Best way to learn chess?

[Fifty]

Hi!

I'm trying to find a decent hobby, and video games have continually failed to keep my interest... so why not try chess!?

I know the rules, and even won my school's chess tournament in 6th grade, but overall I'd say I basically suck completely at chess and have no meaningful grasp of strategy.

So I imagine theres lots of software for this.. what would be a good program to buy? Or are there good free ones??? Thanks!

I'd rather not play with humans for awhile, at least until I actually learn some strategy.

 

[Narz]

Hi Fifty. You could try Chessmaster 9000 (should be about $10 after shipping on Amazon or eBay). It's popular among quite a few aficionados here (Panzar for one). I'm not crazy about it though. The lectures by Josh Waitzkin (an International Master) are decent but too advanced for a beginner (he moves & talks a little fast even for me).

If you want a stand-alone chess computer you can get a number of fairly reasonably priced ones. I actually just bought this one* today for my current roommate (who's been letting me stay with him rent free & is pretty enthusiastic about getting good).

*if you buy thru that site use promo code: CLEAR08 , save 5%

Personally though, Fifty, I'd recommend just finding some kids who play in your area & just playing a bunch of games with them. I prefer playing humans to computers &, if I hadn't got my ass kicked hundreds of times in college I wouldn't have gotten stirred up enough to actually dedicate myself to it. There's probably a chess club in your college, you should just show up & get involved. It's a good felling working your way up & starting to beat the kids who could once pwn you consistently. IMO, there's something about OTB (over the board) chess that you just don't get against a computer or even an online human opponent (though playing people I "know" like Mehmed & col is almost, but not quite, the same).

Also, while software is good, I'd recommend books even more, especially in the beginning. Susan Polgar has some pretty good beginner books. "Logical Chess Move by Move" is another classic that you can probably pick up at your college or local library (or used online for $5 or $6).

Also, you could type in something like "basic chess strategy" or "beginning chess" or "basic tactics" + chess into YouTube. There are actually a lot of really good videos on there.

Anyway, I wouldn't spend any/much money right off. Just read some basic books or websites (just type in some of the above youtube searches into Google) & join a chess club. Try to play against friendly, fairly good, players who will tell you what you did wrong when you lose. Once in awhile, play against other beginners so you can win a few (for confidence, I'm not patronizing, btw, this was important for me cause if I got my ass kicked too much & only played much stronger players I probably would've gotten burnt out & quit. IIRC, Kasporov once said (paraphrase), "play stronger players (and probably lose) as much as you can stand".

Anyway, I'm always enthusiastic to see people getting into chess (or anything else I'm into), so if you have any homies at school that play I'd ask them to help you get into it. It'll be a cool feeling if, thru enthusiasm & persistence, you are able to beat them within a few months/year/whatever.

Cheers,
Narz

 

[mrgscottc]

For the beginning player or the player needing a refresher, I think the Chessmaster series is an excellent choice. I purchased the 10th Edition and was very pleased overall.

Narz is correct about OTB play. The experience is different and many ways better; however, sometimes, finding the time and/or opponents can be difficult. I'm right with Narz on books being idea for learning the game. As he recommended Logical Chess: Move by Move is one of the best books for a beginner to learn strategy. The reasoning behind every move is explained. I would also recommend the Winning Chess series by Yasser Seirawan/Everyman Books.

Even though chess is a strategy game, tactics are usually the main reason games are won or lost. In the game it doesn't matter if you have beautiful position strategically if the game is ultimately lost to the tactical blow. Bone up on tactics as been able to recognize your own tactical opportunities and avoid being the victim of tactic will win or save many games.

 

[JonathanStrange]

Narz is right on the money about playing lots of games OTB.

I improved my game from the complete novice level to an advanced beginner in a few months by playing lots of games, focusing on simple tactics, using basic strategies, reading a few of the simpler chess books.

I was 10-years-old at the time and I found that very simple rules of thumb gave me the edge. Rules like "look at his last move, what is the threat?" or "if you make that move, what is his best move" - ridiculously simple but very effective. I recall Kenneth Harkness had a beginner's book call "Invitation to Chess" that really helped.

Complete beginners should stick to the very simple at first. I couldn't have profited by memorizing openings, attempted sophisticated stategies, long tactics, etc. at the early stage.

I could do tactics, tactics, tactics: and not sophisticated ones either. I simply studied and avoided giving up my pawns and pieces easily.

For non-masters, not losing that pawn, not losing the exchange, avoiding dropping a piece: those are what raises our strength. Strategy is fun; endgames interesting, but not dropping a knight wins games at my stage.

I'm rated USCF rated 1988, though I've not played in awhile. My preferred books mainly tactics books, Silman's books, and some introductory openings.

I'd recommend buying CT Art 3 for tactics training; it's an inexpensive CD that worth many times its price because you will use it , use it often, and will improve.

 

[Agent327]

Hi!

I'm trying to find a decent hobby, and video games have continually failed to keep my interest... so why not try chess!?

I know the rules, and even won my school's chess tournament in 6th grade, but overall I'd say I basically suck completely at chess and have no meaningful grasp of strategy.

So I imagine theres lots of software for this.. what would be a good program to buy? Or are there good free ones??? Thanks!

I'd rather not play with humans for awhile, at least until I actually learn some strategy.

I'm not sure if this is very helpful, but way back when I started playing chess I had the good fortune that the eminent Max Euwe actually had written a book on how to learn to play chess, including basic opening strategies.

I'm also not sure about your not wanting to play against humans for a while; I played a lot, also in a chess club (including tournaments). The biggest problem with chess is finding an opponent of relative equal strength (and the only way to do that is indeed playing a lot).

I'm sorry, but I have little regard for chess computer programs.

Cheers,

JEELEN.

 

[mrgscottc]

JEELEN,

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I was using Chessmaster 10th Edition. Well, I have recently expanded that to Fritz 10, which only cost $19.95. I must say that having a full-chess playing program is an excellent investment for those with a serious interest in chess. The program can provide a lot of what is missing when OTB play is not readily available. I am curious as to why have you little regard for these beneficial programs?

 

[JonathanStrange]

Chess software - and I'm not talking just about a chessplaying program - are awesome tools. If you can't join a club, even if you can, I think everyone could benefit from using 'em.

However, one thing I really am disappointed in - and I shouldn't be 'cause they're computers, not humans - is that all of the programs I have from Chessmaster (various), Fritz (various), Junior, HIARCS, Shredder, etc. don't really replicate the way a human player of their approximate strength would play.

I mean, you can set Fritz XI to play at a 1700 level or Chessmaster to play at a 1700 level USCF - which is a competent advanced beginner level, over-the-board tournament level - but the machine doesn't really play the game like a 1700 USCF player : Chessmaster may drop a piece or lose an exchange unnecessarily so that its "average move strength" is 1700; the effect is the machines often play very well tactically most of the game and then blunder a piece to give you a chance. Chessmaster X used to do that often; it'd lose a knight or the exchange on purpose (it seemed) early on and then would be extremely tactically sharp thereafter. That's my disappointment with it; now people do make blunders but it generally comes out of the position's complexity or time pressure or carelessness.

I can recall a friend who learned chess from Chessmaster and said he did quite well against the personalities whose ratings were about the same as my tournament rating. Yet when I played him his level of play was extremely...let's say "noncompetitive" with mine...so his idea of his strength was off. That was about ten years ago though, perhaps Chessmaster's personalities are appropriately rated now.

Anyhow, I'd use programs wholeheartedly but recommend humans for real fun. Humans are generally not as good calculators but they're far more fun and unpredictable in a good way.

 

[mrgscottc]

However, one thing I really am disappointed in - and I shouldn't be 'cause they're computers, not humans - is that all of the programs I have from Chessmaster (various), Fritz (various), Junior, HIARCS, Shredder, etc. don't really replicate the way a human player of their approximate strength would play.

I certainly agree with this; however, when I'm playing against the computer, I'm not looking for an approximation of how a human plays. I just want an "opponent" that is a stronger than me and available anytime. As you indicated, Jonathan, in order to generate approximate strength, the program will purposely lose material, or give odds to use an old term, allowing the weaker player a chance. I'm okay with this, as being able to win a won game is a very important skill to develop. A lot of my own games are marked with the advantage swinging back and forth because of needless loss of material.

 

[JonathanStrange]

I agree with that; it's a reasonable point of view. It forces us to be sharp and careful playing against an opponent who's made his "mistake" and now has sobered up and on his game again.

Humans are more fun; and not because they're weaker. I love the complexity and blunders that come out of time pressure, wandering attention, miscalculated tactics, etc. Humans are unpredicatable and I love an unpredictable 1850 USCF rated human's play over Fritz's 1850 "I'll give the human odds, poor ape" level.

 

[Flying Pig]

I learned chess by taking a travel set and a list of rules that a mate told me with me when work sent me abroad, and teaching some of the other lads when it was quiet. Pretty soon we had a small chess club going.