<TheFocus: Here is a list of all the books printed about Robert Fischer besides Mueller's book: Bobby Fischer – Stahlberg, G. & Westberg, J. (1962)

Fun read! As I mentioned a few posts back - I've heard this/that some of the comments should be taken somewhat lightly; selective memory and such. Not to detract from a wonderful tome!

So in a game it would be like this: Fischer sees a position and from all those patterns he has seen he forms an opinion. The speed of this assessment is based on the ability to accurately recall the specific patterns that correspond to the actual position, this amounts to the knowledge and understanding of the actual position. Fischer spent almost every waking hour to think about chess that his understanding and knowledge was so great that he could instantly assess a position and make the correct move accordingly.>

I suspect this is closer to the truth. But I am still at a lose as to how the great players process information differently than we do (and I remain fairly convinced it is some kind of different wiring...we may never know).

As to fundamental versus technical analysis. The knock on the latter is that past prices have no correlation to future prices. Although I've concluded they do: If you buy you have to sell; if you sell, you will have to buy. Fundamentals are stronger in the long run but with leverage in currencies of 100:1 or so one cannot withstand large losses waiting for the long run in which -as Keynes said - we are dead anyways.

<I suspect this is closer to the truth. But I am still at a lose as to how the great players process information differently than we do (and I remain fairly convinced it is some kind of different wiring...we may never know).>

I'm also fairly convinced that chess prowess is not innate but nurtured through training, while I don't have any conclusive evidence to support my opinion, I believe I have made some strong arguments that support this idea.

<As to fundamental versus technical analysis. The knock on the latter is that past prices have no correlation to future prices. Although I've concluded they do: If you buy you have to sell; if you sell, you will have to buy. Fundamentals are stronger in the long run but with leverage in currencies of 100:1 or so one cannot withstand large losses waiting for the long run in which -as Keynes said - we are dead anyways.>

What do you mean with: <The knock on the latter is that past prices have no correlation to future prices. Although I've concluded they do: If you buy you have to sell; if you sell, you will have to buy.>? I understand the point about technical analysis not taking account of the past price of the currency, stock or whatever it is, but the latter part is somewhat unclear to me.

<The knock on both of them is the efficient market hypothesis which I also think incorrect. I've seen too many traders make consistent profits for many years...>

I suppose we agree to disagree - but the thread has brought out most of the issues involved, I think.

I just want to know why Kid A (me, for example) studied chess so diligently for five years and could not even make master and Kid B (enter GMs name here) did about the same. If its the course, quality of study I'd like to know what it was as I am - even at this age - willing and able to try again! Making 2200 is still a dream for me...

I am going to try and compile a list of books which at least in part discuss these issues...back with that sometime.

<If you buy you have to sell; if you sell, you will have to buy.>

Just that prices do have some memory and are not fully discrete from time instance to time instance.

<I read about the efficient market hypothesis on Wikipedia and I also find it hard to believe...>

<I just want to know why Kid A (me, for example) studied chess so diligently for five years and could not even make master and Kid B (enter GMs name here) did about the same. If its the course, quality of study I'd like to know what it was as I am - even at this age - willing and able to try again! Making 2200 is still a dream for me...>

More interesting would be to know how the great players studied - assuming that is as you say the road to success, properly done.

I taught myself to play over Christmas 1966, studied the chess column each week (Koltanowski) read a few books - Chess for Young People, Botvinnik's 100 Games, World Champion Smyslov, Hannak's Emmanual Lasker were my first four I believe.

I didn't play a 'real' game until about February which I think was a BIG plus for my advancement. When I later taught chess to children no one played a game until 1) The could do the basic easy mates (K-K,Q/K-K-R, K-2Bs) and 2) They played over all the games in Chernev's Logical Chess.

I could beat the high school champion (probably about a 1400 player) by March or April of 1967. I played Bird's as White but don't remember what I played as Black.

I played in a rated tournament in May 1967 and I think did 2.5/6.

I lost the last round (for the championship) for the state Junior in 1967, finished 5/6.

About here I took a bad turn, I think. I fell for Nimzovitch and hypermodernism. Although I did OK with 1. g3 and 1. ...g6 I'm sure I could have done better with Tarrasch's 300 Games! Actually just before I quit playing I went agressive with 1. e4, the Pelikan Sicilan and Chigorin Defense as Black and tied for 2nd in the city championship.

I did study the endings more than most beginners. I spent a lot of hours with Chernev's Practical Chess Endings and read Horowitz and Yanofsky's books on endings multiple times.

So, basically, I bought books and played tournament games. I bought LOTS of books, LOL! I was a parking valet at a top restaurant and made about $300/month - BIG bucks, those days. Al Buschke got most of it. HaHa - I had my books delivered to an older friend's house and snuck them in one or two at a time. :)

I'd like to see the quote should you find it. Contextually I think Kasparov's 'chess geometry' is something a bit different.

I played x4 blindfold in college. I won two lost one straight-up, the other by losing track of the game. It did give me an enormous headache and I never tried again.

You seem to have experienced a rapid growth in playing strength. I agree with your take. Falling for hypermodernism might be for the worse, a straightforward approach to chess would seem to be better. Playing aggressive and very tactically in the beginning would seem to be better.

It is clear that chess is based on tactics. The question then is, of course, how you should go about to learn tactics?

The other side is that Bobby was a very good student, always studying, always thinking about chess. He had a lot of experience by 1956.

I tried in once, in college. Would not do it again. I suppose if you have the skill it would be OK to a point...but I also have the sense it could be dangerous... But Kolty, Najdorf, Alekhine seemed to survive it. They say Ivanchuk pretty much plays blindfold in OTB games for the most part. :)

<And don't anyone even think about suggesting that John Collins was his teacher or I will personally come to your house and take away your Rook Pawns. As Bobby said, he never learned anything from John Collins.>

HeHe...At least I could get my rooks out quickly, like Karpov! Actually, I am hiding the rook pawns from you but leaving the kids in full view! ;)

It is clear that chess is based on tactics. The question then is, of course, how you should go about to learn tactics?>

Almost all of the tactics books are in the form of some kind of quizes, learning various patterns. I never found those particularly useful. I want to dig deeper to the level of strong players who see a more generalized 'geometry' on the board.

A new player comes to you for advice. He or she has just learned the moves, wants to dig deeper.

What course of study do you suggest?

Here is mine: Don't play a single game until 1) You]ve thoroughly gone through a beginner's endgame book such as Horowitz's or Averbakh's and 2) Played over the games in Chernev's Logical Chess and studied his companion tactics volume Winning Chess.

Then, play only gambits and counter-gambits for several months, study the games of the great attackers (except Kasparov) - Spielmann, Alekhine, Keres, Tal. Supplement that with a intermediate endgame book.

<The best I've seen is Practical Chess Analysis by Buckley who gives some 'mental exercises' for seeing the general scheme of things better. What he says makes a lot of sense to me.>

I'm not familiar with this book, what kind of 'mental exercises' does he suggest?

As for the beginners course I would recommend that the student should read and carefully study Chernev's Logical Chess and also play some games. This is to get a feel for the game, learn to know the pieces and the board.

Next the student should read My 60 memorable games and note down positional and tactical features that he/she recognizes. The student should also study some tactics book like 600 practical chess exercises. This is to learn about the middlegame, various plans and positional elements in the position.

I would recommend the student to play 1. e4 and openings like the Sicilian and KID as black. And I would recommend a book like Mikhail Tal's autobiography.

The student should also carefully analyse their games and find out where he/she went wrong and correct the misconception that was the reason for the bad move.

He has quite a few through the course of the book. One early is to mentally get very familiar with the board by breaking it down into four quarters, being able to see them, the colors of the squares. Also visualizing each piece on an empty board and all the squares it connects to, and then visualize it going to one of them and repeating the process. Very simple but I wish I'd done it early on...training your brain to 'see' the geometry. 'Mental aerobics' could be extremely productive.

For tactics Bruce Albertson's Chess Mazes is a different idea and I think effective. I've gone through them both once and I have definitely improved on the daily CG.com quiz. I rarely hit Thursday’s without a lot of effort, now I've hit three of four Thursdays fairly quickly/easily. On to Friday...!

We are pretty much on the same page save for endgame study. I see the endgame as a paradigm for everything else - visualization, calculation, pattern recognition, chess thinking and planning. My idea is learn the basic paradigm, add on to it. I did the Studies at the end of Botvinnik's 100 Games very early and that did a lot for my early progress.

I especially like your plan with 60 Memorable Games. A great way to get things to 'stick' early!