This book is absolutely useless if youre bad at tactics.
My System Examples
Sort:
like your tactics rating should probably be 1600-1700 to start doing this book.
bb_gum234 wrote:
Just a thought.
I think if you stick to putting a pawn in the center, you'll be able to use classical rules more often in your games.
e.g. 1.Nc3 d5 (or e5).
There's nothing wrong with developing and castling as you did in the game, but things can become non-standard (as I like to think of it). So for example white kept his king in the center for a long time and it really wasn't a problem.
IN the post-game, the opening dB suggested d5 as well. When I saw it, it made sense.
I'm not sure about White's king in the middle though. Seems like, if I had played a little better, I could have exploited it.
umirin1991 wrote:
This book is absolutely useless if youre bad at tactics.
Tactics are pretty useless, in the long run, if you don't have the knowlege in My System to back it up.
19... Nc7.. allow exchanges that open files.
No man, that exchange was forced because there was no other spot you can move the LSB to without hanging it.
45.. Qe3+?? Qd4+ wins a rook.
I got to 1900 USCF without reading a single page of My System. 1900 is pretty crappy, but i dont think its bad for not touching chess books.
IMO Nimzowitsch is a very sketchy character.
Whenever what he says works, hes like "GUYS LOOK IM A GENIUS EVERYONE SHOULD PLAY CHESS LIKE ME"
and when he gets completely destroyed by Capablanca, etc...
*Ill just make sure these scoresheets never see the light of day*
umirin1991 wrote:
19... Nc7.. allow exchanges that open files.
No man, that exchange was forced because there was no other spot you can move the LSB to without hanging it.
45.. Qe3+?? Qd4+ wins a rook.
At this point in the game, I had less than 5 seconds to his 1+ minutes. I was just trying to see if I could get him to slip-up.
BTW, Qd4+ leads to mate for Black.
All the mates I missed in this game. The last 15 moves or so of the game is puzzle heaven. 
bb_gum234 wrote:
umirin1991 wrote:
I got to 1900 USCF without reading a single page of My System. 1900 is pretty crappy, but i dont think its bad for not touching chess books.
1900 USCF, hmm. Why bother using a fake name on your profile then? For example I don't give my name at all.
because i dont want to reveal my name on the internet so i use a name from my halo 2 days.
internet anonymity is something that should be cherished, not readily given up.
Do you have to reveal your name to have your official OTB rating posted on your account?
bb_gum234 wrote:
No, you can give any rating you want on your profile.
You sometimes see people will put zero, or a five digit number.
Really? I thought the site actually tried to verify them.
Hey, guess what, I now have a FIDE rating of 1,000,000.
Anyone need a coach?
The site only cares to verify titled players because of the free diamond membership they get.
i believe you need to send in a copy of the certificate that you get from USCF/FIDE as proof that you are titled.
The only Kevin Jensen on uschess.org is 1343 . If you are going to lie about your name you shouldnt use someone else's real name imo . You are not required to give a name so why give one at all if you are just going to lie about it ? A person who will lie about their name would certainly not have a problem lying about their rating either ...
Apr 24, 2015
0
#37
He wrote about My system «This book is absolutely useless if you're bad at tactics». And I want to study to play chess without tactics
Apr 27, 2015
0
#38
kleelof wrote:
frankiegoestovegas wrote:
If it weren't for these geniuses, chess would still be in the Stone Age and modern GMs only rated around 1900.
Not sure about that. Without something like this, the playing field would still be the same and there is a good chance the ratings spread would be the same. It's just that a 2100 WITHOUT My System, and subsequent material, knowledge would be weaker than a 2100 from a parallel universe where this material exists.
You just blew my mind dude!
Great idea, just started it myself as it happens, on chapter one still though. If anything comes up, I'll let you know
Here is a game I just played that has a couple of My System things in it.
This is my first live game in over a week. During that time, I read a lot of My System. So I'm feeling a bit emboldened.
Here are a few moves I felt were influenced by what I read.
7. ..Bg7 to exert more control over the dark squares where being ignored by White.
10. ..Nd7 to prepare for attack on center.
17. ..Qe7 to prepare for action down a strong semi-open file.
And the game is closed out with a nice little tactic I found.
This was a 30/0 game.
My System is my favorite book and helped me more than any other book I own . However I disagree that the H file is " Open " in post 14 . In fact its the only file that is NOT open . An open file has no pawns in it .
From Part 1, chapter 2, subsection 1 - "A file is said to be open for the rook when no pawn of his is in it, or, if ther is one, it is masked, as for example....(the example I gave above)
Now that I read it again, I suppose, in the purest sense of the term, you are correct. He was only talking about for the rook in this case.