Report number two:

Ok I'm up to the <Class E> section and I learned you can't mate with <K + RP> if the enemy <K> is in front of you.

Who knew? All of you- but not me.

It's actually ridiculous that I have a <Class B> chess rating but I've never actually done a proper end game study of basic principles you all learned when you were five years old.

It's a little embarrassing frankly.

For <endgame studiers who use Shredder>:

I have discovered that even in <K + P v. K> endgames, you have to put <Shredder> on at least 22-ply in order to get it to defend accurately.

If there are 6 pieces or less, I like to use the Nalimov tablebase tool [...] then I can easily asks questions like what if the king is here or what if it's black's move, etc. Play around with it. Fun and profitable.>

I second that - tablebase is more reliable than an engine in many cases, as it doesn't depend on eccentricities of evaluation numbers but simply tells you with absolute certainty whether the position is winning/losing or drawn with best play. If there's a win, it also tells you in how many moves for each choice (move by move), so it can tip you off about the most efficient winning strategies - or drawing strategies, in case there's only a limited range of moves which lead to a draw rather than a loss, especially if it's a case where only one move draws and all the rest lose. And sometimes it can be really fascinating to make small changes in the position, see whether the final result changes, and if it does try to figure out why.

Petrosian's games are much less commonly studied that those of guys like Tal, Kasparov, Alekhine, etc, but Petrosian's games are very unique and instructive. Keene's annotations are very helpful in understanding the somewhat unusual ideas in Petrosian's games. while Alekhine's games are also instructive, most of the time you won't be able to just tactically destroy someone. Petrosian's games will teach you useful plans and strategies to use in the middlegame.

if you're a 1.d4 player like me, who tries to avoid theoretical discussions and transfer the decisive play to the middlegame, this book is a must read!

and don't believe what you've heard about Petrosian being boring, there are some absolutely beautiful <tactical> sequences in this book, presented in an accessible manner by the excellent annotations by Keene.

even if you don't get Keene's book, do yourself a favor and have a look at some Petrosian games. i promise you'll see some stuff that you won't see in anyone else's games.

Here is a gold mine of instructional videos by the fine <Majnu>-

There are now 8 videos in this series, all explaining the lessons in <Vukovich's> "The Art of Attack in Chess"-

Here is the first one-

must see Youtube chess channels -

<Kingscrusher>

http://www.youtube.com/user/kingscr...

<Canstein>

http://www.youtube.com/user/canstein2

<Majnu>

http://www.youtube.com/user/Majnu2006

<Krakkaskak> - Henrik Danielsen

http://www.youtube.com/user/krakkas...

<jrobi!!!> - best videos ever!!!

http://www.youtube.com/user/jrobich...

If you look in Tartakower and Du Mont's 500 Master Games, you will see that it is divided into Open Games (those beginning 1. e4 e5), Semi-0pen Games (those beginning 1. e4 and something other than 1....e5, e.g. ...e6, ...Nf6, ...c5, etc.) and Closed Games (those beginning 1. d4). That was the way the world used to see openings. Of course there is better appreciation of the different sorts of positions that can flow from any opening choice, so the old Open/Semi-Open/Closed classification system isn't much used anymore. But in their 1927 match Alekhine and Capablanca repeatedly played the Orthodox Defense to the Queen's Gambit Declined, which you might call the quintessential closed opening. Capablanca himself strongly preferred 1. d4...in fact when you say Capablanca preferred open games, I have no idea what you mean. Alexander Alekhine

ray keene: lots of questions here -some of them answered already-here goes-sorry if i miss something: 1 yes korchnoi was a great player in the period 1976-1978 but he was much too easily distracted, took smoke and mirrors far too seriously and of course karpovs team eventually spotted this-hence the advent of dr zukhar at baguio. 2 what happened at the spassky v korchnoi match has been well explained here already-if i knew what korchnois hallucination was it will be in my book! 3 the ---g6 sicilian is called the pterodactyl-check out earlier kibbitzes here and i think you will find i have given a load of game references-also try lawrence day games on this site 4 the ten books i wd take on a desert island

500 master games by tartakower and dumont
alekhines best games 1924-1937
kasparovs my great predecessors as a set is just one big book-i wd take that my own book on nimzowitsch
clarkes book on tal
golombeks book on reti the descriptive version not the badly edited algebraic one masters of the chessboard by reti
tartakowers 2 volume set of his best games-i regard this -as with kasparov-as one big book who was the greatest-warriors of the mind vol 2 by me divinsky and jeff sonas golombeks book on capablanca

i have chosen books that can be read and reread for pleasure, so altho i regard for example nimzos my system as a truly great book i wd not say that it is a book you read for fun! desert islanders are traditionally allowed 2 extra choices such as the bible and shakespeare, so i wd also take as a luxury grandmaster strategy -my own book of best games, and howard staunton the english world champion.

Swapmeet: It's not very up to date, but one of my favorite game collections of all time is Tartakower & Du Mont's "500 Master Games of Chess". You can learn ALOT from this book. The Kibitzer's Café

ray keene: <spassky69> raises a very interesting point about the strength of past masters-around 1800 rating before steinitz with a few exceptions he writes. i have spent a lot of time thinking and writing about this and indeed produced a book called warriors of the mind with canadian maths professor nathan divinsky which delves deeply into this entire topic. but how exactly do you compare players of different eras ? in our book we tried a retrospective rolling rating system and the results were fascinating.some you wd expect-some not.

this is not the only way to assess strength of players long defunct. another way is to look at their games and analysis. now-if we look at their games we wd expect the openings of players from say 1850 to be awful-its clear that openings theory has considerably advanced and what we play automatically now was then terra incognita. the same is true of any situations where decades of practice and analysis has sytematised correct methods of play. for example they rarely got into testing theoretical endgames-largely because the game was more or less decided at an earlier stage. similarly middlegames-we have for example systematised the minority attack-they knew nothing of this.

no-the yardstick by which to judge their raw chess talent was the ability to conceive play and calculate combinations-that is the one area in my opinion where the raw strength of distant generations can legitimately be tested and compared. now look at the combinations played by mcdonnell and labourdonnais-look at stauntons combinations-even st amant and elijah williams could combine very effectively-the magnificent tome 500 master games by tartakower and dumont is full of pre steinitz combinations of tremendous depth and vigour.

my conclusion is that to dismiss the pre steinitz generation as no better than 1800 is a fallacy. they were much stronger. take a look at chessmetrics by jeff sonas and i think you will get a relatively accurate comparison of the generations. Raymond Keene

ray keene: i recommend the following books for anyone who wants to improve their strength and their chess culture-all are available on amazon i think

my system nimzowitsch
my 60 memorable games fischer
alekhines best games alekhine
petrosians best games clarke
all of the my great predecessrs books by kasparov
retis best games by golombek
500 master games tartakower and dumont
larsens best games by larsen
masters of the chessboard by reti
capablancas best games by golombek

few of these will teach you how to play a modern sicilian but in my view any player who is starting out on a competitive path shd avoid those any way-first learn to think-then learn the theory of sharp variations. The Kibitzer's Café

OneBadDog: <Also tell me what other books you recomend if its not a good one please rate it 1-10 10 being the best :-). I have a question does anyone own the book Fires on the Board by Alexei Shirov, i was wondering if its a good book? cause im thinking of buying it :-) analists books tactical books please help me :-) >

apple head. Here's a list of my favorite books. I've read almost none of the cover-to cover, but they look impressive on my bookshelf. As you can see, I'm partial to game collections. The books that have personally benefitted me the most have been Alekhine, Tal & Keres works, followed by the Art of Attack and Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge. Timman & Dvoretsky's books are extremely dense and are only for those with lots of time on their hands.

my books on:

nimzowitsch

staunton-the english world champion

stein-master of attack

petrosian v the elite

grandmaster strategy-my own games and results

my illustrated history of chess

warriors of the mind

flank openings-my first book

the 1985 karpov v kasparov world championship-manoeuvres in moscow

the 1978 karpov v korchnoi world championship match

One person who might know is User: parisattack. His forum isn't open now but he is active on the site. Perhaps he will see this message.

We found this lead for you:
<Morphy's last trip to Paris was in 1867 and there is no evidence that Zukertort was there at that time, or any time earlier for that matter. (I'll check through my Jimmy Adams book on Zukertort again on this.)>

(The full original post can be found at
Paul Morphy)

The author of the post is

User: WilhelmThe2nd

<keypusher>: A very entertaining book by the Rev., with pen portraits of Steinitz, Zukertort, Blackburne, Bird, Mason, etc....and it's free.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_G...

It is excellently written, and then commentaries by Kramnik are very instructive. Highly recommended.

This book is a collection of longer essays that are mostly about 20th century chess and its prminent figures and events as seen through the eyes of GM Hans Ree, a prminent Dutch journalist. There are also a few essays on the origins of chess and on national chess variants.

The book is very well-written and very interesting. Each essay is illustrated by a game or two that is integral to its theme.

Although I still consider J. H. Donner's <The King: Chess Pieces> (De Koning) the best book of this sort that I have read, Ree's book is a very close second. I recommend it highly to everyone interested in chess.