From: arimakel@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Ari Kalevi Makela)
Subject: Re: Request Book Recommendations
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:30:37 GMT

In <C0p0xq.Ly2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> vbl@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Randall Julian) writes:

>I am a beginner, and I've made great strides playing over the games in 
>"Logical Chess...".  But recently I got "How to Think Ahead in Chess",
>by Horowitz and Renfield (sp?).  This book is in another group altogether
>and there are a couple of others like it - opening systems which cover both 
>sides and give recommended lines to play.

>It attempts to bring the beginner up to speed on 1) what to play as white,
>2) how to respond to e4, 3) how to respond to  d4, and 4) how to respond to
>incorrect play.  It basically says: here's an off-beat d4 opening for white
>which won't get you killed (stone-wall attack), which limits blacks which
>limits blacks possible responses so you can get to a middle game you can play
>in.  Then procedes to do the same for black.  Sicilian dragon for e4 and
>Laskers defense for d4.  It has about five fully explained games for each
>of the three systems which illustrate variaous points, then 
>five or six more which show when to abandon the "plan" due to opportunities
>or refutations.  It therefore stresses the ideas of the opening as they
>relat to the type of middle game which results. There is no emphasis on 
>memorization, although playing through the games results in remembering them
>because they are all so similar.

>I wonder what more advanced players think of books like this ?  It seems
>to have helped me win more games, but I wonder about the long term effect. 
>I know that some of these lines have been refuted at master level play, but
>what effect does that have on someone who wants to get to 'A' level (from 0) ?

The idea itself sounds good enough but I don't like the opening
selection. The fact that some lines are refuted does'n really matter
when your not playing at master level. As formes world champion Tal
said:"You don't have to play well, you have to play better than your
opponent." Those openings give a playable game and that should be
enough.

However, all those lines give more or less closed game. That's the
problem. An ixexperienced players should play open games (1. e4 e5) in
order to learn tactics. Before you can master positional play you must
master tactics. So play for example King's Gambit.

The Lasker Defence is a variation of the Orthodox Queen's Gambit which
aims for a draw. It gives White slight edge but Black has good chances
to draw. Something else, something more complicated might be better.
Though I must confess that I've used it too (2/2 but I had more luck
than anyone deserved).

>I have another question related to studying:  I get a book, like "Logical
>Chess..." or recently "My 60 Memorable Games", and I get out a little 
>magnetic set and play over the games writing the score in algebraic and
>trying to write some comment about what I think is going on, then I look at
>what the book says and try to see what I did wrong.  This takes FOREVER ! 
>I know there is no "Kings Road" in Chess but am I wasting time ?

At least you are in good company: Nimzowitsch used to do that too. Very
recommendable.

>  I play my
>computer and occasionally my brother (who has been playing longer than me,
>and can usually punish my blunders).  I am considering going to chess club
>meetings, but I don't know how to make the time spent there count.

That will certainly improve your play, different people play
differently. Computer plays like a computer. The best way to improve
your game is to play against humans and in tournaments too. Avoid blitz
because you can't get the score and so you can't analyze your games. Not
to mention that in blitz there is no time to think.


-- 
Ari K. M{kel{		    Department of Radiochemistry
ari.makela@helsinki.fi      University of Helsinki

"Night must fall now - darker, darker"