Showing posts with label magazines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label magazines. Show all posts

Monday, July 30, 2018

Chess Magazines and Periodicals

I get a lot of people asking me about which chess books they should buy. Well, there are a lot of factors involved in choosing a good book for you, including the reason you want a book, your level of play, and your interests in the game. You can get a taste for a number of different styles of chess writing and presentation by buying a magazine, and there is usually a combination of tournament reports from up to date events, historical content, puzzles and instructional material from a combination of regular contributors and guest writers. After a year's subscription to a magazine, you should have a good idea of what books would be good to learn more detailed knowledge of the game.

American Chess Magazine, the best on the market!

The question is which magazine should one buy at the moment? Again, there are a number of factors involved in choosing which one to buy and as I've tried out quite a few over the years, I thought I'd write about my opinions. I will state that this is just my opinion which you can, of course, take with a pinch of salt.

There are 2 magazines on the market dealing with the international chess scene in an easy to read manner. These are New in Chess Magazine and American Chess Magazine. New in Chess has been the benchmark magazine for a number of years now, though I think it's heyday was in the 1990's when it was a truly fantastic publication. It seems to have become a bit lighter since then, which may or may not be a bad thing. I recently subscribed to American Chess Magazine, and it is my belief that this has taken the crown from New in Chess. American Chess Magazine has a distinctly American feel which means that a lot of coverage follows their top players. But when there are 3 American's in the top 10, this will mean detailed reports on the top tournaments of the day as well as some exclusive insider information about their top players. In the latest copy, there is a tournament report of the Candidates tournament by GM Jacob Aagaard which is absolutely excellent, as good as any tournament report I've ever read, with lots of interesting ideas from the games written in a clear instructional manner. American Chess Magazine is the publication I'd currently recommend to anyone who wants to find out more about chess.

There are regional magazines, and these are excellent and represent chess in one's region. I have subscribed to both the British Chess Magazine and Australia's 50 Moves Magazine which are both very good. They bring a feel of their own country to the magazine, though if I had any criticism of these publications, it would be that they are not quite regional enough, and I'd prefer more local content than a view of the chess world through the eyes of Australians or British players. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in how Aussies are doing in International events and follow their progress, but I'm also interested in tournaments here in Australia, and I don' think a small round up of some local chess would harm the publication. The British Chess Magazine has recently joined with Informator group and this has rejuvenated the magazine. However, there is a share of material which I don't like. The other publication I've subscribed to is the Informator, which is excellent, though heavy going. This is serious stuff, and only for those who are serious about their chess work. It certainly doesn't have the chatty style of New in Chess or American Chess Magazine, though the content is awesome.

If you do take my recommendation and buy a magazine to dip your toe into the world of chess publications, I'd suggest getting a year's subscription. This will give you ongoing material at a cheaper rate, and you won't find yourself with a one off lower quality edition of a magazine, but you'll see it through an entire year to make up your mind. If I haven't plugged the American Chess Magazine enough already, the news this weekend that Editor in Chief will be chess journalist and photographer David Llada, a true chess devotee, should come as a big boost. Anyway, I'll try to post some content from the American Chess Magazine over the next couple of weeks!

Sunday, June 5, 2016

The Value of Old Material 2

If a chess player wants to improve, then an excellent thing to invest in is a chess magazine or periodical. Finding the right one for each players needs and tastes can be quite challenging, and there is no universally good publication. A regional magazine is always good to subscribe to. This will give news about players and events that are familiar to you, and you'll be contributing to the local cause. Then there are the premier publications, such as New in Chess and Chess Informant. I used to really like New in Chess, but I have not enjoyed their format, or material recently .Informator is somewhat heavy, but has a wealth of great material for someone prepared to work. There are also online sites nowadays where chess can be followed in magazine format, such as Chessbase, or Chess24. I do visit these sites regularly, but I've always been more a fan of printed materials.

I grew up in England and so my local magazine was the British Chess Magazine. I have bought this over the years, but I started by going to my local library which stocked the BCM in their periodicals section. The material was diverse and their was anecdotal, and opinion pieces, as well as tournament reports and game analysis. I was never really too much into problems, though the BCM had an excellent section on these compositions, but I enjoyed the endgame studies which was written for a long time by the great British composer Charles Bent, and was then taken over by another great composer, John Beasley (I was looking at the BCM much during Bent's time). These writers would bring the whole world of study composition alive with stories of composition tournaments, cooks, and portraits of great chess study composers. I was looking through an old BCM (January 1978) and saw this great endgame study, reminding me a little of a study I showed a few weeks ago.

White to play and draw
I saw this and immediately thought about the Bron composition and leaving my opponent with 2 knights. However, this study involves a different technique to draw, which I'll post in a few days time.

In the same January 1978 BCM, the English chess historian Ken Whyld looked at some ratings data that has been created by Sir Richard Clarke who among other things in his notable life, devised the English ratings system in the 1950's. Clarke used data to rate players retroactively so as to compare players strengths from different era's. Whyld then used this rating data to try to formulate a list of the greatest tournaments from 1862-1960 (in modern times, Jeff Sonas has done similar work on his site chessmetrics). Whyld ranked the following tournaments as the strongest up to 1960:

Above FIDE Category 15 (average rating 2625+):

AVRO 1938
World Ch Tournament 1948
Budapest Candidates 1950
Zurich Candidates 1953

FIDE Catoegory 15 (average rating 2601-2625):

St Petersburg 1895-6
New York 1927
Garmisch 1937
USSR Absolute Ch 1941
Amsterdam Candidates 1956
Bled Candidates 1959

These were the 10 strongest according to Whyld, who actually listed the top 100 tournaments up to 1960. He did mention some notable omissions from the list, such as Carlsbad 1911. London 1922 and Hastings 1895, writing "The method of classification is rather against events with large numbers of competitors and weakish tails." We all might have our favourite tournaments in chess history, but the parlour games of comparing them seems to have been around for a long time! Sonas, for instance uses other formula to classify tournaments, and for him, Hastings is the third strongest of the nineteenth century, only behind Vienna 1882 and London 1883, though he gives Hastings a higher FIDE category than both that would put it in Whyld's top 10!

(My Australian friends might be interested in a reported win for Australian David Parr at the Guernsey Chess Festival in October 1977. Parr came equal 1st while another Aussie, Max Fuller was in the group half a point back. No games of Parr or Fuller were published in this magazine, but I'll keep searching for bits of interest to Australians)