30 Jun 08
Originally posted by Katastroofi dunno about tactics, but studying endgames ala The Art of Chess/Mason worked wonders for me, gave me the kick in the pants i needed.
I'd say tactics and endgames.When I worked on my endgame I noticed my openingplay improved too,even much more than when working my way through an openingbook.I think it's because you get a better feel for the real possibilities of each piece.And also because I find openingbooks dull and cannot keep concentrated on them 😉
30 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MahoutAnd I think were Silman is really heavy on taking ideas of old material is the Keres book on middle-game play. One other thing that is wrong with Silman's book is that when he's analysing his games he's a little too generoous on "!" and the ocasional "!!" to his side and never ever points out the "??" from his opponent. He makes it look like he won the game on a grand strategical conception when in fact his opponents normally throw the game away with sometimes very poor moves. And yes I know that a game of chess is only won due to mstakes but he at least could have pointed them out.
Apologies...I see what you're saying...I missinterpreted the intentions of the original post.
Anyway I find your comparison with Silmans books interesting. I worked through about half of "The Amatuers Mind" and it has made a significant difference to my play...restricting the opponents knights with judicious pawn moves is just one of several practical idea ...[text shortened]... s mentioned before I have yet to look through "My System" so can't comment properly on it.
And yeah I don't like Silman and I think he's a big time douche! ðŸ˜
Edit: Not Keres but Euwe. 😳
30 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockThere are more than a few things that I didn't like about Silman already so your note adds another to this list. All the same, arrogance and patronising text aside, I'd be lying if I said I didn't learn a lot from the book...and he does hold your hand through some complex ideas...explaining, giving examples and so on. Disregarding the book due to some unpalatable phrases would be "throwing the baby out with the bath water" as the old expression goes.
And I think were Silman is really heavy on taking ideas of old material is the Keres book on middle-game play. One other thing that is wrong with Silman's book is that when he's analysing his games he's a little too generoous on "!" and the ocasional "!!" to his side and never ever points out the "??" from his opponent. He makes it look like he w ...[text shortened]... 't like Silman and I think he's a big time douche! ðŸ˜
Edit: Not Keres but Euwe. 😳
I've only been through The Amatuers Mind but we could start a thread on the worst Silmanisim's e.g.
"I stopped the game in disgust"
or
"His play was logical and impressive up to his ninth turn. Then he tossed all his lessons away and gave in to emotion and desire"
He uses students games to illustrate points and the underlying meaning of Silmans comments are usually that the students who play badly are stupid and the students who play well are simply responding to his wonderful coaching.
But don't let this put you off!
01 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MahoutYes when I read/skimmed through the book I also feel that it elevated my game. I still think that my best game so far was a direct consequence of reading his book. 🙂 But the way he manhandles his students just sets me of... 😠I don't how one of them hasn't punched him yet.
There are more than a few things that I didn't like about Silman already so your note adds another to this list. All the same, arrogance and patronising text aside, I'd be lying if I said I didn't learn a lot from the book...and he does hold your hand through some complex ideas...explaining, giving examples and so on. Disregarding the book due to some unpala are simply responding to his wonderful coaching.
But don't let this put you off!
But I really hate his I'm all that attitude. I've read some of his book reviews and one way or another he always find a way to compare the book he's reviewing to one of his marvelous books to then conclude that either he got the idea on paper first or that he explained it better. ðŸ˜
Case in point just to amuse me:
Beim uses lots of prose to illustrate his ideas and explain what's happening in his examples. In the game Gelfand-Malakhov, Dagomys 2005 he makes some general comments about the position and then says: "Gelfand solves the problem in forcing style, alertly spotting that if his knight gets to h5, Black's bishop will have no moves. I would suggest that the game variation was born out of this observation. I believe that this variation, being the one which lies in the direction from where the main blow is most likely to come, should be calculated first, and then the remaining variations become redundant."
Doesn't this remind you of my "fantasy position" concept from HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS? White sees that he wins easily if a piece can reach a certain square, then strives to get it there. His observation in this case isn't original, but it is still very good advice.
Honestly...🙄 🙄 🙄 that guy is really in love with himself. Does he think that he was the first one to notice and write that sometimes we don't need to calculate all the way through and just play that awfuly sensible move that we know that wins the game? http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/How_to_Calculate_Chess_Tactics.html If you haven't read the book his reviewing read it and then see for yourself how on a different class this book is in respect to Silman's book. I got two book from Beim (this one on calculating tactics and "How to Play Dynamic Chess"😉 and I can tell you the Silman got nothing on him. NOTHING! ðŸ˜
Ok, I'll be off now but Silman's a big time douche!
Edit: And returning to the point of the thread. 😳 I read the first part of My System some time ago and I liked it. I know that the themes of overprotection and liquidation still are with me till this day but apart from that I don't think I got much ore from the book. I intend to read the book when I reach and can maintain a 1700 rating. I don't know but I think that by that time I'll be mature enough to actually understand more.
01 Jul 08
Before reading "My system" (I was 17 then) my playing style was obviously combinational, tactical with many gambits. Reading "My system" improved my play very much - I started to understand importance of center (before that I liked to make desperado flank attack ignoring center), I understood importance of key squares (for example e5 square in 3.e5 French and 1.Nf3 2.b3 system), I started to understand ideas of positional opening schemes etc.
I definitely recommend this book for everyone.