Improve Your Chess Calculation: The Ramesh Chess Course - Volume 1

[John Upham]

Richard James has reviewed


Improve Your Chess Calculation: The Ramesh Chess Course - Volume 1

from New in Chess

by Ramesh RB

https://britishchessnews.com/2022/12/09 ... -volume-1/

_____________________________41vVC+mtfXL.jpg

[MJMcCready]

As a genre, chess literature is so decadent its almost criminal, and to think someone will actually buy this. In case you haven't guessed already, the author isn't actually the slightest bit interested in whether your chess calculation improves or not, he just wants money. The selling point, as is so often the case is 'improvement' but in case you haven't already noticed you can teach yourself and decide the degree of significance you want to attach to it. Books like this are only published because the chess playing public is so grotesquely naive, they will buy just about anything that goes into print. I I wrote a book 'Win in less than 5 moves with 1.a3' most likely it will be bought by someone. There's a much higher chance of that publication winning the book of the year prize than the chess playing public actually waking up and learning to treat publications with suspicion. The write up is unhelpful because it's uncritical. Waste your money on something else and bear in mind, if you can actually be bothered, you can always teach yourself. You're not a child who has to wait to be told what to do anymore.

[John Sellen]

"As a genre, chess literature is so decadent its almost criminal, and to think someone will actually buy this. In case you haven't guessed already, the author isn't actually the slightest bit interested in whether your chess calculation improves or not, he just wants money."

I just wonder what your comments are based on. Have you read or attempted to read the book yourself

[Mike Gunn]

Not only has Mr McCready probably not read the book I get the impression he has hardly read the review which (in my opinion) gives a balanced view of the book's contents. I decided after reading the review that this book isn't for me!

[MJMcCready]

"As a genre, chess literature is so decadent its almost criminal, and to think someone will actually buy this. In case you haven't guessed already, the author isn't actually the slightest bit interested in whether your chess calculation improves or not, he just wants money."

I just wonder what your comments are based on. Have you read or attempted to read the book yourself

No of course not, it bears all the hallmarks of its genre, that alone is more than enough. It's yet another glaring obvious attempt for someone with a title or some credibility open to another source of revenue for himself and gain a greater degree of respectability since he's now able to describe himself as an author. Some of us are academics by our very nature and learnt a very long time ago how to handle texts, what the nature of discourse is and how to read critically, which most who read chess books do not do. If anything, it's exploitation, chess literature is replete with such publications and has been for decades. The most obvious example of that is usually found with publications that deal with opening theory. When I was a post-grad, I had to stand in front of established professors and defend my dissertation and believe me it was not easy take the author of a publication on opening theory, choose anyone you like, then put him in a room full of GM's all over 2750 and tell him to justify his analysis in front of them, and throw in a few specialist on that particular opening, also with a substantially higher rating. It will never happen because he knows he would be ripped to shreds in seconds. Of course he would, that's obvious.

If you want to write a book about chess, generally speaking it helps it you are able to justify what you have written and that you have an ability to write in the first place (perhaps even going so far as to publish material about something other than chess, a novel perhaps). It's rarely the case that such things come together. There are exceptions clearly where we do have well-educated authors who can also write well. Jonathan Rowson as a classic example of that by he is in a very small minority hence the reason I maintain that on the whole chess literature as a genre is decadent. Plus it has already been superseded by on-line content so if you really do want to improve your calculation skills, there's a wealth a material on youtube alone that will assist you there.

I haven't read the publication reviewed but I am more than certain to read it is a waste of time and money.

[John Upham]

"As a genre, chess literature is so decadent its almost criminal, and to think someone will actually buy this. In case you haven't guessed already, the author isn't actually the slightest bit interested in whether your chess calculation improves or not, he just wants money."

I just wonder what your comments are based on. Have you read or attempted to read the book yourself

No of course not, it bears all the hallmarks of its genre, that alone is more than enough. It's yet another glaring obvious attempt for someone with a title or some credibility open to another source of revenue for himself and gain a greater degree of respectability since he's now able to describe himself as an author. Some of us are academics by our very nature and learnt a very long time ago how to handle texts, what the nature of discourse is and how to read critically, which most who read chess books do not do. If anything, it's exploitation, chess literature is replete with such publications and has been for decades. The most obvious example of that is usually found with publications that deal with opening theory. When I was a post-grad, I had to stand in front of established professors and defend my dissertation and believe me it was not easy take the author of a publication on opening theory, choose anyone you like, then put him in a room full of GM's all over 2750 and tell him to justify his analysis in front of them, and throw in a few specialist on that particular opening, also with a substantially higher rating. It will never happen because he knows he would be ripped to shreds in seconds. Of course he would, that's obvious.

If you want to write a book about chess, generally speaking it helps it you are able to justify what you have written and that you have an ability to write in the first place (perhaps even going so far as to publish material about something other than chess, a novel perhaps). It's rarely the case that such things come together. There are exceptions clearly where we do have well-educated authors who can also write well. Jonathan Rowson as a classic example of that by he is in a very small minority hence the reason I maintain that on the whole chess literature as a genre is decadent. Plus it has already been superseded by on-line content so if you really do want to improve your calculation skills, there's a wealth a material on youtube alone that will assist you there.

I haven't read the publication reviewed but I am more than certain to read it is a waste of time and money.

I guess its that time of year for excess Christmas sherry consumption at 3am.

[MartinCarpenter]

.... take the author of a publication on opening theory, choose anyone you like, then put him in a room full of GM's all over 2750 and tell him to justify his analysis in front of them, and throw in a few specialist on that particular opening, also with a substantially higher rating. It will never happen because he knows he would be ripped to shreds in seconds. Of course he would, that's obvious.

It really isn't actually Every book written today had very extensive input from a 3200+ rated co author.

There'll still be holes of course, especially in terms of what is practical for humans to play etc but these modern neural net engines are hugely better in the opening.

[MJMcCready]

The author should be able to understand the analysis himself without having to rely on a computer.

[Ian Thompson]

The author should be able to understand the analysis himself without having to rely on a computer.

That appears to be beyond anyone's capabilities in some cases. An obvious example is tablebase endgame positions where the computer says it's mate in 125, you can look at the sequence of moves that win, and alternatives that don't, but explaining why one move wins and others don't has not been possible.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Plus it has already been superseded by on-line content so if you really do want to improve your calculation skills, there's a wealth a material on youtube alone that will assist you there.

I can scarcely think of a worse format for learning chess. My ideal choice would be something with a clickable chessboard or something, so you can play through the analysis. Next best would be something in text, so I can read it at my own pace.

[MJMcCready]

Well we have apps for that and sites too but failing them if you did revert to using you tube only, the principle difference it's you deciding what to study and how much to put into into, based on what interests you, and not someone else -who is not in the slightest bit interested in what you do because he doesn't know you-telling you what to do.

[MJMcCready]

If you do want a publication that will improve your calculation, why don't you try the rather cleverly composed 'Chess Travellers Quiz Book' by GM Julian Hodgson. As even before you get half way in the positions presented become fiendishly difficult and you won't be finding the solutions in under 15 mins, that's for sure.