I like Silman's books and own several of them. I think the poster's coach may be referring to the idea that Silman's books don't provide enough active learning as opposed to passive learning. The only issue I have with Silman is that he takes ideas already recorded from Morphy and Lasker and others and claims them as his own.
They are mostly regurgitated Steintz.
I like Silman's books and own several of them. I think the poster's coach may be referring to the idea that Silman's books don't provide enough active learning as opposed to passive learning. The only issue I have with Silman is that he takes ideas already recorded from Morphy and Lasker and others and claims them as his own.
They are mostly regurgitated Steintz.
Have you actually tried reading Steinitz? Here is a sample:
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/3718.pdf
Here is a Lasker sample:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf
Here is a Morphy sample:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140709054124/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles166.pdf
have you read. . ..
Yes I have read Laskers manual at least in part and actually Silman himself gives away the source of his material, for example using pawns to take away outposts for a knight is pure Steintz. If you want an example of Silman stealing stuff and trying to fob it off as his own look no further than 'Silmans pawn pointing theory', as if he invented and patented the idea of playing in the direction that your pawns are 'pointing'.
... Yes I have read Laskers manual at least in part ...
I asked about reading Steinitz.
... Yes I have read Laskers manual at least in part ...
I asked about reading Steinitz.
No mostly what he printed is written in German, I do not read German. Either way its another what about argument, what I have read has no bearing on Jeremey Silman stealing ideas and trying to pass it off as his own, does it.
... I asked about reading Steinitz.
No mostly what he printed is written in German, I do not read German. ...
Vast quantities of Steinitz writing was in English. You want to claim that someone regurgitated Steinitz when you have not read the Steinitz? So be it.
... I asked about reading Steinitz.
No mostly what he printed is written in German, I do not read German. ...
Vast quantities of Steinitz writing was in English. You want to claim that someone regurgitated Steinitz when you have not read the Steinitz? So be it.
I dont have to have read Steintz, other authors have given a fine summation of his approach, which bears a remarkable similarity to Silmans pillaged ideas.
https://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.co.uk/p/steinitz-system.html
oh dear!
I’m not suggesting that he “steals” the ideas but only that he neglects to mention that others have also expressed them. Chess books should have a bibliography but many don’t. Silman’s Reassess 3rd Ed. doesn’t contain a bibliography and so it is difficult to know where his information is derived from. This is the issue I was referring to and it is a minor one. I highly recommend Silman’s books and I think he is one of the very best chess authors today.
Here’s an example of what I was referring to about Silman not crediting previous sources for some of his ideas.
In Lasker’s manual he discusses position play and planning. He distinguished it from calculating play with combinations. He writes “….the position player thinks backward: he conceives a position to be arrived at and works toward that position of which he is more conscious than the one on the board. He sees successive stages of the position aimed at and he visualizes the stage in a reverse order. If one position, according to his plan, is to follow another he sees the one that is to follow first and he deduces, as it were, the anterior position from it.”
From Silman’s Reassess 3rd Ed. Under what Silman calls “The Silman Thinking Technique” he writes: “Here are the stages of my thinking technique….3) Don’t calculate! Instead, dream up various fantasy positions you would most like to achieve. 4) Once you find a fantasy position that makes you happy you must figure out if you can reach it….” Pretty much what Lasker wrote about.
lol such diplomacy is an awesome thing to behold!
FYI if I help with a game analysis those are the two books I usually recommend 
I don't feel it's necessary to include any kind of bibliography.
The man's influences can be deduced.
Steinitz certainly won't be the first to have put that idea in writing, much less voiced, much less thought of.
To quote every master that may or may not have expressed a comparable view, seems tedious and unnecessary. FURTHER...I can't speak for Steinitz, but it's not only the content that makes Silman's books rock solid, but it's the delivery and writing style.
SHOULD Silman have included a "I'd like to thank all of my influences, those that I can remember to list, and those that I can't, Masters like: Bla Bla Bla...."
OK yeah maybe. Maybe that makes lots of sense.
Also, if the ideas that he's absorbed only come from less than a handful of people, then maybe he could have made mention.
So to me, it's neither here nor there.
If the lady at the counter hands me my coffee, or hands it to me with a smile and a "good day", it's pretty much same-same. After all, I'm there for the coffee.
... I asked about reading Steinitz.
No mostly what he printed is written in German, I do not read German. ...
Vast quantities of Steinitz writing was in English. You want to claim that someone regurgitated Steinitz when you have not read the Steinitz? So be it.
I dont have to have read Steintz, other authors have given a fine summation of his approach, which bears a remarkable similarity to Silmans pillaged ideas.
https://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.co.uk/p/steinitz-system.html
oh dear!
Going back to the original Steinitz might give one a feel for whether or not IM Silman's writing is a helpful alternative.
"... He writes in a clear and casual style, and time and again has shown the ability to reach those who feel intimidated by the lofty approach that a grandmaster will often take. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all
Have you people actually read The amateurs mind??? it is possibly the most condescending chess book ever written. John Watson is talking bollox as usual! Him and Silman should get a room.
"Condescending" is a somewhat different charge. I would advise any potential reader to try to look at samples in order to get an idea about whether or not one will want to read a book.
Have you people actually read The amateurs mind??? it is possibly the most condescending chess book ever written. John Watson is talking bollox as usual! Him and Silman should get a room.
Yes, I have it. It's a positional and tactical treasure trove.
Have you people actually read The amateurs mind??? it is possibly the most condescending chess book ever written. John Watson is talking bollox as usual! Him and Silman should get a room.
Yes, I have it. It's a positional and tactical treasure trove.
bwahahah hilarious! good times.
"Condescending" is a somewhat different charge. I would advise any potential reader to try to look at samples in order to get an idea about whether or not one will want to read a book.
a different charge from what Spongey? the claim was that Silmans writing helps those who are allegedly intimated,(perhaps he writes for mamas boys?) I say the opposite is true, his condescending writing in the amateurs mind is enough to make you tear the back pockets right off of your jeans in despair.
There are many better endgame books than Silman's endgame book. I have some issues with his How to Reassess Your Chess, but his fourth edition, a complete rewrite compared to previous editions, did address many of those problems. And yet John Watson's complaint that he gives overgeneralized rules and provides specific examples that don't really illustrate the rule he discusses is still true in places.
Having said that, the absolute most important thing about any chess book is whether it encourages the reader to play better chess and gives them help in doing so. By this standard, Silman's book is good. Not great, but good. I haven't met many masters who used his book to help become master.
But then, most masters tend to complain about the books that did help them! Seirawan, for example, absolutely hates My System! He has some excellent points (for example, no master anywhere can demonstrate a game they won by "overprotection"), but it is still an extremely useful book for developing players.
I like Silman's books and own several of them. I think the poster's coach may be referring to the idea that Silman's books don't provide enough active learning as opposed to passive learning. The only issue I have with Silman is that he takes ideas already recorded from Morphy and Lasker and others and claims them as his own.