My coach does not like Jeremy Silman...
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Cornfed wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Arasibo wrote:
Andre_Harding wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Silman started using the term "imbalances" for what was known since Steinitz as "elements".
I am not a native English speaker but it seems to me that the word "imbalances" is misused and abused in this context. I am OK with it when describing the material advantage. But I don't understand why to apply it for open files for example. Here is a position from "Mastering Chess Strategy" by Hellsten:
Open file here is one of the most important positional elements to take into consideration but why to call it "imbalance" - nobody has gained a control of it yet.
Chess Glossary defines an imbalance as a difference between positions of the white and black pieces. I never start analysing a position by looking at differences (except for material). I start by trying to understand what are most important elements, traits, features. Only later I might look from the point of view of "differences" in a search for additional hints.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. But I doubt many will listen.
btw RYTC 4th edition is a completely different book compared to 3rd, Silman should have called it something else. He did walk away from the imabalance based analysis system. And yes, Pachman's classic and highly regarded work has the same concept of imbalance, so following your reasoning Modern Chess Strategy would deserve some of the same criticism but I find it odd that those who hate on Silman rarely say anything bad about Pachman, ok Silman was not original but tell me which strategy book from the last 80 years has been original?
Quick search of 4th edition PDF for "imbalance" returns 283 entries. It doesn't look like he walked away from the imabalances.
If like you say the 4th edition is a completely different book it doesn't sound good at all. I am not aware of any chess classics book that had to undergo a complete rewrite at some point.
Pachman in "Modern Chess Strategy" has a small chapter (about 6 pages) called "The Equillibrium of the Position and its Disturbance" that talks about something that reminds of "imbalances". Otherwise he uses terms like "character of the position", "peculiarities", "factors" - no attempts to apply same gimmick for every situation.
And if you think the term "imbalances" is so great please tell me how should I explain the importance of the "c" file to my student in this position:
While "c" file is not controlled by any side there is no imbalance regarding it, after one side gains control of this file (without compromising anything else) then "advantage" is a much better term.
I am not sure which Silman book you are referring to here...but it's pretty easy to explain.
Yes, there is the simple Bishop vs Knight imbalance...the better pawn structure for White - weakended d5 pawn on a WHITE suare...the misplaced Rook on e5....better coordinated pieces in general.
But the c-file is even more important than the obvious imbalances...because White can gain better play on/control of it and that will make the other imbalances even more sensitive. If White can make better use of the only fully open file, then you have to say that is an imbalance in his favor. When some pieces get exchanged on it, the d pawn will be even more weak.
Consider 1. Rac1 (or Bh3) Rc8 contesting the file. 2. Bh3 (or Rc2 straight away), hitting Rc8. So Black might play...Rc7 to try and keep the file contested. White then can play Rc2 with the idea of Rfc1. This in one move order or another. White can even threaten to play b5 and plant a Rook on c6 in some lines.
It all adds up to a better position for White...much better. The more imbalances in your favor, the better! Frankly, if this position occurred in a modern super-GM tournament where you see the GM's going over it for the press afterwards and Kramnik was on the White side, he would quickly see and point out all these I am sure. He would not say "as Pachman" or "as Euwe said"...no, he would point out these imbalances and with a dismissive wave of his hand point out what white should do because of them.
I am talking about 4th edition of "How to Reassess Your Chess", the position however is from "Mastering Chess Strategy" by Johan Hellsten.
I am OK with calling Bishop vs Knight an "imbalance" - it's indeed a direct comparison of white vs black.
I don't see why to call d5 pawn an imbalance when a word "weakness" is used by everybody else and IMHO is much more clear and to the point. Same goes for misplaced rook on e5. But OK - you want to call d5 and e5 imbalances, no problem.
Now to the c-file. Silman gives a definition of imbalance (it's a difference) and tells us to look first at imbalances in the position. I look at the c-file and don't see any difference. There is some obvious and unfortunate mismatch between the terminology used and the actual analysis. Other authors tell you that open files are among the most important "elements" or "factors" of the position and controlling them gives you an advantage. That's clear - I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks.
I doubt Kramnik would use the word "imbalances" - it's not in the chess vocabulary of Russian players, neither of Europeans to my knowledge.
Jun 16, 2017
0
#403
uri65 wrote:
I am talking about 4th edition of "How to Reassess Your Chess", the position however is from "Mastering Chess Strategy" by Johan Hellsten.
I am OK with calling Bishop vs Knight an "imbalance" - it's indeed a direct comparison of white vs black.
I don't see why to call d5 pawn an imbalance when a word "weakness" is used by everybody else and IMHO is much more clear and to the point. Same goes for misplaced rook on e5. But OK - you want to call d5 and e5 imbalances, no problem.
Now the c-file. Silman gives a definition of imbalance (it's a difference) and tells us to look first at imbalances in the position. I look at the c-file and don't see any difference. There is some mismatch between the terminology and actual analysis. Other authors tell you that open files are among the most important "elements" or "factors" of the position and controlling them gives you an advantage. That's clear - I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks.
I doubt Kramnik would use the word "imbalances" - it's not in the chess vocabulary of Russian players, neither of Europeans to my knowledge.
Imbalances are differences. You can compare pawn structures to see the 'imbalances'.
So, you say: " I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks." Fine...but if Black could successfully contest it, there would be no imbalance. It is precisely because you have better play on it that it is considered an imbalance in your favor and use it to your advantage.
The Kramnik analogy you misunderstand. He might not use that particular word (or he might) but he would likely point out all those differences which favor White because they are meaningful....and those differences are what are referred to as 'imbalances'. Imbalances, once you see them, give you ideas of how to play the position. Seriously, don't dismiss 'imbalances'.
Cornfed wrote:
uri65 wrote:
I am talking about 4th edition of "How to Reassess Your Chess", the position however is from "Mastering Chess Strategy" by Johan Hellsten.
I am OK with calling Bishop vs Knight an "imbalance" - it's indeed a direct comparison of white vs black.
I don't see why to call d5 pawn an imbalance when a word "weakness" is used by everybody else and IMHO is much more clear and to the point. Same goes for misplaced rook on e5. But OK - you want to call d5 and e5 imbalances, no problem.
Now the c-file. Silman gives a definition of imbalance (it's a difference) and tells us to look first at imbalances in the position. I look at the c-file and don't see any difference. There is some mismatch between the terminology and actual analysis. Other authors tell you that open files are among the most important "elements" or "factors" of the position and controlling them gives you an advantage. That's clear - I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks.
I doubt Kramnik would use the word "imbalances" - it's not in the chess vocabulary of Russian players, neither of Europeans to my knowledge.
Imbalances are differences. You can compare pawn structures to see the 'imbalances'.
So, you say: " I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks." Fine...but if Black could successfully contest it, there would be no imbalance. It is precisely because you have better play on it that it is considered an imbalance in your favor and use it to your advantage.
The Kramnik analogy you misunderstand. He might not use that particular word (or he might) but he would likely point out all those differences which favor White because they are meaningful....and those differences are what are referred to as 'imbalances'. Imbalances, once you see them, give you ideas of how to play the position. Seriously, don't dismiss 'imbalances'.
Please explain me why should I even consider a c-file importance in the original position when looking for differences? There is no difference between white and black regarding c-file!
There is no difference yet, but there is a potential difference. White can stop Black from controlling the c8 square with Bh3! and then can fight for the open c file. Therefore the imbalance is white's superior potential (Bh3!) for fighting for the open c file.
White can create an imbalance by fighting for the c file.
Jun 17, 2017
0
#406
uri65 wrote:
Cornfed wrote:
uri65 wrote:
I am talking about 4th edition of "How to Reassess Your Chess", the position however is from "Mastering Chess Strategy" by Johan Hellsten.
I am OK with calling Bishop vs Knight an "imbalance" - it's indeed a direct comparison of white vs black.
I don't see why to call d5 pawn an imbalance when a word "weakness" is used by everybody else and IMHO is much more clear and to the point. Same goes for misplaced rook on e5. But OK - you want to call d5 and e5 imbalances, no problem.
Now the c-file. Silman gives a definition of imbalance (it's a difference) and tells us to look first at imbalances in the position. I look at the c-file and don't see any difference. There is some mismatch between the terminology and actual analysis. Other authors tell you that open files are among the most important "elements" or "factors" of the position and controlling them gives you an advantage. That's clear - I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks.
I doubt Kramnik would use the word "imbalances" - it's not in the chess vocabulary of Russian players, neither of Europeans to my knowledge.
Imbalances are differences. You can compare pawn structures to see the 'imbalances'.
So, you say: " I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks." Fine...but if Black could successfully contest it, there would be no imbalance. It is precisely because you have better play on it that it is considered an imbalance in your favor and use it to your advantage.
The Kramnik analogy you misunderstand. He might not use that particular word (or he might) but he would likely point out all those differences which favor White because they are meaningful....and those differences are what are referred to as 'imbalances'. Imbalances, once you see them, give you ideas of how to play the position. Seriously, don't dismiss 'imbalances'.
Please explain me why should I even consider a c-file importance in the original position when looking for differences? There is no difference between white and black regarding c-file!
I am sorry if you can't comprehend it. I'll try once more. I know you like succinct over 'wordy', but I'm going to have to get all wordy on you I'm afraid...not everything in life can be made digestible with succinct sauce...at least I, like perhaps Silman, don't possess any...
Instead of talking too much more about how one side can use the file to good ends vs the other side's ability (since you have a block there in squaring it away directly with the term 'imbalance') let me try a different approach that might be more palpable with your understanding of the term. Instead of comparing one sides ability to use the c-file for further gain, vs the other side...lets look for a moment at a simple comparison of the two files upon which rooks can exert pressure:The c and the e file. One a fully open file, the other a half-open file. Either way, Rooks need space to operate on and love these types of files.
White can bring his rook to c1 and fight for possession of that file. Black really cannot as mentally moving around of the pieces can quickly show However, Black ALREADY has a Rook on the corresponding e-file. I say 'corresponding', because it is mostly the rooks which are not yet in the game, so it is now that both sides would like to bring them into play. Comparing the e and c files and ones ability to actually make 'use' of them is therefore logical and important in determining which side is going to be able to profitably unfold their game.
Yes, Black already has a Rook on the half open e-file. He might like to put more pressure on the e2 pawn and threaten to win it. But with a little moving around of the pieces we can see that Blacks file to play on...is illusory. For one he might have to move heavy pieces off the defense of the d5 pawn. For another, White can easily parry e2 threats by simply moving the pawn to e3 or playing Bf3 without doing harm to his position.
White on the other hand, CAN make use of the fully open c-file. Black trying to counter that is going to find his position get even worse. White is first to get there...might could move the pawn on b4 to b5 in some lines to plunk down a Rook to c6 or even try to double with Ra1-c1-c2. White can put his Bg2 to h3 (even immediately) to help control the main entry point (c8) for Blacks rooks should Black try to contest the c-file. White can use the c-file to transform his position from (if I may use some computer terms)...a .50 advantage to a .67 advantage or further. Black has no similar way to use his half-open e-file for such gain. Therefore, there is a positive imbalance for White as concerns the two files each sides rooks are able to play on.
So, perhaps comparing the e and c files is helpful for you rather than just pointing out that the open c-file exists and comparing White's ability to use that file profitably is an imbalace in the position favoring White over Black?
uri65 is right: everyone else talks about "advantages" or "weaknesses." No one else uses "imbalances," which can be confusing.
Clarity is what should be sought after. If there is a need to go into a long, wordy discussion to explain simple concepts, something is wrong.
Exactly why World Champion Max Euwe is my favorite middlegame author.
Cornfed: "I know you like succinct over 'wordy', but I'm going to have to get all wordy on you I'm afraid...not everything in life can be made digestible with succinct sauce...at least I, like perhaps Silman, don't possess any...".
I actually benefit from your helpful exposition. Thank you.
"Jeremy Silman's HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS is an example of a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms." - GM John Nunn (2006)
He does not seem to have thought that the book was trying to explain all important ideas.
JS is great but not perfect.
Chilli's baby back ribs. Now THAT'S PERFECTION!
logozar wrote:
There is no difference yet, but there is a potential difference. White can stop Black from controlling the c8 square with Bh3! and then can fight for the open c file. Therefore the imbalance is white's superior potential (Bh3!) for fighting for the open c file.
White can create an imbalance by fighting for the c file.
I always thought that we win by accumulating advantages and inducing weaknesses to our opponent's position. But no! We win by creating a difference! Wow! That's a whole new approach to playing chess.
Or is it some kind of politically correct way to talk about chess? So instead of "I won that game by getting decisive advantage" I should say "I got favorable result by creating huge imbalance".
And by the way Bh3 is not considered neither by Johan Hellsten nor by Stockfish, probably because the bishop can be easily harrased by black with Rh5.
Cornfed wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Cornfed wrote:
uri65 wrote:
I am talking about 4th edition of "How to Reassess Your Chess", the position however is from "Mastering Chess Strategy" by Johan Hellsten.
I am OK with calling Bishop vs Knight an "imbalance" - it's indeed a direct comparison of white vs black.
I don't see why to call d5 pawn an imbalance when a word "weakness" is used by everybody else and IMHO is much more clear and to the point. Same goes for misplaced rook on e5. But OK - you want to call d5 and e5 imbalances, no problem.
Now the c-file. Silman gives a definition of imbalance (it's a difference) and tells us to look first at imbalances in the position. I look at the c-file and don't see any difference. There is some mismatch between the terminology and actual analysis. Other authors tell you that open files are among the most important "elements" or "factors" of the position and controlling them gives you an advantage. That's clear - I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks.
I doubt Kramnik would use the word "imbalances" - it's not in the chess vocabulary of Russian players, neither of Europeans to my knowledge.
Imbalances are differences. You can compare pawn structures to see the 'imbalances'.
So, you say: " I look at position, see open file, start thinking about controlling it with my rooks." Fine...but if Black could successfully contest it, there would be no imbalance. It is precisely because you have better play on it that it is considered an imbalance in your favor and use it to your advantage.
The Kramnik analogy you misunderstand. He might not use that particular word (or he might) but he would likely point out all those differences which favor White because they are meaningful....and those differences are what are referred to as 'imbalances'. Imbalances, once you see them, give you ideas of how to play the position. Seriously, don't dismiss 'imbalances'.
Please explain me why should I even consider a c-file importance in the original position when looking for differences? There is no difference between white and black regarding c-file!
I am sorry if you can't comprehend it. I'll try once more. I know you like succinct over 'wordy', but I'm going to have to get all wordy on you I'm afraid...not everything in life can be made digestible with succinct sauce...at least I, like perhaps Silman, don't possess any...
Instead of talking too much more about how one side can use the file to good ends vs the other side's ability (since you have a block there in squaring it away directly with the term 'imbalance') let me try a different approach that might be more palpable with your understanding of the term. Instead of comparing one sides ability to use the c-file for further gain, vs the other side...lets look for a moment at a simple comparison of the two files upon which rooks can exert pressure:The c and the e file. One a fully open file, the other a half-open file. Either way, Rooks need space to operate on and love these types of files.
White can bring his rook to c1 and fight for possession of that file. Black really cannot as mentally moving around of the pieces can quickly show However, Black ALREADY has a Rook on the corresponding e-file. I say 'corresponding', because it is mostly the rooks which are not yet in the game, so it is now that both sides would like to bring them into play. Comparing the e and c files and ones ability to actually make 'use' of them is therefore logical and important in determining which side is going to be able to profitably unfold their game.
Yes, Black already has a Rook on the half open e-file. He might like to put more pressure on the e2 pawn and threaten to win it. But with a little moving around of the pieces we can see that Blacks file to play on...is illusory. For one he might have to move heavy pieces off the defense of the d5 pawn. For another, White can easily parry e2 threats by simply moving the pawn to e3 or playing Bf3 without doing harm to his position.
White on the other hand, CAN make use of the fully open c-file. Black trying to counter that is going to find his position get even worse. White is first to get there...might could move the pawn on b4 to b5 in some lines to plunk down a Rook to c6 or even try to double with Ra1-c1-c2. White can put his Bg2 to h3 (even immediately) to help control the main entry point (c8) for Blacks rooks should Black try to contest the c-file. White can use the c-file to transform his position from (if I may use some computer terms)...a .50 advantage to a .67 advantage or further. Black has no similar way to use his half-open e-file for such gain. Therefore, there is a positive imbalance for White as concerns the two files each sides rooks are able to play on.
So, perhaps comparing the e and c files is helpful for you rather than just pointing out that the open c-file exists and comparing White's ability to use that file profitably is an imbalace in the position favoring White over Black?
Cornfed, first of all I really appreciate the effort you've put into analyzing and writing your reply.
Ok let's see...
Imbalance is a difference. In an earlier post you've mentioned a weakness of d5 pawn. Let's formulate it in terms of difference: black has a weak isolated pawn on d5, white does not have a weak isolated pawn.
Black has a half-open e-file. White has a half-open d-file. That's yet another difference.
Now you say "lets look for a moment at a simple comparison of the two files upon which rooks can exert pressure: the c and the e file". But why should I compare these two files? Silman defines imbalance as any significant difference in the two respective positions. Two respective positions that's white's and black's positions, right? So why to compare c and e files, and how do I relate these two files to white and black? I've already compared black's half-open e-file to white's half-open d-file. Wow, that's confusing.
Ok, I know - I am just playing a dumb chess student on purpose. I perfectly understand your analyzis. I just think that rewriting it with normal chess terms like "positional factor", "advantage", "weakness" instead of "imbalance" will only make it more clear.
"... Silman's status as the king of instructional writers. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)
kindaspongey wrote:
"... Silman's status as the king of instructional writers. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)
I wouldn't take two authors praising each other too seriously for very simple economical reasons - if they praise each other I will probably buy books from both, if they criticize each other I won't buy from any of them.
What authorities have published criticism of IM Silman, IM Watson, and GM Nunn? I suppose we could accept the view of uri65 anyway. ("... Ok, I know - I am just playing a dumb chess student on purpose. ...")
There are plenty of printed and video interviews of titled players stating what books they studied to become a strong player (IM or GM). Just Google them.
The same small list of books/authors appear, and they are the classical authors, e.g. Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Bronstein, Tal, Keres, Shereshevsky, Kotov, Pachman, Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, Romanovsky, and some others.
Stick with these if you want to get good. Read the pretenders if you want to remain a class player (under 2000). Like someone said much earlier in this thread: this idea that the classics are "too hard" is a scam.
StupidGM wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
What authorities have published criticism of IM Silman, IM Watson, and GM Nunn? I suppose we could accept the view of uri65 anyway. ("... Ok, I know - I am just playing a dumb chess student on purpose. ...")
How To Reassess Your Chess was the second-best chess book I ever read.
Domination in 2,545 Endgame Studies is the best.
I'm amazed that someone who thinks Kasparyan's Domination is a great book (and it is!) would find Reassess to be close to the same level.
Jun 18, 2017
0
#418
Andre_Harding wrote:
The same small list of books/authors appear, and they are the classical authors, e.g. Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Bronstein, Tal, Keres, Shereshevsky, Kotov, Pachman, Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, Romanovsky, and some others.
Stick with these if you want to get good. Read the pretenders if you want to remain a class player (under 2000). Like someone said much earlier in this thread: this idea that the classics are "too hard" is a scam.
If I may....
Who did Lasker read? Who did Capablanca read? Who did Alekhine read? Morphy?
My point: getting really good is 1 part knowledge, 99 parts effort. The book industry is built on making people think otherwise - that there is some magic pill. But the book industry is about selling books...that's all in the end. A pay check.
Truthfully, one one decent beginners book is all one needs get really good. One can read all the 'good stuff' people cite...and in the end only get really good at reading. It's all in the effort, not the "knowledge".
I've got every New In Chess magazine ever published. A favorite column is the one at the back called "Just Checking". Every issue asks a player what chess book had a profound influence on them. Often they are far from the great books people would think, maybe game collections of famous players or tournament books, for example...and some will even say they never really read chess books. THESE people saying these things are among the best 'players'....
There is something to be learned there.
Jun 18, 2017
0
#419
You're absolutely right, Cornfed, why read Shakespeare; Jack and Jill is sufficient, which is essentially what you've been tirelessly preaching for the last 10 pages until it has become a siren song to the aesthetically challenged while merely an annoying siren to the rest of us.
I say aesthetically challenged because chess is about more than hard work and practical results. There is a general chess culture one should be familiar with as well as playing styles from the tactical brilliance of Tal to the subtle strategy of Petrosian that add variety and beauty to this abstract art we call chess. Of course, since so many of today's casual players (and some professionals too) prefer the adrenaline of shallow, orgasmic Blitz to the depth and beauty of Classical, what can one expect. As Nabokov once wrote, "Nothing is more exhilarating than philistine vulgarity."
Sadly, many of today's young GMs featured on the "Just Checking" page of New in Chess come off as idiot savants with their chess engines and databases in one hand and their youthful ignorance in the other. Very seldom is there an appreciation for culture at large let alone chess culture, probably because they don't often bother with books let alone chess books. What a bore they must be in person, but there are exceptions like Garry Kasparov. Of course, he's of an older generation.
Anyway, I congratulate you, Cornfed, for your accomplishments shown on your home page, I seriously do, but you should add poster boy for a post-literate world to complete the list.
Andre_Harding wrote:
There are plenty of printed and video interviews of titled players stating what books they studied to become a strong player (IM or GM). Just Google them.
The same small list of books/authors appear, and they are the classical authors, e.g. Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Bronstein, Tal, Keres, Shereshevsky, Kotov, Pachman, Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, Romanovsky, and some others.
Stick with these if you want to get good. Read the pretenders if you want to remain a class player (under 2000). Like someone said much earlier in this thread: this idea that the classics are "too hard" is a scam.
I gather that you know of no authority who has published criticism of the comments of IM Watson and GM John Nunn. Is there any reason to consider only books used by those training to be IMs and GMs? The vast majority of amateurs are indeed going to remain below 2000. So what?