There are a lot of good sources for tactical puzzles, but when my students ask for recommendations for books on strategy, I’m never quite sure what to recommend.
Not many folks point out that books for club-hackers seem to be comprised (if you add them all of) of 99% examples from IM or GM games. Those are not the kinds of positions I ever get. (There are a *few* books, such as Heisman's "The Words Most Instructive Amateur Games Book", where the players make the same mistakes that I make.)
And your "game plan" section in the article is just [chef's kiss] -- spot on!
I think these are both good books, but they both follow the grab bag approach, and Simple Chess is much more advanced than you would think from the title.
Hi, Nate. I've been following your writing and podcast appearances for a while now. You are one of my chess heroes! I love the idea of your book. I think a book with the structure you outlined has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the chess instruction literature.
Let me get something off my chest. One of my pet peeves is writers who reference ratings (or rating ranges) without specifying which rating system they're referring to. For example, you mention that your book would be best for "players in the 1200 range." *Which* 1200 range? USCF? FIDE? chess.com Rapid? Lichess Classical? Etc., etc. Assuming for the moment that you mean 1200-ish USCF, let me introduce myself: I'm your target audience! <grin> The book you describe would be perfect for me.
If you indeed go forward with this project, I would be delighted to assist in any way I can, representing the prospective reader of your book. (I wouldn't ask for any compensation; this would be a "labor of love" for me.) If you can use a beta-tester, or just an idea-bouncer-offer, please let me know. Best would be to contact me via email, mjshpiz@gmail.com; we can discuss how I might contribute. In any event, I do hope that you move ahead with this -- I'll line up right behind Xander F. to pre-order a copy!
You might profit from taking a look at Solveig Friberg's Breaking 1000 course on Chessable. One of her chapters is Conquering the Middlegame. Although no doubt your book would be pitched at a higher level than that, she includes topics like improving pieces, outposts, trading, king attacks, and weak pawns in a very accessible way. It's thanks to her that I finally have some understanding of why I might want an outpost and how to go about getting one.
Thanks. One of the most informative chess posts I've read in a long time. I find most chess strategy books too advanced, for the reasons you describe (and I am around ELO 1600). GMs rarely understand how average players think, as you say. We see the same problem in academic life and teaching: many teachers don't realise how learners think, and the problems they struggle with. There are the Chernev books of course, but while most chess books are a bit advanced, they're a bit too basic.
I have never read "Mastering Chess Strategy by Johan Hellsten" but i read Under the Surface by Ján Markoš and according your description it sounds very similar - and Markoš also stated that the book is not for beginner but for intermediate/advanced players. Problem with this book is that it was written in 2018 and since then I read it several times and I still can find something useful, but it lacks better modern view - for example h,g-pawn moves as AI teaches us nowadays. I believe that these "modern" things will be good update in your new Strategy chess book. Good luck!
Great post! From your studies, which books have sections that do a good job addressing positions, pawns, and/or game plans with an intermediate audience in mind (1000-1500)? Maybe there are some relevant discussions in books like Silman’s Amateur’s Mind, Heisman’s amateur game collections, Euwe’s Amateur vs Master?
Strategic Play by Jacob Aagard is a good example of how a book can include a few illustrative examples followed by a lot of guided practice. The only issue with it is (as you mentioned above) that it's too difficult for most chess players. Aagard takes it for granted that his readers know the basics, but I could imagine a similar book that covers the basics in the same kind of way.
I think a good book that does this is Euwe & Kramer's The Middlegame books 1 and 2. They are available in Algebraic in the Hays edition. It's very well organized and structured.
The proposed structure sounds both innovative and logical to me. The only basic strategic concept that I didn't see mentioned was prophylaxis. Do you think that preventing opponents' plans would merit its own section, or would this be something that you spread out through the book (e.g. the Pieces chapter would include a section on restricting opponents' pieces, the Pawns chapter a section on countering pawn breaks, etc.)? Or do you believe that this concept is beyond the 1200-1600 level that you're aiming for? Regardless, I would pre-order this book if you wrote it.
I think prophylaxis is inherently an advanced concept, because to improve your own position you only need one idea, but to stop your opponent you need to understand all the things they're capable of and which ones you actually need to worry about. But the more you understand about positional concepts in general, the more you can understand about what your opponent can/should do.
I'm reading Hellsten's endgame book and it's excellent, so I imagine his middlegame book is similar.
Regarding "Build a coherent, logical framework for thinking about chess positions." I think this is, perhaps surprisingly, not as important as we might imagine. The reason is that I believe our chess thinking is primarily driven by intuition and pattern recognition. So if we're working on our game the most important thing is to improve those things and I believe that can be done without worrying too much about a logical framework.
Having said that, a basic framework can be useful for organising material and perhaps helping us with self-talk during a game where we try to justify our intuitive preferences.
I think the issue with this is not so much that you need a logical framework to go through on every move, but that you've got very fundamental concepts alongside a weird idea that you might only use once in your whole chess career.
IIRC Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy is kind-of close to your proposed structure, although again it aims fairly high. I really like the way you describe section 1 - it seems like a nice way of summarizing a lot of what intermediate players (including me) actually need to know about strategy. Also it feels like you could layer up the complexity of examples nicely: here is a move that just straight up improves a piece, here is a two move mini-plan that improves a piece, here is a restricting move that makes an opponent's piece worse, here is a prophylactic move that prevents the opponent from improving a piece.
Sections 2 and 3 seem harder to do in a really thematically unified way? Like, the content is inherently a bit granular and made up of dissimilar chunks. I'd be interested to read more about how you'd handle them?
Also, does the center get a look in as a thing-in-itself?
I realized that principles such as "control the center" are missing from this structure, but this arose out of trying to focus on the most actionable topics. I'm not sure how much these kinds of very broad principles really flow into better moves.
"I'm not sure how much these kinds of very broad principles really flow into better moves."
Andras Toth's Chess Principles Reloaded: Center may be worth looking at. I can imagine finding loads of examples of moves by amateurs that moved away from the centre, but a better move would have centralized their knight (or whatever). Of course, you'd have to avoid using examples where the principle is only an incidental or peripheral reason for the move being good and the real reason is some clever tactic.
I guess an nontraditional but consistent approach would be to treat "central pawns" as a type of pawn with their own actionable ideas (support yours, trying to neutralize your opponent's, push them to disrupt the opponent's pieces etc)? Similarly there are probably relevant examples in relation to weak squares (eg d5 if you misplay a Najdorf) and in making your pieces good (eg establishing a hard-to-dislodge central knight)...
Not many folks point out that books for club-hackers seem to be comprised (if you add them all of) of 99% examples from IM or GM games. Those are not the kinds of positions I ever get. (There are a *few* books, such as Heisman's "The Words Most Instructive Amateur Games Book", where the players make the same mistakes that I make.)
And your "game plan" section in the article is just [chef's kiss] -- spot on!
A couple of books which I found approachable despite relying on Master/GM games are Simple Chess and Best Lessons of a Chess Coach.
I think these are both good books, but they both follow the grab bag approach, and Simple Chess is much more advanced than you would think from the title.
Hi, Nate. I've been following your writing and podcast appearances for a while now. You are one of my chess heroes! I love the idea of your book. I think a book with the structure you outlined has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the chess instruction literature.
Let me get something off my chest. One of my pet peeves is writers who reference ratings (or rating ranges) without specifying which rating system they're referring to. For example, you mention that your book would be best for "players in the 1200 range." *Which* 1200 range? USCF? FIDE? chess.com Rapid? Lichess Classical? Etc., etc. Assuming for the moment that you mean 1200-ish USCF, let me introduce myself: I'm your target audience! <grin> The book you describe would be perfect for me.
If you indeed go forward with this project, I would be delighted to assist in any way I can, representing the prospective reader of your book. (I wouldn't ask for any compensation; this would be a "labor of love" for me.) If you can use a beta-tester, or just an idea-bouncer-offer, please let me know. Best would be to contact me via email, mjshpiz@gmail.com; we can discuss how I might contribute. In any event, I do hope that you move ahead with this -- I'll line up right behind Xander F. to pre-order a copy!
Thanks Michael! USCF, FIDE, and Chess.com rapid are all pretty close around the 1200 range, so that's roughly the level I'm thinking about.
I would pre-order the book you're describing right now if you (and maybe Perelshteyn) agreed to write it.
Me too!
You might profit from taking a look at Solveig Friberg's Breaking 1000 course on Chessable. One of her chapters is Conquering the Middlegame. Although no doubt your book would be pitched at a higher level than that, she includes topics like improving pieces, outposts, trading, king attacks, and weak pawns in a very accessible way. It's thanks to her that I finally have some understanding of why I might want an outpost and how to go about getting one.
This is a great post. I would also buy such a book if you wrote it.
Thanks. One of the most informative chess posts I've read in a long time. I find most chess strategy books too advanced, for the reasons you describe (and I am around ELO 1600). GMs rarely understand how average players think, as you say. We see the same problem in academic life and teaching: many teachers don't realise how learners think, and the problems they struggle with. There are the Chernev books of course, but while most chess books are a bit advanced, they're a bit too basic.
I have never read "Mastering Chess Strategy by Johan Hellsten" but i read Under the Surface by Ján Markoš and according your description it sounds very similar - and Markoš also stated that the book is not for beginner but for intermediate/advanced players. Problem with this book is that it was written in 2018 and since then I read it several times and I still can find something useful, but it lacks better modern view - for example h,g-pawn moves as AI teaches us nowadays. I believe that these "modern" things will be good update in your new Strategy chess book. Good luck!
Great post! From your studies, which books have sections that do a good job addressing positions, pawns, and/or game plans with an intermediate audience in mind (1000-1500)? Maybe there are some relevant discussions in books like Silman’s Amateur’s Mind, Heisman’s amateur game collections, Euwe’s Amateur vs Master?
Winning Chess Strategies by Seirawan & Silman is pretty good. I am a big fan of Heisman's work in general.
Strategic Play by Jacob Aagard is a good example of how a book can include a few illustrative examples followed by a lot of guided practice. The only issue with it is (as you mentioned above) that it's too difficult for most chess players. Aagard takes it for granted that his readers know the basics, but I could imagine a similar book that covers the basics in the same kind of way.
Great book, but very difficult, much more advanced even than Hellsten.
I think a good book that does this is Euwe & Kramer's The Middlegame books 1 and 2. They are available in Algebraic in the Hays edition. It's very well organized and structured.
Have not read this one but I will check it out.
Is this a book you’re working on? If yes when do you think you’ll finish it?
It's something I'm considering. Probably wouldn't be finished until 2025, as I need to finish my next Chessable course first.
The proposed structure sounds both innovative and logical to me. The only basic strategic concept that I didn't see mentioned was prophylaxis. Do you think that preventing opponents' plans would merit its own section, or would this be something that you spread out through the book (e.g. the Pieces chapter would include a section on restricting opponents' pieces, the Pawns chapter a section on countering pawn breaks, etc.)? Or do you believe that this concept is beyond the 1200-1600 level that you're aiming for? Regardless, I would pre-order this book if you wrote it.
I think prophylaxis is inherently an advanced concept, because to improve your own position you only need one idea, but to stop your opponent you need to understand all the things they're capable of and which ones you actually need to worry about. But the more you understand about positional concepts in general, the more you can understand about what your opponent can/should do.
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying!
I'm reading Hellsten's endgame book and it's excellent, so I imagine his middlegame book is similar.
Regarding "Build a coherent, logical framework for thinking about chess positions." I think this is, perhaps surprisingly, not as important as we might imagine. The reason is that I believe our chess thinking is primarily driven by intuition and pattern recognition. So if we're working on our game the most important thing is to improve those things and I believe that can be done without worrying too much about a logical framework.
Having said that, a basic framework can be useful for organising material and perhaps helping us with self-talk during a game where we try to justify our intuitive preferences.
I think the issue with this is not so much that you need a logical framework to go through on every move, but that you've got very fundamental concepts alongside a weird idea that you might only use once in your whole chess career.
Nice post!
IIRC Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy is kind-of close to your proposed structure, although again it aims fairly high. I really like the way you describe section 1 - it seems like a nice way of summarizing a lot of what intermediate players (including me) actually need to know about strategy. Also it feels like you could layer up the complexity of examples nicely: here is a move that just straight up improves a piece, here is a two move mini-plan that improves a piece, here is a restricting move that makes an opponent's piece worse, here is a prophylactic move that prevents the opponent from improving a piece.
Sections 2 and 3 seem harder to do in a really thematically unified way? Like, the content is inherently a bit granular and made up of dissimilar chunks. I'd be interested to read more about how you'd handle them?
Also, does the center get a look in as a thing-in-itself?
I realized that principles such as "control the center" are missing from this structure, but this arose out of trying to focus on the most actionable topics. I'm not sure how much these kinds of very broad principles really flow into better moves.
"I'm not sure how much these kinds of very broad principles really flow into better moves."
Andras Toth's Chess Principles Reloaded: Center may be worth looking at. I can imagine finding loads of examples of moves by amateurs that moved away from the centre, but a better move would have centralized their knight (or whatever). Of course, you'd have to avoid using examples where the principle is only an incidental or peripheral reason for the move being good and the real reason is some clever tactic.
Good point.
I guess an nontraditional but consistent approach would be to treat "central pawns" as a type of pawn with their own actionable ideas (support yours, trying to neutralize your opponent's, push them to disrupt the opponent's pieces etc)? Similarly there are probably relevant examples in relation to weak squares (eg d5 if you misplay a Najdorf) and in making your pieces good (eg establishing a hard-to-dislodge central knight)...