should separate basic endgame knowledge and strategical endgame knowledge without forgetting they are interconnected. About strategy I'd stick to Stigma and dfan with their hints with one question.

I've read Silman - The amateur's mind, german translation, 2nd edition 2008. There were 13 examples worth taking the board and stones out and the explanations were out of hand. Many words, few content, bad examples repeated again and again. Compared to Grooten's excellent book I would only recommend it to someone who doesn't want to work, but read before sleeping and getting some basic information. I haven't read his endgame book. But the book I read is enthusiastic recommended again and again, like the Endgame course. Are the Endgame Course and The amateur's mind of equal style and quality? In this case I would recommend to keep your hands off the book, if you really want to learn something.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/01/19 at 23:37:45:


Ah, you and Robert Byrne -- who took about three months to read it at age 16 (finding half a dozen errors).  Much later he still spoke highly of the book.

katar wrote on 03/01/19 at 19:08:51:


Thanks, I also realized that I have to pick one and stick with it so I’m sticking with Hellsten's book