Working myself through the "Reassess your Chess Workbook"

Nothing is wrong with Fritz, something is wrong with Silman's assessment of the position and there's something wrong with Silman's theory as presented. 

While Bxf6 is arguably not the best move, it's not a bad move and in fact is perfectly playable.  But SIlman's doesn't allow that move to be even a candidate move because it violates his rules.

as I am going through the continuation, Fritz still wants to eat that Knight! But his suggestions for Black seem to be better than that of the original player. Biased engine?

If you're going through that book with a computer then you're missing the point.  Save your money and go over random GM games with a computer and guess moves along the way.

What the book gives you is a way to think about the position and practical ways to play.  Computers could care less which position gives more winning chances in practical play.  If they find a 8 move sequence that barely saves the draw they'll suggest that right along side the easy way to draw.  And maybe Silman ran out of critical 1 continuation only positions... the point is the exercises reinforce the type of thinking that will help you in many cases.  Computer thinking (other than being impossible to do) won't help you.

As for this position, there are multiple ways to continue apparently... the point is the throught process behind it.  Bxf6 gives up the bisohp pair (and your better minor piece), for a knight that's not doing much, I woudln't play this way either.

f4 with Bf3 or Bd3 seem more reasonable for scope and centralization purposes.  I wonder what silman suggests though?

Silman suggests using the g-file as a lane of attack. Rb1 is the first move.

The  idea behind using the engine was to play through my ideas and check whether they are any good. If I also have to play for the opponent, my margin of error doubles. Fritz playing the move I was looking for was an accident. (How do I get this thing allow 2 human players? it always does a move after I have done one when I dont want that) I certainly do not want to try to think like Fritz or use his suggested moves as mine.

Interesting observations by wafflemaster and kingpatzer - Maybe using an engine is not the right approach. Just tried it out. I should also not fall into the trap of thinking that Silman is always right. Bxf6 was my first idea in order to open the king position and double the pawns, but then I thought it is stupid to exchange the great bishop for that knight. (For the reasons Silman gives in the book, so I am learning something.

As I tried Bxf6 as Fritz suggested, it seemed to me a fruitless endeavor. Kingpatzer, do you have any ideas what to do after the likely gxf6?

Thanks for letting me know, Rb1 is interesting.

Actually I put this in my computer now and I see it says it's still in its opening book and Rb1 is the main move

RxR and Bf1

The position is entirely equal, so simply trading off pieces gets you there. 

Entirely equal huh?  There's lots of play left in that position (for me, maybe not for a master?).  The computer may point you to the exceptions in the rules but you'd do better to learn the rules first (read the book) and ignore the exception till later.  That's my $0.02 -- there's nothing wrong with Silman's theory, he's trying to teach the reader something about chess.

I bought this book when I was rated 1300 USCF (class D).  I got a few good ideas out of it (it's the position of the pieces, not the raw material count that matters) but mostly I found it confusing and I didn't like it.  I would think to myself "why not this other move" a thousand times.

I also tried one of Silman's suggestions, going over a GM game and playing guess the move and taking notes and all that... this too I found confusing and frustrating because I didn't know why any of the moves were played.

IMO it's best for class B players with a range of class C to low expert (yes even experts could find some good ideas in it).  I think he says somewhere in the advertising that it's good for class D and up or something but from my own experience I disagree.

Or maybe the title is a clue... "reassess your chess"  I didn't have any chess to begin with so how could I reassess it lol.  I literally played chess by shuffling wood until I saw a tactic appear.  If you're an adult player who's been at class D for a while and not a strategic neophyte then maybe it could work for you.

As presented, there's quite a bit wrong with Silman's theory -- because it doesn't hold up in practical games. 

Go see the book "Move First, Think Later" for a pretty good data driven critique of Silman's presentation. 

Interesting discussion we got into. Kingpatzer, I will try to get hold of that book.

Wafflemaster, I think your assessment is right about the target audience. I can very well imagine that the book will get over my head sooner or later. Right now it is a good challenge. I have more chess theory than practice, so Silman's ideas are nothing new to me but being able to implement the ideas is what counts, isnt it? The idea that Silmans theories do not hold up in practical games strikes me as odd, however.

I'll have to look at it then.  The idea of evaluating a position and being able to make some general remarks about it (I want to play in the center, my minors are better, his knig is open etc) and then basing your play around an idea I independently found useful many years later and recalled his books.  Maybe this is very good, maybe it's a style of play, or maybe I'm setting myself up for big roadblocks, who knows.  I find it very useful but I don't know how much it fits in with his specific method. 

Because I mostly found the books frustrating (I was too new to chess), and can't recall his specific methods (I've traded them for other books with club-mates) I guess I can't argue for his method haha.

I will say it's not possible to make such general remarks in every position, and there are definitely exceptions to even the most basic ideas (passed pawns, exposed kings, etc).

I don't see why Bxf6 is considered "positionally wrong" - you trade one asset (bishop pair) for another (weakened opponent's pawn structure).
Both Houdini and Rybka evaluate this move a bit higher than suggested Rb1.

uri65: If you understand Houdini or Rybka, then that is fine. I don't. 

The point of such problems is that you learn the reasoning behind the suggested move. I agree with Silman that trading a weak knight for a powerful bishop and thus giving up the pair is not the best move. It is easier for me to build a plan surrounding such ideas since I am not a machine. If someone finds  a plan surrounding xNf6, go for it.

Just got "Move first, think later" by Hendriks. Looks pretty good to me. I haven't found the part yet where it critizises Silman. Will surely be interesting.

For me the idea behind Bxf6 is to ruin his queenside pawns but I'd be glad to hear comments from stronger players.

Regarding "Move first, think later" - you can look up the name in the Index - Silman is mentioned on pages 25-27, 70, 81, 87.

The N on f6 is not weak. It's a valuable defensive piece. White's dark square bishop is a "good bishop" in that the center pawns aren't interfering with it, but it's not a strong piece. It's currently only defended by the Queen and it has no targets outside of the knight. 

You can decide that your'e going to base your play around trying to make that dark square bishop into a better piece than the black knight. But that plan is not inherently better than a plan of decimate black's pawn structure, trade off pieces, and play into an end-game.

That isn't some "computer" idea that normal people can't grasp.

The point is, and the critique many people bring to Silman's Reasses books is precisely that the plan of trading off pieces isn't worse than Silman's idea. Silman's suggested moves only work to create an advantage (let alone a win) if Black simply screws up.

For example, 1. Rb1 Qe7 2. Kh1 b6 3. Rg1 Ne8

and white has no real prospects for making progress.  

Silman speaks as if his notion of imbalances is the only means for finding a good plan, and he criticizes moves as bad which are equally as good as the moves he finds, and which are parts of plans average players can find. He also talks about his ideas as if they are maxims or rules that apply in to a large percentage of similar positions, but that is not true in all cases. 

A few points.

Bxf6 woudln't have much to do with the weakened pawns, you can't target them anyway.  The bishop pair does a good job of neautralizing the d file, and the black bishop is pointed at the kingside.  All games in my database have white playing a rook moves (Rc1, Rb1, and one with RxR with an immediate draw).

After 10 seconds of thought houdini likes Bd3 better... although it's worth noting the top 5 choices are only separated by centi pawns.  So it's time to take into account practical considerations.  Maybe you like endgames, so sure, trade it all off.

With Rb1 and later to the g file black is on the defensive, you're making threats on his knigside.  If you play it out vs the computer black has to make some ugly moves to keep defending.  If you want to hand him the draw by trading and telling yourself those doubled  pawns matter that's fine.  It's good to examine more than 1 idea, but don't fool yourself into thinking all of them are equally easy to play.  More realistically white would be saying something like he believes he's the better endgame player or something.

If you're comfortable in queen endgames, and your opponent is higher rated, sure, try to trade it all off.  After Bf1 black may go Be6 which is annoying to me, but it's not like black is better or anything.

I like Silman's books, and his approach.  What I have to say here may not ring true for some people here when considering my ratings on this site, but there are reasons for my particular rating situation.  I'll talk about that for a bit as well, and might as well do it now.

I have been away from chess for over a decade.  In the late '90s and early '00s, however, I was addicted to internet chess on Caissa's Web.  My rating on that site was stuck in the 1500s when I started reading HTRYC after seeing other players praise it in the forums.  I worked through that book with a board, and my rating gradually moved up into the 1800s.  Admittedly, I was playing heaps of two-minute games, but I also played quite a bit of correspondence games there, too.  I became better at finding ways to give myself superior minor pieces, and preventing my opponents from doing the same, as a result of reading that book.  Longish knight tours to outposts in closed positions became part of my positional repertoire.  I found it easier to make a plan based on what I saw, and better at knowing when to trade offending pieces or ignore threats.  I did not become an expert--I just became better than I had previously been.  It gave me a framework to assess positions and make plans in a chaotic environment.

The HTRYC Workbook is pretty good, but I would recommend HTRTC and The Amateur's Mind, first and second.  Let those sink in.  See if your rating improves.  If not, go back and reread HTRYC.  I think that book deserves at least one reread--some of the ideas in it might not sink in the first time around.  The Workbook is probably best as a follow-up to a reread of HTRYC.  Honestly, I think I would help myself by rereading all of these books again at this point, in that order.

Silman discourages making one-move threats quite a bit.  He may go overboard in doing so, but I think there is a good reason for it.  He wants you to realize that your opponent is going to do their best to make the best possible moves, and responding to one-move threats may actually force your opponent to improve his/her position along the way such that you end up with a lost position.  Look for something better--make a plan. It may be the case that not all of his examples work all of the time, but the vast majority do work.  I could not have written that book.  From a sea of books written with the intent to instruct, Silman's books are in a very small subset that actually succeed for average players with some experience behind them, IMO.

On another note, I'm feeling like I haven't lost much of my playing ability in the last decade, but I'm a bit flummoxed at how horrible my ratings are on this site!  I was playing on chesscube in December, and worked my way up to an 1800+ rating there in a couple of weeks, feeling like I could get to 1900+.  Here, I'm dog meat, and I'm struggling against many players between 1100 and 1400!  

To Kingpatzer: You say that "Silman speaks as if his notion of imbalances is the only means for finding a good plan".  What other methods are there for finding a good plan?  It isn't all about superior minor pieces--it's about space, material, initiative and development, etc., and he covers all of that.  The bishop vs. knight question is a common theme, but the central idea in his books is assessing imbalances of all types.  If there are other effective ways to think about it, I'm all ears, as I can always use the advice, and I certainly won't produce such a method myself.  ;-)

Well, I saw the xnf6 and discarded it as "my typical answer to not having a plan - doubling some pawns". Since Fritz suggested the move, I did it and could not find a good continuation.

The great thing about chess is that dogma does not work or gets easily refuted by facts. Actually, Silman does not strike me as overly dogmatic - but now I will check what this dutch guy has to say about him. Thank you, uri65.

I agree with Fingerly:  "What other methods are there for finding a good plan?  It isn't all about superior minor pieces--it's about space, material, initiative and development, etc." Enlighten us, if you may, Kingpatzer.

I have read HTRTC and The Amateur's Mind.
I guess it is pretty useless to do the workbook without those book in your mind. My plan is to have a revisit of those books in the process of going through the workbook.

Interesting debate here! 

Silman is very heavy on the importance of minor piece "imbalances" and if this subject is fairly new to you then his works are really good for getting you to look at a position in a new way. I got a lot from reading HTRYC.

However, it isn't a magical answer to all problems and there are many exceptions. (There is a famous Fischer game where Fischer gives up an awesome Bishop to change the pawn structure & convert to a won endgame).

In chess, a lot of ideas and principles should be seen as a guide and they will have exceptions. The Bxf6 move above is certainly playable, especially if you have studied the pawn endgame that the resulting structure produces. 

However, would the elite GMs play it? They would choose on which advantage they wished to play with, based on their experience and style of play and that of their opponent. Some would opt to keep the Bishop pair, others might trade off the light-sq Bishops and dominate the Knight with the Bb2. 

Whilst Silman does speak a lot about good/bad minor pieces, a key idea of his is to get people thinking about the specific position and ask themselves "in this position, what matters most and how valuable is each piece?"

You will see Rook for minor piece exchanges for positional games in 1000s of master level games.

On the subject of "one move threats", I'd go further and say that "threats that are easily met" should not be played if they serve no other purpose. No matter how good it will look if you manage to swindle your opponent. As you get stronger, your opponent will see it and your position will be worse for it (certain practical exceptions may apply like you are about to get mated anyway etc).

On another note, and I know how difficult this is to apply (discipline etc) - if you're looking to get better at chess, cut way down on blitz/bullet games! These 2 mins add up. Far better to play slow (real) chess where you spend your time finding the strongest move you can. Then after the game, analyse it yourself - not with the computer! The computer can be great for marking your work but looking through the game and discovering weaknesses and better moves/ideas for yourself is experience and a benefit that will stay with you for the rest of your chess life.

Ok, I just read the first 2 chapters of "Move first, think later". Now I think I grasp what Kingpatzer's point is. I feel a bit shaken in my beliefs and will probably need some days to of contemplation to find a new approach on how to learn chess. 

The Dutch heretic basically argues that moves come intuitively and good moves are found due to the memory of similar positions. The characteristics of the position (or "imbalances") do not necessarily play a role in finding a good move and looking at them may cost us valuable time. Following this train of thought, it is probably the best thing to play and study a zillion games.

My counter so far is that it is probably impossible to understand those zillion games if you don't have an understanding of position characteristics and do not have some of the guidelines which Silman seems to be a bit dogmatic about.

Alchemos, I do also hold the opinion that blitz does not help you much - unless you are already very experienced. Anyone up for a game of correspondence?