And here we go!
Jeremy Silman could coach your coach!
My coach does not like Jeremy Silman...
Sort:
May 9, 2016
0
#143
Jeremy Silman IS your coach.
But he doesn't want you to know
So he says his books are bad so as you aren't capable of recognising his writing style.
May 9, 2016
0
#144
pfren wrote:
jengaias wrote:
I have met no serious chessclub trainer that believes Silman books are good and suggests them for his students.Almost all suggest their students to stay away.His books is a waste of money and time.
Silman is not for ambitious chess students.
His books are recommneded by those that believe beginners are fragile creatures that need to be nurtured and treat with love.
The OP's coach is right.Silman doesn't promote hard work , he tries to give chewd food.That is why in his books , more than half of the examples are from low quality games and most of them with low quality comments.
The worst about Silman's books is that they have convinced thousands of naives that some books are for beginners and some are not.
And of course for the thousand self-assigned teachers there is nothing more easy than suggest Silman's books.What to suggest?Pachman or Kotov?If the student has a question they won't be able to answer.Silman doesn't even create questions.
There is a great saying a very good teacher says and I have used it again and again.
"If you want to stop being a beginner stop acting like one".
Buy books that are not for "your level" , let the naive waste time with Silman.
His books are not bad at all, especially the Complete Endgame Course.
What I do not like is his prose, which, ironically enough, is the main reason his books are that popular.
I like chess books written in plain, straightforward fashion, say like Yusupov's course in Quality Chess. These Yusupov books are not liked by most Silman fans, for two reasons: No shiny prose, and they do require hard work to pay off. For me,they are the best non-beginner complete chess course available.
Again, I completely agree with pfren. Books like those of Aagard and Yusopov have no fancy nonsense (aka Lakdwala) nor do they have the Silman style, and yet are less popular...I wonder why.
I find nothing wrong with his books, but i do think for serious study, there are better options. I think Silmans books re fine as long as you arent really serious about chess.
Much in the same way cigarettes are for people who aren't really serious about life.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Much in the same way cigarettes are for people who aren't really serious about life.
Not exactly a correct analogy. but i will assume you know what i meant.
"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)
"With the possible exception of the near-universally praised San Luis tournament book, which I have yet to see, I am positive that I would have voted [Silman’s Complete Endgame Course] for first place [for the 2007 ECF Book of the Year award] (excluding my own books from consideration, of course!)." - IM John Watson (2007)
ylblai2: Thank you for saving me the trouble of finding those quotes. I'm finding the current Two-Minute-Hate on Silman tiresome.
I've always been a magpie when it came to learning. I'll pick up anything and give it a try to see if it will give me the next leg up. I can tell quickly. Some stuff works, some stuff is for later, some stuff I've gone beyond and some stuff really is useless, at least for me.
I'm certain there are some players for whom Silman is just the right guy to read for where they are. But if you chained them to Yusupov and Yusupov alone, they might well give up chess.
May 9, 2016
0
#150
I like Silman--don't get me wrong. I just think that there are better options for the more serious player.
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
I like Silman--don't get me wrong. I just think that there are better options for the more serious player.
Silmans books are fine for getting you to Class B (just my opinion) and after that you need something more advanced.
May 9, 2016
0
#152
Diakonia wrote:
I find nothing wrong with his books, but i do think for serious study, there are better options. I think Silmans books re fine as long as you arent really serious about chess.
Doesn't Silman's "Reassess . . ." make a subtle claim to be enough to take anyone to the 2200 level?
I ask because I play at the 2000+ level, and was thinking of studying it to help get me over that "expert" hump.
BlunderLots wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
I find nothing wrong with his books, but i do think for serious study, there are better options. I think Silmans books re fine as long as you arent really serious about chess.
Doesn't Silman's "Reassess . . ." make a subtle claim to be enough to take anyone to the 2200 level?
I ask because I play at the 2000+ level, and was thinking of studying it to help get me over that "expert" hump.
Never heard that, and im sure in some basic way it helps prepare you for that level of play. But getting there just off that book?
Silmans books are fine for getting you to Class B (just my opinion) and after that you need something more advanced.
Diakonia: I wouldn't calibrate it that closely, but I would agree Silman is not writing for 2000+ folks. I'd put Silman earlier than Yusupov for instance.
If you were 2000+ you might still find Silman's books interesting just to argue with Silman in your mind.
Ultimately I think whatever keeps you engaged with chess is helping you to improve. Some things are better than others no doubt, but what really makes the difference is the time and motivation you bring to chess, whatever author or book provides the occasion.
ipcress12 wrote:
Silmans books are fine for getting you to Class B (just my opinion) and after that you need something more advanced.
Diakonia: I wouldn't calibrate it that closely, but I would agree Silman is not writing for 2000+ folks. I'd put Silman earlier than Yusupov for instance.
If you were 2000+ you might still find Silman's books interesting just to argue with Silman in your mind.
Ultimately I think whatever keeps you engaged with chess is helping you to improve. Some things are better than others no doubt, but what really makes the difference is the time and motivation you bring to chess, whatever author or book provides the occasion.
Agreed...Silman is a very nice stepping stone to more advnced material. Absolutely correct, that as long as it keeps you motivated, and wanting to learn, then it works.
Some of us don't like Silman's books , his work in general, and we have good reasons for that.
Do you? To this chess student it comes across as some kind of self-righteousness or snobbery.
Silman is an International Master. He has won the US Open and coached the US National Junior Team. His books are bestsellers in chess terms and have been lauded by masters and grandmasters.
I don't think Silman's books are the last word in chess instruction or the right books for everyone, but he wrote them sincerely and many of his readers have benefited.
So what if he doesn't meet your standards? What have you done for anyone lately?
Forget the books. I never read any books. Chess mentor is much better than all books combined. IM Silman also has posted a lot of positional problems with boards and explanations which is the best training.
adumbrate wrote:
Forget the books. I never read any books. Chess mentor is much better than all books combined. IM Silman also has posted a lot of positional problems with boards and explanations which is the best training.
Strongly disagree. Chess mentor is good but books are very good.
I would much rather read books than chess mentor - well with some books anyways...
Well, you've done 17 chess mentor courses.. I never read more than 10 pages in a chess book.. I have done 3490 chess mentor courses
Jeremy Silman does not like your coach.