Customer Reviews

The Improving Chess Thinker

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Elements of Positional Evaluation: How Chess Pieces Get Their Power, Dan Heisman's first major instructional text, set the standard for prose-only instructional chess books. Elements explains, in prose only, the fundamentals of positional chess and why the current "accepted" elements of positional evaluation should be overturned by more fundamental elements, akin to the way the scientific method overturns old theories for new ones. For the beginning and intermediate chess student, The Improving Chess Thinker explains the fundamentals of thought process and time management, this time in mostly prose, like Elements explains the fundamentals of positional chess in only prose: better than any other book. The Improving Chess Thinker derives its title from Heisman's The Improving Annotator: From Beginner to Master, an out-of-print work.

Heisman has been a chess coach for a long time. Over the years, he has tested thousands of students in myriad ways. One of his favorite exercises is to give his students what he calls a "de Groot exercise." This exercise requires the student to "think out loud" while he decides on a move, based on one of the complex positions originally used by Dr. Adrian de Groot, back in the 1940s, while de Groot was writing Thought and Choice in Chess, his monumental treatise on chess psychology. (The book is still in print and available in Holland.) Where de Groot's protocols came mainly from stronger players, Heisman's protocols come from players of all abilities. Chapters Heisman's book compare thought processes from players of Class-E strength all the way up to Master. Along the way, Heisman dissects his subjects' thinking and points out their errors. Fascinating stuff. Readers can learn from others' mistakes (one hopes). This progression through rating classes is done in a similar manner to the way Silman progresses through rating classes in Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner To Master.

Other chapters include "Thought Process Basics," "The Thinking cap" (a nice summary of proper thought process and lessons learned from the protocols), "Basics of Time Management" (the ONLY place I've seen this documented, and a very related topic to thought process), and "What the Researcher Learned." Appendix list Max Euwe's 'correct' thought process, as well as Rybka's thought process for the protocol positions (one position, in Euwe's case).

The only minor drawback of the book was that some of the protocols from lower-rated players can get tedious. The book is inexpensive, however, and these sections can just be skipped until one gets to their rating class. Certainly it's very interesting to read how other players at a similar ability level think about a position!

One or two other books have published protocols of chess players' thought process, but as far as I know, this is the first book to take this method all the way down to beginners' and intermediate players'. Based on this fact alone, weaker players are in for a treat from this original, quick-to-read, book that can be finished in a few sittings. Not even a board is required.

The Improving Chess Thinker is the most useful book I have ever seen on the chess thinking process. From the practical point of view - how do I improve? - it is unsurpassed. For one thing, it introduces you to a systematic procedure that you can actually perform over the board. With experience this should become second nature, and if you get good enough, probably unconscious. For another, it gives you examples of other players of all levels. The reader is able to see - via the recorded protocols on 6 selected positions (a protocol is the verbalization of a players thinking process, in other words thinking out loud) - how others perform the same decision making tasks, an eye-opening and not altogether intimidating experience. Those god-like 2000 players can be just as confused as a 1600 player, especially compared to the gold standard, World Champion Euwe.

What this book is not, is a book about chess knowledge per se, though there is a good deal of that too. As the author states most clearly in his summing up section, "What players learn from the exercise" on page 195: "despite the imposing depth of Dr. Euwe's thorough analysis, it is not terribly difficult to emulate his process. Thus everyone who hears this process can, and should, strive to do something similar. The harder part is not emulating the process, but picking up all the extra knowledge and skills that allow one to analyze and evaluate well."

There are other books that can help you gain knowledge and skills. Jeremy Silman's books come to mind as far as positional understanding and plan formation. As far as tactics, the author is a firm believer in the tactics, tactics, tactics mantra. One reason of course is that solving tactical puzzles, especially simple ones, will speed up his suggested analytical process.

But it is important to realize that this book is directed at two different issues. First, the emphasis here is on adopting a thinking process throughout the game that is safe. By rigorously examining checks, captures and threats after your opponent's move, after your own candidate moves, and double checking again before you play your selected move, you will greatly improve decision-making. But second, this process is especially crucial in what the author calls "analytical" positions. These positions by their nature do not lend themselves to general thinking. When your "criticality assessment" tells you that you have reached a position in the game where there may only be one best move, these methods shine.

A key finding of this book is that even strong players, from the point of view of the average club player, have muddled analysis. And surprisingly, according to the author, these are the very players who get the most rating points from their analytical skills. When a player becomes a master they begin to use memory more, they have seen more positions, and evaluate better. So the author is not claiming that process alone, analysis alone, will make you a grandmaster. But he does show even 2000 players, that they could benefit by making their thinking process more systematic. I would even guess they have no choice, if they want to get better.

Back in the day when I started playing tournament chess, when we had Fischer as our hero, and the Soviet training methods (not to mention computers) that have swept through the chess world, were still years away, Alexander Kotov wrote a book called "Think Like a Grandmaster". Great we thought. Now we too can be grandmasters. What? You have to make a list of candidate moves, analyze each one only once, never revisiting a line? I can't do that. Turns out even grandmasters don't do that, or computer engines.

I gave up tournament chess for almost 30 years, returning to the chess club about a year ago. Rated about 1600 USCF, I am on the cusp of the Class C (1400-1599)-Class B (1600-1800) chapters in the book. That is, I am just beginning to play what the author calls "Real Chess". On the one hand I am a little atypical. I didn't spend those 30 years playing, but I was a reader and a spectator. I love the history, I love the literature. I went to tournaments and watched grandmasters for hours and hours and I saw Kasparov play the computer twice.

But when I came back I found that, while I had much greater knowledge of chess than the average 1600 player, I have key weaknesses involving complicated positions and time-management (something the book also addresses). I find I can often outplay 1900 players and then lose a game of blitz at the end. Of course, I often run into gaps in my knowledge too. If Gary could just whisper into my ear, play the pawn break now or sac the exchange now, I would have won. The book doesn't really help with that. But I also make occasional tactical oversights and retained image errors. Oh, his last queen move in a cramped position now protects that square, so the line I calculated on his move doesn't work. The book will help with that.

I agree with the author's central point. I now believe that my rating - a true reflection of my strength, you are only as good as your record - is in large part due to my disorganized thinking, which is often circular, and the time trouble issues that emerges from it. This book has helped me both to realize the degree of my disorganization, but also given me the tools to begin to correct it. For that I am grateful.

I have several suggestions for reading the book.

First, attempt to analyze at least the first position, de Groot A, before beginning the chapters on the protocols of the class players. In my case it made me realize how confused I was by the position, even though I selected a decent move. It isn't easy. But it gives you something to compare the other protocols with and also makes them easier to follow, since you tried it yourself.

Since de Groot A is the most used position, I did that first and then analyzed the other ones as I came to them. Do not be discouraged if they are hard. In fact, de Groot himself (the cognitive psychologist who wrote "Thought and Choice in Chess" in 1965, where most of the positions come from) got some of them wrong. (see below)

Second, read the class chapters from the beginning. I know many people will think: I'm too strong to care what those patzers think about the position. Not so in my opinion. I found it very useful. But then my rating is in the middle, so others may disagree. Once I passed my own rating class, I read the one above it and then skimmed ahead to the masters and the rest of the book. I plan on revisiting it later.

Third, wait until the end to read Max Euwe's gold standard analysis of de Groot A, and the computer analysis of all the positions. I found it helped me not to know for certain what the best lines were, though you do get an idea from the author's comments as you move through the classes. The computer analysis is especially interesting. It turns out that some of de Groot's original analysis was wrong. Nowadays, with older books this can't be helped. But I know that I found Silman's The Amateur Mind frustrating because he would tell a kid he was playing a game against in a lesson that his move didn't work. Lo and behold, Rybka said it worked. You don't have that problem here.

There are many fine books on chess thinking. As a book junkie I have all the ones I can lay my hands on, including de Groot. (My Holy Grails include Iossif Dorfman's The Method in Chess and The Critical Moment. Come on Amazon.) Dan Heisman pays tribute to many of these authors. Jonathan Rowson's books are fantastic, but they aren't as focused and systematic or practical. I am now ready to continue reading Jacob Aagaard's, Inside the Chess Mind (another book of protocols, though with higher rated players which is why you want to tackle it later). I want to try Heisman's methods and compare myself to Yusupov. We will learn from all of them.

But if you want to begin to build, rebuild or just tune up a chess thought process that will stand the test of time... It's never too late. For most players there is no better place to start than The Improving Chess Thinker. I'm betting you will see almost instant results. But, I'm hoping, not against me.

Although quite a few reviews outline the contents and organization of the book, I'll start by doing the same. The book uses illustrative positions (three taken from the classicial DeGroot study and three from the author's own experience) to show the elements, variations and effectiveness of thinking for different class levels. The author uses discourse analysis to illustrate good and bad points for different subjects at each playing level. The idea presented by the author is that as you improve, you can read continue working your way through the book until your "thinking" process is as disciplined and structured as an advanced player.

Sounds great. But ...

The author admits to taking Silman's idea of stepping through the class levels to make the book more usable. But there is a huge difference between understanding the basics (as Silman constructs in his book on endgames) and pointing out flaws in thinking. One is constructive (Silman) and the other hopes to be constructive by inference (Heisman). So the reader is left with a strong message of what NOT to do that is reinforced all the way through to the highest levels. Unfortunately, there is very little material on what to do constructively. Sure the author emphasizes certain things like looking at forcing variations, abandoning dead variations, having a principle variation but they are persistent at every class level. At no point, does he simply provide some basic goals for the lower class player and say "do this and you're likely to have the thinking skills to get you to the next level". Part of the problem is rooted in trying to appeal to two distinct audiences: the student trying to improve his thinking and chess teacher. Quite honestly, the whole discourse analysis approach is cumbersome for the student just trying to learn the main points in improving his own thinking process. The reader in general is left to decode while reading and hope to benefit from the little analysis that follows the student's verbalization of the position. Sure, like in some reviews lower rated players said that they had a strong take away of analyzing more than one candidate move, but is the book really written to provide the insight to discipline yourself to stop playing "hope chess"?

The author states in the book not many books are written on chess thinking and I believe that is far from true. Any book with high quality annotations has a plethora of teachings to develop thinking that is critical and broad enough to consider all possibilities. Even books such as Nunn, Mednis and the loads of books by the British authors on Move by Move commentary provide alternatives. The reader simply needs to challenge himself by challenging the moves in the book! The well-annotated games will provide the answers to the questions that the reader raises himself. In any event, the idea that chess thinking is not well represented in general chess literature is ridiculous. Almost any book by Bronstein will provide the best insight reachable at almost playing level and will certainly improve your thinking.

Another point is more of a personal bias on the presentation or the association of Internet Chess Club ratings to the material. Generally speaking, the author has the ICC ratings inflated by roughly 200 points over USCF ratings. First, what rating is he talking about, the long time controls on ICC or the blitz or even bullet? I know more than one strong player (in the expert/master class) whose ICC rating is below his USCF, particularly at blitz. The whole book is based on improving your thinking with a special section on time management, but depending on the time control, the answer changes dramatically. Any reference to ICC seems like a bit of unnecessary advertising. I'd really love to know why the author felt like he needed to include this reference. Is he just trying to appeal to a more worldwide audience by giving them a reference point?

From a technical standpoint, the author does a poor job in his discourse analysis. He doesn't provide a clear set of metrics from the beginning to parameterize the response by the subjects. He doesn't provide anything but qualitative assessment making the whole exercise with the discourse analysis more or less insignificant. One can easily object and say that the assessment using DeGroot positions is valuable and beneficial and of course the answer is a resounding yes! This doesn't mean that the author has really contributed anything from a research standpoint. In fact, most decent players could guess the outcome of each and every category prior to reading the actual chapters. This is true mainly because typical mistakes at various playing levels has been well known for quite some time. There is really no new material in this book. The application to the class levels really didn't work for the reasons already stated and any attempt to improve on this would force the author to choose: is this a book for the student or the teacher!!! If it's for the teacher or researcher, put some mathematical structure to it identifying real metrics of evaluations and some quantitative assessment based on the student's discourse. If it's for the student, try and do what Silman did by building and constructing a foundation of good skills at the lowest level at a detailed level. Just don't give an example of hope chess and tell students that to be an A or better player, start really working through candidate moves and performing real assessments. This probably would require a total rewrite.

So, with all these critical comments, why is the book as high as three stars? The author has certain teaching experiences that are instructive on their own. Quite honestly, a twenty page book might also get three stars if some main points were emphasized with some simple good explanations. I believe that the DeGroot analysis of positions is a five star idea and will pull almost any book to a three star level. With a good instructor (and I believe that the author is a good instructor for students at the lower levels), this can be quite effective.

Finally, the author spends time at the end of the book going over ideas he's presented in the past on move selection and thinking (via articles and references to previous books). I have a fundamental problem with how he views a move should be selected. Not once (or some small number) does the author link move selection to strategical thinking or simply asks the reader "does this move contribute to the execution of my current plan". Moves are stepping stones to a winnable position. With strong players, they recognize the roadblocks very quickly to these plans and use these as guiding points to selecting the right move to achieve their strategical aim. Why doesn't the author ever mention any of this? This point really is why most strong players would not benefit from this book at all. I also have a problem with some "tips" he presents at the end on how to stop a calculation or principle variation. For simple positions, he says that it should be stopped with some assessment. I dare say that simple positions such as those that arise in the Queen's Gambit may look simple but seldomly ever are. Another over-simplification of an idea that is difficult for the aspiring student to assimilate into his chess skills.

The book is relatively inexpensive but all in all, it really doesn't provide anything really provacative in the area of chess thinking.

This book just describes the thinking process of players of all levels (from beginner to master), by making them to write down their verbalized analysis (protocols) given for a few positions (called "De Groot exercises"). After reviewing these protocols, presenting them by levels (from E to A class players, and then the Masters), the author gives some recommendations about how to manage your analysis process in order to improve your chess level. He also gives some clues about improving time management (trying to avoid the player to fall into time trouble).
Despite these clues could be useful, the author reaches to a conclusion that all chess players know very well: you will improve your level if you make an effort to analyze better. And analyzing better means: try to see broadly first, and deeply then (if needed). Just the same things that Kotov recommended along his famous books "Think like a grandmaster", "Train like a grandmaster", and "Play like a grandmaster".
In summary, I could say:
Why 3 stars? Because it is useful to see the big differences between the thinking processes of a beginner and a master: that makes you aware of the things you need to work on in order to get better analysis skills.
Why not 5 stars? After all you understand that the book deals with: "Your chess will improve if you make an effort to analyze in more detail before touching a piece, moving it and pushing the clock, trying, on the way, to avoid time pressure", which is something everybody could guess without much help.
I think the book is useful mainly for beginners.

Well if you put time and effort you get a lot from this book.

The author provide the positions and the explanations, then YOU have to annotate your games and be honest about the area of your chess that require attention.This is a difficult subject to do alone, without a coach, but it is a good start.

This book is about chess thinking...and the reader has do it on his/her own. This book is a tool, a well designed tool. A player looking for a "spoon feed" chess method may be looking at the wrong book. Ambitious players may find in this book the way to jump to the next chess level(levels?).

I think that this book is the perfect companion for the improving annotator ( a hard to find book...)from the same author)
Target audience: Any player willing to explore how he/she thinks about chess or curious about self-discover in chess.

This is simply the Best Chess book I have studied. I am in the process of improving my chess and have made substantial progress but this book has allowed me to clearly identify my weaknesses like nothing else I have studied. Books are usually way to detailed for me. I get lost in the forest and lose interest. Conceptually this is somewhat similar to Silman's "The Amateur's Mind" as it presents how players think at different levels. This book explores many fewer positions and treats these without endless variations. This allows the reader to focus on their personal deficiencies in the thinking process and not the chess details. I also find the proposed process more practical than say Kotov. If you need chess knowledge other books are better but nothing beats this book for self knowledge.

This book really helped me to understand and realize why amateurs play poorly(Me included!!) We don't take the time to evaluate and calculate. This book was very beneficial to me if only because it made me realize that even Grandmasters and World Champions have to take the time to calculate variations and evaluate. They don't just instantly see everything! I always played very impatiently without going through calculations because I thought that if something was there I should "Just get it". So wrong. By seeing the thought process of the different classes and Hiesmen's critique of them, I realized that do to better you have to take the time to think!

I really liked reading this book. It is conscious raising.

As a Class Player, one of the difficulties in improving quickly is that there appears to be an insurrmountable amount of "chess knowledge" that one has to acquire to play well. The Improving Chess Thinker challenges the student to review and analyze situations for the best move. In reviewing your response against other players of increasing strength, you not only gain a sense of what knowledge has relevance, but more importantly you see what steps one may be missing in approaching the problem.

That is the key. To refine one's thinking approach into a sound, consistent, and planned method. With a viable approach towards understanding the board, a player then has a strong foundation on which to build additional skills.

When reading this book, begin with de Groot A since it is the most commonly discussed problem. Review how the players of varying strength evaluated the situation against your own thoughts. Yes, you will want to write down your evaluations. Otherwise you may only be short changing yourself. With an honest evaluation, you can then work towards refining your method and Dan's suggestions are welcomed.

A shortcut does not mean without work. You will have to put in some time, and in doing so, you may significantly reduce the years of plodding through "more material".

Chess is often served as a symbol for the art of mental strategy. Whether in finance, war, or sports, we often use that metaphor for complex thinking and careful planning. With that, as perplexed as it may sound, it is rare to learn about the actual core thought process behind it - most often we hear about the "battle field" itself.
As a person who's always been fascinated with the concept of "what's going on in his/her mind" when watching a great chess player, Dan's book offers me not only a window into the player's mind, but also a guided tour. Unlike several other books that I've tried, Dan goes beyond taking the reader along a path - Instead, he teaches us how to be better explorers, and how to blaze our own paths, knowing that as such we'll be in a much better position to reach new levels of chess playing. This book is an interesting mind-opener and I know that it will not only make me a better player, but also allow me to better enjoy the game.

First, let me give Mr. Heisman credit where it's due. Along with Jeremy Silman, he's one of the few writers/instructors to devote himself to helping amateur players improve and he deserves much respect and praise for that. This book deals with the "thinking process" rather than chess theory. He acknowledges that many players have a strong base of chess knowledge, but fail to improve because their thinking process in incorrect or undeveloped. The first part of the book involves players of all levels analyzing a position out loud followed by Heisman's comments. The second half deals with practical advice on the thinking process, time management, and the like.

As my review title indicates - and with all due respect to Mr. Heisman - this book comes off as a cheap imitation of Silman's amazing work The Amateur's Mind. If you want a book that truly explains the problems with amateur thinking as well as how to better understand the game as a whole, Silmn's book is the one to turn to. The problem with Heisman's book - as at least one other reviewer has indicated - is that the entire work basically repeats the same idea: that higher rated players analyze better (and are aware of their opponents' ideas) better than lower rated ones. That's really the whole book in a nutshell. To be fair, the book does include some good tidbits of information and is easy to read. In the end, I feel that it's suited for those rated under 1600 USCF and those rated higher won't get much out of it except for a few nuggets.