Chess progress and understanding.

Yes, I rather thought so - it's problematic though. There are other issues as well that aren't described very well by a sliding scale of ? - ?! - !? - ! and so on, or their verbal equivalents. As far as I remember reading, the Immortal game is 'unsound', though presumably AA didn't think it was, and I guess he wasn't acting speculatively either. Really we need to introduce the idea of whether it worked or not at the time under the heading of 'un/successful'; 'un/sound' is fine, after the event, and I would reserve 'speculative' for certain players' styles. I think Tal would be the outstanding example of a speculative sacrificer.

MIght I suggest reading up on Rudolf Spielmann? He seemed to disagree alot with what you are saying, and he was no doubt of grandmaster level. (As strong as that would have been in the 30ies.)

I hear very good things about Kotov's "Think like a Grandmaster", but then... I heard it from Silman so it might be wildly untrue :P.

i forget what this thread was about, but someone mentioned that you begin to think like the author of the book you study.  that is so true, when i read "My System" i found myself jumping on tables and yelling things like WHY MUST I LOSE TO THIS IDIOT and complaining about people threatening to smoke

When I read all of those Rubinstein books I finally understood why I could never play chess or interact with another human being again.

I'm not so sure. I'm more under the impression that a speculative sacrifice is one where it's not clear that you get an advantage out of, and includes sacrifices where, for example, the resulting positions are double-edged and unclear. Not that what you described is by any means excluded. So I think that most speculative sacrifices go into the ?! camp, but some might fit into the !? area. Of course, I haven't talked to all that many masters about this, so I could well be wrong.

That's what I thought as well.

TACTICS: “Maneuvers that take advantage of short-term opportunities. A position with many traps and combinations is considered to be tactical in nature.”

SACRIFICE: “The voluntary offer of material for compensation in space, time, pawn structure, or even force. Unlike a combination, a sacrifice is not always a calculable commodity and often entails an element of uncertainty.”

COMBINATION: “A combination is a sacrifice, combined with a forced sequence of moves, which exploits specific peculiarities of the position in the hope of attaining a certain goal.”

see http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_understanding_sacrifice.html

I think it's helpful to distinguish in this way

Very strong teachers have very good advice but miss out on more intermediate ideas that amateurs need to know before they can fully understand a lot of the brilliance of the stronger players. And Silman's teachings are valid anywhere from 1000 to 2000. It made me understand chess and what not to do as an amateur. It has helped me understand more advanced positional ideas like in my system. But silman's books I don't even consider that dumbed down because there are some truly advanced ideas in them but it's also easier to understand than most books. Yes, a book can be both. All I know though is that it helped me alot.

 I agree-

I understand that Silman get poo-pooed on a lot around here becuase of some inaccuracies in his work. Keep in mind that the target audiences are beginner to lower intermediate, maybe even intermediate level players. At these levels you aren't concerned with visualizing 20 moves away, but you are concerned with issues such as 'bishops vs. knights', and pawn structures.

And seriously, do we really expect that beginning students are going to go out and get a library of books on chess just to decide how much they like it?

A couple of analogies that I hope will illustrate the point.

A student ( I used to tutor math) is just learning the concept of variables. Presented with a real-life problem (also known as 'story-problems'), I know that a much more accurate answer can be found using calculus and / or statistics. However, I decide to show the student an algebraic method for a rough estimate (first or second order equations rather than third and fourth orders). Sure, it's not exact, but for the target audience it is more than adequate.

Also a student, a musician wants to learn an instrument. The first thing the instructor does is put music on the stand. Simple nursery rhyme tunes and such. As the student gains an interest and improves, then the student is given more music (etudes, etc.). IF and WHEN the student decides to pursue the instrument as a serious endeavor, ONLY THEN will the student go back to work out the ultra-fine muscle control (examples are tremolos and vibratos) required for exceedingly beautiful music.

I feel that Silman presents a variety of important topics to a beginning, and often clueless audience. His work is absolutely adequate for that group. OF COURSE there are better books around that focus on specific topics and go deeper into the subjects, but most authors are writing to an audience with an assumed level of understanding that beginners simply don't. He presents the important topics, enough to whet your appetite for such things, without boring you to tears.

Yes. Silman covers many things that a book by a world champ might not include. Silman's books are excellent for that player who has trouble making a plan and needs to understand the positional imbalances on the chessboard and learn when to look for a combination (silman doesn't provide a ton of that but tells you a good method on how to get better at calculation). These ideas are extremely important in order to get the plateau at the average stage. Understanding the ideas of how to reasees your chess along with the amateur's mind well should probably get to the amateur at about 1800 or more. From there he can be proud of himself but obivously he can not only use that but understand more advanced ideas from there. That's a very simple rule in getting good at most things that kensai already mentioned: when starting out, it's easiest and best to learn the basics to develop interest and get gradually more and more complex lessons as learning what comes before the hard stuff helps you actually know how to do it. Silman's books are an excellent way to do that. There are very few chess teachers that can get into the amateur's head like silman does, and he not only explains the imbalances, but tries to change the thinking processes which is the right way to convert more knowledge into extra rating points, which isn't always easy to do.

Dan Heisman has a saying. It goes something like this: "How many games have you lost because of something you knew vs something you didn't know?" I such at chess because of HOW I play, not because of what I know or don't know. When I drop a piece it is not because I do not know tactics, it is because I didn't take the time to look at my opponent's possibilities. The combinations in the games of players bellow 2000 are generally trivial, triggered by the opponent's blunders not by the winners great positional knowledge. Until the class B and lower player builds a strong foundation of OTB analytical skill strategy, positional elements, and anything else are at best secondary and more probably meaningless and there is no hope of improvement.

Kupov, read these...

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/real.txt

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman10.pdf

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman98.pdf

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman89.pdf

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman55.pdf

I learned in playing that it's just as important to know how to apply knowledge of chess which can be obtained best with playing experience.