"You can't kill me now because I'm the only one who knows how to read descriptive notation" LOL. I cut my teeth on that too, sensei. And though I handle them both now equally well, it took me forever to make the transition to algebraic.
I'm only 41, and played chess as a kid, but I learned to read descriptive as a kid because I was a huge dork. I'm thankful for it now, because it allows me to read old chess books, and avail myself of the knowledge within. I consider it like being bilingual in chess notation. It's the same concept. One thing that always cracks me up in the REALLY old chess books, the ones that used Kt rather than N for knight, is when they write "BxKtch!" 😂
The "21st Century Edition" of Modern Ideas in Chess was published in 2010, uses algebraic notation, and has "added many diagrams". It also has a different cover.
Jesse boss, great video. I think it's such a kudos to you guys for valuing chess "culture" in your program. It really is a beautiful game with so much history- so much more than an online database or Chessable course... Also I think this book is way better at teaching culture than My 60 Memorable or Tal Botvinnik 1960, while they are very good books, this book goes back to the ROOTS and evolution of the game and bridges so many gaps in development in chess that people didn't even know existed. Kudos BOSS!
Soltis book "Why Lasker Matters" provides interesting insight into Lasker's chess. Fischer said Lasker was a coffeehouse player who knew nothing about openings or positional chess. But later he apparently told Benko Lasker was a great player.
I read small portions of "Lasker's Manual of Chess" and "Common Sense in Chess". It seemed to me that Lasker liked to be practical. IIRC, in common sense, he discusses a position that, at the time, it was thought that one side was better than the other. He goes on to explain why the opposite was true. It was a very clearly thought out strategic explanation. I'll have to go back and actually read those books cover to cover to get some insights into Lasker's ideas.
Hey Jesse, John Nunn has written a book called 'John Nunn's Chess Course' where he annotates 100 games of Lasker to illustrate chess concepts. IIRC, makes comparisons to Carlsen's style of play: A universal player with monstrous endgame technique who wasn't afraid to experiment in relatively unknown positions if it made his opponent uncomfortable.
The first three books I read were in descriptive notation. It took me a bit to figure out...Winning Chess - Chernev, My 60 Memorable Games - Fischer, and Commonsense in Chess - Lasker. The last one was a bit iffy tbh.
I liked Reti’s Modern Ideas book and read and re-read it several times over the years, and while it’s interesting, I think his presentation of the evolution of chess is very stereotyped. He was largely repeating Lasker’s accepted story on chess history, which was also very one sided. Willy Hendriks talks about it and shows examples at some length in his book ‘On the Origin of Good Moves’. For me it was very interesting to have the generally accepted story challenged, and using actual games to illustrate the points rather than rehashing stories of the ‘facts’ really opened my eyes to a much larger picture of how the ideas in chess have been understood by players of the past and evolved up to the present. Jesse, I’d really like to see you do a review on Hendriks book to hear your thoughts on the points he makes in contrast to Reti.
I think Reti’s lack of Lasker mention or discussion had much to do with Lasker being ahead of his time and misunderstood. Frankly being World Champion for 27 years is a testament to his strength and overall ability to adapt to other players. Lasker is very under rated
Not to mention he won the New York 1924 SuperGM double round robin tournament, which had Capablanca (who was the current WC), Alekhine, Marshall, Tartakower and Reti in the lineup, where he scored 14.5/16 with only one loss as Black and it was to Capa ....at the ripe old age of 55!! What a capstone to a career, one of the GOATs.
I'm one of the dissenters who dislikes this book being in the program. I'm a huge fan of chess culture, but if I want to improve my chess while simultaneously losing myself in chess culture, I'll learn so much more from "My 60 Memorable Games" and "Tal - Botvinnik 1960" than "Modern Ideas in Chess."
I read this book for my cohort, and if you're that level of player (as I am) there's plenty to learn from this book as a player to think about and recontextualize your own thought process. I got a lot of ideas about how to carry out development in a purposeful and cohesive manner. It's also not a long book, so plenty of bang for your buck in my opinion. And it's an engaging read that kept me wanting to keep going, which adds to the learning process.
@@sethlichtenstein4442 hey if it was engaging to you and you feel like you got something out of it then great - more power to you. I accept that my opinion is my own, and I'm perhaps in the minority.
The book was published in 1922 - not 1923. His name is Réti, not ready. Of course, Morphy's family was Irish "Murphy" that was changed to the Spanish "Morphy" when Michael Murphy beame a Spanish citizen in 1753.
