Amateur's Mind - Terrific! or Terrible!

Yes, I was talking about the orange books. I guess the blue series is okay if you've already made your way through the orange one, whatever your rating at that time

both.

Thanks hicetnunc. :)

My wife gave me Amateurs Mind for Christmas.  I'm just a few pages in, but finding it useful.  In my last game I noticed I had two knights and my opponent had a knight and a bishop.  I just read about this "imbalance" in the book.  I leveraged what I learned from Silman and cramped the center.  My opponent's bishop was locked in and could only attack a few squares.  I then created some nice outposts for my knights and went on to win the game. 

I got myself both HTRYC and Amateurs mind. All I can say is that these books are awesome! It may be  that I have not really looked much books from other authors but man ... Little over a year ago I learned first time how to play chess, I didnt know how the pieces moved or anything. After several months of playing and doing tactics I was around 1300-1400. The problem for me was then that after several opening moves  - the fight for the center- i was kind of lost or clueless. I wouldnt be able to make rational plans, every move that didnt really hang any of my pieces looked good. So I was making middle game moves planless, not understanding whats going on. When I lost a game I couldnt honestly say what happend, where did I go wrong? I did analyze my games with engine and It showed steady decline in my postion. Move by move I lost advantage or increased my disadvantage in a certain position .. until it manifested in material loss. While engine can show what moves are better, they fail to tell you how to come up with those moves. We, humans, are not calculating computers who are able to go 20 moves in depth of every line. This is where Silmans books came in.

In my effort to try to improve my chess play and understanding of chess I searched for possible books. Several months ago, since I started to work with Silmans books, I honestly cant belive how much Ive improved. I understand whats going on the board, my ability to read the board, or as Silmans says look at the "imblanaces", is gone up tenfold. I no longer make clueless, aimless moves that just wont hang my pieces. I am able to come up with a plan based on my current position, Im beginning to understand battles for sqaures, lines, minor piece differences. Good, or best, moves are starting "appear" to me naturally after a little analysis of the position.

Whats even more amazing to me, is that after coming up with a plan and a move, the engines also agree with that. Most of my moves are on top the engine suggestions. This, and also working with Tactics Trainer, Im now 1800-1900 in online chess.

At least for me, the Silmans books were complete home run. 

My wife bought me a slew of Chess books for Christmas. This is the one that finally caught my interest (after trying my hand at a few others that I found a little mundane). I've only just begun, but its the best book on Chess I have studied thus far. Well, his Endgame book is just as good.....and Reassess...and the Workbook for Reassess.....lol. Silman is a great teacher.

I like Silman's style too - nvery readable.

Steve

"My recommended order (though all stand alone):

1) Read Reassess Your Chess through page 52. Then put it away! [Dan's note: You can skip this 1st step with the 4th ed. of How to Reassess Your Chess]
2) Read all of The Amateur's Mind.
3) Read the rest of How to Reassess Your Chess.
4) Read The Workbook.
And yes, you have to start people out with tactics and the basic mates else they will get shredded instantly.”

- IM Jeremy Silman in an e-mail to Dan, 11/16/2001.

I don't see why 52 pages but the first chapter talks about imbalances and the second chapter (pages 9 to 61) goes into the imbalance between Bishops and Knights in detail.

Generally, Reassess handles the imbalances in much more detail.

HTH

Steve

I don't think the book is terrific or terrible. I think I have got a few things out of it but I'm not sure about the whole 'imbalances' thing. It seems a bit forced to me. I know for a fact i have got a lot more out of Chernev's Logical chess than this one, what a great book that is. It's all down to personal preference though I suppose.

Dvoretsky's books are almost all excellent.  I think they can be used for players 1600-2,600 as long as you go slow.  (though there is the funny story, a junior player's father said he was look for a trainer and came across Dvoretsky who apologized saying he only coached advanced players.  The father explained his son was a top junior player with a rating of about 2300.  Dvoretsky supposedly indicated he considered anyone below international master an intermediate player). 

In comparison, Kasparov's books tend to be convoluted like his style and are very tough for lower-rated players. 

What does the Avengers have to do with Silman's book?

Big up for Chernev's book. It is written for players more of the standard of the OP. The Amateur's Mind is written for higher rated players (say 1600 to 2000) when they can get through most games without blundering away material. Dvorestsky? Should be studied by only the most serious players - he's too heavy for me (I'm around 1900.)

Steve

I think Silman says the Amateur's Mind is for people under 1400.

So, I just finished reading the Amateur's Mind.  I kept a journal of my thoughts while I read it and thought I'd share my impression of the book.  The book begins with some great content on minor pieces.  I really enjoyed reading about the battle between bishops and knights and how to manipulate the position to benefit your minor piece "imbalance".  I also enjoyed the next chapter on space, which helped me understand where I should be playing on the board.  I immediately saw improvements in my game when I applied the principles from these chapters.  I began using my pawns more effectively to take away squares from opponents and slowly cramp them. 

The next three "imbalance" chapters (Pawn Structure, Material and Development) were a bit more nebulous and I had difficulty incorporating these lessons into my games.  I also began to get frustrated by the sheer quantity and diversity of "tips" provided.  This made it challenging to weed out the important tips from the mundane. 

The remainder of the book touches on several topics, like using your rooks, kingside attacks, imbalances in the opening and developing mental toughness.  I didn't take too much out of these chapters, save the last.  Surprisingly, I enjoyed the chapter on mental toughness.  Silman made some good points about the psychology behind chess.  I will admit, I can sometimes be my own worst enemy when playing certain individuals.  For example, I have a hard time beating my father-in-law, even though I regularly beat stronger opponents. 

The last 100 pages or so were devoted to some pretty difficult "tests".  I didn't like the format of these tests, as the questions are very open ended and nailing the precise answer the author gives is nearly impossible or was for me.  I got a few right, but ran out of steam.

Concerning Silman's style - I liked his prose; it's memorable and entertaining.  Moreover, it's easy to read.  I didn't like his harsh criticism of some of his students.  He had a go at several that seemed unwarranted. 

I thought the format of the book was interesting.  I liked to see the master game followed by the amateur's mistakes in the same position.  I don't think this reinforced bad positions at all.  In fact, I think it helped me recognise when a position can go from good to bad.

On the whole, this book was pretty good - especially if you like Silman's style.  I gleaned some good nuggets from it, but it's probably not the best positional book out there for novices.  A couple years ago I read "Play Winning Chess" by Seirawan/Silman and it had a lot of similar ideas in it, and probably easier to read (and with less bashing of amateurs).  I found Seirawan's chapters to be more to the point and memorable.

Next I plan to read "First Book of Morphy", "Silman's Complete Endgame Course" (or at least part of it) and "Best Lessons of a Chess Coach".  I'm really excited about the last in this list!  Anyone read Weeramantry's book?

Nice review - thanks for taking the time to write that. Given your impressions, for what rating range would you say the book is most helpful?

I basically agree with the review.  The other chapters were not worthless, though.  I think that in a lot of ways rooks are much more simple than knights and bishops, or at least the battle between the two.  The real challenge is getting the rooks out from behind the pawns, something that knights have no trouble with and bishops can manage pretty easily.  With the bishops, it always seems to be the queen's bishop that is the most problematic.

One thing I felt was missing was the knight vs. knight or bishop vs. bishop.

After a player learns the basic elements of the game, four books will help you improve from there: Silman's How to Reasses Your Chess and the Amateur's Mind, Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy, and Stean's Simple Chess.  Classics!  Any others?

I wish Silman's books were available to me when I was learning the game.  I would have been a better player.

Look at why you lose games. If you throw away pieces or miss simple two-move combos then you need to address that first.

Silman and his positional books (such as AM, HTRYC and the Workbook) are great butthey are more valuable for players who are fine with the basics of tactical chess. I don't think anyone rated around 1300 fills this critera.

At 1300 FiDE, Study tactics and BASIC positional ideas first.

Steve

Well, being a complete novice and chess amateur myself (and maybe too old and lazy to take my game to the next level) I'd say that Silman's book has really helped me to understand some aspects of the game a bit more. I have also liked Chernev's Logical Chess. Seirawan's Winning Chess Tactics has slowly but steadily became one of my favourite books.

I have also bought some old classic game collections - Tartakower's 500 games, Capablanca's, Botvinnik's and Morphy's games too. I am not a huge fan of the descriptive notation but on the other hand maybe that's why these books were much cheaper.

On the whole, as for a novice player I have maybe simply too much chess books on my shelf and some of them are clearly too difficult for me at the moment. But that doesn't stop me enjoying the game...