Think Like a Grandmaster: Algebraic Edition

Those of you who still believe in the dogma of pattern recognition had better to read my article on Chessbase: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5055 Here is the abstract/summary: "Born out of recent findings from the field of consciousness and mind, the article explains that chess playing is based upon a fine interplay between a mind subconsciously triggering moves, and a well disciplined consciousness knowing what to keep and what to discard. The highly popular opinion that chess playing is done solely by a conscious self is challenged. Disputing the concept of "conscious memory", it is shown that that one cannot remember material by acts of volition, and that development of chess skills cannot be explained by concepts revolving around consciousness. The article takes to task the current pedagogical claims that talent is of no significance and that exposure to chess material will bring the aspiring player equally far, and also the prevalent understanding that passion for, taking an interest in and believing in what you do are important components in improvement, chess or otherwise. On the contrary, the text demonstrates the significance of innate ability, and that passion and interest merely can direct our attention towards certain fields of study, but that acquiring skills involves different mental processes than these. Avoiding blunders being a major component in development of chess skills, they are here explained as caused by a flawed interplay between consciousness and mind, based upon the distinction between seeing and perceiving. A possible solution to the problem is suggested. A closer look is taken at the highly popular concept in chess lingua, "pattern recognition". By pinpointing practical as well as conceptual problems, it is shown that the concept does not meaningfully lend itself to explain chess playing. Specific idiosyncrasies between patterns and structures are scrutinized to show that the conceptual problems run deeper than mere semantics. The fundamental difference is argued by looking at how these two relate to each other, and how they are expressed in chess discourse and chess literature. Since no formal definition of "pattern" in chess exists, it is impossible effectively to meaningfully communicate "pattern recognition" as a workable concept to explain the development of chess skills. To then explain chess playing and support the claim that the idea of "pattern recognition" is highly problematic, "exformation" is introduced as a new concept to chess discourse, thinking and communication. Upon closure, chess playing is compared with judgment in the field of morality, trying to explain that just as in morality, chess players constantly encounter and have to deal with situations (positions) never before encountered. Finally, it is offered why many present methods of study will not seriously improve or develop chess skills. In context of the undertaken analysis, Kotov's method is suggested for chess im

Kotov covers the way top players think and common patterns of mistakes that all players make. It's really entertaining and you don't have to wade through miles of chess annotation to benefit from it.

There are many books out there that claim to teach the Intermediate level player how to look for the best move during middlegame play but fall short of fulfilling their end of the bargain. This book is one of the ones that goes above and beyond what the title promises. Even as far as to show you how to create a PLAN (contrary to what "How To Reassess Your Chess" by IM Jeremy Silman states in regards to books that show one how to form a plan; also another great middlegame book by the way). However, there are some mistakes that must have occured when transposing the original descriptive notation to algebraic notation. But if your're looking to 'really' improve as a chess player then you have to expect to run accross some mistakes along the way. A word of advice: Ignore the mistakes the minute you find them and just forge ahead! There are some great ideas given in the examples of games from many Russian Grandmasters that if looked for in ones own games it WILL help to improve ones overall rating. That is of course, if you're willing to study this book thoroughly by not only setting up the positions given in the book on your own board but also by incorporating the suggestions given into your own chess strategies. So, if you want to know how to train your mind to think like a grandmaster, buy the book!

There are many books out there that claim to teach the Intermediate level player how to look for the best move during middlegame play but fall short of fulfilling there end of the bargain. This book is one of the ones that goes above and beyond what the title promises. Even as far as to show you how to create a PLAN (contrary to what "How To Reassess Your Chess" by IM Jeremy Silman states in regards to books that show one how to form a plan; also another great middlegame book by the way). However, there are some mistakes that must have occured when transposing the original descriptive notation to algebraic notation. But if your're looking to 'really' improve as a chess player then you have to expect to run accross some mistakes along the way. A word of advice: Ignore the mistakes the minute you find them and just forge ahead! There are some great ideas given in the examples of games from many Russian Grandmasters that if looked for in ones own games it WILL help to improve your overall rating. That is of course, if you'rewilling to study this book thoroughly by setting up the positions given in the book on your OWN board and incorporate them into your daily play. So, if you want to train your mind to think like a grandmaster, buy the book!

This is a classic. Alexander Kotov analyses the way Chess players analyse! This is a highly original book which attempts to look at the thought processes of grandmasters, and provided recommendations and tips for thinking faster and more effectively through the maze of variations one encounters during chess games. Tips include being systematic by enumerating candidate moves at the outset, and following each variation once and once only to avoid going backwards and forwards between variations.