I am not sure, but maybe it is the hallmark of higher rated players that they can quickly reconstruct positions. De Groot and others did research on that sort of thing, mostly in regard to overall memory. They compared pattern recognition skills with “normal” and unusual positions and found that higher rated players were not so adept when the position became more chaotic. Because of so much practice and work with kids, I kind of take for granted the ability to go back to previous positions in a short period of time. The kids do think that a bit odd and difficult, but it is what high rated players do all of the time when analyzing positions. When one of my students achieves that skill, I know he or she is improving. It is all part of the process of visualization and chess fantasy.
Frankly, the Kotov method of analyzing each variation only once is not always helpful. In complicated positions, you may have to go through several passes of analysis to gather enough information before coming to any conclusion. Therefore, it is helpful to be able to snap back frequently to the original position to do a new search when your previous pass was not fruitful. That method goes missing when written down on paper as variations a, b, c, d, d1, d2, etc. That looks a lot more organized than what really happens. Since we tend not to think like trees, but do more of a scattershot look at many variations almost simultaneously, we have to go back to original positions more until there is a sense of what is the best move or plan is.
I remember one older player who used to say that he could tell the difference between higher rated and lower rated players by seeing how quickly they set up the pieces. It is funny, but GMs do set the pieces up very fast!
I have not paid much attention to the speed of setting up the pieces, but it does seem to me that, if a player is stronger than me, it is quite likely that the player is much faster than me at restoring a previous position while exploring possibilities over the board. Perhaps part of it is a quicker ability to perceive consequences of the locations of pieces and pawns and that memory of such consequences makes it easier to remember locations.
Kotov is one of those writers that I have never managed to get to. From what I have heard, I suspect that other writers should be a higher priority for me.
One of the things that I like about trying to learn chess is that I do have so much trouble with it. As a math teacher, I think it helps me to understand my students a little better.
I got to thinking about this from another point of view. However adequate Fine’s book may be, wouldn’t it be better if there were a more modern book with the same sort of purpose? Is there such a book? I’ve seen favorable comments for some books such as
Winning Chess Openings by Yasser Seirawan (1998)
Back to Basics : Openings by Carsten Hansen (2008)
Understanding the Chess Openings by Sam Collins (2005)
but I have not seen anyone claim any of them as a worthy modern replacement for the Fine book. Perhaps Fundamental Chess Openings by Paul Van Der Sterren (2009) comes close, but that book is nearly 500 large pages.
Many modern authors turn to either Steinitz or Nimzovich when it comes to “rules” rather than Reuben Fine. Most of those authors are European and are probably not as familiar with Fine’s books. From reading Fine, one gets the impression he was relating the views of his great contemporaries, Capablanca, Alekhine, Lasker, and Euwe on what constituted the fundamentals of proper play. The “rules” Fine outlined in “Chess the Easy Way” and “Ideas Behind the Chess Openings” are echoes of the ideas in the books and analyses of those great players. I think he did a better job than they did in explaining chess for the masses of amateur players, just as Tarrasch was better than Steinitz in explaining how to play better in an earlier time.
The modern American author who comes closest to producing books with sets of principles is John Watson in his “Mastering the Chess Openings” series. The first of the four volumes has a long introduction on the elements important to understand in the opening. The fourth book has all sorts of general advice. If you do not want to look at Fine’s works, read Watson. His books are readable even without the benefit of using a chess set. But beware, he does not cover every opening or every sideline. Also, at $30+ per book, it will cost you. Like many modern authors, he, too, is selective in his approach. Even with 4 books, a lot probably had to go on the editing floor to make the books manageable for the publishers. In an era where openings research has expanded so much, it is difficult to create a simple, survey book. His books are easy to read in bed with the pillows propped up.
If you just want a couple of books that cover most of the openings and don’t have a lot of money to spend, the books, “Basic Chess Openings,” vol. 1,2 by Gabor Kallai will do the trick. Not a zillion columns and notes to memorize like ECO or MCO. Explanations for options of what to do next at the end of each opening covered. Many but not all variations looked at. Good for amateur players. Leaves higher rated players wanting more, but the books are not designed for them. Not sure if this is the type of book you are looking for, Louis, but it does give more modern detail than Fine did in his book.
Not sure what I want beyond a quick way to deal with the opening issue, but thanks for the suggestions and thoughts. About a decade ago, in a presentation of an ~500 page presentation of an ambitious repertoire,
I doubt it was the sort of reaction LK was hoping for, but, upon seeing those words, my thought was, “Where do I find that afternoon book?”
Perhaps that is why I have not seen anyone claim any book as a worthy modern replacement for the Fine book. For awhile, I thought that Everyman and Gambit were on the right track with their Starting Out and Chess Explained series, but both seem to have been cancelled.
Have you ever read David Bronstein’s “Modern Chess Self-Tutor?” It is an older book, but Bronstein is considered today as the originator of much of the way we play chess in many positions. He also outlined some of his thinking in the first edition of “Sorceror’s Apprentice”, with 40 recommendations for the novice player.
With the above suggestions I am all out. Modern authors spend their time on specialization. They prefer deep candidate move analysis to general thinking. Their pitch is trending more to the strong player with a database, chess engine, and a rafter filled with books rather than the average player in the 1300-1700 rating range. Concrete analysis pays more than general explanation of thinking processes. In the end, you have to come up with your own working paradigm for playing chess, your own “rules,” “rules of thumb,” or commandments based on your own approach to the game. That is what GMs do.
I actually think I have the Self-tutor book somewhere or other, but it might take a while for me to find it and put it next to my pillow. I hope I did not give the impression that I was expecting you to solve all my problems, although I am certainly grateful for the help you have provided. One thing I was wondering about was possible books that I had overlooked, but another thing was whether or not others would agree with my notion of what sort of books should be a part of the current publication scene. Perhaps, if enough players call for such books, we will see some.
When I go to a big tournament I usually look for the type of books for amateurs that you have asked about. My students need that type of book, but the market for general stuff is overwhelmed by books on taking short cuts to success or specialized books that only Magnus Carlsen can appreciate. Lots of “Winning with…” and “Secrets of…” books on offbeat openings. Big, expensive books on one topic. I see now that the 4th edition of Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual has come out. How much different can it be from the other three? I always ask myself whether the new book that I have picked up to scan is any better than some old, well worn manual I have at home. Usually not. Then I see that many of the classics have been reprinted and converted to algebraic notation. If it is confusing for me at times, I can imagine that it is much worse for the aspiring player who does not have the library or appreciation of old books that we have.
It’s not really of any great importance at this point, but I do find myself wondering what has happened in the last five years. From 2002 to 2010 there were somewhere around ten “Chess Explained” books from Gambit and over forty “Starting Out” books from Everyman. (My numbers may be low.) Those books may not have been perfect, but I think that they were in the ballpark of the sort of thing that would be appropriate for me. Since then, it seems to me that the market has been dominated by stuff like those “Grandmaster Repertoire” things. There have been the “Move by Move” books from Everyman, but they seem to be pretty long. One of them spent about 17 pages on the annotations of one game.
I agree that there is a great deal to be said about physically moving pieces around on the board. There’s a book with the title something like Rapid Chess Advancement for the Adult Wanna Be Master of the Chess Universe that is designed to pattern memory. It’s quite good. However, time being a constraint in my life, I appreciate being able to use a product like the Everyman Viewer or certain Chessbase trainer disks. Would that I could be certain to live to a Biblical age and only use lovely wood pieces…
Maybe the app on your tablet can change the pieces to a more wood-like appearance.
I still like to move pieces about a board, whether it is a large board, or a smaller analysis board. Feeling the move played deepens awareness. Sometimes I note in a game how many “long” moves are made. The physical quality of that registers. Some openings have more “long” moves than others. After a while, looking at a computer screen makes my eyes tired.
I wonder if some publishers see those as taking the place of books like the ones in the Starting Out series. If true, I have mixed feelings about it. They certainly had advantages when I tried some a few years ago, but I also had some trouble with a necessity to often back up and repeat a segment of instruction because the presentation went faster than I could take in what was going on. Perhaps the newer trainer things are better.
That’s the book. Silman also panned it. My point was not the validity of that author’s theory. Rather, if one does decide to use the book, it needs to be done on an actual chess board with piece in hand. If a person’s learning style is tactile, not using a computer to either read a book or play through games/training is likely the best way to learn.
I don’t doubt that the owner of Chessbase would love for his trainer CDs to replace Everyman’s Starting Out series, but I don’t know that it ever happened. I may be incorrect in this, but my impression is that Chessbase has moved away from the Trainer CDs to the media presentations that one plays through Fritz’s interface hosted by people such as Andrew Martin.
I skimmed through the de La Maza book, Rapid Chess Improvement, for about 25 minutes in a bookstore. As I recall, he recommended flashcards of typical positions in the opening, middlegame, and endgame to enhance memory. The book was pitched for players around 1200 or so trying to get to Class A and above. It had pretty simplistic recommendations. It did not push for really detailed study. The book was the sort of self-help book where you don’t have to work that hard, but if you follow author X’s secret method, you too can lose 10 lbs overnight!
The fact of working diligently over an extended period all by itself would likely help a player to improve irrespective of any special methodology. I was skeptical that his particular method was best for everyone. The method may have worked for him and his own learning style, but the example games were not convincing. That book was not added to my library.
A theory on this is that stronger players aren’t recalling piece placement so much as the relationship between “fields of force”. When working with talented youngsters I’ve noticed first the importance of their ability to concentrate, but in addition in watching their eyes you can often see if they are focused on “pieces” versus “lines of force”. Getting them to learn to “look through” pieces at “lines of force” can be very helpful for both improved positional and tactical play.
I looked at the book at Barnes and Noble for about a half hour also. I can understand how a kinesthenic system like moving a Knight around the board may have worked for his learning style and pattern one to a degree in see possible moves quickly, BUT the only place that might help me would be in blitz and even that is questionable. So, I didn’t buy it. People learn in many different ways and a lot of that can be age/developmentally based. I vaguely recall Magnus Carlsen saying a few years ago that he didn’t own a chess board and set or didn’t travel with one. Whatever works…
Bronstein in these two books forever changed how I handled being on the minor side of the Exchange and vastly improved how I use minor pieces in general. That background has been immense in understanding how Judit Polgar explains her attacks in her newer books.
Kevin, very good point. One of the things I like to work on with the younger kids involves their “seeing” the board and pieces. The field of force idea is an important one, because the younger the child and the lower the rating if they have one, the less likely they are to see “long moves” by the pieces. They see pieces, but not always what they can do, what they are threatening. Because younger ones chunk only a few squares at a time, they see threats only in proximity but not from a distance. When we start getting them to see pieces and chunks on other parts of the board, their improvement accelerates. The really talented seem to be able to grasp that almost immediately as their view of the board is more global from the very start. The above is true even for low rated adults; they don’t see long moves well either.
It is probably best to start working on lines of force with new players by showing them the move of the rook first, and then the bishop. Then showing interaction of both together, how they can attack from a distance. After looking at rook and bishop coordination, then the queen and its general power can be explored. Then the other pieces can be introduced, the short stepping pieces, King, Knight, and last but not least, the pawn. With brand new students, we do not play whole games but mini-games to familiarize them with the pieces and what they can do. I have found that they are easier to instruct in openings after that. We then start talking about the center line, “the river”, the center, and how moving the pieces work together. They get it. This stops the tendency to move just one piece around, which is common for many young amateurs.
I don’t like to use books or diagrams until they get a feel and discover some things on their own. The little mini-games get the kids motivated to play and gives them some success right off the bat. One game involves attacking and chasing my pieces. Another pits one or two pieces against several pawns, trying to stop one of the alien pawns from touching down on earth. These little games are fun and teach the beginnings of concepts that they will work on later. They begin thinking about plans, not just one move at a time. They also seem to cut down on blunders, the giving away of pieces. Only now do we work on checkmates. This introduces new patterns and the use of a chess book like, “How to Beat Your Dad at Chess” or J.N. Walker’s, “Attacking the King” to teach checkmating strategies. We set up positions and I let them beat me again and again and again. It is fun for them and me. Their little eyes light up when they “see” the correct moves to finish the game.
You can’t introduce books if they cannot read. Even if they can read, it is still best to wait until they know and have played a little. Then they want the books and can do work on their own when the teacher is not there to prompt them. Tactics, tactics, and more tactics. They then zip through, “Chess Tactics for Kids” or other simple tactical books. The kids like puzzles better than wading through game annotations. As much as possible we work on discovery and questions with lots of hands on work.
