My coach does not like Jeremy Silman...

thatss sort of funny

At this point, it seems to me to be unclear as to the position of Diakonia with regard to the truth of the specific statement that was quoted about 66 hours ago.

What is hard to understand?  John has his opinion, and whether i agree with it or nor, doesnt, and shouldnt matter.  

How about Silman?

At this point, the only think that seems a little hard to understand is why we saw the to-answer-your-question stuff instead of "I refuse to answer your question" about 51 hours ago.

Is IM pfren also refusing to go on record about the truth of the quote produced about 67 hours ago?

I would type slower, but i doubt it would help.

Does anyone else feel like they're watching an episode of Perry Mason?

Hey!  That show is awesome!  Dont be dissin Perry...

Watson supported his claims against Bronstein's Zurich 1953. However, I don't think Watson invalidated Bronstein's book so much as took away a bit of the gloss.

I only got through forty pages of Zurich but Bronstein was capturing a special moment in chess and making it available to lesser players. Maybe he didn't get every jot and tittle right and he warned the reader up front he was not going to do a big variations dump.

Bronstein covered 210 games out of 450. That's a lot of high-level chess to put across. Even if he missed some things, he still produced a book that cracked a bunch of good players up to their next level so they never forgot it. That's special.

But isn't it true that ...

Diakonia wrote:

EscherehcsE wrote:

Does anyone else feel like they're watching an episode of Perry Mason?

Hey!  That show is awesome!  Dont be dissin Perry...

If one considers it to be possible that IM Watson believes what I quoted and nevertheless also believes Bronstein's Zurich book to be "one of the best books ever", wouldn't it be appropriate to also consider it to be possible that Kasparov believes what I quoted along with believing Bronstein's book to be "one of the best books ever"? I suppose we could explore that possibility if jengaias provided an actual quoted Kasparov sentence about the Zurich book, together with a specific source, but I have not noticed jengaias doing that. I, on the other hand, have included the actual quote and the link to the IM Watson review in many of my posts.

Neither of those books had the purpose of the Tamburro book: provide a substantial amount of material to help people avoid common beginner mistakes, suggest a number of possible repertoires, discuss issues related to repertoire selection, provide sample games, convey some idea of what it is like to explore an opening, and probably other stuff I don't remember at the moment.

I confess I've lost the thread of this discussion.

Opinons are opinions. Everyone has them, even high-level chess players. Opinions aren't worthless but they aren't to be confused with facts either.

Tolstoy thought Shakespeare was a tedious, repellent, hack writer. Does that mean we have to choose between Tolstoy and Shakespeare? No, it just means Tolstoy for various reasons, good and bad, didn't like Shakespeare.

If the rest of the world were reassessing Shakespeare down, it might mean something, but just one guy, even Tolstoy,  nah. It happens.

For anybody that cares I suggest going to the Mongoose Press site and looking at a sample of the book to see if it is appropriately described as "a mixed database & engine dump with sparse comments".

I don't have either book in front of me at the moment, so perhaps jengaias can help us out and tell us how many sample Nimzo-Indian games are in either book?

I don't know. Who?

It does seem like comparing apples and oranges.

It seems to me that one's desired purpose has a lot to do with what books one considers.

Really? Where?

Actually, there is a chesscafe review of a revision of the Fine book. The Mednis book was well before sites like chesscafe existed.

I have read some, not many, but some. I have read parts of a large number of books. Not sure if that counts to jengaias. I don't try to "make" people read books. I try to call attention to this or that book that might be helpful to this or that person.

Seems like saying that a hammer is better than a screw driver to me.

If jengaias thinks back, perhaps jengaias will remember a post where I asked someone about Portisch advice in that book and jengaias commented on my question.

Depends on who is doing the reading. Were any of those authors even trying to be helpful to someone new to chess? It strikes me as quite likely that Tamburro has had more experience than any of them with the needs of his target audience.

its there are a "lot of uneducated, igorants"- how would he be lonely?

it "Strikes me" that a lot of chess players have enjoyed & felt educated reading silman and Tamburro.

if that is their Opinion- how does it make them "incapable of having an opinion"

your being cryptic and hard to understand, jengaias.

I know you don't like this author. but you really Must ought to ask yourself, is my post persuasive, does it give convincing evidence that silman (and tamburro apparently) do a poor job in instructing people in their books?

if you're not willing to do that--whats the point?

Incorrect. It just happens that my opinion sometimes differs from that of jengaias about what is a reasonable suggestion for this or that person.

I raise the Tamburro book as a possibility to consider as I have done for many other books.

It would appear that jengaias and I do not categorize books the same way. I do not know of any book that seems to me to be in the same category as the Tamburro book. I commonly mention a GM Emms book that seems to me to be approximately in the same ball park.

"And of course there is no chance to be mistaken , right?" - jengaias

Not right.

It would appear that my beliefs do not conform to what jengaias thinks they should be.

I have no such goal.

Jengaias, I have a Serious question,

and please DO answer it.  Have YOU read Silman SERIOUSLY (like a WHOLE book)? 

you make sweeping statements about todays books- but how much of them have you read??

I'm just guessing that somewhere Silman, or Heisman said something YOU thought that was WRONG.

but you are NOT me. or the OP. or yblai. or many many others that lurk on this thread...

Allow me to rudely jump in here...I will be the first to admit that i have never finished a chess book in my life.  But what i have read of Silmans i do enjoy (Especially his end game book...got real close to finishing that one).  I like his laid back approach, and how he explains things.  The people i know that dont care for Silmans books generally use the following excuses:

1. They dont like his sense of humor.

2. He hasnt produced any world class players (my personal favorite)

3. He doesnt stress tactics enough.  

One thing that Heisman says over and over is that you WILL understand those types of books, but until you routinely can keep your pieces safe and take advantage of simple tactics, it won't help you.

@Jengaias

well, I appreciate the FAct that you have written his books. but I still think you go TOO far to write off a generation of books based on THIS author.

still lets go through you thoughts.

"the Complete book of chess strategy" & "Grandmaster techniques from a to Z"

I was Very unimpressed by techniques, and never read strategy. I agree that techniques just seemed to be padded content to sell a book.

"Amateurs Mind"

In my opinion, this is one of Silman's best books and Far better than his Opus "reassess".  I agree that its annoying that he stops midgame.  but his technique is flawless, and his observations are insightful.  

I don't see why You dismiss his observations.  What is the BEST about this book is to really see how to apply a very abstract system in a real game.

"Reassess"

I Tried to read this whole book.  I failed.  it doesn't speak to me and the annotated games just don't seem fleshed out to understand how to use what he is saying.

as for dissing imbalances.  That's crazy!  the idea of winning on an imbalance Isn't a silman invention- its at the heart of dynamic text and many great (and historic) authors use it.  I can't remember but one of the past great authors had an old text that basically fleshed out the imbalance theory of playing chess, long before silman was writing.  I think it was Evans.

You've also Missed A book!  

silman's book on the endgame

is one of the best endgame books- I've studied, and makes the point that you don't need to try to Understand ALL endgames at once

some endgames are easier, more instuctive and should be tackled at lower ratings-- leaving the REally tough (abstract and rare) stuff for later on .

(I'm Pretty sure you going to rant against that- but personally I find it VERY useful.  the lucerna SHOULD come before learning the Knight-Bishop mate.)

And now you launch into Heisman, without saying anything about what you have read.

Have you read (almost) all his works too?

I find his works Very different than silman and much more direct and succinct.  Heisman seems to appreciates more than others that chess players looking for positional answers often miss basic refutes and tactics.

I don't see why an author that RECOGNIZES this is SO awful.  if you blunderprone, your NOT going to easily advance- so working on this is FAIR game

now having written in detail about one author and causally dissed another- your going to write off a WHOLE generation...

OR Are we to beleive You have Read ALL of a generations worth of chess books- and find them all bunk?

now you seem to just sink to conspiracy to suggest that you don't need to read any of these books...

based perhaps on a few scattered examples, you are sure that ALL modern books are bunk and the Industry is Knowingly trying to discourage and distract people from real chess improvement.

personally, I don't believe it! do you have any proof beyond your reading that this is true?  did some high level chess editor of gambit books ever get caughts writing, "yes, we have fooled the WHOLE world, and nearly frustrated a whole generation of chess players with Uninstructive trash"

Unlikely.

what about the supergm's.  have they said, "yes, any book past 1995 is designed to stop improvement- I refuse to read them?"

(finding one (or many) that say they "prefer" older books Isn't fair.  preferring Older books is NOT the same AT ALL as alledging that modern books are written to stop chess improvement)

You  can try to try to convince us, that what we really need is a deep positional tome - no matter how low rated we are... but personally that goes against my experience

Whenever I read "Up" I find myself gasping to understand, unable to even guess what the author would have me play

and utterly confused why a dozen other moves weren't considered.

Even silman sometimes writes too highly above me, and , for all your disdain. many people have read him and feel like he is most accessable to a strong club player (and speaking beyond most of us patzers you say that silman writes to).

tldr?

basically. thankx for answering my question.  but just because you don't like silman, doesn't mean All modern chess publishing is trying to prevent chess improvement.

I Don't believe that.

4. Bb4 looks like a very "Nimzo-ish" move . . . a move that I wouldn't be surprised to see in "My System" with a ! beside it. :D