Which book to read?

Hi,

I am around BCF 110 (Apparently, anywhere between 1500 and 1700 ELO depending on what formula is used). I have been playing for 6 years, I am a member of the local club.

I have read and re-read My System a few years ago, since then I took a break, and I have begun playing regularly again a few months ago.

I have recently been on a few sites and bought both Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (Watson), Dynamic Chess Strategy (Suba), and Understanding Pawn Play in Chess (Marovic).

Which is best, or more to the point, which one is most instructive for someone of my grade? Or should I re-read My System again? The opinion of all 3 books is that My System is no longer fully in-line with modern strategic thought, and that their books are better for players like me.

Sometimes, in the middlegame, I feel like I'm ok, but I just haven't got the sense of knowing where to put the pieces. Sometimes, I have 3 or 4 plans floating around in any given position, but don't know enough (or have enough confidence) to evaluate and play the best one.

Hi there,

If you've already read My System more than once, I wouldn't say it is worth you going back to it again, even if some time has passed. Sadly I haven't read the other books you've mentioned, but if it is middlegame play you're interesting in improving, I can thoroughly recommend Silman's 'The Amateur's Mind'. The basis for my middlegame planning is the system of 'imbalances' mentioned in this book. As for the choice of plan, I'd have to say you should just try whichever seems the most promising, and you should learn through experience after that.

I'd say we're roughly the same strength, so if you'd like to play a correspondence game and discuss middlegame planning afterwards, I'd be happy to give you a game and my post-match thoughts.

Good luck.

Thanks, I've sent a challenge.

What doesn't help is that each book seems to have different views on strategy. For example, I have read online good reviews about Aagaard's Excelling... series, but they all say that he contradicts Watson's point of view in SOMCS.

If each person is trying to teach me in a different way, then... I don't really know which book to start with. I don't want to read them at the same time, because that would be very confusing.

Ah, interesting set of books!  I'm working my way through Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy right now myself, and I almost bought that Marovic book last time I was at a tournament as well.  I'd be interested to see how you like it.

However, my recommendation would be none of the above -- I think Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is the proper follow-up to My System.  Although I think every serious beginning student should read My System, I also think those authors are probably right that a lot of it doesn't really make all that much sense when you get down to it, so there's no sense beating your head against the wall on it.  Nonetheless, Watson's book so far would probably be a bit too impenetrable/erudite/high-level if you're not familiar with the concepts presented in Silman's book.  Silman presents some excellent concepts in a very friendly and easy-to-understand format, just right for a player of your level.

The only thing I'd caution against is Watson's SOMCS.  It's a fantastic book, don't get me wrong, but is written for either someone who really loves chess strategy to the point of being interested in it's progression though history (which is a main point of the book, illustrating that progression) or is at least an expert (>2000 USCF).

If you're interested in strategy, then a good book would instead be Pachman's modern chess strategy.

Agentreno's suggestion of Silman is good too.  The Amateur's mind as well as "How to Reassess Your Chess."  Like him, I haven't read the Suba book or Marovic book, so can't comment on them.

I completely second orange honda on Watson SOMCS. It is fascinating, but it is NOT an instructional book (as Watson takes pains to say in the introduction) ...  it's a study of the somewhat surprising types of play one finds in contemporary high-level chess.  If the book has one overall point it's: no rules that can't be broken, no principles that must be held sacred -- the cold hard calculated variation is king.  But learning exceptions to a rule without ever having learned the rule or how to apply it pretty obviously doesn't make sense IMO.

If you already made it thru Nimzowitsch -- Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess and the HtRYC Workbook are clear practical books for foundational middlegame ideas... don't overlook the How to Reassess Workbook, it's good.

Pretty much everything else -- Suba, Soltis (pawn structure chess) Marovic, etc. etc. etc. are best appreciated after having gotten Silman's ideas well in hand. (Also, FYI Studying Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy has helped me get Silman better. Silman and Pachman go hand in hand IMO.)

At >2200 Silman would just be review.  I also read Pawn Structure Chess and enjoyed it, but Watson's Modern Chess Strategy was a bit more in depth than I wanted... it's definitely a great book (I went ahead and read a few parts anyway ), but for class players I might suggest Silman first.

Hey, I'm not saying PSC isn't a fantastic book! Just saying I think Silman's stuff is more "foundational" (whatever that means) ... Pachman covers much the same ground as Silman as I mention and heck maybe you got all Silman's stuff all on your own... seems like Lasker, Steinitz, Morphy, etc. did ok without reading Silman, too. 

Buy as many Fred Reinfeld books as possible on openings, middle games endings and combination play. His teaching style is easy to understand and will provide instant results.

Are you doing other study besides the strategy reading? At that level, you should be focusing mostly on tactics, some endgames, and playing through annotated master games. The master games especially will help you learn how to handle a variety of middle game positions. Reading on specific topics like strategy, openings, and even advanced endgame stuff can wait.

I can't say I recommend Silman.  His ideas about thinking technique can harm a player's game IMO.

I don't disagree Fromper, but I find that I'm not improving doing those things. I have read through and tried to grip annotated master games, but sometimes find the annotations ('white stands slightly better', 'A better plan was 30 e5', etc) vague, if not vague, then confusing. I dunno, maybe it's the books I have.

Also, there are many opening DVDs / books catered to the 'improving' player, concentrating on complete games, and general themes, which I find just as good as studying master games.

I feel I know the Lucena position, Philidor, K+P v K, rook, minor piece endgames, and queen endgames pretty well, along with themes, (creating acion on both sides of the board, passed pawns, opposition, etc) and I feel like I am doing OK on tactics. However, I feel I struggle with making 'correct' play, and sometimes don't feel that I get nice middlegamepositions where tactics can come to the forefront.

Some of those Silman books look very good. Think I'l buy How to Reassess your Chess. Also, I think I might take a look at the Marovic book first. Pachman is a possibility too...

Man, so many choices!

I would go with the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. May not improve your chess but it is hilarious.

Can you elaborate? I've read about it online and it sounds... Well, it sounds good. But I'm not sure if it sounds very intuitive - like, you're not letting your brain think naturally.

It identifies 7 components that make up any chess position.  It's intuitive in that it asks the player to break down a position into it's components, evaluate it, and then form a plan/your next moves based on what you've discerned.

Compare this to how many amateurs play, letting their brain "think naturally" which goes something like this:

"if I go here, he goes there, then I can go here and threaten a pawn/queen/mate/I can play a check ...  yeah, that's pretty sneaky so he may not see it, so that's the move I'll play"

Anyway... the book/thought process it presents is completely logical and easy to grasp.  It's been well received and comes highly recommended by amateurs who have used it, and strong players who recognize it's worth.

95% of the stuff in his books is good.  It's just the other 5%: his thinking technique.

Basically, he says things like, "ALWAYS look at imbalances before individual moves", "Always have a fantasy position in mind", "Always have a side of the board to play on", etc.

1) Looking at imbalances (positional factors) before individual moves is a bad idea, because you need to see immediate threats (either tactical or positional) early in your thought process.  It's no good investigating an outpost when your opponent is threatening mate (a tactical threat), or threatening to destroy your pawn-centre (a positional threat).  You must look at the short-term before you look at the long-term.

2) Fantasy positions are useful only in very specific positions.

3) Having a "side to play on" applies, again, only in some positions.

People have, in the past, argued with my above criticism, saying that Silman suggests that you use this thinking technique only in some situations, or only after having used another thinking technique, or whatever.  But I disagree.  In my opinion, he makes it clear throughout both TAM and HTRYC that this should be your fundamental thinking technique, which you should use in any position.

Anyway, this is just my opinion.  Maybe his books will work for you, like they do for many people.  :)

This thing about the thinking technique harming players: 

1. I've never heard anyone claim they've been harmed by Silman's thinking technique. Maybe it's a waste of time, but harmful?

2. I don't use the thinking technique -- it looked kinda cumbersome (and like a lot of work) and I was too interested in learning about outposts and bishop vs. Knight etc to stop for the thinking technique.

3. I may come back to it, though. To me, it looks like a stepping stone, a training method that can increase your comprehension of chess positions, and force you to take a creative idea-based approach to finding a plan. I don't take everything Silman says as gospel. I've been a teacher myself and I've exaggerated (and simplified) to get a point across. I don't think Silman is an idiot who believes GMs step thru their thoughts going down a 12345 checklist starting with listing imbalances. But, I have a feeling if I forced myself to use his thinking technique for a year I'd lose all my blitz games (but then I already do) and I'd come out of the year a stronger chess player. I fail to see how it could possibly harm.

JG27Pyth wrote:

1. I've never heard anyone claim they've been harmed by Silman's thinking technique. Maybe it's a waste of time, but harmful?

It harmed my game, and I've read similar reports from other players (on this website and others).

JG27Pyth wrote:

I fail to see how it could possibly harm.

It is potentially harmful, in my opinion, because it teaches the reader to (for example) always look at imbalances before individual moves.   If the author was a self-confessed patzer then I would agree it's not really harmful.  The problem is that the author is an IM, and after paying attention to what he says about thinking, the reader may begin to believe that there is something wrong with their whole chess foundation.

But, really, there is nothing wrong with looking for tactical and positional threats first and foremost.  This is good chess thinking, not an erronous process which needs to be stamped out of someone's chess if they ever hope to improve.

No there's nothing wrong with it, I'm sure a player could continue to do this and become quite good even, but why not streamline the thinking process and become that much better.

Silman says in his books to notice hanging pieces and exposed kings and if they are present then to look for forcing tactical moves, and when none exist, then start in on the process.

Listing imbalances, and getting a feel for the position also helps with tactics.  Many times the move order of tactics can force a strategic weakness.  Or they may win some material, but leave you with a worse position.  If you're not first aware of what's going on in the position, it's almost not worth looking for any tactic that isn't immediately obvious in the first place.

You call it "streamlining"; I call it "ruining".  :)  I find the whole "don't calculate unless you see an exposed king, or an undefended piece, or whatever" idea to be way too abstract for a game like chess.