The Amateur's Mind

My rating was 1365. But then I decided I should read the amateurs mind since I've heard so often how good it is. Since then I've only played in 2 tournaments both small 3 rounders and in the open section. In the first one I scored 2.5/3 and ended up with 1st place and rating performance of 2065. In the second one I scored 1.5/3 with rating performance of 1843.  Also with only 6 games played (3 wins 2 draws 1 lost) I went from 1365 to 1506. Maybe it is a lucky streak but I think it is due to the fact i read that book cover to cover.

I play cc games on here more like a blitz  pace then a tournament time control so they're pretty bad with even some simple piece blunders xD

I considered that, Atos, but I came to the conclusion that it's often easier to spot the move than the imbalance.

For example, it's probably faster and simpler to think, "My opponent is threatening to check me, with Ba2+.  Wait -- that leads to mate!", than it is to think, "My opponent has two bishops and a queen pointing at my kingside.  I wonder if he has an attack.   Oh, wait, he is threatening to play Ba2+, which leads to mate."

So, sure, the imbalances might guide you there, but I think that most of the time it's the actual moves that clue you in.

That means 3 or 4 more books, cover to cover reading, and you'll be a GM in no time!

Despite pros and cons of "Amatuer's Mind," it made looking for imbalances in your opponent's structure part of every one of my candidate moves.

that would be nice xD lol

I don't see it as a hole, I think it's clear when the time is right. The most common cases are after the opening, after, in a tactical melee, the "smoke has cleared" and the resulting position is calm (happens extremely often, maybe one side's attack succeeded but most likely the defender just made concessions and it's a simple endgame up 1 or 2 pawns), I dunno, it's hard to explain the exact moments for each game. I think you just learn that from experience when it's important.

But I think all Silman is saying is that don't make your plan based on calculation, like to get a forced mate or something (this only happens if your opponent plays really bad, so if he does play that bad maybe!) until the positional factors back you up, and in that case you would develop quickly first, maybe sac a pawn. Only then can you expect good combinations to be there. Making plans as well as executing them is a big part in chess, but don't feel like you have to follow silman's ideas literally, but just get his point on the right way to plan. Forced threats you must react to, but that's completely different from making a plan, picking a candidate move that goes along with plan positionally and/or tactically, and calculate out the opponents response (it can stop your plan, go with his, make a tactical threat, you have to be looking out for anything) as much as necessary, until it's clear your plan is at least making progress.

Once you have a good plan, by all means calculate the best way to achieve it, but only if it's necessary to because you don't want to waste time on the clock.

I think because Silman says "thinking technique" it means people think you do it every move. You only re plan when the position is totally different. It should be called "planning technique".

Fuck yeh Elubas.

So yeah for things to work for me I sort of had to interpret Silman's words about planning, but with the help of all of those instructive examples introducing me to the imbalances (and how you're best supposed to make use of them, covered in amateur's mind), along with lots of tactical studies from other sources and knowing when to look for them my play skyrocketed.

Just curious Elubas, have you actually played a rated OTB event recently? Your level is probably quite a bit higher than 1690 if not.

If there is an obvious mate in 1, that is, most likely, not the time to make a full plan. However, say white has a queen on c2, bishop on d3 and g5, black has knight on f6, castled with a full pawn cover. Very common. Black has to prevent Bxf6 followed by Bxh7, but there are in fact two ways to do this. Ok, yes he saw the threat right away, that won't hurt, however now he has to ask himself "How do I prevent it, or do I even have to?" Playing ...g6 might be a positional mistake, giving white the imbalance of dark square control around the king, making him want to play ...h6. But what if black had the initiative? Perhaps it's possible that black could sac the pawn and play for the attack, but obviously if you only prevented direct threats you would always play either ...h6 or maybe ...g6, and in the case of ...g6 you would probably be making a concession.

So even in those situations I think you should have at least SOME IDEA what's going on. To see which defensive move is best, you still have to look at some positional factors.

I said since the first post don't 100% copy his process. I'm telling you what he was trying to do, and that despite his process he gives it's still a really good book, to answer your original question. I know because it helped me with strategy so much.

The thinking technique, well, as I'm sure we all did, we shortened it, but it's still based on the imbalances, that's the important part.

TAM is a great book.

Not very recently. Tournaments are rare in my area and it does take a long time for ratings to flesh out, because really 4 games is not that much. I think I have to be at least nearing the class A though, but unfortuantely you can't be sure.

Sorry for the rant guys. As you can tell I don't like Silman being critisized, because he was the one guy who helped me really understand chess. It wouldn't make sense to assume that you need to check the imbalances every single move, no, not when you already have a plan. But I think his "DON'T CALCULATE" is referring to people either not having a plan at all and mindlessly calculating, or when making a plan they base it on random calculation, not on the factors of the position, which is bad. When you have that clear goal in your mind, you no longer need to take another look at the imbalances. What you have to do from that point is now start to execute your plan and this will most likely be a combination of tactics and positional moves if you're playing a real game. Calculation then becomes important, but Silman didn't exphasize it enough, he was more like "Ok, now that we did all that fun planning stuff, ugh, I guess we have to calculate it out now... and then get back to the imbalances!". That is kind of what it seemed like, even though we know that's not what he does in a real game.

And yes arbitrary, you have to pick the right time to do it. Unfortunately Silman doesn't mention when.

OK but it's not about whether you or anyone can spot that moment or not. It sounds like you have reached the same conclusion, Silman doesn't make it clear, and it is one of those abilities (spotting the character of the position and if it's one of those critical positions or not) that is related to experience. It's just that his technique doesn't make it clear when to use itself, but sounds like it's an attempt towards a comprehensive thinking technique. I think that should count as a hole.

BTW, this wasn't my initial point, I don't remember how we got here . I think the stuff about trying to reach dream positions before starting to calculate isn't applicable. Not only in tactical positions, but in most "positional" positions either.

Yeah, a couple of things I had to do on my own. My point is that Silman's point didn't get fully across when he used the language he did and he was unclear on a few things, but they're still great books.

Most books don't give you any idea on a thinking process. At least this way I can tweak silman's idea, but it's better than making one from scratch!

Guys, do you know how hard it would be for someone to desribe a good thinking technique precisely for others to use? I think Silman did pretty good considering how complex of an issue it is (since every situation is different).

Yes I agree he presents useful material, my improvement to 1700+ from 1600 was probably a result of trying to solve all his problems in the HTRYC workbook, and I highly enjoyed his endgame manual but unfortunately coverd a very little portion of it yet.

lots of players now only know tactics and no strategy, if amateurs focus on these ideas and keep their tactical eyes open then this is not a problem

I've read both of silmans books and I think they're great. I do not recall anywhere where he stated ignore tactics and individual moves and just assess imbalances. If you could refer to a book and page number where he specifically said that I'd be surprised.

Pretty old thread, but let me quote Silman from "How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Edition":

Make sure you are aware of any crude threats by the opponent, and also do a quick search for any basic tactical themes that might be present. This is usually done subconsciously by players 1800 and up. However, if you are lower rated, are prone to blunders, or feel that you have serious tactical issues, then it's a good idea to take a few moments to get on top of this stuff.

Once you've made sure that Thor's hammer isn't going to descend on your head, it's time for loftier considerations.

* Ascertain the imbalances for both sides.

* Then ask the board (in an internal dialogue), "What move or series of moves tries to take advantage of these factors?"

Pretty simple!

I don't know whether that advice is explicitly given in "The Amateur's Mind", but it sounds to me that Silman suggests that before you start ascertaining the imbalances, that you look for that possible mate-in-3 that your opponent could do on you and that you make sure there isn't a royal fork that you can perform.

Exactly.  I 100% recall reading that.  Nowhere does Silman say ignore tactics.  That would sound pretty silly coming from an IM.

Of course he wouldn't just directly say that, nor would he mean to. But when you see how much emphasis he puts on finding reasons to not calculate, it can give people the wrong impression that calculation is only secondary to strategy, when it's more of the opposite. A shallow three move combination that wins material might not require some profound understanding, but it is more essential to notice.

Of course, he was addressing the people who calculate too much, but although his writing got me thinking about plans pretty well, he made me think that's almost all I would need; only through experience would I realize how important tactics still were.

Note that I'm referring to Silman's older works, such as reasess 3rd edition, and the Amateur's Mind. He makes some serious changes in philosophy in his newer 4th edition.