Would You Recommend How to Reassess Your Chess by Silman? - Chess Forums - Page 4

Elubas

Sep 25, 2011

0

#61

It seems like everyone here is either biased towards or against Silman. Not enough objectivity in these forums. Or in society for that matter.

dannyhume

Sep 25, 2011

0

#62

daud2012 wrote:

dannyhume wrote:

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?

Since you made a comparison with Dvoretsky, a real IM not like Silman who is a 1600, could you mention which of Silman's students became GMs?

Because of Dvoretsky we know the names, of Silman none, and that should tell you a lot upon the value of Dvoretsky's writings, and coaching.

Argument invalid. Two different target audiences.

How many of Dvoretsky's students were rated <2200 when he took them on?

Dvoretsky doesn't mess with struggling adult non-master amateurs who have been playing for several years (maybe he makes exceptions for up and coming juniors who will inevitably become masters). Just like Phil Jackson doesn't mess with Jordan-less, Shaq-less, or Kobe-less teams.

By that logic, what about Pandolfini? He has coached students who became GM's and IM's. His books are not that spectacular, though.

GM_Stankovic

Sep 25, 2011

0

#63

If we are being "biased" and not objective by stating some of the facts like 10th place in a tournament out of 10 players lol or 35% win or etc. than i'm glad there are so many "biased" ppl, the facts and the numbers speak for themsleves, and all Silman can do is criticize fischer (like he would stand a chance against him) or make fun of other beginners.

GeordiLaForge

Sep 25, 2011

0

#64

GM_Stankovic wrote:

If we are being "biased" and not objective by stating some of the facts like 10th place in a tournament out of 10 players lol or 35% win or etc. than i'm glad there are so many "biased" ppl, the facts and the numbers speak for themsleves, and all Silman can do is criticize fischer (like he would stand a chance against him) or make fun of other beginners.

Well, Silman can string a coherent paragraph together, something you are obviously incapable of. I don't take exercise or diet advice from fat people and I don't take literature or chess advice from the illiterate (you).

Jebcc

Sep 25, 2011

0

#65

To OP: No I wouldnt. I have a similar rating to the you, slightly lower. I have read many of Mr. Silman's articles and done many of his chess mentor tests. I find that he makes rude comments in chess mentor when the student gets the puzzle wrong. I find his articles arrogantly written. I have thought about this and I think the best analogy I can make for a guy like Mr. Silman is he is basically like a bitter highschool football coach. I have already been through that in my life as a teenager so as an adult i find that style unpleasant. So while he does write for amateurs like us, his writing is arrogant, harsh, and polemical in style. If you are like me you not enjoy this style so I would recomend against reading his book.

Andre_Harding

Sep 25, 2011

0

#66

cigoL:

Personally, I find the thinking process Silman recommends to be very unnatural. When I was 1300-1500 or so, I tried studying Reassess. I think it harmed my game, because I found it strange to go through his imbalances "checklist," and it was rarely helpful. It messed up my thinking process for a few years.

Instead of a thinking method, I learned about the elements of a position in a clearer way from Pachman, Keres & Kotov, Bronstein, Nimzowitsch (Chess Praxis which is easier than My System), and Euwe in those years.

milestogo2:

You have a lot of really good stuff! I don't know your level, but of the books you listed, Bronstein and Shereshevsky are not hard to understand, and are written very clearly!

cigoL

Sep 25, 2011

0

#67

Andre_Harding, what's your rating now? Why are you unrated here? Just curious.

Andre_Harding

Sep 25, 2011

0

#68

My USCF rating is 2054, and my FIDE rating is 1968.

milestogo2

Sep 25, 2011

0

#69

solomonben wrote:

GM_Stankovic wrote:

If we are being "biased" and not objective by stating some of the facts like 10th place in a tournament out of 10 players lol or 35% win or etc. than i'm glad there are so many "biased" ppl, the facts and the numbers speak for themsleves, and all Silman can do is criticize fischer (like he would stand a chance against him) or make fun of other beginners.

Come on, don't be so harsh against them. Silman is the author from which the poor patzers, who will remain patzers all their lives, learn how to push the plastic pieces! They deserve to have some delusions, since evidently their lives are not so great, if they need to idolize someone like Silman.

And of course Silman was nobody before Fischer, and is nobody after, since the other GMs who wrote here never even heard of him.

Wow patzer, you do sarcasm really well.

cigoL

Sep 25, 2011

0

#70

Nice. Why are you unrated here?

Andre_Harding

Sep 25, 2011

0

#71

I'm unrated here because I don't play here! When I play online, I play on ICC.

milestogo2

Sep 25, 2011

0

#72

Andre_Harding wrote:

cigoL:

Personally, I find the thinking process Silman recommends to be very unnatural. When I was 1300-1500 or so, I tried studying Reassess. I think it harmed my game, because I found it strange to go through his imbalances "checklist," and it was rarely helpful. It messed up my thinking process for a few years.

Instead of a thinking method, I learned about the elements of a position in a clearer way from Pachman, Keres & Kotov, Bronstein, Nimzowitsch (Chess Praxis which is easier than My System), and Euwe in those years.

milestogo2:

You have a lot of really good stuff! I don't know your level, but of the books you listed, Bronstein and Shereshevsky are not hard to understand, and are written very clearly!

yes they are not bad, especiallly Bronstein but I think those authors are from perhaps a more literate era. I am not at your level, never really tried, but it's a pastime. I should open a used chess book store. Even though I am defending Silman here, I do agree somewhat with your criticism about it being "unatural", and I doubt that anyone actually uses these methods to think, but it opens up a more sophisticated way of looking at the game that doesn't depend strictly on your tactical ability.

Past_Pawn

Sep 25, 2011

0

#73

YES

His "Amatuer Mind" was good also.

....but his "How to Reassess Your Chess Wookbook" is the best. You can even skip the first Reassess as the workbook covers the same material and has many more and better examples of his thinking.

No you do not use his thinking of imbalances at every move but at key changes/points in the game.

dannyhume

Sep 25, 2011

0

#74

cigoL wrote:

dannyhume wrote:

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.

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.

I don't believe you...no way you have a girlfriend, talk about an Amatuer's Mind...ZING!

cigoL

Sep 25, 2011

0

#75

dannyhume, how old are you?

dannyhume

Sep 25, 2011

0

#76

Were you impressed with my clever retort? No 7 year old could come up with that, even if rated 2000+. Hey, I just noticed your name is backwards Logic. No 4 year-old could figure that out. That narrows it down a bit. Don't you wish Silman wrote a book called "How to Reassess dannyhume's Age"? Bet Eric Schiller could write that one...he is a professionally and formally trained linguist (or is it linguicist? linguician? nah, it's gotta be linguist).

Musikamole

Sep 25, 2011

0

#77

It's not a book for beginners. I purchased it when I didn't know what books were good for me, and although it's fun to read now and then, it doesn't make me a better chess player. I don't find myself in chess positions that require subtlety. My opponents don't play that way, and when I win, it's because of a tactic. Whoever blunders the least wins.

Looking for imbalances and other quiet stuff like that is not how the game is played in the under 1200 pool. What's a drawish position, anyway?

Andre_Harding

Sep 25, 2011

0

#78

A drawish position is one in which both players are afraid to lose :-)

dannyhume

Sep 25, 2011

0

#79

Musikamole wrote:

It's not a book for beginners. I purchased it when I didn't know what books were good for me, and although it's fun to read now and then, it doesn't make me a better chess player. I don't find myself in chess positions that require subtlety. My opponents don't play that way, and when I win, it's because of a tactic. Whoever blunders the least wins.

Looking for imbalances and other quiet stuff like that is not how the game is played in the under 1200 pool. What's a drawish position, anyway?

In my case, I know it is not this...

ZING! G'nite y'all.

Andre_Harding

Sep 25, 2011

0

#80

Actually, dannyhume, this position looks VERY drawish to me!