If the Endgame Supremacists were correct then we would see players who primarily studied the endgame from early in their development dominating tournaments at all levels.
But we don't.
I can't think of any player I know personally or from reading who trained that way.
Chess is a very competitive game. If you read chess.com, you know how desperate people are to improve. If endgame study were the magic key, a lot more people would be studying that way and getting results.
well, look I'm hardly going to argue CHESS with an IM and I'm NOT going to go into a tit-for-tat battle with a 1800. I'm MUCH too aware of my place in the chess world do to that.
you guys can hate heisman and silman, and thats fine. truth be told, I'm barely a fan of silman and I've not been using my limited study time on him for some time.
this thread is one of zillion similar threads where some OP asks for a book recommendation, ( like its reasonable to recommend a half a dozen books amoungst the THOUSANDS made to just any random stranger.)
but my point isn't that I know these authors Are RIGHT, or that I know they are the BEST chess authors for chess improvement. (maybe us patzers ALL be better spending our time with My system)...
my point is that they are legitimate, that they helped me (at least a little), and that they have helped others.
Don't make the mistake of Taking me for some kind authority.
Pfren, espacially, I have great respect for you, you give solid great advice and I love how you point out how silly it is for us patzers to have "Airs", and assume we have great widsom.
I Don't - I'm not even truly trying (I'm an online patzer only). but it seems Off to me for someone to blast a WHOLE generations of books ("they only publish books to keep people as patzers, so they can publish more books")
Surely that is ridiculous, sir.
Given what she's said Heisman Isn't off, and novice nook was totally created for players like her (and me).
As I understand it there is disagreement even amoungst the highest rating- how to improve and what books and activities is best. but then , there is a rough consensus too.
and surely, as a consensus, heisman and silman is seen as serious authors that have helped people improve.
and if thats true... what is wrong with stating this opinion? when random people ask?? I make no exagerations of who I am and what I have accomplished.
actually for the record,
this wasn't the thread that a person asked for a book referrel.
my bad.
sometimes threads get on similar subjects....
For those t hat dont like Silmans book..sont read them.
For those that do like Silmans book...read them
Problem solved. A bunch of online chess patzers trying to "claiM' Silmans worth a writer of chess books is comical. This is not meant to insult anyone, just sating my opinion.
But you have to discriminate.
Silman is a serious author, who has written several good books. I can recommend his Endgame Course to everybody wishing to improve at chess- the book is hardly original, but well written and quite complete. My main objection is his writing style, which I don't like- but other people may love. This is subjective.
Heisman is not. How good can be a writer who analyses his own games and projects his work as an analytical course to newbies, while his analysis is full of mistakes, absurd evaluations and obvious omissions?
He even said in the book I read he had used an engine for checkproofing. Heck, even Rybka ver. minus three would instantly claim that 9.e4, which he dismissed as dropping a pawn, is not just playable, but the BEST move in that position. How then an "experienced chess author" made that mistake? I suspect that while "analysing" the game he was busy milking an unsuspected pupil via skype. If not, then he is either totally careless, or dumb. I have never written a book myself, because I believe that authoring a good book is a very serious business, which requires a lot of work/time from start to end, and I never had so much time to devote. I would never wish to become a new Schiller/ Lakdawala/ Martin/ name-your-favorite-footballer-here.
I have to disagree with including Martin, and Lakdawala in the same sentence as Schiller. Schiller is a complete hack that writes books like he is writing for a tabloid magazine.
there ARE bad books, and I'm sure you'd have little argument that schiller has published some real dicey ones (I'm not familiar with the other names)...
but I have enjoyed his (heisman) novice nooks. they highlight mistakes I would make.
and I have a his annotations book, again he highlights mistakes that I thought were pertinent to his level.
perhaps he is NOT meticulous, or has been careful, but if he writes to my level and explains mistakes in a succinct way that make the mistakes seem more obvious than when I went through the moves,so... how could this NOT be instructive?
basically, what I'm asking- isn't it possible he is just writing to a low-level and to fellow masters.
I'm sure you understand, pfren, looking at the latest game of Carauna versus Anand, I'm only Understanding a fraction of the reason why some moves are considered and others are swiftly discarded.
I'm not one of those dolts that look at their game (with an engine) and say I understand their thinking process....
and as I told you. I'm not going to argue with an IM. I appreciate your insight. if you seen analysis that is wrong. thats... unfortunate. I'm dissapointed. it seems an easy thing these days to make sure analysis is right.
regarding opinions. I'm make sure I scrap any ideas that heisman is actually analytical accurate.
I think that Silman is an excellent teacher and storyteller I have ALL his books . He is very instructive and he makes me laugh !! I would also state Silman is great in the video package How to play chess produced by The Great Courses'
not my cup of tea at all, saw one of his threads where all he had to say about people was bollix.
... Silman tells them exactly what they want to hear:
"You don't need to understand all endgames at once"
Keres in his book doesn't say that , ...
Did he cover "all endgames" in his less-than-300-page book, Practical Chess Endings?
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...
I have read Silman.All his books.I never express an opinion for a book I haven't read.
"The Complete book of chess strategy" is one of the most worthless books ever written.I have no doubt about it.As for it's title "Grandmaster techniques from A to Z" , it really convinced me.When I finished the book I couldn't believe how stupid I was.
"Amateur's mind" is good for everyone not willing to do serious study.The discussion between 900 and 1200 and 1500's statements "I like Black's position" , he has a presure on g2" are totally useless for anyone else.
"Reassess your mind" attempts to teach chess with games played on the Internet by "TheTurkey" and "Indiana Jones".It has more Silman games that it has Karpov and Kasparov's games.Even on these games his comments and his analysis are of very poor quality.I knew the book was waste of time and money when I read :
"My ultimate goal is to train your mind to embrace "Imbalance Consciousness" -a state where the use of imbalances becomes a natural and often unconscious process."
What a nonsense!
I was hoping to be wrong , afterall I bought the book.Then on Part 4 "Psychological meanderings"(stepping beyond fear , embrace your inner greed) I thought I confused the books and I was reading Agatha Christie instead.Unfortunately , I wasn't.
Anyway , I don't consider myself flawless so of course I discussed this with others.Guess what , seems they all consider it a good book for ambitious "Internet patzers" and nothing more.
From what a very good trainer told me Heisman and Silman have prevented people from reading good books with the propaganda that "in your rating you won't understand them , you have to read our books".So before Heisman and Silman how did people learned chess?
Back when I was kid the books suggested to beginners were Keres for endgames and Pachman for middlegame(among others).Today these books are considered too advanced for beginners. Why? Aren't beginners exactly the same? If we assume that they aren't ,shouldn't they be even better today and read even better books?
There is a new generation of beginners , the Internet patzers and publishers want them to stay patzers for as long as possible.99% of the published opening books are for Internet patzers and the goal is to prevent them from understanding that they don't need them(no serious and ambitious player will buy Tamburro's book or similar books ,they are clearly books for Internet patzers).That is why you see guys like Heisman becoming awarded teachers(when did he stop being a student)?A few years ago , being NM meant nothing(and it was nothing).Today a NM that can convince patzers buy books suddenly becomes top teacher/writer and enjoys epic reviews from top grandmasters.
That is the case with Silman.His main quality is the ability to convince patzers that writers like Pachman are too hard to understand while he is too easy to understand.Even if we assume it's true, there is a catch.With Silman's books you never learn to study properly and your mind never learns to function on a different level.
So you will start from Amateur's mind , you will go to Reasses your chess , you might get a coach , your online rating might rise ,your tactics training rating will jump higher and higher but your thinking and studying process remains that of a patzer's and it will remain there for many years to come.
Who wins?
Silman wins ,Heisman wins ,Tamburro wins ,your coach wins ,
you lose.
ijopj
... Silman tells them exactly what they want to hear:
"You don't need to understand all endgames at once"
Keres in his book doesn't say that , ...
Did he cover "all endgames" in his less-than-300-page book, Practical Chess Endings?
What "Practical" means according to you? Asking just because your parallel universe is somewhat weird...
I don't see any reason why I should be obiged to help IM pfren with word meaning.
Averbakh tried to cover "all endgames" a few years after Keres.
And wasn't there also Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (with less than 200 pages) by Yuri Averbakh? People might wonder what "Essential" means to IM pfren.
Later on, DragonSavage told us that Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev was one of the books that the coach liked to refer to.
I liked Erving Chernev, MOVE BY MOVE!!!!
... Silman tells them exactly what they want to hear:
"You don't need to understand all endgames at once"
Keres in his book doesn't say that , ...
Did he cover "all endgames" in his less-than-300-page book, Practical Chess Endings?
... Averbakh tried to cover "all endgames" a few years after Keres.
... And wasn't there also Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (with less than 200 pages) by Yuri Averbakh? ...
As always , hiding your ignorance is very difficult.
He meant Comprehensive Chess Endings , a 5 volume work with ...
I knew that IM pfren was referring to the multi-volume work. That is why I used the word, "also".
... I never know when you are ignorant or when you simply try to mislead people.You are so good in both of them.
I have not been trying to mislead people. As an approximately USCF 1500 player, it can, of course, be legitimately claimed that there are bunches of stuff that I do not know.
... Comprehensive Chess Endings , a 5 volume work ... one of the most complete(maybe only the Encyclopaedia of chess endings is more complete).
Perhaps other works were written by authors who did not believe one needs to understand all endgames at once.
There are 1500 players who may nonetheless be 1800+ commenters.
ylblai2 is one.
And then there are 2000+ guys who are 1200 commenters.
... I am very very very sorry for trying to make people read good books.
I guess you are an expert in training.I am not , but I have the luck to watch one teaching every day.And that guy suggests good books to his students and not nonsense.And till now he has created quite a lot titled players. ...
Is "good" for the creation of titled players necessarily the same as "good" for people who are not training to be titled players?
I don't understand why people hate him so much. I love his endgame course.