My coach does not like Jeremy Silman...

Reti said that you shouldn't memorize openings, at least when you are a beginner. Instead, learn only the basic strategy and ideas of the opening, because the lines could be wrong and constantly change. I agree with him. Opening theory constantly change, and a line which was "good" even 10 years ago now could be bad. But if you improve your general chess skills, these won't never change. In my club there is a kid who talks about Sicilian Najdorf and Accelerated Dragon and he couldn't play a simple KP vs K ending.

>In my club there is a kid who talks about Sicilian Najdorf and Accelerated Dragon and he couldn't play a simple KP vs K ending.<

That doesn't refute the argument, because some kid you know is bad at endgames :)

>Instead, learn only the basic strategy and ideas of the opening<

Whatever those might be, for the "opening." This is more of the same generally empty advice. It works for 8 year olds, for their first few games where you are trying to stop them from freeing their rooks in the first three moves. 

thank you maskedbishop. I will check out the book at the library. I just checked and they have it. thanks for including the page number for that section. the reviews of that book agree with you that Watson says some pretty interesting and novel stuff in that particular volume. thanks again. 

I have all four of his series. The "theory" is geared towards intermediate and advanced players, I'd say rated 1500-2000 would best benefit from them. But the fourth volume has a large section at the end about choosing openings for all levels, and how to study them...it's well worth reading by anyone of any rating, and I believe it reflects a changing perspective on how chess should be studied. 

@maskedbishop: yes, precisely, that is my sense too. The theory is too much for me at this point, but the philosophy is compelling and relevant; and I thank you again. 

I never liked silman's books either. They were not to my taste.

If you are an author of  books some will like and some won't. 

He has helped probably thousands with his books but cannot satisfy some.

Silman has a bit of 'tude (he argues on Amazon with reviewers who don't like his books) but his California loquacity is a refreshing narrative change from a lot of chess books these days, which are mostly stodgy British formality or practically unapproachable Russians in translation. 

maskedbishop wrote: "Walking them through a Two Knights or a Ruy Lopez, and explaining the basic tactics and positional concepts from those, was miles ahead of just telling them "open with a center pawn, knights before bishops, castle early."

That's very interesting, as is Watson's contention that opening study is the most efficient way to improve is to study openings. I think I agree (with reservations) with the former point and disagree with the latter. Kids definitely seem to like opening theory. Maybe it's because I didn't start tournaments until I was 15 (and came back to the game at 20) but I've never been that interested in opening theory.

Honestly, you described my opening play: center pawn or Sicilian, knights out first, castle and connect rooks, then play chess. That has taken me to 1600 USCF and I have not run into any opening problems over the last 25 games (that's how many I've played since last January when I started playing tournaments again). What I do is let my opponents talk about opening theory as much as they want in the postgame analysis and pick up knowledge that way. However I have noticed lately that as I get better, my opponents are better at openings and I am starting to get boring, sterile positions. So maybe it's time to start studying openings a little bit- although I still think at my level it should be tactics, endgames, and strategy roughly in that order.

Returning to the original topic, I think The Amateur's Mind is an interesting and original idea, and I will come back to Reassess Your Chess after my next tournament. Silman's books/articles are useful in that they will fill in lots of cracks for the typical class player- whereas last year I might have made lots of drifting or shuffling moves, now I have a little voice telling me things like "push your agenda, make him defend that pawn" or "stop drifting, control that square and put a knight there". I don't think reading his stuff will make me a GM but I certainly play with more purpose and better understanding than I did a year ago for what it's worth

Silman's work has been described as being (possibly) the next giant leap forward in Chess Theory. Just as Nimzovitch's My System was 90 years ago.

Granted, it is too early to say this is true for certain. But it sounds like your coach has a bad case of sour grapes.

No problem. Buy other books, discuss those with your coach.

But keep those Silman books tucked away under your matresss, as your secret guilty pleasure!

Hardly a refutation, just a difference of opinions. I think it's hilarious how you decry strong players up to GM level who say that one should only study openings after they've gained the chess tools to understand them ; then in the same breath you claim that the words of a single IM who's book you've purchased REFUTES everyone else and you quote him like gospel. Irony and hypocrisy rolled into one .

Amateur's mind is not an 'original' idea. Euwe wrote Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur to look at the difference in thinking process and awareness of the amateur vs. the master. and de Groot also looked at the difference in thinking process between amateurs and pros. 

>I think it's hilarious <

Glad you're amused! Takes some of the edge off your posts, which come off as pretty snarky. Irony and hypocrisy? Really? Go for a walk, it's not about me.  

It's true you seem like a pretty alright guy, I'll try not to be quite so inflammatory.

you're not exactly inflammatory. Just often not worth the time spent reading your posts. 

Is that why you're quoting me, because you don't have time to read my posts? You seem like a pretty complex person, I like you

No harm, no foul, gentlemen. Play the board, not the man :)

I didn't say I 'don't have the time'. I said you're often 'not worth the time spent reading your posts',i.e. I usu. regret reading your posts; they're either stupid, or arrogant, or both. 

Thanks I do try to keep my posts to a higher standard than most. 

I cringed, but I think we felt the same thing, just a difference in levity.