What book should i buy if i want into chess theory/strategy?

Also as an actual answer, id recommend you try Yasser Seirawans series, starting with "play winning chess"

Carlsen wins most games in the ending, are you implying that you can memorise every possible line up to the ending? That is mathematically not even possible considering the number of possible games

Carlsen wins by applying strategic principles, and knowing when to break those rules

The term 'contengency line' isnt even used in chess, which leads me to believe youre just some random pleb

Even most principles are quite vague and require a lot of intentiveness to carry out, for instance controlling the centre, playing on the wings, figuring out and exploiting weaknesses, if you think you can memorise the trillions of possible combinations, you are a retard

Creds pls

>someone who actually knows the game is in the thread so let me double down on my retarded memery

>Not playing baduk

chess is fun though too

If you already know your tactics and basic endgames (and you should really, really know your tactics) give this a read. He was a huge influence on Petrosian and Larsen, so you know he's legit.

Tell me ur lichess usernames bois

Baduk is my obsession but speed chess with friends is a fucking blast.

Stops me from gettin' good cause I don't want our insane games to be one sided.

Learn how to lie to people and marry off your daughter to wealthy Jews. 4d chess. Don't forget to stack your cabinet with insiders and Jews.

TropicalLine

Check out John Bartholomew's and Simon William's youtube channels. They play games online in a sort of let's play format and talk about what they're thinking about in terms of strategy and possible variations while they play

Came here to post this. If there's a definitive guide/book, it's this one.

my system is good, but its more of a definitive reference book than a book for beginners
id recommend to only read it after a few years of basic study

Is there something similar for beginners?

Yasser Seirawans "Play Winning Chess"
Then "Winning chess tactics"
Then "Winning chess strategy"
Then practice tactics for about a year

After you get moderately good you start reading cyka blyad books

Learn some rules and basic shit like endgames.
Then read My System over and over again, studying each chapter until you have complete domain over each strategic element.

t. top 15 chess player in my country

Thank you user. Is there a series by a different author you might recommend as well? I like to compare books before picking one.

Would you say that a chess mindset is actually applicable to real life strategies or is it purely a game thing?

What country?

There are a lot

"Logical Chess: Move by Move" is considered a good "second" book to read, it just takes you through some master games and gives you a basic explanation for each move

"The right way to play chess" is good if you really want the shortest book with the best crash course

Artur Yusupov, a Russian GM has a series called "build up your chess", its very good but its fucking hard, and he makes you figure things out yourself

Jeremy Silman has a series of books which are widely used

If you want to do tactics (the equivalent of fitness training for an athlete) go to chesstempo.com

Democratic Republic of the Congo

How to Reassess Your Chess by Silman helped me a lot.

Chilel

Nice. That's really cool that you're on a short list of best players there. I wish I could say the same.

the inner game of chess

>tfw i already have an account
lets play some 5+3 senpai
SunshineRecorder

Thanks for the recommendations. I downloaded Yusupov's first book and it's fun playing them out as puzzles.

Which is Jeremy Silman's introductory (or first) book?

I think Amateurs Mind is the intro one
You could probably read Reassess your chess if you were willing to put the effort in

The key with chess books is doing all the exercises and spending time on it, a lot of chess players have shelves of books and have never read one fully

What a boring night.
Come on faggots lets play some chess.

My FIDE rating was a little over 2,000 when I played.
The books I found most helpful among the many I read were works from Tal (Tal-Botvinnik, The life and Games of) and Dvoretsky's Endgame Manuel.

There's plenty more extremely useful material, that's just what was most beneficial to me. I would suggest googling essential lists of GM's

I could probably beat everyone in this thread and have never read more than a few pages from a chess book. I have a very high working memory and logical proficiency which I think accounts for my ability.

I've not read any book either and play chess often. My IQ is over 150. I definitely could beat everyone in this thread easily.

I failed to mention: I highly recommend studying Chess960 intensively if you are very serious about improving

>The only memorisation is learning openings, and most players only know a few simple openings up to maybe the 5th move
Most players only learn a few moves of an opening, but most players are shit.

>Beyond that, most skill in chess comes from practicing tactics, which are basically puzzles where the objective is checkmate or winning material
At the professional level, memorization of often 20+ moves of any given opening is mandatory, including dozens of variations for each opening.

>Memorisation is really only important for the top 0.001% of players, who only do it to gain a slight advantage
Anyone who memorizes all the 20+ move variations of any given opening will pretty much dominate any sub-2000 player without ever having to think for themselves. You obviously have to learn what moves punish incorrect deviations, but that's still pure memorization.

With that said, tactics and strategy are absolutely necessary skills as well. Spotting tactics and learning end-game strategy is mandatory. It's not one or another. Beginners should forget about memorizing lines beyond basic openings and learn tactics and positioning, but at some point, around 2000, you will hit a plateau where it becomes impossible to advance without memorization. Players like Carlsen are both chess libraries and have chess engines for brains, and it's that full package that allows them to dominate.

Most chess engines have pre-loaded lines for every opening, but at some point a game will become too "unique" to rely on past analysis, at which point the engine begins brute forcing lines.

What's your lichess name, I'll send you a challenge

>What's your lichess name, I'll send you a challenge

Do you refer to 2000 FIDE or by some elo on a website?
When I played in FIDE events, the players you described were about 1750-1800 or even lower that would ruin anyone that lacked the knowledge of specific lines.
I would be surprised to find someone else on here that was involved with FIDE and impossibly unlikely that they had a fair rating

almost certainly a chess.com rating

I'm referring to lichess.org ratings, which are probably a bit inflated.

chess.com ratings are actually deflated for mid-tier players, and fairly accurate for the top tier players.

Ah. Definitely inflated. I find most online Chess services are polluted with Stockfish users that want to gloat their faux elo to their friends

You tell me your name and I will send the challenge.

Minister_B

say who wins i bet high working memory loses

I will need to make an account, I have only played in offline tournaments.

You don't need an account. Just click the "play with friend" button and post the link

Veeky Forums chess team fucking when

Veeky Forums wouldn't be competent enough to play chess

they would obsess over the "purpose" of chess and burst into tears whenever a pawn is killed, claiming that it deserved a better chance at life

>I could probably beat everyone in this thread
>gets called out by user
>disappears
typical

What is more important, the intrinsic value of a pawn or the potential value of that pawn to become something more powerful?

Chess for Dummies

Chess is a rather stupid hobby. Pseuds will use it to show how intellectual they are. Perhaps it's because I have a BS in Math that I've never felt the need to show how I'm like a super smart kid who plays chess and studies Latin in my free time. The entire game is memorization. Seriously. The entire thing. And I would know. I set out to really learn chess. I thought to myself "Surely not everyone is a posturing fraud. It must really be the intellectual's game that it is known as." Nope. Totally wrong. Memorizing openings for 30+ is required. Memorizing end-games is required. Tactics are almost nothing. They don't even come into play. There is no strategy in chess. Just autism. The funny thing is that everyone knows this, but they refuse to improve the game. It's like a pyramid scheme. The only people who care enough and have enough power to change the game have invested too much time into getting good at its current autistic form. Why would they campaign to change the game when they are a top 300 world ranked player? It's literally all they have. Chess960 would improve the game remarkably and yet it goes mostly unused. The frauds in charge of FIDE have no excuse except for fear of becoming irrelevant because their memorization won't help them in an actual contest of strategy like Chess960.

You are pathetic

Why? Because I have a different viewpoint than you? At least I articulated myself. I am fed up with the stodginess of modern chess. It used to be about innovation. The game was filled with vigor. Have you ever studied chess in your life? Do you know the work of Capablanca, Morphy, or Alekhine? Have you ever even heard of these guys? I'm the real deal, pal. I know all about chess. I didn't read a wikipedia article and decide I didn't like it. I've studied it. I know it. I don't know what the fuck you know because you chose to only type out 3 words. How about you put in a baseline effort next time, little bud? I don't know what you hope to accomplish with your baseless insult. Feel free to actually start a discussion. Or keep calling stuff pathetic and then running out of the thread. Wow. I wish everyone posted like you. Can't wait to hear what single adjective you are going to use to express yourself next.

I couldn't find you. Are you still online?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Sounds to me like you're making excuses for sucking at chess.

I am. What's your name, i'll send you a challenge

I recently started getting into chess and I picked this up. Did I do good? I skimmed through and seemed pretty thorough.

>Why? Because I have a different viewpoint than you?
No, because you are clearly lying and have no idea what you are talking about.

4chanchess658

I'm getting a player not found screen

Try again I am online.

And you can't name one thing I am wrong about. You will continue giving posts devoid of content or stop altogether. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Where do you guys play online?

Lichess

still not found. just link your profile

Not doing is not the same thing as being unable to do.

>Memorizing openings for 30+ is required
At very, very high level play. To know a line in 30+ moves of an opening is not that hard. To know the hundreds to thousands of lines in an opening to have any chance of being able to use that line is the hard part. I find modern professional chess stale, but we should not confer the tediousness of that onto anything but high level professional play.
>Chess is a rather stupid hobby
>hobby
Even if everything you have said is true (and I don't differ much for professional play) you are still saying chess sucks for everyone not matter their skill level. This is just ridiculous.

>Memorizing end-games is required.
And? This is absolutely not the same thing as opening memorisation. The amount of positions can be be memorised by endgame are simple enough that there are far, far less complications. It is a much more feasible task

>Tactics are almost nothing.
Said no player of the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian. Who is Tal, did he never make any use of tactics or was that all memorisation?

I don't think I mentioned skill level at all. When I say "chess" I am obviously talking about people who actually know what they are doing, i.e., elo 1900+. My criticisms of the game apply to anyone with a half-way decent elo. Of course I could not criticize the state of the game of poor chess players. There is no "state of the game" for poor players in any sport or hobby. I am sure poor players are using tactics, invention, and novelty. And they get trounced by people who play by pure memorization. This is exactly why I don't like chess.

After reading your post, I am not really sure why you have been up my ass. We both agree modern pro chess is stale. To your final point about Tal: yeah, go ahead and give me a list of current great players like him. Of course you can't---there are none. This is the problem my dude. An individual from 2+ generations ago can't support your view in my opinion. Modern chess is pure autism.

I'm not sure why you think me saying "chess sucks" is ridiculous. Are you really unaware that people do not like chess? I think I have said my peace as to why. That should be all you ask for when it comes to hearing someone's opinion---not demanding that they agree with you.

If you prefer classic to chess960, fine. Personally I don't see the merits and honestly don't care. There is so much more to life than any single life. Chess stopped being appealing when I learned it was so autistic. It seems like a lot of people still have a romanticized view of it because they are too scared or uninformed to speak out against it. This is why I have spoken so long about the topic. Looks like I was the autistic one all along.

I'm seeing more posts about the integrity of chess as a game rather than book recommendations. Come on guys, stay on topic?

How come pawns don't have their own symbol in algebraic notation? It makes shit hard to learn.

I guess the implication is that if there is no symbol it was a pawn that moved.
Also nice digits.

960 is the best.

OP, you don't need bookz. I'm self-taught and I'm rated 2200 in 960 on lichess (started 2011).
Once you grasped the basics you only need to study tactics, compositions, end game studies and games by grandmasters. Playing blindfold is a good practice, too, you should try it out once you reach 1600. Memorizing chess games like poems can be helpfull, too. It's all about visualizing the board in your mind.

But the best advice I can give you is not to play chess at all. It'll fuck up your brain. It's extremly exhausting. It's highly addictive. It ruined my perception. I dream chess, I see chess positions in people faces; it's a passion I hate, it's a curse.

Nowadays I narrowed playing chess down to two games a day. Quitting is impossible for me, it makes me pugnaciously; my mind is empty and bored without the challenge that chess gives me.

The only good thing I discovered through chess is the asthetic pleasure I get from solving chess compositions, undoubtedly the highest form of art I know. But trust me, it isn't worth the site effects.

I play alright in the beginning and mid game but I'm so bad at actually causing a checkmate. I just had a very embarrassing game where I dominated the other guy to the point where he only had a few pawns while I had a queen, rook, knight, and a bishop but the game ended in a draw because I couldn't force his king to the edge of the board in time with my rook and queen. How do I get better at this?

Does anyone still think Trump was playing 4d chess?

For whoever is interested in this, you can play this kind of chess on sites like lichess, but it's called Chess960. To be honest it's the first time I hear it called "Fischerandom", but it must be the same thing.

You know that the real strategy is knowing when to use each opening and endgame, right?

Also, why improve the game? It's mathematically correct to say that a chess game with two perfect players will always end in draw. It's perfectly balanced.

this, to be good at chess you don't need books, you need autism

>197,742 possible games of chess

Durr it's just memorization

You can use a program like Lucaschess to practice checkmates, it can just give you tons of checkmates to solve

There are way more than that

>ex 2200 elo here
That's blatantly false. After a certain level, a lack of knowledge in openings will result in you systematically entering middle-game with a small disadvantage.

A great chess player will play the opening like a book, the middle-game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine.

>Carlsen wins games in the endgame
Wrong. In most cases, endgame is just the harvest of the advantage sown in middle-game, even if this advantage is nothing more than a slightly better pawn structure. Of course some games are really won in the endgame, but this is not at all the norm.

>ex 2200 elo

Is that IM? Why the hell did you quit man? That's crazy impressive.

Is there a standard text on openings?

Can we agree that Lasker is the superior chessfu?

IM is 2400. He might be an NM if he's American and not lying.

IM is not really tied to elo, you basically have to make three "norms" in three different tournaments. IMs also have around 2400 elo if I remember correctly.

I stopped because I was too old - I was around 17 years old - which made it pretty much impossible to ever become pro. The idea of becoming a good club player or a little un-extraordinary MI made me stop.

Regarding openings, you can find quite a lot of "complete repertoire for white/black" books if you want the easy way. What I remember doing at the beginning, was to pick a broad book - a French equivalent to Chess for Dummies - browse all openings and pick some I liked. I then bought specific books for each opening - scandinavian and king's indian for black and e4 four knights, 2.c3 against the sicilisn. Progressively, I broadened and started tackling the main lines.

can we start a chess general? ;_;

The Art of the Deal

Personally, I just chess.com'd the fuck out of opening and endgame strategies. Middle game usually falls into a pattern of stalwartism or exchanging pieces until one side makes an elementary mistake and then the game spirals quickly. From what I've heard, Fischer and Kasparov are the equivalent of pop writers ala Malcolm Gladwell or Steven Pinker in that they care more about seeing you their book then teaching anything worthwhile. I mean just even think of the title "How Chess Imitates Life" to get a cringy, superficial image of what you'll be slogging through. Honestly, what I've always regretted not doing is picking up something about the Medieval monk players and their strategy. After all, if we are to compare chess to literature, it's not too far out of the question to say that you'd want to engage with the ancients of any discipline as to learn the essential knowledge that has stuck around for millennia.

As a beginner what sort of opening should I be focusing on using? As white I usually just go e5, Nf3, Bc4, Nc3, and then I just wing it. I'm so new I haven't played as black enough to know any opening.

Not to say you are incorrect on the average, but there were a few people who have become GM starting from the age of like 20. Hell, I think there was some indian guy who started at 46? and became a GM

some dudes try sometimes on Veeky Forums