63 ( +1 | -1 ) movebymove diagramAny fan of movebymove diagram books should check out Kasparov V Short: The First Challenge. It's based on a speed match of 6 games for Thames Television 1986. EVERY move gets a diagram. There's great analysis by Raymond Keene and the book has some nice action photos. I'm a great fan of these movebymove diagram books. You don't need a set. You can take 'em to the beach or read 'em at your mother-in-law's or in bed. Unfortunately I know of only one other, which is out of print-- Fischer-Spassky Move by Move by Ken Smith & Larry Evans. I got the Kasparov-Short book from strandbooks.com for six buck + postage--a great bargain!
19 ( +1 | -1 ) no, it doesn't help to explain ideas behind moves better if you cannot fully appreciate the position. It may help in looking ahead, but this is not the purpose of most chess books.
58 ( +1 | -1 ) hooray for diagramsI have to disagree, Olympia. Asbaby_pom said, it's not the purpose of most chess books to teach you how to think without diagrams. If that were the case, why have diagrams at all? I think 99% of players play over games on a board anyway. There are plenty of subvariations to play over in your head, if that's your thing. I think more match/game books should have complete diagrams. It certainly would have helped John Nunn's book Understanding Chess move by move be even more helpful.
40 ( +1 | -1 ) baby_pomi agree with you.. but i don't think i ever said it helps to explain ideas better if u can't fully appreciate the position and u read a book without move-by-move diagrams..
i just said it helps ur chess more if you learn to read without move by move diagrams..
as an exercise.. i read books without aid of chessboard.. to learn.. but also.. to help me learn to calculate better
116 ( +1 | -1 ) learning blindfoldedolympio, I dare you to study MCO without a board. :)
I, personally, like diagrams, particularly in books on the endgame. In general, a lot happens between diagrams in chess books and if you get caught up in all the quirky sub-variations, while studying blindfolded, you waste a lot of time reorienting yourself with the position.
If I remember correctly, a man by the name of Rolf Wetzel wrote a rather nutty book on chess where he cited some studies of visual imaginative abilities in support of his theory of how chess players calculate tactics. His idea was, there are certain patterns that are easy to see, and to maintain in a mental board position (for example, pawn moves) while there are others that are difficult to maintain and would prefer to either disappear or return to their original positions (for example, a sacrificed piece).
The ironic part may be that I can rarely go a night without playing a complete game of chess, against myself, in my head before falling asleep, then upon waking to my alarm clock, realise for the past hour, I've been working over my errors I made in that game. The unconscious mind is amazing.
42 ( +1 | -1 ) MCO, blindfoldedI don't see the practicality of studying something like MCO blindfolded, unless you possess for example a photographic memory. It is not working with tactical themes but study of theoretical material. I suppose if all you do is memorize the lines without reason for understanding, it works to book up.
To each his own, you can study MCO blindfolded, I prefer using using the 3 boards method. I only read it without sight of board immediately before tournament games.
23 ( +1 | -1 ) it's not an exersizei never meant to imply i just memorize lines without reason or understanding.. i study the lines to learn the reasons behind them.. and happen to remember the lines as well.. and do not have difficulty visualizing the board
10 ( +1 | -1 ) in facthaving the board in front of me in a match is merely a formality.. it has little effect on how well i play
90 ( +1 | -1 ) A commendable effortI did not mean to imply you memorize lines without understanding, but instead noted that it is not uncommon for people to do this, with or without sight of the board.
It it commendable you can play equally with or without sight of a board. When playing OTB, I personally find sight of the board useful. When working over positions with multiple candidates, valid in their own respect, calculation is of course done imaginatively (in the head), but the presense of the position allows for a quick, clean start to the calculation of the next candidate. Working through this in a serious fashion without sight of the board puts an undue amount of strain on the player. I suppose for the price of accolades and/or bragging rights, people do it, but it is not healthy.
At one point in history, this fact was acknowledged and led to a subsequent law that forbid the exhibition of blindfold chess in Russia.
Once again, I intend no disrespect.
67 ( +1 | -1 ) kapinovI sensed no disrespect in anything you said. And again, I agree with everything you have said. Though for myself (an exception) sight of the board is truly a formality. I should probably explain that it's not a skill I went out of my way to aquire but simply I have a unique ability. My career involves research in theoretical physics and mathematics and I've always been more adept at doing calculations in my head then punching them into a computer. Just a skill I was born with.
I only assumed that it would be good practice for people to strive to do it this way, but you are probably right about it putting unecessary strain on their minds.
54 ( +1 | -1 ) Interesting coincidenceIt is interesting you research the matter of theoretical physics, I have been conducting this type of research myself. I have found the parallel between development of chess theory to be startling similar, in of course a purely abstract fashion, to be similar. Classical, deterministic physics giving way to imprecise, "ugly" quantum theory and finally quantum mechanics is remarkably similar to chess' dogmatic, Classical school giving way to dynamic, indirect Hyper-Modern school. Particle-wave duality in an expressionary form.
32 ( +1 | -1 ) coincidence?Seems like the opposite is happening to chess. The classical period relied on "imprecise" methods, or rather "intuitive" in che chess world. Now we've become more precise (especially through use of computers). This all, of course, again in the chess world. As for the world of physics, I have no idea what's going on or was going on.
75 ( +1 | -1 ) AgreedThat is what I ment, the classical period was influenced heavily by axioms, to govern what "good" play was supposed to be. That it was more deterministic in nature, that a player should play a certain way because it was in accordance with theory, not taking into account some of the more minute nuances present in the position. Modern chess is, yes, more precise, more aware the rules are merely guidelines but that there is a fine structure to the position and that best play requires the inspection of very small elements that together make up the position (much like modern physics, in that truely precise measurement affects to some degree the subject being measured).