I have a look at the book '300 Most Important Chess Positions '
by Thomas Engqvist which I bought in a charity shop for £1.00
This turned into a typical me mini rant. Been ages since I had one.
World News and two games withe the Evans Gambit - one by Morphy!
Three Puzzles for your merriment and amusement.
C. Carls - O. Bernstein, Bremen 1901 (Black to play and win.)
V. Anand - P. Leko, Nice 2009 (White to play.)
The Fahrni Position. (White to play and win.)
I decided to use this after seeing it in the endgame section of the book I mention above.
Some experienced players have failed to find the win OTB and agreed a draw.
More bad news. Some RHP players have had the same position and agreed a draw.
The good news. Some RHP games have been won by using the winning technique.
Blog Post 619
@greenpawn34 saidMorphy played 9. Nc3 and we are told he was the first to play 9. Nc3 on a regular basis. Then we are informed that White has the advantage due to a strong center and time. And that is it! No more moves.
I have a look at the book '300 Most Important Chess Positions '
by Thomas Engqvist which I bought in a charity shop for £1.00
This turned into a typical me mini rant. Been ages since I had one.
World News and two games withe the Evans Gambit - one by Morphy!
Three Puzzles for your merriment and amusement.
C. Carls - O. Bernstein, Bremen 1901 (Bla ...[text shortened]... RHP games have been won by using the winning technique.
Blog Post 619
Yes, that drives me crazy. Authors do this on a pretty regular basis, even today. Little or no explanation is given for: 1. Why white stands slightly better. 2. Why Black has achieved equality. 3. Why black has compensation for the sacrificed material etc. They don't seem to understand that players below the master level need a bit of clarification on these subjects. I understand they can't spoon feed us every nuance of a position, but some explanation would be helpful. The lone exception to this is a good quality tactics puzzle book. The answer sections usually do a good job of demonstrating why deviating from the correct answer doesn't work.
Hi mchill,
Despite the 1200-30000 claim the book IMO is for under 2000 players. Good players
rated over 2000 will have seen a lot of the examples before because the author uses
a lot of well known games so they can skip that lesson. (I would!)
I guess the author is using these games because he had too so the student has no problem finding them.
The author definitely wants the reader to work and I can't really knock the idea because
there is a very good chance after a year on five positions a week a good played should emerge.
A concern is who is going to do that. A year is too long to wait for any chess player
(and most are too lazy to do that anyway) they want be to good in a few days so they
fall for the hype printed on the back of an opening book, memorise a few lines and off they go.
The ending part of the book is good. No need to go digging there. One or two a day should suffice
either as a recap or actually picking up something. I'm actually doing some of the endgame lessons
simply because there so few pieces to set up. (laziness, it is a chess players malady)