How to Reassess your Chess

My current situation enables me to study chess daily.(2-4 hours) maybe more.

So I take each example, copy it in chessbase, insert the alternative moves and then follow the game with the book.  When I am asked to try to evaluate myself, I write down my impressions in chessbase and copy the file.  For example, I started the first chapter of The amateurs mind and spent the week on it.  Next week, I will do chapter two ect...And most of the time, I will have read the chapters while just sitting somewhere before using chessbase and sometimes otb.

Thing is, I think that pretty much everybody knows what they OUGHT to do to improve, but it is not the same as what they WANT to do. I like playing fast time controls, like up to about half an hour each on a really patient day. Now, if I really, really want to improve I should do all the things I don't want to do.

1. Quit blitz and play 90mins plus
2. Learn the major endgames
3. Train with middle-game puzzles every day
4. Get a repertoire book and REALLY learn it, and go into the resulting endgames with a computer.
5. Quit booze.

I am not saying that this would make me a GM, far from it. (what happened to that kid who was going to become a GM in a couple of years in his spare time?) But I would by this means almost certainly improve AT LEAST a couple of hundred elo.

I guess I should also point out that the chances of me doing this are the same as breaking both my legs and having to stay in bed for a year. :-)

I've never read this book but I have his Complete Chess Strategy and Complete Endgame Course.  I've found that when learning things by myself (music, chess) I unconsciously pick up on certain principles that are helpful but I'm often in the heat of playing and don't think to write them down.  Books and verbal instruction are great for reminding people of those principles or teaching them to them for the first time, and I suppose that's why multiple readings are recommended.

I am now finished with my first pass-through of the book. I've read every page and played out every position.

In summary, I think it was a very enlightening book, but I can see where people would say that the book doesn't provide very much direct progress.

All in all, the book is an introduction to positional concepts for class players. That's all it is. By itself, it will improve one's chess only as much as being familiar with those concepts will: not a lot, at the class level. Being introduced to the concepts won't help you consistently apply them any more than seeing an example of a skewer tactic will mean you never, ever miss one in a game ever again (or put yourself into one). It takes many, many more hours of practice and study to be able to accurately apply the ideas.

I think it gives the foundation you'll need to become a better player in the long run. But it definitely won't get your there by itself.

Hello,

I got interested about this "Amateur's Mind". The comments on this thread so far have shown me that "How to Reassess your Chess" is not for me.

But by reading the review for "Amateur's Mind" on Amazon it seems there is a good book for someone who started playing chess less than six months ago and have been active for only three of these six months. It's says in amazon:

 

Product Description
This book takes the student on a journey through his own mind and returns him to the chess board with a wealth of new-found knowledge and the promise of a significant gain in strength. Most amateurs possess erroneous thinking processes that remain with them throughout their chess lives. These flaws in their mental armour result in stinging defeats and painful reversals. Books can be bought and studied, lessons can be taken -- but in the end, these elusive problems always prove to be extremely difficult to eradicate. Seeking a solution to this dilemma, the author wrote down the thoughts of his students while they played actual games, analysed them, and catalogued the most common misconceptions that arose. This second edition greatly expands on the information contained in the popular first edition.
About the Author

Jeremy Silman

 

So maybe this could work for me? You who have read this book, what can you tell me about it?

I've just completed the read through of Amateurs mind and played and saved each game in chessbase file so I can go back to it.  Now I'm ready to start working on the tests at the end of the book.  I really enjoyed reading this book and I personally feel that I understand more than before.  Yes my rating doesn't show it, but If I really look at my last games and analyse I realize it's because I didn't follow the principals in the book.  And of course asking the important question....Is it Safe!  I'm also realizing that I'm reading and studying more than actual play.  So my next step should probably be to start playing a lot more and applying.  I believe I will see improvement in the next couple of months.  

I really don't know what originality there is to Silman's book, but I can attest that it truly helped my game. I had two tremendous( for me) OTB tournaments after working through it and have done remarkably better against 1800-2000 ranked players since then.

You would have won 3 if you had.

Some people take every word and take it out of context.  Silman's book has let me understand positional and evaluation concepts which I did not have before.  I've read other books and articles which compliment my learning experience and that is why I talk about other chess principals like tactical play etc....Are there other books that do this?  Of course....

The idea is to put all this knowledge into practice by applying what was read.  And that means everything fom Morphy, Capablanca, tactical practice and mating patterns and Silman's or any other book.  When one starts to ditch a book and the author and start critizing another then there is a problem.  Because the people answer like it's the only book we are reading and learning from and not looking at other chess concepts.  The Amateur's Mind was a great reading experience and a part of my learning experience.   I enjoy evaluating the positions in the book and going through the process.  Will I see an improvement in my game?  Of course I will...Because I'm still at the early learning curve mark.   Will it be because of Silman's books ?  The answer is Yes.  But it won't be his books alone.   

I would crush you if I read Silman in detail.  Positionally destroy your position without using tactics at all.  

All these criticisms and not a single criticism of an single idea or page from the actual book. Just a lot of vauge and weirdly hostile rants. It's an excellent book for what it is. Of course simply knowing about open files and outposts and so on won't automatically make you a better player, and of course other people have covered these ideas before (it's not 'copying other people's ideas' because nobody has a patent on chess ideas). But it will enlighten you to the various concepts inherent in a chess position.

If somebody has been turned off of this book by these criticisms that's really too bad, because it's one of the best books of its kind out there.

Too many words in Silman's books.   The Chessimo Strategy modules are problem solving, learning by doing, which is better than being "told" positional concepts.

Anybody done Chessimo for strategy?  Gilberto Milos is a GM/former candidate and the stuff was last updated in 2008, so it is modern.

That's a review from Amazon, from 2003. So are you this reviewer, or did you plagarize, verbatim, this review?

http://www.amazon.com/review/R36VGB1BDDN3KJ/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1890085006&nodeID=283155&tag=&linkCode=

I'll agree that if you feed the positions to a pc it dismantles his analysis and choices. Concrete considerations trump any broad 'strategic' ideas everytime. I still think it's beneficial to a beginning player, because the ideas are grounded in solid, traditional chess strategy (outposts, open files, good vs bad pieces, etc) which enrich a beginner's appreciation of chess and give them a solid foundation for those tactics to emerge from. Doing endless repetitions of tactics will give more points than any strategy book but it can become mindnumbing. Reading a strategy book will increase your appreciation of chess, regardless of whether there's a immediate increase in rating (there's a difference between 'knowledge' and actual practical 'skill').

If you're going to criticize the book at least do it in your own words, instead of copy-pasting some 2003 review from Amazon.

I'll just go ahead and sign my name on the 'Very Much Enjoying' side of opinions on the book. I was expecting the Psychological Meanderings chapter to be painful (since psychology is overstated in sports, maybe in general) but it was actually a worthy addition - the "I can't/I have to" pages in particular.

What about the newest edition of HTRYC 4th ed?  Everyone including MDLM knows how flawed the old version was/is.  But Silman computer checked everything in this newest edition with Rybka 3 and Fritz something.  

Are Pachman, Euwe, and Nimzwitsch really the best options for strategy?  Their analysis must be really flawed compared to authors several decades later.  But if their books are awesome because of their "ideas", then how are Silman's "ideas" any worse since they nearly completely overlap with Pachman, Euwe, Nimzowitsch, etc.

What about anything written in the last 30 years? 

What about Hellsten's Mastering Chess Strategy, a newer book (2010) from a GM who has trained kids.

What about Chessimo strategy modules by GM / former candidate Gilberto Milos (2008)?

Any GM's analysis, of course, will be flawed relative to a strong engine.

Just like you can know what a checkmate is and try to plan one and fail by your own flawed calculation/visualization/pattern recognition, that doesn't render the concept of "checkmate" as obsolete.

Similarly one can learn what strategic concepts to aim for in a game from somebody else even if s/he and the other consistently fail at achieving their strategic goals.  

I always thought of strategy books as giving you the short term goal to aim for when no tactics are present (or at least not seen by the given player) rather than strict analysis.  It has little to do with the author's analysis, who is simply showing examples of a particular strategic goal/idea that s/he tried to achieve in a particular game that coincides with the same ideas that many GM's aim for in their games (though GM's are far better at accomplishing their ideas because of their superior analysis and pattern recognition).  

If an IM's faulty analysis renders a strategic concept (and therefore an entire strategy book) as absurd, then that means GM's don't think about the ideas in the table of contents listed in Silman's books and have an alternative magical method that they refuse to share.  Is that what Watson's strategy book is all about?  

1. Fine.  If what you say is true, then he is a plagiarizing unethical a--hole.  This still doesn't answer whether his book (newest edition of HTRYC) is effective for amateurs who want to learn positional play.    

2. So what if Silman is arrogant and hates computers?  His vitriol against MDLM is the same as yours against him...not a single word about the ideas, just ad hominem attacks.  You really need to study philosphy 101.  As for him censoring and plagiarizing others, if he does that, again I am fine with basically calling him a douchebag.  He did reply to my e-mail once fairly quickly and lengthily, though, so my direct experience with him competes with your obvious polemical agenda.

3. I am well aware of the 3rd edition of his book, and FYI I am the biggest fan of MDLM ever.  Often publishers will refuse to incur the costs or correcting/editing/reprinting a book if it maintains a high level of sales in the face of these obvious well-known egregious errors.  Pandolfini's Endgame Course is one such example.  And in the new edition, Silman does fully admit that he had errors of analysis and that chess engines were simply not as strong as they are today when his 3rd edition was written.  Plus, Silman rewrote everything so rather than slightly improve the old edition, he decided to come out with a newer more accurate modern edition.  I and many others simply do not give 2 $#!+$ about an obsolete edition of a new updated computer-checked book which has the acclaim of many aficionados.  Dvoretsky never tried to write anything for my level, so f--- him, my money and time goes to the Heismans, Pandolfinis, Silmans, MDLMs, and chess.com.  

4. Software, titles, etc.: you act like I and other struggling players have invested every ounce of our free time studying, learning, and memorizing these "strategy" materials with obsessive passion for great lengths of time sacrficing so much of our lives for nothing in return, implying that our current skill levels invalidate the effictiveness of these materials.  However, many struggling players including myself actually do not study as much as you'd like to think we do (I wish I could, but life sucks), which is why I/we continue to ask about others' experience with these materials.  You use the same arguments against me that the anti-MDLM's use against me ("you haven't achieved anything in chess...see how useless tactics tactics tactics are; try studying positional play and endgames.")

It should be obvious to anyone who has tried playing chess or tried excelling in anything that 1 book does not create a master, even if it is the greatest book on the subject ever.  How many NM/FM/IM/GM's studied just one book?  

I'd like to think that it is clearly understood that when crappy players are asking about a particular resource or what the "best book" is on a certain subject, it is implied that we are talking relative to our level to gain a slight increase in playing strength, not an unrealistic 1000-point jump in 2 weeks.

By your argument, Silman therefore can bag on anyone who is not an IM or higher, including you and other amateurs who bag on him.  Why are Silman's followers not NM/FM/IM/GM?  Maybe the same reason none of the Knights Errant are...not enough [effective] studying and/or not enough time (sorry, we all don't have 2-3 hours a day x 10 years to devote to chess).  An unemployed MDLM became an expert in 2 years, but unfortunately  I need to keep my job to pay off my debts.    

You can't 'plagarize' an idea like E=MC2, it's not patented, Einstein doesn't 'own' it, it's a fact about reality. You can't plagarize it anymore than you could plagarize a fact like 2+2=4. The same goes for Chess strategy. Nobody owns the idea of chess imbalances, which is perfectly clear if you actually read what the specific imbalances are (Material advantage, Space, Initiative, etc). They're common to any book written by anybody about chess strategy.

Honestly, I'm sure there are legit criticisms to be made of the book but the people in this thread come off as a bunch of weirdos.

I will add a thought.  I have the book (and the previous version).  I consider it my chess bible.  But I use it differently than "reading it once".  As an analogy,,, I remember a qoute from a short stop on the Mets 20 years a go.  10 year veteran yet several times a week he went on the field and took dozens and dozens of routine ground balls.  Put a guy playing second and practiced routine double plays over and over.  Why?  He can do that stuff in his sleep.  Because it never hurts and can only help to keep going back to the basics.  I read that book once per year like clockwork.  And I skim through it if I plan on playing in a big tournament. 

This will also, eventually, solve the temporary rating rise syndrome.  It all will sink in and the rating increase can become permanent.  Rote learning plays a big place in improving chess.  Changing habits is hard.  That is why "once a criminal always a criminal".  But from personal experience, that rule is not universal.  There are exceptions.  But those exceptions go to those most determined to make it work.

So, stop making excuses about why your game isn't improving and make it happen.  Tie up your boot straps and go to work... with determination to be the exception.

Silman's ideas can actually be traced to Steinitz but his books are as good a place to learn those principles as any others.  Unless your name is Paul Morphy understanding imbalances is not a bad way to approach a game of chess.

Solomonben, you are what a C player?  Silman would wipe you off the board in a simul let alot OTB.  Let us know when you win a US Open championship, Silman won one back in 1981.  Better yet post your actual tournament results.

Ok weirdo. Here are a list of the imbalances. How about you show me a single chess strategy book that doesn't mention these? It's impossible to for anybody to write a strategy book and not mention every single one of these factors. And how can anybody 'own' any one of these concepts? It's like saying Morphy invented checkmates. God you're thick.

Imbalances

1) Superior minor piece
2) Pawn structure
3) Space
4) Material
5) Control of key file or square
6) Lead in development
7) Initiative

And where does Silman claim he 'invented' any of that? Strawman. Now run along and find someone else's writings to plagarize in response (ironic a plagarist accuses somebody else of plagarism).