oh yes, i hear them say it all the time. big difference between 1850 and 2550. us class players look for small advantages and tactics, a master looks to completely stranglehold the game based on imbalances and tiny weaknesses.
Is Silman's way of playing chess really how strong players play?
Sort:
I think strong players use "the idea" of imbalances, but not "the word" imbalances. They talk about the actual imbalances (weak squares, weak pawns, weak back rank, open files, more space, more development, outposts, etc.) in terms of "compensation" (a word you hear all the time in post-game analysis sessions). For example, they might say after the game "I had this backward pawn, but that was OK because I had pressure down the c-file as compensation. But if we trade down to an endgame, I knew that pawn would be trouble, so I was trying to attack and stay away from the endgame." All of that is about imbalances, but nobody said the "I noticed an imbalance in pawn structure vs. control of a file, so I played to increase the imbalance to my advantage." Nobody talks like that. And if Skwerly (post #4) "...hear[s] them [2550 rated players] say it all the time" , he must know how to speak Russian! And if his USCF rating is 1545, how is he hanging around 2550 players "...all the time..."?
Dec 22, 2011
0
#4
solomonben wrote:
Collide wrote:
This might sound stupid, but I'm wondering whether masters, grandmasters, experts, IMs, etc. play chess and form plans according to imbalances in the position, as Silman claims in his book How to Reassess Your Chess. Is that REALLY how you're supposed to play chess?
The main reason I'm mindblown is because I'm currently USCF OTB rated around 1850 and I've never heard this before and I'm in disbelief. Maybe that's why my rating has stagnated? lol, but seriously, is that how strong players play and make plans? Thank you!
Silman just copied that idea from Pachman's book on the middlegame. But the book was printed in the 50-60ies, and in any case Pachman would give all the elements, like Nimzowitsch, and then the idea of the imbalances. However, it is quite clear that nobody (I mean the real players those with GMs title) uses such system. Especially the GMs from Eastern Europe they don't even know who Silman is. If then you add that Silman had a really poor career (once someone posted the results of his last 4-5 years, and in some tournaments he made it 10th out of 10 players!) then evidently you wouldn't use such system for your games.
However, that said Silman surely made a lot of money with his books, which makes me think that he would have been a very rich car salesman.
hah another anti-Silman here I see.
@solomonben: so GMs play according to Pachman's ideas of imbalances? If not, then WHAT SYSTEM DO THEY USE!??!
And to OP: Read Pachman's book. It beats Silman any day.
"And not only is it stupid, but he copied it from a better player, too!; Pachman's book is much better!"
Dec 22, 2011
0
#8
I actually asked a GM that question after a lecture. his reply was a simple "no".
@Lorgen: what question did you ask?
What system do GMs use then? I'm confused.
Dec 22, 2011
0
#10
I've never read a real chess book, but it seems to me that chess is all about imbalance, even if that's not how we think of it.
Platogeek wrote:
@solomonben: so GMs play according to Pachman's ideas of imbalances? If not, then WHAT SYSTEM DO THEY USE!??!
And to OP: Read Pachman's book. It beats Silman any day.
THEY DON'T USE A SYSTEM
They just play...
You're overthinking this. Stop overanalyzing and just play chess.
I have read some books by "Silman"...but not yet "Pachman" (will put him nearer to the top now). I like his system, since it helps you to develop your strategy.
I am not certain how other masters evaluate positions, and develop plans...but it must be along similar lines...even though different words are used.
Not all strong players make good teachers...and the reverse is also true. There is a great difference between evaluating a position (when writing a book), and actually playing OTB against the clock.
What book it is can you pleas put hear author and name of book. I'd like to check it too.
1. How to Reassess Your Chess.
2. Complete endgame course.
Both by Silman.
The way I see it is that GMs do not really break the position down to imblances to find right plan because they just do it subcousniously or they know right plan from the opening or their play is based on pattern recognition. There is rarely position so unique that they have no idea what to play. However, we mortals who did not go over zillion of games in every opening need to base our play on some sound ideas and we need to do it cousniously. This is what Silman tries to teach you. I really wonder why so many people hate Silman for telling them that it is good idea to open up the position if they have 2 bishops or that they should trade minor pieces when facing IQP. BTW, Simple chess and More simple chess by John Emms is great complement to Silman`s book.
GMs certainly don't go through the list of imbalances consciously every move. I'd also say that for us mortals this is only recommended in quiet positions, not in positions bristling with "seeds of tactical destruction". In quiet positions, Silman's method is great, though, and provides so much more than just the common advice to "improve the placement of your least active piece".
...there are so many masters on this site...it would be great if some of them would reveal what method they use...
duniel wrote:
The way I see it is that GMs do not really break the position down to imblances to find right plan because they just do it subcousniously or they know right plan from the opening or their play is based on pattern recognition. There is rarely position so unique that they have no idea what to play. However, we mortals who did not go over zillion of games in every opening need to base our play on some sound ideas and we need to do it cousniously. This is what Silman tries to teach you. I really wonder why so many people hate Silman for telling them that it is good idea to open up the position if they have 2 bishops or that they should trade minor pieces when facing IQP. BTW, Simple chess and More simple chess by John Emms is great complement to Silman`s book.
I think this might be the correct way to look at it.
Put another way, it may be like native speakers in a language do not really need to be taught the proper rules of grammer to speak, they mostly just sort of "get it" subconsciously, from having been exposed to it since birth.
On the other hand, if you are not native, and learning the language, you have to go through all the proper forms and rules consciously.
"Not all strong players make good teachers...and the reverse is also true. There is a great difference between evaluating a position (when writing a book), and actually playing OTB against the clock."
Totally agreed. I'm going to update my comment once I find the grandmaster who said something along these lines: the good teachers are usually devoted amateurs...
Though I'm not saying Silman is an amateur, be it well understood.
This might sound stupid, but I'm wondering whether masters, grandmasters, experts, IMs, etc. play chess and form plans according to imbalances in the position, as Silman claims in his book How to Reassess Your Chess. Is that REALLY how you're supposed to play chess?
The main reason I'm mindblown is because I'm currently USCF OTB rated around 1850 and I've never heard this before and I'm in disbelief. Maybe that's why my rating has stagnated? lol, but seriously, is that how strong players play and make plans? Thank you!