My coach does not like Jeremy Silman... - Chess Forums - Page 10

Diakonia

May 10, 2016

0

#181

alexm2310 wrote:

Surely a mixture of slow otb and online blitz is best? Both have their advantages and disadvantages after all

I think blitz/bullet is fine once you have reached the skill level you want. Strictly playing blitz/bullet while learning retards your growth. It instills bad habits like moving to fast, you lose focus, and concentration. It trains your brain to look for quick moves, while missing out on how to think logically, and long term planning.

BlunderLots

May 10, 2016

0

#182

Diakonia wrote:

alexm2310 wrote:

Surely a mixture of slow otb and online blitz is best? Both have their advantages and disadvantages after all

I think blitz/bullet is fine once you have reached the skill level you want. Strictly playing blitz/bullet while learning retards your growth. It instills bad habits like moving to fast, you lose focus, and concentration. It trains your brain to look for quick moves, while missing out on how to think logically, and long term planning.

Mostly, I agree with you. Except for the logical part. I think your moves should always be logical and strategic (at least to you), regardless of the time control.

kindaspongey

May 10, 2016

0

#183

jengaias wrote:

... and Zurich 1953 by David Bronstein.Not surprisingly , you will find none that will say anything bad about these books. ...

ylblai2 wrote:

IM John Watson wrote: "... Frequently, therefore, the reader is given an unrealistic and often simplistic view which neglects the richness of positions, and passes over important turning points. ..."

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

IM pfren wrote:

ONE SINGLE PAGE of Zurich 1953 is worth more than everything Watson has ever written. Especially the last Watson works, written after 2005 or so, are of Lakdawala quality: irrelevant footworks.

Does IM pfren want to go on record as agreeing with the assertion that one will find none that will say anything bad about Bronstein's Zurich book? Does IM pfren want to go on record as asserting that the IM John Watson statement is not true?

Diakonia

May 10, 2016

0

#184

Bronsteins Zurich book is an absolute classic for a reason!

kindaspongey

May 10, 2016

0

#185

jengaias wrote:

... and Zurich 1953 by David Bronstein.Not surprisingly , you will find none that will say anything bad about these books. ...

ylblai2 wrote:

IM John Watson wrote: "... Frequently, therefore, the reader is given an unrealistic and often simplistic view which neglects the richness of positions, and passes over important turning points. ..."

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

Diakonia wrote:

Bronsteins Zurich book is an absolute classic for a reason!

Does Diakonia want to go on record as agreeing with the assertion that one will find none that will say anything bad about Bronstein's Zurich book? Does Diakonia want to go on record as asserting that the IM John Watson statement is not true?

Diakonia

May 10, 2016

0

#186

ylblai2 wrote:

jengaias wrote:

... and Zurich 1953 by David Bronstein.Not surprisingly , you will find none that will say anything bad about these books. ...

ylblai2 wrote:

IM John Watson wrote: "... Frequently, therefore, the reader is given an unrealistic and often simplistic view which neglects the richness of positions, and passes over important turning points. ..."

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

Diakonia wrote:

Bronsteins Zurich book is an absolute classic for a reason!

Does Diakonia want to go on record as agreeing with the assertion that one will find none that will say anything bad about Bronstein's Zurich book? Does Diakonia want to go on record as asserting that the IM John Watson statement is not true?

What i think about the book, is just like what John, and anyone else thinks. Its an opinion. You dont have to like it, agree with it, or even think its rational. Its my opinion :-)

kindaspongey

May 10, 2016

0

#187

jengaias wrote:

... and Zurich 1953 by David Bronstein.Not surprisingly , you will find none that will say anything bad about these books. ...

ylblai2 wrote:

IM John Watson wrote: "... Frequently, therefore, the reader is given an unrealistic and often simplistic view which neglects the richness of positions, and passes over important turning points. ..."

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

Diakonia wrote:

Bronsteins Zurich book is an absolute classic for a reason!

ylblai2 wrote:

Does Diakonia want to go on record as agreeing with the assertion that one will find none that will say anything bad about Bronstein's Zurich book? Does Diakonia want to go on record as asserting that the IM John Watson statement is not true?

Diakonia wrote:

What i think about the book, is just like what John, and anyone else thinks. Its an opinion. ...

I hope Diakonia will forgive me for trying to make sure that there is no misunderstanding here. Is it correct that Diakonia has no quarrel with the truth of the IM John Watson statement?

Diakonia

May 10, 2016

0

#188

ylblai2 wrote:

jengaias wrote:

... and Zurich 1953 by David Bronstein.Not surprisingly , you will find none that will say anything bad about these books. ...

ylblai2 wrote:

IM John Watson wrote: "... Frequently, therefore, the reader is given an unrealistic and often simplistic view which neglects the richness of positions, and passes over important turning points. ..."

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

Diakonia wrote:

Bronsteins Zurich book is an absolute classic for a reason!

ylblai2 wrote:

Does Diakonia want to go on record as agreeing with the assertion that one will find none that will say anything bad about Bronstein's Zurich book? Does Diakonia want to go on record as asserting that the IM John Watson statement is not true?

Diakonia wrote:

What i think about the book, is just like what John, and anyone else thinks. Its an opinion. ...

I hope Diakonia will forgive me for trying to make sure that there is no misunderstanding here. Is it correct that Diakonia has no quarrel with the truth of the IM John Watson statement?

Whether i agree with his opinon or not is irrelevant. I love the book ( what i have gone through) To answer your question. i have no quarrel what so ever with Johns review.

BlunderLots

May 10, 2016

0

#189

jengaias wrote:

BlunderLots wrote:

Depends on the person.

My slow OTB rating went up quite a bit after playing a lot of online blitz.

Blitz is like tactics training—you get exposed to a lot of different positions in a short amount of time. Five seconds—find the best move!

I've also learned to appreciate the value of initiative and searching for strong, forcing moves, rather than playing hesitant, tentative chess (which is what I did for years when I did nothing but play slow chess).

If nothing else, blitz definitely improved my ability to quickly evaluate a position and immediately identify candidate moves.

Before playing blitz, I would just look at a position and wonder, "Hmm. Okay . . . what to do . . ." Then just continue that thinking until I stumbled upon a plan or idea. Nowadays I'm quick to recognize the needs of the position.

I still have a ways to go, but blitz has definitely helped.

To each their own, though!

If you needed to play blitz to appreciate the power of initiative and strong forcing moves , it certainly means you have never studied a good book.

And if you think that tactics training is to find the best move in 5 seconds , you are terribly wrong.

Sadly all you do is killing your talent but since you enjoy it , fine by me.

Just don't try to convince others to do the same mistake.

Not sure why nearly every comment of mine (and others') must turn into some sort of argument with you.

The fact that I, personally, find blitz helpful shouldn't be a source of aggravation to you.

But whatever. Life's too short to waste arguing on forum. That's time that could be spent doing much more productive things! :D

I say: play on and study the game you love, in whatever way works best for you.

NM LogoCzar

May 10, 2016

0

#190

jengaias wrote:

Diakonia wrote:

Bronsteins Zurich book is an absolute classic for a reason!

Bronstein's book is not just a classic.It is and will remain one of the best books ever.

Only a total ignorant is unable to recognise that.

Should I buy it?

solskytz

May 10, 2016

0

#191

jengaias wrote:

Diakonia wrote:

Bronsteins Zurich book is an absolute classic for a reason!

Bronstein's book is not just a classic.It is and will remain one of the best books ever.

Only a total ignorant is unable to recognise that.

Isn't she a charm? :-)

SilentKnighte5

May 10, 2016

0

#192

Bronstein book is okay but it didn't live up to the hype for me. Maybe if I had read it earlier.

bunicula

May 10, 2016

0

#193

some coaches love jeremy, but i'm not sure jeremy loves them back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQwEyr5qwws

kindaspongey

May 10, 2016

0

#194

"It's odd, but for years I have thought that Bronstein's book, while containing some good writing, is overrated." - IM John Watson (2013)

TheAdultProdigy

May 11, 2016

0

#195

adumbrate wrote:

No personal coach, no chess books. Simply database and chess mentor and tactics is all I did to improve from 1100 to 2200 in 3 years

That might be more suspicious than impressive. How old are you?

Robert_New_Alekhine

May 11, 2016

0

#196

He is 16 as far as I know.

kindaspongey

May 11, 2016

0

#197

jengaias wrote (~44 hours ago):

... and Zurich 1953 by David Bronstein.Not surprisingly , you will find none that will say anything bad about these books. ...

ylblai2 wrote (~43 hours ago):

IM John Watson wrote: "... Frequently, therefore, the reader is given an unrealistic and often simplistic view which neglects the richness of positions, and passes over important turning points. ..."

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

jengaias wrote (~24 hours ago):

Bronstein's book is not just a classic.It is and will remain one of the best books ever.

Only a total ignorant is unable to recognise that.

jengaias wrote (~8 hours ago):

The "ignorant" of course was not for Diakonia , it was for ylblai2.

...

A guy that tries to make people buy Pete Tamburo's book is impossible to even comprehend Bronstein.

My contribution here has been to call attention to some quotes from a review by IM John Watson. Does jengaias want to claim that IM Watson is ignorant and/or doesn't comprehend Bronstein? It might be noted that, about 27 hours ago, we saw a Diakonia post that said, "i have no quarrel what so ever with Johns review."

jengaias wrote (~8 hours ago):

If NEWINCHESS makes a new edition and chesscafe makes a review then maybe suddenly it becomes a good book. ...

I did not write that Bronstein's Zurich book is not good. I DID raise a question about the assertion that one will find none that will say anything bad about it. Does jengaias see ANYONE in this discussion wanting to go on record as agreeing with that assertion? At this point, does jengaias want to continue to make that assertion? Does jengaias see anyone in this discussion wanting to go on record as asserting that the IM John Watson statement (quoted about 43 hours ago) is not true?

jengaias wrote (~8 hours ago):

... Unfortunately the vast mahority of chessplayer are totally uneducated.For them the name David Bronstein means nothing. ...

... Bronstein was famous for his clarity of thought and creative handling of the intricacies of the the middle game and that is why this book has become so famous.

"we now know that Boris Veinstein was an uncredited collaborator" - IM John Watson (2013)

jengaias wrote (~8 hours ago):

There is one more excellent book about Zurich 1953 , highly underrated , written by Miguel Najdorf . ...

"... I began doing interviews of chess players and personalities on my ICC/ChessFM online radio show, ... one of my questions was always: 'What are your favourite chess books?', ... Zurich 1953 was often one of their choices. Most of the time this referred to Bronstein's book ... but surprisingly often, my guests ... would ... explain that they weren't referring to Bronstein's work, but rather to Miguel Najdorf's 1954 book ... [As an aside, I should mention that two guests referred to yet a third book about this event as a favourite: Euwe's Schach-Elite im Kampf, written in Dutch]" - IM John Watson (2013)

By the way, I do not try to "make" anyone "buy" the Tamburro book. For some people, it does seem reasonable to me to mention it as a possibility to consider.

Diakonia

May 11, 2016

0

#198

SilentKnighte5 wrote:

Bronstein book is okay but it didn't live up to the hype for me. Maybe if I had read it earlier.

I do think that if youre sppon fed modern books with engine analysis, Zurich '53 will seem "inadequate" But give it a chance. It is what a chess book should be.

Diakonia

May 11, 2016

0

#199

ylblai2 wrote:

jengaias wrote (~44 hours ago):

... and Zurich 1953 by David Bronstein.Not surprisingly , you will find none that will say anything bad about these books. ...

ylblai2 wrote (~43 hours ago):

IM John Watson wrote: "... Frequently, therefore, the reader is given an unrealistic and often simplistic view which neglects the richness of positions, and passes over important turning points. ..."

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

jengaias wrote (~24 hours ago):

Bronstein's book is not just a classic.It is and will remain one of the best books ever.

Only a total ignorant is unable to recognise that.

jengaias wrote (~8 hours ago):

The "ignorant" of course was not for Diakonia , it was for ylblai2.

...

A guy that tries to make people buy Pete Tamburo's book is impossible to even comprehend Bronstein.

My contribution here has been to call attention to some quotes from a review by IM John Watson. Does jengaias want to claim that IM Watson is ignorant and/or doesn't comprehend Bronstein? It might be noted that, about 27 hours ago, we saw a Diakonia post that said, "i have no quarrel what so ever with Johns review."

jengaias wrote (~8 hours ago):

If NEWINCHESS makes a new edition and chesscafe makes a review then maybe suddenly it becomes a good book. ...

I did not write that Bronstein's Zurich book is not good. I DID raise a question about the assertion that one will find none that will say anything bad about it. Does jengaias see ANYONE in this discussion wanting to go on record as agreeing with that assertion? At this point, does jengaias want to continue to make that assertion? Does jengaias see anyone in this discussion wanting to go on record as asserting that the IM John Watson statement (quoted about 43 hours ago) is not true?

jengaias wrote (~8 hours ago):

... Unfortunately the vast mahority of chessplayer are totally uneducated.For them the name David Bronstein means nothing. ...

... Bronstein was famous for his clarity of thought and creative handling of the intricacies of the the middle game and that is why this book has become so famous.

"we now know that Boris Veinstein was an uncredited collaborator" - IM John Watson (2013)

jengaias wrote (~8 hours ago):

There is one more excellent book about Zurich 1953 , highly underrated , written by Miguel Najdorf . ...

"... I began doing interviews of chess players and personalities on my ICC/ChessFM online radio show, ... one of my questions was always: 'What are your favourite chess books?', ... Zurich 1953 was often one of their choices. Most of the time this referred to Bronstein's book ... but surprisingly often, my guests ... would ... explain that they weren't referring to Bronstein's work, but rather to Miguel Najdorf's 1954 book ... [As an aside, I should mention that two guests referred to yet a third book about this event as a favourite: Euwe's Schach-Elite im Kampf, written in Dutch]" - IM John Watson (2013)

By the way, I do not try to "make" anyone "buy" the Tamburro book. For some people, it does seem reasonable to me to mention it as a possibility to consider.

John is entitled to his opinion on the book. It doesnt mean i agree with it, or think it is correct. A reviw is an opinion. IMO...Zurich '53 is one of those boks that is a "must own" but again, that its just my opinion.

vordak_awesome_1

May 11, 2016

0

#200

lol