Reassess your Chess or My System?

I don't know, <IM Pfren>, I WAS a class player when I read Nimzo - and struggling with his concepts and trying them out has surely made me a better player - I think that it was that book that helped me go from 1800ish to 1900ish, if it counts for something. 

Some ideas weren't easy to apply ("manoeuvering against weaknesses" which is really advanced) and some others ("overprotection") backfired seriously at times - but with such a rich offering of idea, you got to try things out and see what works for you. 

I love Silman's works too - but I would think that anybody from 1400 and onwards could benefit from Nimzo's book. 

     Reassess Your Chess, 4th edition is 658 pages, My System is 260 pages. 

     Personally, I do not have the persistence and time to get through a 658 page chess book, unless I drop all other chess activities for the next 4 years; even 260 pages is a long and difficult slog for me.

     But you are not me and maybe you have more time and persistence and work through material faster than I do.  Get advice from others and then listen to your heart (or gut).

     Just thinking...

<SkinnyHorse> despite the difference in the number of pages, anything from Silman is much easier to go through than My System - which is complicated. 

Not everything in My System is even explained, and the book leaves you with many open questions. 

Silman isolates an element (generally) and talks about it and about it only for quite a while.

With Nimzowitsch it is like that for a while, in the first part of the book - but when he goes to the second part, and in the annotated games - you need to do a lot of pondering and digesting to really understand what he's after, how come and why - not to mention that in some cases you are invited to argue with his methods and conclusions. 

In my view, Silman is definitely the easier reading - regardless of the number of pages. 

I gave a try to both books and was not very inspired by any. I really prefer "Chess Strategy for Club Players" by Grooten. It is very clearly written and at same time quite challenging for my 1700 OTB level. I'd like to hear other opinions how Grooten's book compares to Reassess Your Chess and My System.

"With Nimzowitsch it is like that for a while, in the first part of the book - but when he goes to the second part, and in the annotated games - you need to do a lot of pondering and digesting to really understand what he's after, how come and why - not to mention that in some cases you are invited to argue with his methods and conclusions."

Yeah, I agree. Sometimes I feel like Nimzo figures, he's really good, so any thought of his he happens to write down will automatically be good, and even if it doesn't seem to make sense, it's because you're not smart or diligent enough to understand him. Even if that's true, that doesn't mean that if he was more effective in his explanations, it wouldn't greatly benefit improving players.

So I sometimes get that vibe from him, but then, he was literally one of the best players in the world at that time, and it's hard to communicate with class players when that's the case. Probably Capa would have just made a ton of arrogant commentary if he made a book like that, like oh, just care about piece activity and the win is natural.

But anyway, maybe because of that, Silman comes across as more sincere, like that it's important to him that you understand what he's saying. With Nimzo I get more of the impression that he wanted to display his knowledge so whether people improved or not his ego was satisfied. Just to some extent. I'm not trying to put down Nimzo here. He's an incredible player and he did write a lot of really fascinating ideas. But pedagogically speaking it has flaws.

Oh, and I think Silman should have stuck to his guns with the thinking system. It should just have the disclaimer that that thinking is more like if you just had absolutely no idea what to do, eventually you might find some kind of answer with his thinking method. And at the lower levels, for me anyway, a lot of times I would have no idea what to do. But when he went through the thinking process for the first annotated game, it made chess seem to make so much sense.

In other words, thinking that way just teaches you how to plan. Maybe use that thinking technique when studying a position at home, for players who have a tough time with planning. Obviously to be competitive you often have to shorten your think, but you do learn something from taking it slow at first. Silman backed down in the 4th edition though, and, if I remember right, now just says, use imbalances when they apply. The thinking technique is what put it all together and now it's just disjointed.

Really, both books are must-haves. I would say Silman. 

Very good reading, both <Elubas> and <Alekhine> (who is being overly gracious to Nimzowitsch here, whose hind part he had kicked in oh so many games...)

I second this. That book by Grooten is good.

Larry Evans once wrote that most club players would be better off starting with Tarrasch's The Game of Chess (and I might add Emanuel Lasker's Common Sense in Chess as well as his Manual of Chess) before tackling Nimzowitsch.

As far as Silman, he is a good synthesizer of other writers' ideas, but there is nothing new including his idea of imbalances.  Unfortunately, his writing style varies from clear and concise to condescending and boorish.  Some may find Nimzowitsch difficult, but in my opinion he is never off-putting or too cute by half.

When Bardu wrote, "Isn't this kind of like comparing Shakespeare and Stephen King?' I had to laugh.  He is right, of course, but I would say Silman is to Nimzowitsch as Stephen King is to Edgar Allan Poe -- noisy, a bit too obvious and lacking in subtlety.  Besides, Nimzowitsch is a lot funnier.

     Don't do either "My System" or "Reassess Your Chess"!

     First listen to Mato Jelic or IM John Bartholomew on Youtube for awhile and THEN decide between "My System" or "Reassess". 

     In addition, heres a writer from the past, but nevertheless a great chess author----former World Champion Max Euwe who wrote "The Middle Game Book 1" and "The Middle Game Book 2".  They are classic chess teaching books.

     How good was Euwe?  He beat Alekhine in a 30 game match!

I agree, but Euwe's books are mostly still pretty useful. Whenever you have a chess book that's over 50 years old you need to read it with a little more skepticism. But mostly it remains good advice.

Perspective on Aron Nimzowitsch's "My System"...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/perspective-on-my-system-by-aron-nimzowitsch