Is Jeremy Silman the greatest chess instructor OF ALL TIME?!
Sort:
urk
Jan 21, 2017
0
#1
It could be...
I got a book by him, and it has a lot of information but it's like the basics of all the strategies and tactics in chess. I think I need to get more specific books.
I don't like the way he treats beginners like idiots. He thinks he's funny but he's not. He may be a good instructor but if I treated my piano students like that I'd have none left.
His Great Courses series looks promising.
Jan 21, 2017
0
#8
No. His ego is huge, like post #6 says. He also neglects tactics and his imbalances teaching is limited. Where he really fails is how to teach one imbalance versus another. Chess is a game of trade offs. Finally, he doesn't say when a person should use his imbalances planning technique. Obviously you can't do it every move or you would lose every game on time. You also need some opening knowledge
Jan 21, 2017
0
#9
He's decent for total beginners, but after about 1500 USCF you need something better
surely not, all time hasn't ended so far.
Sure he's up near the top. Got about five books by him in my library. Just finished reading one of them the other day. Grandmaster Techniques from A to Z.
The answer to the opening question is easy. It is an unequivocal "No".
Silman is a stronger player than I am or have ever been (and probably ever will be). Nevertheless I think his approach to chess is "unbalanced". I also disagree strongly with using games between weak amateurs as instructional material as it disregards the damage done by subconsciously absorbing poor style. I believe that if you rely exclusively on Silman for your instruction you will end up saddled with all kinds of misconceptions. I think he can take you to a decent level, but that you are likely to be stuck there.
I think his success and appeal is because he presents you with a simple method for playing well (the creation and exploitation of imbalances) and that is what beginning and improving players want to see. Chess is not so simple. If it were we would all be masters.
Sunil Weeramantry is much better.
Stay away from Igor Smirnov. How can one teach how to do something he hasn't done himself?
jonesmikechess wrote:
Sunil Weeramantry is much better.
So are Tarrasch (The Game of Chess), Lasker (Manual of Chess), Capablanca (Chess Fundamentals), Znosko-Borovsky (How Not to Play Chess, The Middle Game in Chess, and others) Romanovsky (somewhat more advanced - Soviet Middlegame Technique), and many others of their era, despite writing so long ago.
Their books are much better than anything Silman has ever created. Unlike Silman's books they not only fail to tell beginners what they want to hear but also they require much more work and commitment from the student.
Jan 22, 2017
0
#16
Silman sure is popular.
That's why I wanted to ask the question.
It's funny to watch the Backyard Professor straining to try to implement "Silman imbalances" at every move, as if it's a groundbreaking new theory of chess.
That's why I wanted to ask the question.
It's funny to watch the Backyard Professor straining to try to implement "Silman imbalances" at every move, as if it's a groundbreaking new theory of chess.
Jan 22, 2017
0
#17
Jeremy Silman reminds me of another mustachioed writer with a similar declarative writing style - Thomas Friedman of the NYT.
His chess mentor courses was very good, helped me improve a lot I think 
Maybe in the Endgame Course book. And only in that one book.
