Judul : How good is your chess? YTRREFS
link : How good is your chess? YTRREFS
How good is your chess? YTRREFS
Have you ever played Match the masters on Chessmaster? It is a training mode that requests you to guess the moves from various master games. I played this many years ago. And while cleaning up old stuff from the chess club storage, I came across a book that is based on the same idea. So I was of course intrigued to take a closer look. Why don't you join me in doing so?
What can you expect from this book?
How good is your chess? first came out in 1957. The version I have read is a reprint from 1976, but apparently nothing has been changed before the 'new' release. If you have ever played Match the masters on your computer, you will know exactly what this book is about. The obvious difference is of course that the book is not interactive.
There are eight sections in the book: (I) Centre control, (II) Superior development, (III) Positional play, (IV) Attacking play, (V) The art of defence, (VI) Combinations, (VII) Constriction technique and (VIII) The ending.
The book presents 35 master games, in which you are invited to 'join' each game and look at it from the perspective of one selected player. You are requested to guess the next move for your 'partner', and will be awarded points depending on your performance. If you guess the right move (or in some cases an even stronger move suggested by the author), you will gain points, but if you make a blunder, you may lose points. It is recommended that you work through at least one game from each of the eight sections. Tally up your scores and calculate your average, and you can estimate your playing strength according to the table below.
One thing that I find appealing is that the selection of games is quite recent in relation to the first publication (1957), and we get to follow the games of chess legends such as Botvinnik, Keres, Bronstein, Kotov, Spassky and Tal, just to name a few. For me personally, this is a contrast to other books I have read, which feature games from the last 20 years or so. I get a strange feeling of privilege being 'invited' into the games of these old masters. It may just be me, but I find that a bit cool.
Another thing that I really like about the book is that each game is concluded by a summary that suggests some areas of improvement depending on your score. Here is an example from the first game (Botvinnik-Grob, Zurich, 1956):
If you made a bad score in this game, it may show one of two things. If your points were lost in the first half of the game, the implication is that you make over-hasty attacks before completing your development. If you dropped points in the second half, however, it probably means that you are not sufficiently careful in your calculations.
The book is written in descriptive notation, which I am not quite used to. At first glance, I thought I was never going to understand it, but once I was half-way into the first game, I started to get the hang of it. It's really not that hard!
A quick search showed that there are no less than three (!) other books with the same title, by Larry Evans, Michael Salter and Daniel King. Evans' book has a different setup, but it seems that both King and Salter have ’used’ (steal with pride!) the same title as well as the same idea. I haven't been able to look at more than a page sample of Salter's book, but King's version is basically the same as Barden's, only with fewer and more recent games, and algebraic notation. So if you like the idea of How good is your chess?, but don't want to work on descriptive notation (note: don't fear descriptive!), you could get King's book and probably have a similar experience.
The book presents 35 master games, in which you are invited to 'join' each game and look at it from the perspective of one selected player. You are requested to guess the next move for your 'partner', and will be awarded points depending on your performance. If you guess the right move (or in some cases an even stronger move suggested by the author), you will gain points, but if you make a blunder, you may lose points. It is recommended that you work through at least one game from each of the eight sections. Tally up your scores and calculate your average, and you can estimate your playing strength according to the table below.
| Average score | Rating |
|---|---|
| 45-50 | 2400+ |
| 40-44 | 2300-2399 |
| 35-39 | 2200-2299 |
| 30-34 | 2100-2199 |
| 25-29 | 2000-2099 |
| 15-24 | 1800-1999 |
| 8-14 | 1400-1799 |
| 0-7 | Below 1400 |
One thing that I find appealing is that the selection of games is quite recent in relation to the first publication (1957), and we get to follow the games of chess legends such as Botvinnik, Keres, Bronstein, Kotov, Spassky and Tal, just to name a few. For me personally, this is a contrast to other books I have read, which feature games from the last 20 years or so. I get a strange feeling of privilege being 'invited' into the games of these old masters. It may just be me, but I find that a bit cool.
Another thing that I really like about the book is that each game is concluded by a summary that suggests some areas of improvement depending on your score. Here is an example from the first game (Botvinnik-Grob, Zurich, 1956):
If you made a bad score in this game, it may show one of two things. If your points were lost in the first half of the game, the implication is that you make over-hasty attacks before completing your development. If you dropped points in the second half, however, it probably means that you are not sufficiently careful in your calculations.
The book is written in descriptive notation, which I am not quite used to. At first glance, I thought I was never going to understand it, but once I was half-way into the first game, I started to get the hang of it. It's really not that hard!
A quick search showed that there are no less than three (!) other books with the same title, by Larry Evans, Michael Salter and Daniel King. Evans' book has a different setup, but it seems that both King and Salter have ’used’ (steal with pride!) the same title as well as the same idea. I haven't been able to look at more than a page sample of Salter's book, but King's version is basically the same as Barden's, only with fewer and more recent games, and algebraic notation. So if you like the idea of How good is your chess?, but don't want to work on descriptive notation (note: don't fear descriptive!), you could get King's book and probably have a similar experience.
Who should read this book?
This kind of book doesn't really exclude any kind of player. It is easily accessible for players of all levels. The instructional value may of course vary, but I believe that anyone from post-beginner right up to master level will gain something from the book. As shown above, the rating range is quite wide (1400-2400+). But it will probably be best suited for the average club player, with a playing strength in the 1500-2000 range. So if you are looking for a self-test book, this may be a good option. I found it instructive, at least. So if you can find a copy, I recommend you give it a try.About this book
| Author: | Leonard Barden |
| Title: | How good is your chess? |
| Type of book: | Chess improvement |
| Level: | Intermediate |
Thus the article How good is your chess? YTRREFS
That's it for the article How good is your chess? YTRREFS this time, hopefully it can benefit you all. all right, see you in another article post.
You are now reading an article How good is your chess? YTRREFS with link address https://cfredstyu.blogspot.com/2019/11/how-good-is-your-chess-ytrrefs.html
0 Response to "How good is your chess? YTRREFS"
Posting Komentar