ouspensky: I like some ideas of Nimzowitch but i´d not recommend "My sistem" to a beginner player. I like "Understanding Chess Move by Move" of John Nunn, "Grand Master of the Board" by Richard Reti or for example "Secrets of the modern chess strategy" of John Watson.

ouspensky: Is it a joke? For example Thal, Najdorf, Geller, Petrosian, Fine, Spasski, Larsen, Stein, Gligoric, Korchnoi have been great players much better than other current players who would not be GM without the help of the Pc. Fischer improved and dignified the chess. He got to change and to improve the rules. He popularized the chess in whole world as any player has never done. He always played for winning.

thanks everyone for the sugestions. I guess I have a lot of reading ahead of me.

http://www.chessville.com/misc/ChessPositionTrainer.htm

And it's free

http://www.chesspositiontrainer.com/

ouspensky: Both of those are very good and My System (which I have read) is excellent. But it's the third one I'd recommend reading. People shouldn't read it first. It's not as easy to get throuh as Amateurs and Reassess and I think by reading it later, one can benefit more.

mctrivia: I think the best is "My System" by Nimzovich and "Pawn Power if Chess" by Komch (sp?)" They both teach the fundamentals of positional play.

mctrivia: Yes. Amateur Minds and Reassess Your Chess by Jeremy Silman. There is a review on Amazon here


These two books are excellent and if you put in the time, it will pay off. Read Amateur Minds first. There is also a Reassess Your Chess workbook that is helpful.

Another big help is software and I'd recommend is CT-ART. I have it and use it (not enough) and it's great drilling.

Shop around to get the best deals. Amazon has been good to me but I usually buy my chess materials from http://www.chesshouse.com/ or even ebay (where the best deals can be found at least in my experience.)

There are other good books too but these two I'd suggest you start with.

ouspensky: I am too. I'm even more troubled that he turned out to be a bit on the crazy side. Someone with his gift at the game and he didn't use it.

Any suggestions on books for someone that isn't a beginer at chess but wants to learn to become beter?

Groucho:This is true for me. I never played chess until the Fischer-Spassky match. But I am troubled that he never played a match against a truly great player.

ColonelCrockett: My point was that US chess was not very active until he came along. It sprung to life after he came on the scene. People were facinated with him and became interested in the game too. It grew from there. Exactly how much I do not know. But clearly chess wouln't have grown like it did without someone like him.

Groucho: I don't like Fischer. His comments aside, I don't like his play . . . His games are difficult for the beginner to look at and comprehend, very few of his moves are straightforward. Therefore with that viewpoint I don't think Fischer contributed anything useful to the average player's chess. He doesn't belong on my list . . .

Groucho:

Matarilevich: His present behavior aside, he certainly was a positive force in the growth of US chess. Perhaps even the world.

Groucho: Yes, Fischer is the best.

Didn't Bobby Fischer really put Chess on the map? At least as the US in concerned? Up until Bobby Fischer, the interest in chess in the US was lacking. I believe the USCF grew rapidly after Bobby came on the scene.

Socrates:

1.Botvinnik
2.Alekhine
3.Morphy
4.Nimzowit
sch
5.Tarrasch

Note: this list was compiled with the idea of the "best contributor" to the game not necessarily the strongest.

Los Alamos chess tournament. Please sign here:
http://brainking.cz/cz/Tournaments?trg=12701&tri=75705&trnst=0

Socrates: My preferences

1. Emanuel Lasker
2. Alexander Alekhine
3. Jose Raoul Chapablanca
4. Mikhail Botvinnik
5. Paul Keres


Why not Fischer oder Karpov or Kasparow you may ask? Well I "prefer" the playr above because the had a very long career. (Think of Lasker and Moscow 1935!)

Everyone's opinion on the top 5 players ever? Here is mine:

1. Capablanca

2. Kasparov

3. Fischer

4. Alekhine

5. Botvinik

Thanks Bengood24 & Pawnme ! Much Appreciated !
I think I have a better understanding now ... and just to think, after all of this, I've had a change of heart and decided not to make the offer. It's do or die now.....:)

Abiodun: It sounds like you made a draw offer on your turn. If your opponent ignores the draw offer and you don't move you will lose on time. I would make a move and check the box for offering a draw with the move before you submit the move. Then it will show up as your opponent's turn and he will either accept the draw or make a move.

When a draw offer is sent, a private message is also sent to his/her mailbox. If your opponent moves then the draw will not be accepted, if your opponent doesn't move, but doesn't respond then you better move or your game will time out.

Either I'm missing something about the BK draw offer procedure, or perhaps there's a glitch herein.
I received the following message after offering a draw during my turn : " Abiodun offers a draw, but it is still his/her turn. If ferina does not answer this offer before 9. December 2005, 15:06:44, Abiodun will lose the game (timeout).Warning! If Abiodun makes a move, this draw offer will be automatically cancelled! "
Normally I don't look at my games until it is my turn to move. If my opponent does the same, how then is he suppose to know that I have offered a draw...?? I have done a 'work-around' to this dilemna by sending my opponent a seperate message , although I'm not certain that he reads or writes english since my game comments have all been unresponsive on his part. I've even tried offering a draw when it was not my turn, but I didn't receive the returned BK acknowledgement message (above in quotes) nor did my opponent respond.
If I knew that our game was winable for either, I would be content to play on indefinetly.
Recommendations ......What to do.......How to procede ...???

Thank You kindly BuilderQ ! Now to see if my opponent will agree.

Abiodun: I think you're referring to the BlockBuster of Games .....First 10 players (Chess) tournament? If you and your opponent agree to a draw, both of you will have an equal number of points, and will advance to the next round.

Greetings All ! Is there any BrainKing ruling(s) on the following....?
I'm considering offering a draw to my opponent, but before I do so I need first to determine which one of us(or perhaps even both) progresses to the next(final) stage. It's a 2 section tournament and my opponent and I seem to be at an impasse in this last remaining game of our section. There is allready a winner in the other section.
???

WhisperzQ: It is a requirement. Castling rights, en passant, and so on must be the same.

Matarilevich: I amm not sure if the possible moves is also a requirement? Can others confirm this?

bengood24: he "sacked" a pawn on me at the MSU open and nearly lost (if he had Class A money would have split and I would have likely not got Class B prize).

ColonelCrockett: Did you know he sacked his queen for 2 pawns at the World Open just so it wouldn't be a draw? He was in the running for prize money, too.

Groucho I was talking about over-the-board (in person) tournaments

bengood24: especially if your last name is Baker, eh, Ben?

bengood24: I believe that when a 3rd repetition happens, the computer would recognize it and delcare the draw.

It's funny though how there is always an argument in a tournament when it happens :)

Matarilevich: exactly!

mctrivia: Three equal positions onto the board (as a three equal photos). The same position of all pieces and the same possible moves (including the castle and the capture en passant)

Groucho: and the repeats don't have to be consecutive (i.e. it isn't a repetition of moves, it is a repetition of a board position).

Groucho: thanks

mctrivia: Both players would have to play moves that would exactly repeat a particular board position 3 times.

how exactly does the "three times repeated position" rule work? Do both players have to keep repeating positions or just one?

pawnme: Hmmmmmmm. Well I've asked him so if he replies, I'll have an explanation. I do know that there are some tourneys here that one has to be under 1800 to play in. I knew he was stronger than his 1400 rating and when he jumped to 1900 that made more sense. Now he is down again.

chess players seem to be fond of their stats...win/losses and ratings. Maybe you're right and he doesn't care about that.

Groucho: The person probably didn't like how slow his/her opponents were moving. Some people like to play quickly and not wait around.

What could the possible benefit be for resigning many games after only a few moves? One of my opponents, who was rated 1400+ when our game started, jumped to 1900+ in a few weeks, is now back to just under 1700. I looked at his games and he's resigned a number of games at moves 1 2 or 3. That's odd to me.

The only think I can make of it is he is sandbagging. But how can that benefit one here? Most tourneys are open?

I'd like to see Go and Mahjong on here. I have so much fun playing those here at home.

Fencer: I'll have to remember that, it might come in handy, "asi je to remiza". :)

NOMOEO: "It's probably a draw."

NOMOEO: It's Czech. I'm sure one of our many Czech players will help you.

Can anyone translate this into English? "asi je to remiza" Thanks

Please sign up for my Chess Tourny: The Mate I'm After Would Not Excite You