LOL at the sicilian

If you have some time Pfren, I would be interested in which parts you think are wrong. I suppose Nimzo's idea that you should only attack the base of the pawn chain.(eg c5 in the French as opposed to f6) might be on the list.

Many years ago I worked through My System. I found it required a disciplined approach and was hard work. I have heard that the English translation doesn't do the original justice.

I suppose many teaching books have flaws because they deal with general ideas when IMHO excellent chess requires exceptional thinking. When I first studied "Logical Chess" by Chernev I greatly improved, but for years wouldn't move my pawns forward from the castled postion to "kick" a piece since I had learnt from Chernev this invited piece sacrifices - the antidote to this was of course analysing the position. I don't know about anyone else but my major chess weakness is laziness in analysing. I want to play the game armed with a lot of patterns, strategies and rules etc and often fail to analyse the position properly.

Watson's book "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" discussed various topics of "My System". 

I have three copies of "My System" in my library. One of them is priceless, I bought it in a Rusian old bookstore for quite some $$ thirty years ago. It's the first Russian edition (1930) printed in 10,000 copies, and authored by Maizelis. A rare copy, that is, which becomes more precious due to erratic page binding.

But leaving archival purposes aside, it's not hard to find something more useful to read...

There are other classics, e.g. Pachman's "Complete Chess Strategy" which are still a terrific read.

NIgel "the womanizer" Short not liking a book is quite an accolade. The guy's a complete goof. I suppose "trainers" like Nigel Short and Grivas dislike My System for the same reason I like it, it makes their services unnecessary.

GM Alexander Grischuk, who is the best French Advance player in the world with the White pieces, said that Nimzowitsch influenced him the most of any player and that he had intensely studied his books. Results speak for themselves. My System was also top of John Watson's list when asked about his favorite chess books.

So let's see, whose opinion carries more weight, GM Grischuk who is frequently in the top ten players in the world for any given month, or forum troll Pfren who spends his days smoking cigarettes and calling users "patzers" on chess.com. Pfren, by smoking cigarettes you've illustrated to us that you make horrendous decisions, and your decisions about chess books are continuing in this trend.

Have you applied for tobacco police? I guess you would make a bright career.

Wannabe trainer Short (never was a good player as well, the most he could achieve was playing a WC final) had the aforementioned 2700+ GM as a pupil, and Grivas, many- last one being the former World Junior Champion Alexander Ipatov. I guess both are not good enough for talents like you...

Or- may I ask what YOU are smoking?

first real book of chess I've read, so if you're starting from zero I think it's a relly good book. But chess has evolved and I agree that before reading it you may want to tore some pages expecially the overprotection part.

I think any chess book studied is likely better than a library not.  I find study is mostly about ideas anyway.  Sure, an idea might be antiquated but if it was never in the head before, so what?.  Playing old but now surprising ideas are just as good as novelties.

If a student cannot tell whether a book is better or worse than some other book does it really matter which one they pick?

I, too, am curious about the (lack of value) in reading My System. Is the main issue that the contents are convoluted and difficult to digest? I personally find such books aluring, but would like to know about the inaccuracies within Nimzowitsch's text! Looking for a book to read after Pachman's three volumes in chess strategy.

There is such a huge amount of chess literature to choose from that it's hard to justify reading less than the best. Even the admirers of "My System" readily admit some of its material is outdated or plain wrong.

Nonetheless I'd still say "My System" has its place for players who want to have a go at it. For one thing, Nimzovich is a hoot to read. He has such a great cranky voice that the pages go by quickly and memorably. For another thing, it provides historical perspective on the advance of chess. Nimzo's good stuff is old hat now, but once upon a time it was new, or at least hadn't been yet articulated.

I read it in high school when I didn't know about rooks on 7th or blockades and I was entranced. Recently I was working some positional puzzles and I got to a position for which I immediately knew the answer, though I didn't know why. Then I remembered ... it was right out of "My System."

Far better players than I -- Tal and Larsen for two -- have sung "My System's" praises. Don't read it for final answers. Read it for the pleasure of encountering a great chess mind and a sharp writer at work. Listen to Nimzovich and argue back at him if necessary. I don't think he would have wanted it any other way.

Here's John Watson on "My System":

In conclusion, for those who haven’t read them, I recommend My System and the associated works in this book app as strongly as I do any other chess book. We no longer consider many classics to be essential to a chess education, not since the Internet; but if there’s an exception, Nimzowitch’s work is it.

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/My-System-p3821.htm

Dolphin27 wrote:

"... I suppose 'trainers' like Nigel Short and Grivas dislike My System for the same reason I like it, it makes their services unnecessary. ..."

My System is not exactly a secret, so, if people are using Short and Grivas as trainers, it must be because My System is NOT seen as making "their services unnecessary."

Dolphin27 wrote:

"... My System was also top of John Watson's list when asked about his favorite chess books. ..."

As documented in #111 in this thread, even IM John Watson noted, "Not everything in it has stood the test of time".

Dolphin27 wrote:

"... forum troll Pfren who spends his days smoking cigarettes and calling users 'patzers' on chess.com. ..."

I'm not exactly a fan of IM pfren myself, but, in this case, it seems to me that he is indicating something of value. At least to me, the truth appears to be that one can learn worthwhile stuff from My System, but one doesn't have to.

"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

And here's GM Seirawan on My System:

This then, is the strength of My System. It is a book that provokes you to think differently about chess. It challenges you to consider a different approach and urges you to prove or refute Nimzovich's ideas. It is also a book that you can read and reread, each time coming away with different lessons and insights, leading to a deeper understanding of the game.

I don't think My System is for everyone. God knows how many classics in all fields I've heard shouted to the skies which however left me cold or confused.

Looking through the book this morning I'm still impressed. I suspect the problems some titled players have with the book is that they can see the exceptions and fuzziness to Nimzovich's claims. However, class players are only beginning to peer into the deep mysteries of chess and can do worse than to take Nimzovich on and think for themselves.

My System is a useful book, but it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I personally find it too dogmatic. For example, snatching a pawn in the opening and/or bringing the Queen out early for him are sins, but so many times they are perfectly playable if you can calculate concretely...

...Or you have some time to waste and you memorize the Najdorf poisoned pawn. Just to get back to the thread ;)

If you add the documented stuff from engine rooms, you just have a few hundreds of thousands of games to memorize in the poisoned pawn... this will be very useful, unless your opponent cowardly deviates at move six (which is the usual thing to happen). In that case, just resign, and sue him!

White needs to memorize theory only if he wants to go all out (i.e. O-O-O). But there are many quiet systems for white in the open sicilian. If you think you've automatically equalized if white plays stuff like Be2 and O-O I'm afraid you're overestimating the sicilian and its counterplay.

Hey, white can even play 4.Qxd4 and you are still not equal.

The same can be said for black in that case.

Outragious!

You expect me to listen to Nigel "the womanizer" Short?

Why should I listen to anything this man has to say?

This man is deluded I am glad Garry Kasparov crushed him!

His name is Short and so to was the Match!

Than you have the nerve to call me a Grand Patzer after telling people to not read "My System"?

Absurd!

Pfren said don't read "My System"! You will not learn anything! Everything is wrong!

Mr. Pfren has only read it and bought 3 different copies of it including a priceless one!

What a Hypocrite!

Hey, don't be talking bad about Nigel!

Nigel Short is a more trustworthy authority than Reynolds. Some books don't stand the test of time...

@X_Player_J_X I too think it's terrible how Pfren calls you things like Grandpatzer.You're not a patzer, you're a creative thinker who is obviously very enthusiastic about chess and I believe you'll be a master someday.

@Plutonia In regards to your original post, it reads like someone who tried an opening and it didn't work for them so now they bash the whole opening.

I play the Accelerated Dragon and need to know very little theory. The Accelerated Dragon is a Sicilian that's not the worst, but the BEST opening to play at club level. At club level people know what the Dragon and Yugoslav Attack is but not many realize the difference between the normal Dragon and Accelerated, thus they often try the Yugoslav Attack set up anyway and end up a tempi down from normal lines or just dropping a pawn or even two, right in the opening. And also when people try the Maroczy Bind against it they often have no idea what they're doing and do things like trade the dark square bishops off and leave themselves with a bad light square bishop. A good knight vs bad bishop endgame is one I've enjoyed several times from the Maroczy Bind. So there goes your entire argument about how the Sicilian is terrible for club players to employ. Maybe you should have been more specific in your thread title and called it "LOL at the Najdorf" or whatever it was you meant.