This is a short, short list or the Stuck-on-an-Island list. They are by no means the chess books. But they're an excellent start. I couldn't help myself, so I had to include three now-considered "classics": Nimzowitch's _My System_, Fischer's _My 60 Memorable Games_ and Kmoch's _Pawn Power_ .

Noticed that I didn't include a specific book on openings. That's going to require a bit more than just a blog entry. So, knock yourselves out! I've included a direct link to Amazon -- so half the work is already cut out for you.

Aren't I a swell guy?

On my next blog entry I'm going to give you the straight answer to the "if I can't even get past the opening, how am I supposed to get to the endgame in the first place?" question.

OK. Later, folks!

Posted by rene on 8:35 PM | Comments (0)

Stay tuned...

I have several on-going themes I'd like to discuss with you in the Chess Corner weblog:

1. The opening
2. A thing or two about the middle-game
3. The endgame
4. General commentary on local chess in Connecticut

As most of you know by now, there are three stages in chess: the opening, middle game and endgame (endspiel). With each stage, of course, comes important decisions and crucial transitions.

So, which is the most important stage? I thought you'd never ask.

In my humble opinion, the endgame is the most important. But most of you may argue that "well, if I can't even get past the opening, how am I supposed to get to the endgame in the first place?"

That's a reasonable argument.

I would have to say that a thorough study and examination of the endgame is a good start. There are a ton of books on the subject, and any chess manual covers the endgame in some sort of detail.

In my next blog I'm going to include a list of books that you MUST have in in your chess library. Capital M. Besides, it's a good investment especially if you are to dramatically improve your game. That includes beating your dad, your nemesis at the local club, or simply improving your chess rating on your next open tournament.

Anyway, item #1 I mentioned was the opening. The opening is of almost equal importance. I know a lot of people that know practically every opening (myself included). I recommend learning, practicing and analyzing games that include the opening of your choice. For example, if you are playing against white a safe opening to start with is the King's Indian Defense (1..g6) or the Sicilian Defense (1..c5). Against black you could study the Ruy Lopez or any 1. e4 (opened) or 1. d4 (closed) opening. With any basic opening there are dozens of main variations, sub-variations, even names that sound like a French dish.

On item #2 I'm going to "skim" over it, as I find it to be introspective. That is not to say that the middle game isn't as important as the opening or endgame. The middle game in chess catches the tail-end of the opening and the beginning transposition of the endgame. Now, bear in mind that a lot of games can end at this point.

Finally, this is probably going to be my favorite part of this blog. My opinions can be a bit biased at times, but for the most part I'm going to be as subjective as possible.

I'll go ahead and say that chess is almost dead in the Great State of Connecticut. There is very little interest in the game, not enough scholastic funding or monthly tournaments, etc. However, I'm beginning to feel a bit more confident about the future of chess in Connecticut. (I suppose this is generational?) I see a renaissance arriving.

For now, stay tuned for more on the wonderful world of chess...

Posted by rene on 12:55 PM | Comments (0)

August 24, 2005

What's the best move?

This question is almost a quandary.

Chess is both simple and complex. Simultaneously. There are positions that require simple rapier-like thrusts to win even difficult games, while other games require a bit more than just a stab.

It's baffling to find players buried in deep concentration in an attempt to find the "correct" move, when there wasn't much to think about.

"The move was so obvious," a peeved kibitzer may offer to the players around the table. But when you're in the hot seat, you may be thinking close to a dozen moves that could work. Your mind starts to wander off and then, suddenly, you make the wrong move.

After the game you tell yourself that the candidate move was obvious and after a closer look the move you made was a simple blunder that cost you the game.

Often players think more about the games they've won, than the games they've lost. Interestingly enough you can learn more about yourself and the type of player that you are by studying the games you've lost. At the same time you also learn a thing or two about your opponent. You make it a goal to beat him next time by avoiding his traps; or avoiding positions that you're uncomfortable with; or simply avoid the opponent!

Sometimes it's hard to tell when you're winning or losing. The position becomes a blur. But somehow, somewhere, you managed to play the correct moves. Your opponent has no choice but to resign. "Good game." This standard congratulatory remark, however, begs to ask "how did you win?"

More on that later...

Posted by rene on 8:29 AM | Comments (0)

August 23, 2005

Patterns of Nature against the Arrangement of Chess

I think that Arpad Elo, the mathematical genius who invented the ELO chess rating, says it best: The process of rating players can be compared to the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind.

I'll take that a bit further and say that chess strength is only relative to the position. Even powerful grandmasters like Garry Kasparov or Veselin Topalov can break under pressure and make disastrous blunders -- even against weaker players.

But why is this, you may ask?

The answer lies in our inability to fully grasp the position, even if we think we understand the position, and veer to a different path that leads to a losing position.

Every chess beginner always questions this. Why is it that weaker players "see" less of the board, than stronger players?

For now let us say that our brain is designed in such a way that enables it to see and recognize patterns. When strong players recognize a particular configuration of the pieces on light-and-dark squares, they are able to make use of that part of the brain that processes the "correct" move in a given position.

In chess there are two kinds of players - positional and attackers. Positional players can overcome a strong attack, while at the same time moving closer to a winning position - one strong move after another. However, attackers can create complications in order to shake the opponent's will to defend, when losing a mere pawn can be decisive.

One of the things I've realized in chess is that no matter what the position is - good or bad - there's almost always a "way out." In a losing position you may catch your opponent off-guard and make a surprising sacrifice that lets you get away with a draw.

However, the board can be turned (pun intended) and find yourself winning only to find yourself losing the game on the next move.

Chess is like tug-of-war, but it's also like "a cork bobbing up and down."

Posted by rene on 1:51 PM | Comments (1)