FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
In my opinion the term "imbalance" has zero added value and any strategic/positional idea can be explained in more clear way without use of "imbalances".I do honestly think that "How to Reassess Your Chess" could only get better if rewritten with common chess terminology. Same goes for Kmoch's "Pawn Power in Chess".
In a previous discussion, someone reported a Kmoch passage: "The lengthening of the rearspan is often favorable, inasmuch as the expansion of territory behind the pawn increases the freedom of the pieces. By the same token, the shortening of the frontspan limits the freedom of the opposing pieces."
I'm not exactly a big fan of that sort of writing, but there nevertheless seems to be a widespread opinion that the Pawn Power book is worthwhile. There also seems to be a lot of feeling that Silman's book can be helpful.
You have to work harder to understand the terminology than you do to understand the chess concepts in that book. There are other effective books that don't require that time sink.
I don't think Jeremy was particularly interested in a new romantic relationship at this time so it's all a moot point.
Possibly of interest:
From reviews of this book vs it's competitors one can easily come away with impression that Pawn Power in Chess is regarded as one of the best if not the best book on pawn play, seems some found a praise worthy return on the time investment. Wonder if studying the game with fresh (for lack of a better word) language sprinkled in helps the learning process? or maybe a book can be so good in some aspects that it's a good teacher despite itself in others.
From what I've seen nearly all well done pawn structure books have stellar reviews and ratings. And there are plenty of pawn structure books out there, some are general while you even have others focused towards a smaller range of openings. For example Winning Chess Middlegames by Sokolov had numerous games in the nimzo indian, Baburins book on isolated pawns had many games in the queens gambit accepted. Kmoch's book may be good, but it certainly isn't the end all, be all pawn structure book. And considering the time it takes to learn and remember his terminology I'm not sure if I'd recommend it, especially considering I couldn't get past the terminology issue when I tried reading it.
Cornfed makes one very good point, whatever you mike think about his other views.
Buying a book is the easy part. Studying it is something else.
"There is enough in any one copy of Chess Informator to become a chess master if you study it properly" ... NIgel Davies GM
Why buying a book as you not read it?
It has mayby something to do with having enougn money to buy whatever you wants without using it.
"... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
If you follow silman you will be a 1600 player all your life
Not sure what "follow" is intended to mean here. "Read" is, I think, the concept that most have with regard to a book, the plan being to get help from the expressed ideas, and not necessarily to rely exclusively on those ideas for the rest of one's life.
For me it happens because I start reading the book and find it's not the right level for me. Can't usually tell from reviews whether this will be the case.
uri65 is right: everyone else talks about "advantages" or "weaknesses." No one else uses "imbalances," which can be confusing.
So serious question: How does one know/identify there is an advantage or weakness without comparing the elements in a position?
Silmans idea is that they are easier to spot/weigh when you make comparisons....simply look at the 'imbalances'. They then direct you as to what you should consider doing.
I saw yesterday Seirwan talking about a Stonewall Dutch structure and how he had always thought of it wrong...until Kramnik explained simply: for Black, how is that ...Bb7 'worse' than White's Bg2? Then it all made sense to Yaz why Kramnik and others played the Stonewall and it was like a light bulb went off as to where his thinking had been wrong.
Silman's idea is rather like the idea of Zen compared to Buddhism....it is a 'direct transmission' without going thru all the religious dogma others might want to subject you to in order to get to the truth of the position. Don't ask me to explain that here...look it up for yourself if you want. It might prove enlightening in more ways than just chess.
Back when I practiced law, a lot of people didn't like me either (they still don't), but the important thing about litigation is winning cases, not getting people to like you. The important thing about chess is winning games, not getting people to like you, and Silman has won a lot of games.