'A given position' is more likely to mean the positions an author gives when talking about a book than any random position which may occur in chess.
The exact positions he gives aren't that important, what's important is that they represent something he's trying to show.
Again, I'm afraid I disagree. To me, "a given position" is generally understood to mean "any given position" not "the given positions". The definite article is far more exact in this case if that's what you meant.
Semantics aside, though, I wasn't suggesting that I was concerned with the given positions anyway, but rather the process presented to deal with any given position.
But you can't teach how to play the best move in any given position so I assumed common sense. You can only find the best move regularly if you have the right process.
Teaching a way to get to a position and then exploit it is far too specific to write about and different for every game. The idea of the book is that certain imbalances occur often, and the same plans work in each case.
TheGrobe, I have to agree with Scottrf because you might not get the same position in the book while OTB, but if you know the general basics and ideas you will be able to play the position with great accuracy. I also recommend the Amateur's Mind to you because it explains common misinterpretations of the position and helps you correct that as well.
I'm not disputing the value of exposing yourself to as many themes and motifs as possible, I simply didn't care for the process presented to construct a plan to deal with them.
I'm not under some kind of misperception that I should try to reproduce the exact positions in the book so I can play out the very lines presented -- I don't know where you are getting that idea.
I'm not disputing the value of exposing yourself to as many themes and motifs as possible, I simply didn't care for the process presented to construct a plan to deal with them.
I'm not under some kind of misperception that I should try to reproduce the exact positions in the book so I can play out the very lines presented -- I don't know where you are getting that idea.
Fine, it was when you said about not having a plan to reach the positions but I'll move on.
I'm reading it, so I was wondering if there was anything people thought was misleading/irrelevant/a waste of time focussing on. Because at the moment it seems a helpful thought process.
Yeah, to clarify: In the edition I have there is a process presented in which you take your current position (i.e any given position), and based on it construct a fantasy position that is conceivably reachable from your current position in which you have made some clear gains. Then you set about building a plan to arive at the exact position you've envisioned.
I found I had a few issues with that process:
I don't see how studying these endgame positions can be detrimental to your growth...
I'm on page 210 of the book, and so far its the best endgame book I've read so far.
I do not know why you will try to envision a position and try to build it because you cannot control what your opponents mind and what he does. If you know a basic concept of a position such as this, you will on your way to understanding what to do in a certain type of position (ex. Rook and Pawn endgames). You do not need to have the exact position in order to play it because your opponents will never react the same way.
One of the greatest helps for me to be more strategically minded was going through Dvoretsky's endgame book. Certainly far too much material to absorb in one reading (nearly a lifetime worth of material it feels like) but because each position was played based not on tactics (usually) but on logic and utility of the pieces.
And it just sort of developed that mindset that when one piece is bad your whole position is bad while the raw material count is secondary.
I do not know why you will try to envision a position and try to build it because you cannot control what your opponents mind and what he does. If you know a basic concept of a position such as this, you will on your way to understanding what to do in a certain type of position (ex. Rook and Pawn endgames). You do not need to have the exactposition in order to play it because your opponents will never react the same way.
When players calculate these fantasy positions though, they choose the most challenging moves for the opponent's side. The implication being, that if their opponent does do something else, then the player with the fantasy position in mind gets an even better position (or gets what he was planning with more ease).
But you can't teach how to play the best move in any given position so I assumed common sense. You can only find the best move regularly if you have the right process.
Teaching a way to get to a position and then exploit it is far too specific to write about and different for every game. The idea of the book is that certain imbalances occur often, and the same plans work in each case.
Yes, but what if the move is counter-intuitive? You may miss the best move by saying, oh that doubles my pawns, that can't be good! (Very bad example) Then you may miss a positional gain that may come out of creating the weakness, like a powerful open file, or an oupost for your knight
But Dvoretsky's endgame book, is really for much higher rated player ?
Not THAT hard, but it certainly requires good understanding of some chess principles, as well as calculating abilities (the endgame is above all very precise calculation and evaluation- mistakes are most of the times irreparable).
i played much worse after reading the silman book, but this was because despite that i had played bad moves and strategies i had gotten quite experienced with those horrible positions. when my rating eventually got back up i now played very differently. i passed my previous barrier around 1300 with no sweat playing my moves based on the position, even in many cases thinking about the resulting endgames early in the game. but after reading this thread i GOT to get a hold of Ludek Pachmans book. btw i used the first silman edition
There's a "slight" difference between succesfully plagiarizing another man's work, and making a commercial by-product full of nonsense.
The first two editions of Reassessing was some sort-of-reasonable adaptation of a couple of the strategical themes presented in Pachman's book, but the last two editions is pulp exclusively aimed at naive readers.
I do believe that not all american readers are naive- do you object?
His endgame book is very good though. Not of the caliber of Shereshevsky's endgame books, or the definitive work by Dvoretsky, but still good enough, and well recommendable.
Is it the difference between the games the author chose to be in the 3rd and 4th edition? I have 2nd edition from the library and it was not bad for me. I did want to buy this book. Now they only have 4th edition in the bookstores. After reading the comments I am not sure if I will buy it.
But Dvoretsky's endgame book, is really for much higher rated player ?
If you knew all the material in the book then you'd be an IM right away haha :D And certainly it wasn't practical for me to get into some of what I considered dense theory. Some rook and pawn endgames specifically were just too much for me. But in these cases you know exactly how much to skip, because his blue diagrams are "must know" positions (according to the author) and are relatively simple to learn and remember... not that I remember all of them ;) There were over 200 of them by my estimate.
Maybe you're thinking of his analytical manual, which is certainly not aimed at club players. You'd want to be 2200+ to get your money's worth.
But you can't teach how to play the best move in any given position so I assumed common sense. You can only find the best move regularly if you have the right process.
Teaching a way to get to a position and then exploit it is far too specific to write about and different for every game. The idea of the book is that certain imbalances occur often, and the same plans work in each case.
Yes, but what if the move is counter-intuitive? You may miss the best move by saying, oh that doubles my pawns, that can't be good! (Very bad example) Then you may miss a positional gain that may come out of creating the weakness, like a powerful open file, or an oupost for your knight
You don't look at each in isolation, but the overall picture. You have to make a judgement on which feature is more important. The book shows which features are desirable/not so and you have to make a trade off.
You said "a given position" not "the given positions", so no, apparently I really didn't know what you meant there.