Kind of like those idiot class players who think Kasparov could beat Tartakower in a match...these class players couldn't beat either in a match yet they have the audacity to claim that claim in spite of their inferior chess knowledge and skill.
Would You Recommend How to Reassess Your Chess by Silman?
Sort:
Oct 2, 2011
0
#183
RoseQueen1985 wrote:
^ ignore him. No one who isn't an IM or above can critisize Silman. If they were any good,they would be IM's also. A weak person should never critisize someone who is greater and stronger than them. That's why I laugh so hard when class players try to insult Silman. They'd never beat him in a game of chess,but they swear up and down that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
They then have the audacity to use an engine to check his work,and when they find a few innacuracies they yell "HA,you hack" as if they themselves found the innacuracies. They are so weak and dependant on chess engine analsys that they cannot think on their own,they literally take whatever an engine says and personalize it,as if it was their own.
by this line of reasoning no one can criticize tony romo for throwing 3 interceptions today because none of us are NFL quarterbacks. or even better none of can criticize a doctor for amputating the wrong leg because none of us are MD's 
The Lions f---ing rule!!! 4-0!!!! (Just need a running game, a 1st half game, and more than one offensive threat)
Jebcc makes a good counterargument. I think we are free to have an opinion about a superior player's teaching ability; about their skill as a chess player themselves, yes, you would probably look pretty stupid claiming that someone of master strength sucks if you're not master strength yourself.
Elubas wrote:
Jebcc makes a good counterargument. I think we are free to have an opinion about a superior player's teaching ability; about their skill as a chess player themselves, yes, you would probably look pretty stupid claiming that someone of master strength sucks if you're not master strength yourself.
It's all relative and chess ratings are numeric, so anyone can make an accurate comparison assuming they can count and grasp the concept of "greater than" and "less than". I can claim Kasparov sucks if I am comparing him to Deep Rybka 4. If I claim a master sucks but that I at class E am better, then the inconsistency is exposed.
Elubas wrote:
Jebcc makes a good counterargument. I think we are free to have an opinion about a superior player's teaching ability; about their skill as a chess player themselves, yes, you would probably look pretty stupid claiming that someone of master strength sucks if you're not master strength yourself.
No he doesn't.
davidegpc wrote: Oinkdumb
This is brilliant. So brilliant, in fact, that I've now realized how wrong I and all chess players are.
GeordiLaForge wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Jebcc makes a good counterargument. I think we are free to have an opinion about a superior player's teaching ability; about their skill as a chess player themselves, yes, you would probably look pretty stupid claiming that someone of master strength sucks if you're not master strength yourself.
No he doesn't.
This on the other hand is a three-word argument. I can't see at which point you disagree if you don't elaborate.
Elubas wrote:
GeordiLaForge wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Jebcc makes a good counterargument. I think we are free to have an opinion about a superior player's teaching ability; about their skill as a chess player themselves, yes, you would probably look pretty stupid claiming that someone of master strength sucks if you're not master strength yourself.
No he doesn't.
This on the other hand is a three-word argument. I can't see at which point you disagree if you don't elaborate.
Comparing Silman to a doctor who amputates the wrong leg is just ridiculous. Football analogy? C'mon.
Come on everyone; joining the enlightened isn't so hard after all.
Think about it;
All the best engines, like Vasik Rajlich's Rybka,(fig. 1) were written by someone who is not a master, but they can still miraculously beat humans. This is because all of the software that they use to evaluate positions has absolutely nothing to do with positional evaluation, but only tactics. When it says +.21, it means white has a fork that wins a bishop. Nowhere in the code does it say that Silman is right. And whenever pawns are doubled you look for a good move. Computers can think twenty moves ahead without using positional play. When a computer fails to see a fortress because calculation doesn't help, I'm still right. Anyway, Fisher is better than Silman, and bishops being better in endgames is a positonal idea. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me is a troll who believes in magic and unicorns and thinks two plus two is five and I hate unicorns soooo much because they always act like thye have horns when really I don't have a horn so uuuggghhh it's so frustrating!!111!!.(fig. 2) Also I'm way better than Silman because even though he's an IM he only plays like an A player and C looks like a dinosaur mouth so a C player can trash talk him. (fig. 3) (fig. 4)
davidegpc wrote: herpa derp derp ad hominem I'm better than you even though I'm 200 points below you OTB murp derp herp burp ad hominem ad hominem derp
GeordiLaForge wrote:
Elubas wrote:
GeordiLaForge wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Jebcc makes a good counterargument. I think we are free to have an opinion about a superior player's teaching ability; about their skill as a chess player themselves, yes, you would probably look pretty stupid claiming that someone of master strength sucks if you're not master strength yourself.
No he doesn't.
This on the other hand is a three-word argument. I can't see at which point you disagree if you don't elaborate.
Comparing Silman to a doctor who amputates the wrong leg is just ridiculous. Football analogy? C'mon.
Why are these analogies bad?
Oct 2, 2011
0
#195
"...nothing happen" well.... alot peoples claim they got better at chess after reading the book.
RoseQueen1985 wrote:
^ you have nothing constructive to say, so you attack Silman with insults. Anotherone bites the dust.
It's just funny how all Silman haters always revert to throwing insults like infants,because they have nothing constructive or intelligent to say.
nuh uh we never infult people cuz wev not haters your haterz because you hate hating silman so hah go learn chess noob pwned i'mm atturer than u
Oct 2, 2011
0
#198
RoseQueen1985 wrote:
^ because not believing in positional play is beyond ridiculous. It exists,whether or not you accept it is another story.
And the notion that one unexpected move throws your whole game off is wrong. I don't know about you,but I don't play chicken chess. I don't get scared by my opponents,I don't let them get in my way. I do what I want. I play the move I want to play,and only stop if my opponent's last move contained a serious threat.
Tactics and postional play, are like mother and father of chess. You cannot have one with out the other.
The problem ma'm is you are deliberately repackaging what others say to suit your point. then you post your knock-out rejoinder. some people might say you are presenting a red herring
GIex wrote:
Musikamole wrote:
What is the bonus score for a lead in development by just one tempo? What is the bonus score for doubled rooks?
What is the numerical value for a three tempi lead in development? I have this situation in one of my games. What is that worth!
These symbols are in all of my chess books: =, +/-, -/+. Even though they are good enough for my level of play, I prefer numbers, like (+ 0.70).
It's hard to say. The values used are experience-based (connected with chess games statistics), and are not calculated in certain formulas.
Being a tempo ahead allows better development, so being a tempo ahead adds points to the attacked and defended squares, and to a certain piece's placement points. So, if you have opened up a good diagonal with the extra tempo or have deployed a piece to the center, I guess the position evaluation difference is how much the tempo is worth (in the second site there are some piece evaluation tables; if you have moved Bc1-Be3 you should have gained 0,10-(-0,40)=0,50 points for example).
I like that.
But if you have already developed well, it may turn out to be a minor advantage.
I like numbers.
In chess books we see (=) equality, (+=) White is slightly better, (+/-) White is better, and (+-) White has a decisive advantage.
Numerical values are of little interest to me for decisive advantages, i.e., mate in two - unless I missed checkmate!
What about numerical values for a slight advantage, a moderate advantage? What are they?
Some authors say that even though a material advantage of just one pawn can prove decisive against two GM's, it is more practical to have a two pawn advantage before declaring that the position is winning.
I don't feel like I am winning until I am up a minor piece, followed by simplification/trading down to a winning endgame. Two pawns is just not enough for it to feel like a done deal.
You "position" your pieces for tactics, for an ultimate checkmate that is. Endgames are simply forced methods to gain overwhelming material advantage, which is another form of tactics (or is it positional play, to position your army for the win?). Tactics vs positional play...all semantics?
The real question is: are you better off investing your time to learn to calculate one move deeper or are you better off learning all of positional play while calculating one move less deep? If you can only see 2-3 moves ahead, perhaps calculation is more important. But what if you can routinely see 7-8 moves ahead? Does seeing 9 moves ahead make a player better than another who sees only 8-moves ahead but has mastered positional play?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESGLojNYSo