Recommend a good book to learn chess

[Scarface26]

All,

I've got two kids who love this game. Please recommend a book that covers the basics and some basic strategies. White belt level chess is the aim, for now. If not a book, then a link. Obviously I can google basic chess, but the hide has never steered me wrong so I am asking the collective brain trust here since I know there is at least one GM in our ranks.

Happy Thanksgiving and God bless America

 

[Maggot]

.chess.com

 

[unrepentant]

I've tried twice to post and include links but for some reason adding links show in my preview but won't appear as part of the post so I'll have to list the books by author and title:

The Seshat Academy:

- From First Move to Checkmate: The Only Guide You’ll Ever Need to Stop Being a Pawn in Their Game and Become the King of the Board. 4 Books in 1 + Workbook​

Bobby Fischer:

Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess Mass Market Paperback – July 1, 1982​

Michael Basman

Chess for Kids Paperback – Illustrated, January 23, 2006​

These books come very well recommended by the masses. I haven't read any of them, but Fischer's book has always been well-received, and any one of them should do if the reader feedback is accurate. I learned from an old author, Fred Reinfeld. His books were basic, easy to comprehend, and not so complex as to stop me from reading--but I think today his books are seen as "outdated" (for whatever reason) and have become "collector's items", causing their prices to "hold value".

After gaining a comfortable comprehension (that is to say--when a beginner doesn't need prompting to think of) piece movement and general strategies (including capture, pin, fork, castling, attacking the king, etc.)--as a good second book for learning the openings, I'd recommend Larry Evan's "What's the best move?".

WHAT'S THE BEST MOVE?: THE CLASSIC CHESS QUIZ BOOK THAT TEACHES YOU OPENINGS WITH NO MEMORIZING OF MOVE (Fireside Chess Library)​

It doesn't really teach openings by memorization; it teaches the basics about each opening but beyond and better than that, it gives the reasons for choosing one move specific move over all others as the best choice among what could be several logical options.

After gaining a grasp of the objective(s) of each opening with Evan's coaching, a beginning student could without any understanding of a newly-encountered opening, reason out the best move independently without any previous memorization or understanding of an opening. I'd use Evan's book as a "test" of a student's comprehension of any of the three books listed at the top. Once a reader completes "What's the best move?" with say, 66% accuracy, then maybe it's time to move up to Leonard Barden's "How good is your chess?"

How Good Is Your Chess?: Rate Your Skill and Improve Your Strategy by Participating in 35 Master Games​

A caution about the Barden book--it's for serious players. Each game is played by master-rated players or higher (International Masters & Grandmasters). Neophytes will be lost completely, but anyone who's finished "What's the best move?" can learn and gain from "How good is your chess?".

Every move after the initial opening moves is analyzed from the winner's side--that is to say, the reader has to figure out what the best move is for what will be the winning side AFTER the opening moves have been played--so a basic understanding of the game is required by the reader. Sometimes moves are not explained; this generally means that either the move is "best" because any other alternative is "very bad" (and the reader's talent has to be strong enough to comprehend such a situation) or because it's understood that an unexplained move "makes sense" and is a natural continuation.

Just because the games that are reviewed in this book were played by very strong players doesn't mean beginners can't learn from this book--but the reader must have enough of a comfortable comprehension of the game to get through Evan's book first. I've read (and own) both Evan's and Barden's books and recommend them highly.

ARGH. I forgot--most of today's books are written in a "chess language" called algebraic notation. I'm pretty sure the Evans and Barden books are both written in the older descriptive notation. They're not hard to learn but it can be a pain to switch after starting out with months' devotion to one (algebraic) system.

This is an example:

Algebraic:

1. e4 e5
2. f4 ef
3. Nf3 g5

Descriptive

1. P-K4 P-K4
2. P-KB4 PxP
3. N-KB3 P-KN4

They both say the same thing, but in different "languages". Algebraic is much more succinct and faster obviously, but either can be confusing within its' own system if the player forgets to devote attention to board geography while reading about, or writing, board coordinates.

To Maggot: Is chess.com suitable for tutoring beginners? I've never "gone back" to research chess.com's beginner programs.

 

[diverdon]

All,

I've got two kids who love this game. Please recommend a book that covers the basics and some basic strategies. White belt level chess is the aim, for now. If not a book, then a link. Obviously I can google basic chess, but the hide has never steered me wrong so I am asking the collective brain trust here since I know there is at least one GM in our ranks.

Happy Thanksgiving and God bless America

Not a book an app. Chess.com. lessons, drills options to play bots or other people.

My son uses it more than any individual game on his ps5. I use it about an hour a day.

 

[The D]

I got this for my 5yo son

Amazon product ASIN B000JOMD0C
Once they get old enough to understand and follow lessons themselves you can get them a Chess.com membership. I’ve had one for a few years and the resources are amazing

 

[skinney_7]

Learn to Castle.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Sun Tzu.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Scarface26]

CSM,

I am a knuckle dragger. Thinking hurts my brain. Does that indicate I need to practice it more?

In all seriousness, I have Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Napoleon's Maxims, Musashi, etc. If I could implement 1/100'th of what they know.....

To all the replies, thank you and I will investigate. @unrepentant, your post is worth $$$. Thank you.

God bless America

 

[diverdon]

Sun Tzu.

Cheers,

Sirhr

Ohh Fer crying out loud, who recommends a military strategist from a country that has never won a war.

 

[unrepentant]

I play in a very small community chess club; it has maybe 40-50 members ranging in age from ~6 years old to me... I'm the oldest I'm sure. Prolly the only guy there who remembers "Crusader Rabbit". Since the club is so small, average turn out for a chess night is maybe 25-35 people. Sometimes one will get paired with a player not of the same classification. This has happened to me at least twice since my joining this summer. It's amazing to play a child and remember what I've forgotten...

Children mimic. I don't have kids so it never occurred to me that conceptually (chess-wise), sometimes they don't understand (despite their move's appearance); but they know enough to know that they should imitate...

There are two classic "fast checkmates"-- the "Fool's Mate" and the "Four-move Mate". I played a child who, without understanding my third move negated any possible success for his execution of a 4-move mate, continued to deploy his pieces in the attempt. Obviously, he didn't think about the position or/nor realize his plan was thwarted by my third move.

My point is this-- he was comfortable enough in his understanding of the game to know how the pieces moved without "concentrating on his memory", but he hadn't progressed enough to be wary of pins, discovered checks, nor the difference between long and short castling (or the proper way to literally execute the move [by moving the king first]).

I'm sure his book-reading taught him by recorded notation (either algebraic or descriptive)--that is to say, he probably read a book with a board and pieces in front of him and moved the pieces as the record indicated and learned by repitition how to move and maybe with that, some general principles (e. g., it's better to move "knights before bishops" and "never move the same piece twice" in the opening phase, etc.).

But his adherence to continuing to plan for a "Four-move Mate" showed his inability to express in words his reasoning. THIS is what is sooo good about Evan's book. Lots of books will show different chess lines (paths of divergence from a singular "critical" position) sometimes up to 8-10 moves deep (showing a resultant "losing" position) which thusly proves by the end result why such a path is faulty. ("Look! See? THIS is why this line is wrong.") But the fault of the book is that not amongst the 8-10 moves, nor at the beginning or the end of this path do most authors describe in plain English words why such an erroneous path (of thinking) is faulty or wrong. To show a worsening position to a neophyte means nothing to them whatsoever... they have no comprehension of positional/tactical play yet in their expanding sense of understanding. Evans (and Barden) and the better authors will expound, in words, not algebraic/descriptive notation and further the reader's understanding.

(I'm not sure Chess.com will do that--YOU will have to investigate that, lest the app start out too advanced for beginning beginners. I'm not a paying member of Chess.com. I've played on their free app and solved their puzzles some, but I don't recall if they explain beyond "Correct!" and "wrong, try again"--and beginners need more than that.)

When I've finished with a game I usually try if my opponent is willing, to replay and discuss the game to learn their thought process/plan in X position. With this child, I told him, "I'm older than your father--that is, I'm probably at least as old as your grandfather. Anyone who's been playing chess for a little while has learned the "Four-move Mate" as maybe their first strategy. We've all tried it and seen it--so your plan won't very often surprise a player with any experience. You have to think to yourself, 'what can I do to further my tactics/position with the pieces as they're set now'--AND what would/could/should my opponent do to resist?"

So many chess books don't express movement in this manner; they require rote memorization. Find books that discuss in words where/how/why a path should lead, at least as much as they show recorded notation (and finished positions) as their final proofs.

 

[n2ishun]

You learn chess by playing chess, not by reading a book.

If you have to think about that for a second (or more) you will never be able to win a single game unless you get lucky.

 

[Nik H]

I would suggest Chessgames. It is a good place to learn the fundamentals of the game and then more advanced play as well. My kids learned there and I still learn there.

Playing chess is the key. You can't learn to shoot until you do. Chess is no different

 

[unrepentant]

You learn chess by playing chess, not by reading a book.

If you have to think about that for a second (or more) you will never be able to win a single game unless you get lucky.

Absolutely dead balls wrong and 180 out. One doesn't get better just by incessant play.

Your superior opponent has to be willing to teach you as you play. It's not a physical performance that is enhanced by repetition; it's a mind game and critical-thinking development that has to be tutored and trained by an erudite is willing to spend time patiently teaching and furthering concepts, principles, tactics, and positional intuitions.

Books (or apps on chess authored by some of the elite players) contain more knowledge than one mind/imagination on its' own can fathom. To borrow a phrase, "If you have to think about that for even a second... "

I cite as my best example the career of Bobby Fischer. In 1968, he ceased playing completely and became a hermit because he felt the Soviets colluded against him to eliminate him from eligibility for the Interzonal qualifiers ( for World Championship matches). With no second/assistant, for 18 months he reviewed books, magazines, and any Russian literature (written in Russian).

He came back publicly with a vengeance, scoring 20-0 against the three qualifiers, a record that still stands--before he beat Spassky by what amounted to be a score of 12-1/2 to 7-1/2 (forfeit not counted). Computers didn't help him at all; they were non-existent for this application. Printed records were all he had.

I submit--how did he get better during his layoff if he didn't play??

 

[frank320]

You learn chess by playing chess, not by reading a book.

If you have to think about that for a second (or more) you will never be able to win a single game unless you get lucky.

That has to be the dumbest and most ignorant blanket statement we have read in a long time.
Your statement just revealed your lack of intellect, knowledge about the game, and the inability to analyze deeper strategies and inferences.

You should stick with checkers with toddlers instead of spouting nonsense on subjects for which you have no business discussing....

Isn't it amazing how a single statement can reveal the stupidity and ignorance of the person writing it.