I love that book and its 4th chapter is sooooooo good.
the best thing about that book according to me is the way author has written it, i mean its so interesting and maybe its a awesome option for intermediate players.
now talking about cons i don't find any i mean maybe for advanced players its not of that value and they might find already known concepts but for me thats a perfect middlegame book.
i have also read a little part of the book called move first think later and in that book author does not agree with the method of silman
IM Silman focuses on the 2000 rated player and below (he occasionally pops well above that level, but almost always states he is doing so). He is eminently readable and provides a solid way to think about chess.
Imbalances are critical to chess, but I consider activity to be a type of imbalance, and I think he would agree. So that's my nuanced response to the individual who casually dismisses the value of imbalances. As an example, people sacrifice material for multiple reasons such as: space; the intiative (i.e., activity); an attack; to gain time; etc. All of those are imbalances.
If you are looking for a list of imbalances here is one shorthand version with an acronym that's relatively easy to remember
KIMPLODES
K - King safety
I - Initiative
M - material (if one side gives away too much material, they may not be able to achieve their goals. On the other hand, being a Queen up doesn't help if a pawn delivers checkmate.)
P - pawn structure (GM Mauricio Flores Rios wrote the most up to date book (Chess Structures) on this topic that I am aware of. Older books by GM Ludek Pachman are good up to a point, but somewhat dated.)
O - officers (the quality of the Bishops and Knights)
D - development
E - energy (this gets very complex; think the Hippopotamus where the one player tries to coil their strength behind pawns that usually advance only one rank, then SPRING into action)
S - space or squares (both actually make sense, but squares is a bit more technical. It's easy to tell when a side has more space, it is sometimes more difficult to pick out a critical square. At the simplest level a good square is an outpost where the piece cannot be attacked by a pawn. Then it starts getting complicated. I've seen games where the Black side "targets" the d3 square for a Knight. No pawn protection, but from d3 a Black Knight keeps the White Rooks off e1 and c1, which are open files in many openings. Bottom line, like Energy, this can be complex and require finesse.)
IM Silman focuses on the 2000 rated player and below (he occasionally pops well above that level, but almost always states he is doing so). He is eminently readable and provides a solid way to think about chess.
Imbalances are critical to chess, but I consider activity to be a type of imbalance, and I think he would agree. So that's my nuanced response to the individual who casually dismisses the value of imbalances. As an example, people sacrifice material for multiple reasons such as: space; the intiative (i.e., activity); an attack; to gain time; etc. All of those are imbalances.
If you are looking for a list of imbalances here is one shorthand version with an acronym that's relatively easy to remember
KIMPLODES
K - King safety
I - Initiative
M - material (if one side gives away too much material, they may not be able to achieve their goals. On the other hand, being a Queen up doesn't help if a pawn delivers checkmate.)
P - pawn structure (GM Mauricio Flores Rios wrote the most up to date book (Chess Structures) on this topic that I am aware of. Older books by GM Ludek Pachman are good up to a point, but somewhat dated.)
O - officers (the quality of the Bishops and Knights)
D - development
E - energy (this gets very complex; think the Hippopotamus where the one player tries to coil their strength behind pawns that usually advance only one rank, then SPRING into action)
S - space or squares (both actually make sense, but squares is a bit more technical. It's easy to tell when a side has more space, it is sometimes more difficult to pick out a critical square. At the simplest level a good square is an outpost where the piece cannot be attacked by a pawn. Then it starts getting complicated. I've seen games where the Black side "targets" the d3 square for a Knight. No pawn protection, but from d3 a Black Knight keeps the White Rooks off e1 and c1, which are open files in many openings. Bottom line, like Energy, this can be complex and require finesse.)
i dont know exactly what he was refering to but ya imbalances are working for me ..
thanks for ur opinion
I can't give you my opinion since I haven't read that book yet. Only book I have read written by that author was his endgame course or something like that. Probably doesn't matter but I liked it very much and it helped me quite a bit. His writing style, explanations, variety of difficulties (puzzles, problems and what not) and bunch of stuff like that were great. I remember he even made me laugh few times I don't know how but it gets bonus points for that. I haven't completed it since its divided by ratings and I read everything up to my level. Also I haven't touched it in weeks, so thank you for reminding me that I have to go back to it. But one thing i have to say is that you shouldn't be deciding on wheter or not you will continue reading it based on other peoples opinions. I like chess simply because game is so awesome at being different for everyone. We all have the same pieces, same goal and we look at the same position on the board but still it gets so complex and can be seen in hundred different ways. Ofcourse there are universal rules about what is considered good and bad, that part is whats real and if you don't believe in it for some reason than good luck at being a decent player. Someone likes to attack, sacrifice, play gambits, other people like solid, positional play, slow long games, etc and there is no right or wrong answer how to play correctly. That's why I can like certain book that you dislike and don't agree with. Maybe it can even hurt my chess and the way I look at it, but again its up to me to notice that what I am doing is wrong. Also when reading you don't fully accept every single word that is written in the book. You still have to think for yourself. If you like that book, why would you stop reading it is my point.
@Arnaut10 mentioned one of the most important bonuses you can find in a chess book--can the author make you laugh! IM Silman and IM Lakdawala both achieve that regularly in their books.
The learning is important, I find the learning sinks in better when I enjoyed the learning process because of a few chuckles, laughs or even outright guffaws.
Of course, there are chess books dedicated to laughter, and I enjoy those as well, though any learning there is more about the human condition than how to improve over the board.
Silman simply offers "another way" to look at things when it comes to chess. Ask 100 chess players to right a book on how to study, and you will probably get 100 different answers.
If Silmans method works then its fine.
There are many much better books.
There are many much better books.
can u name some of them?
Opinions on How to reassess your chess by Jeremy Silman 4th edition? (im currently reading it )
Few weeks back i was talking to a pretty high rated guy @Nicator65
and he said "there are some limitations to his way of teaching because chess is not all about imbalances and stuff but its an activity" something like that
i also think nobody apart from few titled players talk about imbalances specifically and some say this book is very overrated
i would like ur guys opinion on it and what do u think are the pros and cons of seeing chess in Silman s way of imbalances? and why some think his books are overrated?