... the book industry is about selling books...that's all in the end. A pay check. ...
Wouldn't it be profitable for some authority to come forward and tell us that books are not really helpful if indeed they are not really helpful?
... One can read all the 'good stuff' people cite...and in the end only get really good at reading. ...
Isn't it rather common knowledge that playing is an imporant part of the process?
"..., you have to make a decision: have tons of fun playing blitz (without learning much), or be serious and play with longer time controls so you can actually think. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (June 9, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/longer-time-controls-are-more-instructive
"... The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)
"... A minimum of 8 OTB tournaments and about 100 slow games a year is a reasonable foundation for ongoing improvement. ..." - Dan Heisman (2010)
... 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.
I'm not sure what lesson you have in mind, but is there a reason for all sorts of different players (with different circumstances, abilities, and ambitions) to imitate what was done by those among the best?
... 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. ...
Where specifically is it claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?
Oh, please...
Do you not see so many people on this thread seeming think author 'x' is going to do more for you than author 'y'...that this book is better for you than that book...condeming one authours works in favor of another...generally hurling words back on forth over this.
As most are not even very good players...it is a bit like watching a bunch of monkeys examine a watch.
Getting really good at the game all comes down to acquiring some decent basic ideas about the game (often in a book) and then working their A$$ off to put it to use....a little innate talent can help for sure.
But you would think from some of the comments that these books are magic pills. There are none. BTW I have over 900 at last count. People need to get it out of their head that 'all you really need is' (name your pill/book). It's humorous...and sad.
... Who did Lasker read? Who did Capablanca read? Who did Alekhine read? Morphy?
My point: getting really good is 1 part knowledge, 99 parts effort. The book industry is built on making people think otherwise - that there is some magic pill. ...
Where specifically is it claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?
Oh, please...
Do you not see so many people on this thread seeming think author 'x' is going to do more for you than author 'y'...that this book is better for you than that book...condeming one authours works in favor of another...generally hurling words back on forth over this.
As most are not even very good players...it is a bit like watching a bunch of monkeys examine a watch.
Getting really good at the game all comes down to acquiring some decent basic ideas about the game (often in a book) and then working their A$$ off to put it to use....a little innate talent can help for sure.
But you would think from some of the comments that these books are magic pills. There are none. BTW I have over 900 at last count. People need to get it out of their head that 'all you really need is' (name your pill/book). It's humorous...and sad.
So, I gather that you do not wish to identify any specific place where some part of the book industry claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?
... 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. ...
Where specifically is it claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?
Oh, please...
Do you not see so many people on this thread seeming think author 'x' is going to do more for you than author 'y'...that this book is better for you than that book...condeming one authours works in favor of another...generally hurling words back on forth over this.
As most are not even very good players...it is a bit like watching a bunch of monkeys examine a watch.
Getting really good at the game all comes down to acquiring some decent basic ideas about the game (often in a book) and then working their A$$ off to put it to use....a little innate talent can help for sure.
But you would think from some of the comments that these books are magic pills. There are none. BTW I have over 900 at last count. People need to get it out of their head that 'all you really need is' (name your pill/book). It's humorous...and sad.
So, I gather that you do not wish to identify any specific place where some part of the book industry claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?
I never said that!
What I am saying is that people buy books left and right in the hopes that the next one is 'what they need' Therefore the chess book publishing industry is built upon that 'illusion'.
I am interested in Jeremy Silman.
uri65 is right: everyone else talks about "advantages" or "weaknesses." No one else uses "imbalances," which can be confusing.
Not me. The use of the term 'imbalances' and how Silman uses it crystallizes those nebulous terms you mention into a form where a weaker player can use them to guide him in decision making. As Silman says, this helps them "recognize the imbalances in any board situation, to understand what each imbalance offers, and to know how to make use of it or diffuse it, depending on which side of the imbalance you are sitting on".
This is getting a bit wearisome.
I woke up this morning and played a game of blitz chess. Hopefully everything I could ever say about my use of 'imbalances' can be summed up in how I think during the game...mind you, it's blitz, not exact and I am just spoiling for a fight as usual. I hope someone somewhere gets something from it. I apologize for the mispellings and grammar...too tired to correct them...and some I don't even know how to at this point like When White moves his King to the h file...I say the Nf3 protects the 'c' file...of course I mean the 'f' file...or move 23 when I say the f pawn is protected only by the King...of course I meant to type 'g' pawn...
... 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. ...
Where specifically is it claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?
... What I am saying is that people buy books left and right in the hopes that the next one is 'what they need' Therefore the chess book publishing industry is built upon that 'illusion'.
So "magic pill" and "getting really good" are no longer part of what you are saying?
... 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. ...
Where specifically is it claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?
... What I am saying is that people buy books left and right in the hopes that the next one is 'what they need' Therefore the chess book publishing industry is built upon that 'illusion'.
So "magic pill" and "getting really good" are no longer part of what you are saying?
Listen, I've said what I've said...It's pretty simple English. I am not going to waste any more time on this. Most reasonable people have gotten off this thread long ago because of the silliness some continue to inflict upon it.
I am interested in Jeremy Silman.
"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)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095832/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review769.pdf
Silman: The Amateur's Mind
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094419/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/ammind.pdf
"... Silman’s Complete Endgame Course ... has already caught on with the average player in a big way, confirming Silman's status as the king of instructional writers. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)
http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708103149/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review594.pdf
... 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. ...
Where specifically is it claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?
... What I am saying is that people buy books left and right in the hopes that the next one is 'what they need' Therefore the chess book publishing industry is built upon that 'illusion'.
So "magic pill" and "getting really good" are no longer part of what you are saying?
This isn't a court of law, so leave the silliness, please. Cornfed can't make it much clearer, and 'illusion' merely tries to put it in simpler terms. This isn't about winning a silly argument (save that for your spouse)... it's about making an excellent point.
uri65 is right: everyone else talks about "advantages" or "weaknesses." No one else uses "imbalances," which can be confusing.
Not me. The use of the term 'imbalances' and how Silman uses it crystallizes those nebulous terms you mention into a form where a weaker player can use them to guide him in decision making. As Silman says, this helps them "recognize the imbalances in any board situation, to understand what each imbalance offers, and to know how to make use of it or diffuse it, depending on which side of the imbalance you are sitting on".
And yet you were unable to help a confused student from post #451 to understand why he should compare c- and e- files. Because following Siman's own definition of imbalance the comparison should be done between black's half-open e-file and white's half-open d-file.
"... Ok, I know - I am just playing a dumb chess student on purpose. ..." - from post #451
"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.
It's important to understand the level of player Silman's books are meant for. Silman books are great for taking a say 1200 level player and bringing him to an 1800 level. That's actually exactly what his books did for me, as well as a tactical puzzlebook to go along with my copy of The Amateur's Mind and his Endgame Course. Should you be reading them when you already understand complex endgames and strategic elements and are 1800+? Well probably not, not speaking for his other strategic books though, since I haven't read them. The best part about his books is how they can ease lower level players into a higher level of knowledge while making it understandable and not insanely difficult, when too many other books are either beginner books or focused at stronger players and don't adequately explain the concepts.
"... Ok, I know - I am just playing a dumb chess student on purpose. ..." - from post #451
"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.
Silman talkes about open files in his book. I just don't think the concept of "imbalance" is a good one and I was trying to highlight it by playing a dumb student and open files was the easiest topic for making my point. Terms like "elements" (Steinitz, Grooten, Hellsten) or "factors" (Pachman) are much better because they don't suggest you to start analyzis by looking at differences between white and black. Differences are looked at later after significant positional elements have been found.
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.
Well instead of scanning a PDF you should try reading perhaps? He still talks about imbalances, what he walked away from was the analysis technique which was based on imbalances. Seeing as how you are judging the rewrite without even reading and making assumptions using a PDF scan just makes you sound like a hater, If you would put as much energy reading books and practicing that you do writing about how much you hate authors and books you'd be master strength! Truth is your not qualified to tie Mr Silmans shoe laces, if you don't like him or his books then don't buy them or read them, plenty of people find them useful, different strokes for different folks.
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.
Well instead of scanning a PDF you should try reading perhaps? He still talks about imbalances, what he walked away from was the analysis technique which was based on imbalances. Seeing as how you are judging the rewrite without even reading and making assumptions using a PDF scan just makes you sound like a hater, If you would put as much energy reading books and practicing that you do writing about how much you hate authors and books you'd be master strength! Truth is your not qualified to tie Mr Silmans shoe laces, if you don't like him or his books then don't buy them or read them, plenty of people find them useful, different strokes for different folks.
I tried to read 3rd edition and didn't like it at all because of the writing style. I don't feel like reading SIlman again when I have a whole shelf of unfinished chess books that I enjoy (for exemple currently I am working through Grooten and Hellsten on strategy topics).
I don't know where did you find hate in my posts. I tried to formulate (actually for the sake of my own understanding) what IMO is a problem with "imbalances". Cornfed (who is a much better player than me) made an excellent analyzis of the positon, but confusion created by sticking to imbalances when explaining the importance of the open c-file has only confirmed my thoughts.
"... Ok, I know - I am just playing a dumb chess student on purpose. ..." - from post #451
"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.
Silman talkes about open files in his book. I just don't think the concept of "imbalance" is a good one and I was trying to highlight it by playing a dumb student and open files was the easiest topic for making my point. Terms like "elements" (Steinitz, Grooten, Hellsten) or "factors" (Pachman) are much better because they don't suggest you to start analyzis by looking at differences between white and black. Differences are looked at later after significant positional elements have been found.
I don't see that you have contradicted the assertions of GM John Watson and IM John Watson by playing dumb. Explaining many important ideas is not the same as explaining all important ideas. Who has claimed that everything is explained by imbalances?
... 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. ...
Where specifically is it claimed that a book is a "magic pill" for "getting really good" like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy, etc.?