Would You Recommend How to Reassess Your Chess by Silman?

Why is Silman's The Amateur's Mind so poor?

those of you who didn't like my silman comments can go read his never ending waste of time books, and let's see what was the responses i got? things like "he can hardly write" or "it was too biased", no i can write well enough, and it only sounds biased to some because it's the truth, if you don't like the facts, than close ur eyes and move out the window...if you have an issue, here's a tissue.

MY comments aren't related to Silman as a chessplayer. And I have read three of his books.

Also, I don't think SIlman's books are "horrible" or anything like that. There are just much better books available: more to the point, and will teach you more about chess.

When Euwe wants his reader to learn something, he just tells them what they need to know, and then proceeds with examples. There is no fluffiness or extra dialogue.

daud2012, there is no book that will help a patzer like me (or anyone else for that matter) reach a master level of chess play.  Hard work, dedication and a whole lot of study might. 

But I do believe that an understanding of positional chess is absolutely essential for any serious player who wishes to reach a higher level of play, and from the ocean of books available out there, the opinion of many posters (and Amazon.com reviewers) are that Silman's explanations of the "hard stuff" are brilliant.

If I ever reach a rating of 2000, I might look at other (tougher) material for study, but at my level, Silman's it!   

Personally, I don't care about his tournament results, or the fact that he never attained the level of Grandmaster.  He is a chess coach with years of experience, and he seems to have a genuine passion for teaching.  And if I had to face him now in an OTB tournament game, I will have my face kicked in for sure!

I have 35% wins in 20 OTB tournament games!!  I am better than Silman with my 1014 USCF rating!  I will soon write a book on "positional inequities" ***, don't worry my fans.

The 3 criticisms against Silman:

1. He is no good as a player.

2. He plagiarizes Nimzowitsch and Pachman and others. 

3. tactics tactics tactics.

If 1., then Dvoretsky sucks, too, a mere IM and in the 1970's when they were equivalent to today's 1600's.

if 2. then his books are good because they are plagiarized material coming from top GM's of their times. 

if 3. then all strategy books suck or just not necessary for Silman's targeted crowd (USCF 1400-2100), which I am more inclined to accept but not absolutely just yet.

I don't know if HTRYC 4th is good or not.  I kind of like the early chapters of his endgame course, the early chessmentor modules by him, and his complete book of chess strategy (targeted for my level). 

I could do without his comments like "you need to stop worrying about your opponent's plan and move forward with your own", which in my case means my opponent checkmates me, but does Silman actually say things or espouse concepts which GM's universally shun? 

*** copyright 2011 dannyhume

Andre_Harding, you only said that Silman doesn't have any original ideas. How is that important? 

And for those you talk about how well Silman did in tournaments: you are looking at the wrong thing. Who would you rather step in the ring with, Tyson or his coach? Certainly not Tyson. He is clearly a better boxer than his coach. Who would you want to teach you boxing, Tyson or his coach? Obviously, his coach. The same goes for chess. The best players isn't necessarily the best teachers. So, all these tournament stats are irrelevant. 

Can anyone tell why Silman's "AM" isn't a good book to read???????

It's a good book for lower rated players.

However, he doesn't stress the importance of tactics enough. He does stress it at random points, but he doesn't do it in a coherent way like how he stresses his imbalances. The problem is that a good strategy is in fact one that allows for tactical possibilities (forcing moves); you have to be able to see those possibilities! The only reason positional moves are played is because there is nothing else and the position needs to be improved before it is ready for action. But understanding how to actually undertake that action is in my opinion more fundamental than learning his system of planning.

He did help me to understand more static features of a position, though, positions that feature lots of quiet, gradual moves. Ultimately I would recommend it, but it will have mistakes, both in tactics and judgment, so don't take it as absolute. No book is without errors, though.

LOL at "copyright" dannyhume

Well, Gary Kasparov also wrote a couple of books, and I don't know of any people that made GM norms after reading his

cigoL:

I didn't say AM is a bad book. If you like it, then by all means enjoy it.

The first post asked whether or not they recommend How to Reassess Your Chess. My opinion is no, because there are many superior books available.

But not many people are arguing that Gary Kasparov is a legendary teacher.

Most of the Russian GM writers can't write in English much better than GM Stankovic ( see above) which makes the content of their minds, however brilliant, pretty useless for the average American chess player.  I'll take Silman's informative, sometimes entertaining style anyday and very few of the people criticizing him could take a game from him. It really doesn't matter anyway because playing ability over the board is not the same thing as teaching ability. He knows the concepts and can formulate them in a way that we can understand.

I hope you are kidding. I have a 100 % win rate against my 700 rated girlfriend. A 30 % win rate against 2,000+ players is better than a 40 % win rate against a bunch of 1,000 rated players.

milestogo2:

Have your ever attempted to read one of the classic books?

Very true   With regards to Silman, I have seen more posts about his books and articles (criticisms, discussions, suggestions, you name it), than with any other author.  His work must be popular for a reason then! 

There are many superior books, got it. But why is that? What does these "superior books" contain, that Silman's "AM" is lacking?

I think I had a reason on page 3 or something. Note that a book being easy to read does not always mean you learn the most from it. You learn the most from difficult work and experience.

Well I have "Think like a Grandmaster"-Kotov, "Endgame Strategy"-Sherenshevsky, '40 Lessons for the Club Player"-Kostyev, "The Art of the Middle Game"-Keres, "zurich International tournament"-Bronstein, "100 Selected Games"- Botvinnik, "The Art of Attack"-Vukovic. I won't count the ones by Alekhine, Tartakower, and Znosko-Borovsky as they seem a little easier to understand.  I have a CD by Roman Dzindzichashvilli which is very good but excruciating to listen to. I know the material is good and I have learned a lot from this material, but I still like something written by someone from my era.

aahh some anti silman fans are here I see, getting upset that he is back here in chess.com huh. lol