Customer Reviews

The Inner Game of Chess: How to Calculate and Win

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Can't understand the unrestrained adulation some reviewers have given this book. Soltis can write very well - see for example 'Soviet Chess' which is a scholarly work, or see 'Confessions of a Chess Grandmaster'. The title being reviewed here is also one of his better efforts.

The book explains the pragmatic realities of calculation very well indeed. A thoughtful reading of this book will enhance one's understanding of what to calculate, how to calculate, how far to calculate, and what positions deserve calculation. By implication, one's strength would improve.

It's difficult to provide a synopsis of this book because, like Kotov, it's not coherently orgainised but is a compendium of practical wisdom concerning calculation. Chapters include 'Trees and how to build them', 'Rechecking' and 'The Practical Calculator' - all of importance to a player.

I've given this four stars (and not five) for 3 reasons. The first is lack of organisation. The second, and more serious, is the sheer number of analytical mistakes. The very first example (Piket - Sosonko) has an error. The sacrifice 1.Rxh7 is actually unsound. 3....Bf5, which Soltis mentions in passing, holds the game for Black. Or examine the analysis to Ljubojevic - Stein, on page 58. 11.Qf4 works fine for White. Soltis hasn't done his spadework. The examples that are correct are frequently so because they've been pulled, with analysis, from other sources.This brings me to third criticism: many of the examples are hackneyed, and frequently don't exemplify the ideas well.

But these caveats aside, I can recommend this book. There is material to ponder over here. A pity Soltis didn't give the book the time and energy it deserved; it would have been a sterling work.

I've studied The Inner Game from cover to cover three times in the last 2 years, always profitably. My ability to successfully calculate attacking or defending variations has greatly increased because of practicing what Soltis preaches. I strongly agree with his statement "...calculation can be invaluable. It can be a substitute for "book knowledge" you never learned" since few nonprofessionals can know every opening or endgame position.

I am surprised at some of the few negative comments in the reviews of the book. I suspect that those reviewers have not read The Inner Game to the end - at least they give no evidence of having done so. One reviewer wrote that "the familiar theme of attacking a castled king" was monotonously used in many examples but really there are few problems that have that as their main theme. Another reviewer said, "There are not enough practical examples. Therefore, I doubt the reader will be able to apply the tips ...in a real game." Actually, there are over 200 examples; most labeled "White to play" or "Black to play" presenting positions from Grandmaster games to analyze before reading the accompanying text.

This same reviewer stated The Inner Game has the "right appealing chapter names. But the content ... is not well developed" although he doesn't clarify what he means by that. Yet in every chapter Soltis clearly states his theme and then provides a great deal of examples. For instance, look at chapter 2 ("Ideas"), where Soltis discusses how calculation is inspired by ideas and ideas come from recognizing patterns and weaknesses. Examine chapter 3 ("Trees and How To Build Them"), in which Soltis shows you in a very detailed fashion a possible way of mentally organizing all those ideas. Disagree with the chapter contents but don't say they're not well developed.

In that reviewer's opinion the Dvoretsky series of books, Jonathan Tisdall's "Improve Your Chess Now" and Buckley's "Practical Chess Analysis" are all "certainly better than Soltis" - but he doesn't bother to say in what way. My impression is Dvoretsky's books are written for very experienced players, Tisdall is not focused on calculation and while Buckley's book is all about calculation it is far shorter, with much fewer examples and less text.

One reviewer said the book was "not coherently organized." Huh? Soltis begins logically enough by defining his terms: what calculation is and isn't. He follows with a second chapter on how ideas inspire calculation. The third chapter presents a method of organizing those ideas. Having set up the basic groundwork, Soltis expands on the methods: finding forcing sequences that make calculation easier, evaluating resulting positions, "monkey wrenches" that upset the calculations, practical considerations. Where's the "lack of organization"?

The reviewer claims the book has so many analytical mistakes (he has 2 examples) their "sheer number" proves "Soltis hadn't done his spadework." He cites Piket-Sosonko, 1993 and says 3...Bf5 "holds the game for Black." Well, I'm no GM like Soltis but I do have Fritz 6 and a 950 MHz computer and it begs to differ with that assessment (in one variation winning Black's queen). Similarly, the reviewer says in Ljubojevic-Stein, 1973 the move 11 Qf4 works fine for White but Fritz's deep position analysis finds that 11...f5 12 Nd4 g5 13 Qg3 f4 leads to an uncomfortable White position where his queen is in the path of both Black pieces and pawns. He announces "The examples that are correct are frequently so because they've been pulled, with analysis, from other sources" but doesn't name those sources! He adds "many of the examples are hackneyed" without saying in what way (Perhaps he skimmed the first chapter; saw a diagram from Nimzovich-Marshall, 1927 and another from Reshevsky-Botvinnik, 1955, and didn't realize most of the book's examples are from GM games played circa 1970-1993.)

I strongly agree with A.J. Goldsby's review: this isn't a book for novices, a couple of primers on tactics and elementary books like Chernev's Logical Chess should be studied first. I strongly agree with the reviewer who said to benefit from this book you'd really need to study and practice although he is wrong when he says "Soltis emphasizes visualization" since Soltis only has one visualization exercise in the first chapter and rarely mentions it thereafter. Again, read the entire book before you make the claim!

Before you read my review, I ask that you read the majority of the other reviews. This may give you a better feel for what I'm about to say.

This is a FANTASTIC book. It is destined to become a classic. But, after reading all the reviews, I have to make the following comment. This book may be written for a really strong player. (or players.)

I think you should be at least 1600-1800 to grasp much of what goes on in this book. There are certainly many valuable insights which will make you a better thinker and "Calculator." But in the long run, your calculating powers will already have to be fairly well developed to really benefit from this book. I was already a Master when this book came out. I spent close to 6 weeks with this book, and it made me a better thinker. But two of my students who have bought and read this book felt it did NOT make them better at calculating. Sadly, it may be true. The average GM may not remember what it was like to struggle to see one move ahead. Because they do not understand [or remember] the problems, it is difficult for them to address them.

If you think you are ready for this book, buy it. But if you have any doubts, get a couple of simple primers on tactics. Maybe "Logical Chess, Move by Move," by Chernev. Wait until your rating gets over 15-1600. Then buy this book.

On the positive side, this book is beautifully written. The examples are mostly very carefully chosen. And the book is wonderfully and beautifully annotated. This was truly a work of love by the author. If you are just looking for many, many hours of enjoyment, then you want this book.

If chess is a thinking game, why are so few books written for amateurs about how chessmasters think? Andy Soltis remedies this problem with a thorough and comprehensive look at the thinking processes of chess players. Chapters include: where do ideas come from?, how to build a calculation tree (a much clearer discussion than in Kotov's classic: Think Like a Grandmaster), when to play the most forcing moves at the start or end of a sequence, how to actually calculate variations, and what criteria to use to choose between two variations which appear equal in nature. Following are chapters on common and typical problems of chess thinking--monkey wrenches and oversights. Finally, Soltis discusses, in a chapter titled The Practical Calculator, the differences between masters in their thinking and how, what and when to calculate during a game. Soltis makes a convincing case that chess is NOT 99% tactics, an often used phrase, but rather 99% calculation. The reader cannot help but improve his or her chess game by reading about the nature of the thinking processes in the game that challenges us to do just that--think.

This book started strong. GM Soltis started out by describing when calculation is used and when it is not, and in general what the meaning of calculation was. He finished the chapter with an exercise in visualization which I really thought was a great start to a book which would help me calculate better.

As the book went along, he discussed different parts of the calculation process, such as ideas, force, counting out, errors, and practical calculating. He used pretty good examples to illustrate his points. At times, he had exercises which helped train tactics and visualization (but not many). He did a fairly good job and "describing" different steps in the calculation process.

However, as I went through the book, I found that he didn't really give too much advice as to how to train one's calculation skills other than to describe different mistakes in calculating and some concepts which masters use in calculation. I didn't feel it had many recommendations on how to improve this aspect. In the summary, he finishes by saying that different methods of calculating work well and that we all have to develop our own way! How do I do this? Why did I even read this book? These were questions that the book did not answer.

However, despite my criticism, I think it is a decent book. I think by assessing the concepts he presented and comparing it to my own play and thought processes, I thought perhaps I could glean some advice from the book. Also, in this particular case I visualized many of the positions without using a board, so I felt I improved my visualization skills. However, these benefits don't have too much to do with this book in particular, but instead my method of studying the book.

In any case, if you want to learn a little about typical calculation errors and different methods of calculation, this book may be okay for you. However, if you want to improve your own calculating and visualization skills, you might be better off studying tactical problems and analyzing your games and assessing your own particular style of calculating. That's what GM Soltis says on the last page anyway!

I am only a 1900-level player, so I can hardly be said to have an expert opinion, but I feel that this book is strong on "what" calculation is and weak on "how" to calculate. Of course, one looks at the board, gets ideas, selects candidate moves,and evaluates possible positions. And Soltis provides plenty of examples yet having studied the book, I can't honestly say I'm doing anything better. Not his fault, I know, still I wish these GM authors would remember that although THEY can look at a board and unconsciously, automatically, find a plan and possible move sequences, weaker players need more protection in the clinches. They need sometimes to work backwards: visualize the desired position first. Sometimes they need examples that explain WHY the author chose certain candidate moves, move orders, and so on. This book's intention are great, the introduction fantastic, the remaining chapters leave a great deal to be desired. Everyone else seems to find this a great help, but I actually feel my already shaky ability decreased after reading it. GMs should coach ordinary mortals first.

Until you reach the 1900 to 2000 level the only thing that you should be studying is tactics and calculation. The reason for this is simple, if you can see 90% of the combinations on the board during a game, you will not have to even use postional advantages. Don't get me wrong positional play has a very important role, but more at the higher levels. If you can calculate efficiently and quickly you will have a huge advantage over all those people who just memorize opening moves, because after move 10 they're lost. Why are some children so strong at chess? It's because they can calculate well and can visualize the board. The bottom line is get this book along with a set of practice problems, like Reinfeld's 1001. Solve the problems, write down all your candidate moves and analysis, and you'll be amazed by how quickly you improve.

I recently bought this book from amazon.com and I have to say that I love it! I had all of the book knowledge, openings, statagy et cetra. I just didn't have the ability to see more than 2 moves ahead in the game, and usually those calculations were based upon faulty assumptions. His book has taught me how to visualize the board as I calculate, which he actually has you practising in the first chapter! I love this book and I highly recommend it.

Evaluation of chess books suffers from an incredible amount of subjective judgment. There are people who are quite skilled after playing for years who seem to be rather critical of this book. I, on the other hand, am a proudly proclaimed intermediate level player. For the short time in college (10 years(?!?) ago when I played regularly, this book boosted my chess competence and ability to the consternation and suprise of fellow players.

This was the very *first* chess book I read. It has spoiled me. I've read about 12-15 books since this one and what I've found is that that vast majority of books in this area are boring. Dry. Lacking tempo. Soltis's book is *not*. It flows! Has life! It doesn't limit itself to an endless series of positions and problems; rather, Soltis approaches the game from a *thinking* perspective. But not a development of grinding calculations--no: a problem is addressed from the simple but key angle of: "I sure would like my queen to be 'there'. In what way may that be accomplished?" This may sound overly simplistic but this idea is built upon in various manners until you see a variety of ways in which you can attack and feint.

Drawing from poker in a sense, Soltis gets into a player's head. In my opinion, the book will help get you into yours. I credit the reading of this book to one night where I saw how to checkmate my opponent 32 moves before it happened, and it started with an obscene looking sacifice of my bishop just to move his pawn.

I've recently gone through a few chapters again and the material just clicks all over again. Chess is a *hard* subject to make for interesting reading. Soltis is one of a few that makes the pages fly. :-)

Well, for someone to expose the fallacies of Kotov and to do it a few years before Nunn, Tisdall etc. are all getting high praise for doing it is a lot. People who think that this book needs a few more exercises have missed the point. To have to use variations to justify our play is not Soltis' premise. His premise, to my mind, is best expressed as follows: just go your own way and work hard at calculating better. In the end, the mistakes and themes you will see will fall into these catergories, but since your technique will be unique, I can't tell you your pitfalls but there is loads of material to practice with in any chess book. Tal, Capablanca, Botvinnik all did it differently - you will too.

A book that should be on the shelf of any player - light but educative reading.