Silman's imbalances

there was a stage where I didn't know how to win without a blunder from the opponent. After reading 'The Amateur's Mind', I can't plan without a positional blunder. I started dropping points after reading that book, hanging pieces etc. So, I bought this book;

http://polgarchess.com/products/1210-1215.php

and my ratings have gone up again. I'm under the impression now that tactics should be the main focus of all us patzers, until they're drilled into our subconscious to the extent that there is almost no question of us putting a foot wrong. I'm going to read "The Amateur's Mind" again, after working on tactics and endgames until I feel not only comfortable, but confident that I a) won't miss that many tactical opportunities b) not miss many tactical threats from my opponent, c) can win a won endgame, and draw a drawn endgame. Then, back to ideas like planning and imbalances.

as Polgar says, "You can get a lot further by being very good in tactics and have only a basic understanding of strategy." I'm aware that this is a point of contention.

p.s. I still try to evaluate positions and come up with plans, but more often than not, I will be more than happy to draw the game into more tactical waters, even if the position doesn't call for it.

Hmm, to be honest, I still am not comfortable with this.  I wrote the following reply to Silman's Imbalances article.  I wonder if anyone agrees or disagrees with the following?

I've never understood why, in his middlegame books, Silman states that you should never look at individual moves until you understand the imbalances in a position.

Surely there are times when you should be looking at individual moves before looking at imbalances.  For example, if your opponent is threatening some nasty checks, you certainly don't want to be looking at who has the most space, whether there are any knight outposts, where the weak pawns are, and so on, before even seeing what happens if the opponent is allowed to play out those checks!

No --- the first thing you should do in such a position is to look at the individual moves your opponent can make.  But this violates Silman's "never look at moves before imbalances" philosophy.

This is the only thing I've never understood from Silman.  Everything else makes perfect sense.

I guess some systems just don't work for some people, but I think you're misunderstanding the book.

These books were written to help class players who get that lost feeling when they're in a balanced position, no weaknesses, no tactics.  Instead of shuffling around, staying active and waiting for a blunder, you'll learn how to play for real and wont hit a rating wall of 1700, 1800, 1900 etc. because your play is one dimensional.

In the middle of a tactical situation or attack do you really think Silman wants you to stop and list imbalances?  Of course not, in that situation your plan is obvious.  The imbalances are a system to break down positions where such plans aren't obvious and find logical candidate moves that calculation alone would never suggest.

Every author and player from Kasparov to the kid next door knows tactics are important, this book isn't trying to counter the wisdom literally everyone knows, he's showing you how to play other types of positions that isn't covered by dozens of books already (eg the way tactics are).

I use imbalances all the time to keep up with the "thread of the game" and find good candidate moves.  Of course afterwards I calculate and be careful of tactics.  If you want to keep chess as a purely tactical game (seems boring to me) you can still enjoy it and increase your rating, but eventually you'll hit a wall where your opponent is always getting good positions and you don't know why or what you did wrong -- one dimensional chess can only take you so far.

Before all moves you need to do some calculations, if you don't, you'll do mistakes. (with or without knowing the imbalances)

-The point with the "imbalances method" is to find a good plan, after that you need to find some moves that helps your plan, then you have to do the calculations!

To save some time, you could do some calculations first, if you get the feeling that there has to be something in the position.

You are probably right.

Thanks for all the replies!

I read his book and had the same problem, and still do at times. I try to look at imblances in my turn based games, there's not enough time in OTB games, for me at least. But always look for tactics first, and last. Before you think about imblances look at what you are threating and what your opponent threatens, then start to think about the imblances. Then after you gone through the imblances and decided on a move then check again and make sure it works tactically. I would also reccomend doing alot of tactical puzzles as well just to keep your tactics sharp.

His imblances also work better in more in certain positions, in really tactical positions, they aren't as helpful. I use the imblances more when nothing is really going on in the game, neither side is really making a threat

I've been thinking about this recently, and I believe (although I'm not sure) that I understand Silman finally!  And I'm glad that this understanding matches what marvellosity has said above.

Previously, Silman's "never look at individual moves until you understand the imbalances" advice seemed wrong to me.  I thought, "What if you opponent is threatening a dangerous check?  Surely you should look at this check before looking at imbalances like knight outposts!"

Well, now I believe I was missing something.

Development (or "force") is an imbalance!  If your opponent is able to deliver a check, he must have "developed" the piece in question (even if "developed" simply means moving a pawn out of a bishop's way).  Therefore, if you notice a developed bishop, and then you look at the individual moves of this bishop and notice that it can deliver check, you are looking at imbalances before moves!  You are noticing the imbalance (the developed bishop) and then seeing a possible move (check).

It seems that I have been following Silman's advice all along.  The words just confused me.

He basically just means don't mindlessly calculate your way out if you have no idea what's going on. When you know the general plan then if there are no tactics you will just improve your position, and even if they are a lot of times tactics are based on the execution of positional advantages (like development and sacing a piece to open up the king for the extra force to get to it). I think you have to pick a time to make a plan. You don't just make a plan every move of course. Say your queen is attacked. Well, in most cases you'll have to move it. If you know where it should go, just throw it there and make the plan soon after. But on the other hand if certain queen spots had different strategic plans, well maybe that's the time to make one, so that your queen is doing the right thing!

Well, you should not take all assertion with an absolute value. "Never look at individual moves until you understand the imbalances" does not mean "look at the imbalances, even if your opponent threatens to win a piece". The way I understand his advice is the following: if a move is forced, make it! If your opponent threatens a tactic, prevent it! Otherwise, look at the imbalances and make sure the move you select adresses the imbalances present in the position. Don't make a move just because you must make a move!

And of course, sometimes a threat isn't one, because of imbalances (let's say a bishop attacks a protected rook -- that may not be a threat if the bishop is the stronger piece in the current position. Or perhaps you are so completely winning materially that any trade is good for you, even rook vs bishop. Et cetera.).

When the opponent has a threat, you can ignore it, prevent it, or counter-threaten something (of course, not all of them are always possible...). Which is best depends on the rest of the position - imbalances.

Of course, somewhere early in your thinking process, you'll have to check whether the opponent has any threats. And if he does, and it's the kind of threat you can't possibly ignore, and there's just one way you can prevent it -- well then that's what you have to do, and you can skip the rest. But that's pretty rare.

Other's mileage may vary, but I'm working on my third reading of The Amateur's Mind and my game -- and more importantly, my enjoyment of the game -- has improved greatly. I went from mindlessly calculating and playing reactive chess to having a better (but by no means perfect) positional understanding that allows me to 1) do the more efficient calculations based on the imbalances on the board that creates many of the tactics and 2) no longer get pushed around on the board and have plans of my own. In fact, I finally won a tournament game... against an opponent rated 500 points higher than me. I still make errors and I still study tactics, endgames, and some opening theory, but I am definitely more confident about the game -- and thus I enjoy it more.

I believe what Silman ultimately is saying is that the position (when analyzed through the filter of understanding said position through the imbalances that are present) dictates what the best move on the board is. The player should be seeking to use those imbalances (not necessarily advantages in and of themselves) to bring about one or more decisive advantage from those imbalances.

Silman on my opponents move. Heisman on my move. Just starting to try this.