Silman has many useful insights. Some opened my eyes in new ways. Pick up those points and make the best of them. But Silman's concept of structured thinking is artificial and strained. Don't get caught in a trap of trying to think like Silman.
Chess Kings has the book on YouTube. You can watch the videos and follow along in your book !
@sparowe14
Actually that isn't true. The way to get better at chess is to have a thinking system. When I said I wasn't a fan of Silman, it wasn't because the book was bad. It's just that I don't attribute the thinking system as good for me. I use something else. You almost always have to have some kind of thinking system or else you think chaotically. If you structure your thinking it helps you determine plans easier. Now One of the reasons I don't like Silman is his process is long winded (You may have meant this instead of saying structured system). But I also think that if you have an idea of his method and how it works, it can help you come up with a plan if nothing else works.
Actually that isn't true. The way to get better at chess is to have a thinking system. When I said I wasn't a fan of Silman, it wasn't because the book was bad. It's just that I don't attribute the thinking system as good for me. I use something else. You almost always have to have some kind of thinking system or else you think chaotically. If you structure your thinking it helps you determine plans easier. Now One of the reasons I don't like Silman is his process is long winded (You may have meant this instead of saying structured system). But I also think that if you have an idea of his method and how it works, it can help you come up with a plan if nothing else works.
Willy Hendriks, "Move first think later" - he is very critical of Silman's approach and method. I would recommend everyone to read that book, just to have another side of the story.
Well, that's a question of faith that many more authors answer each in their own way. Some focus on structure, some focus on intuition. The truth is probably, as most of the time in disputes about learning, different for everyone.
The thing to notice with Silman is that some really love his style of writing and some loathe it.
I'm more of the latter... it's somehow way too upbeat for me. Reminds me too much of a used car dealer (downplaying the challenge, stressing how much you will improve (for sure!) if you follow his ways). He's not the only author like this, of course, and I don't really think he's dishonest or something, just trying to cheer on his readers and make the read more enjoyable.
Still, I prefer the more professorial style which is more dry and (hopefully healthily) sceptical.
(there might be a bit of American vs. British mentality going on)
The thing to notice with Silman is that some really love his style of writing and some loathe it.
I'm more of the latter... it's somehow way too upbeat for me. Reminds me too much of a used car dealer (downplaying the challenge, stressing how much you will improve (for sure!) if you follow his ways). He's not the only author like this, of course, and I don't really think he's dishonest or something, just trying to cheer on his readers and make the read more enjoyable.
Still, I prefer the more professorial style which is more dry and (hopefully healthily) sceptical.
(there might be a bit of American vs. British mentality going on)
I'm in the @LukaCro - Willy Hendricks camp. Move First, Think Later. (Not literally, of course, but the slogan is helpful in reminding me of the importance of intuition, pattern recognition, ideas that jump into my head on their own.)
Sure, @MeWantCookieMobile, we all can benefit from structured thinking, but, to me, Silman's brand is artificial. That is, it is so contrary to my natural way of evaluating a position and finding a move, that it interferes with my thinking process, rather than helps.
When it is my turn I would never start my thinking with, "Let's see now, what are the imbalances? What is my worst placed piece? and so on, and so on"
I start with, "Oh, look, there's an idea: I could sac the rook opening up the g-file and my queen would come to h6. Does it work? Let's see." When I discover it doesn't work, I turn to the next idea.
You need not take my opinion too seriously. I'm not very good.
But I know it does not help me to try to force my thinking into the Silman straitjacket. I aim more at 'guided natural thinking.'
As I said, I read Silman's book. It was worth reading. On the other hand, Move First, Think Later got me excited and enthusiastic and spurred my creativity. -- Woodpusher opinion worth what it cost.
Sure, @MeWantCookieMobile, we all can benefit from structured thinking, but, to me, Silman's brand is artificial. That is, it is so contrary to my natural way of evaluating a position and finding a move, that it interferes with my thinking process, rather than helps.
When it is my turn I would never start my thinking with, "Let's see now, what are the imbalances? What is my worst placed piece? and so on, and so on"
I start with, "Oh, look, there's an idea: I could sac the rook opening up the g-file and my queen would come to h6. Does it work? Let's see." When I discover it doesn't work, I turn to the next idea.
You need not take my opinion too seriously. I'm not very good.
But I know it does not help me to try to force my thinking into the Silman straitjacket. I aim more at 'guided natural thinking.'
As I said, I read Silman's book. It was worth reading. On the other hand, Move First, Think Later got me excited and enthusiastic and spurred my creativity. -- Woodpusher opinion worth what it cost.
I you missed it, here is Silman's review of Hendriks' book: http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Move-First-Think-Later-p3741.htm
It's interesting that Even Silman gives him credit in many points
It's interesting that Even Silman gives him credit in many points
@sparowe14 Hendriks is definitely right when he says that no strong players think in the structured manner which is presented in books like the ones of Kotov or Silman, or many others. No GM will look at the position and ask himself questions like they are on some to-do list, like "what is my worst placed piece?" or "how can I make my piece more active?". They just look at the board, scanning for opportunities and going through possible moves in their head, often chaotic and jumping from one idea to another and back.
Silman is well aware of this, but he says that the weaker playes could benefit from structural thinking approach, until they are strong enough to abandon it (that is what he basically says in his review of Hendriks' book). I don't know if that's true, but I am prone to belive that this is more a whishful thinking ("I will read this book, apply the proposed method and become a strong player!") than reality (you'll become strong only if you invest thousands of hours studying various positions over the board in the solitude of your room).
I am going through Yusupov chess course at the moment (9 books), and I can tell that he fully embraces the Hendriks' approach. And he is without a doubt one of the greatest chess coaches ever. His book is just diagram after diagram, with very little prose. He states some important principles here and there, but more than 90% of the book are either examples or exercises for self-study. 9 books times 24 lessons times 6 examples and 12 exercises, that's 3888 instructive positions to put on the board, to think about them and try to solve and understand them.
This is why in order to work on Yusupov books you have to be fresh and rested. There are no shortcuts, no sitting back and enjoying reading same good literature, only hard work.
I can relate it with studying physics (since I am a physicist myself). It's nice to read a theory textbook, everything is nice, interesting and makes lots of sense. But it's worthless if you don't finally sit down, sharpen your pencil, open the problem book and solve several hundreds of problems by your own. Then and only then you can say that you've learned some physics.
Silman is well aware of this, but he says that the weaker playes could benefit from structural thinking approach, until they are strong enough to abandon it (that is what he basically says in his review of Hendriks' book). I don't know if that's true, but I am prone to belive that this is more a whishful thinking ("I will read this book, apply the proposed method and become a strong player!") than reality (you'll become strong only if you invest thousands of hours studying various positions over the board in the solitude of your room).
I am going through Yusupov chess course at the moment (9 books), and I can tell that he fully embraces the Hendriks' approach. And he is without a doubt one of the greatest chess coaches ever. His book is just diagram after diagram, with very little prose. He states some important principles here and there, but more than 90% of the book are either examples or exercises for self-study. 9 books times 24 lessons times 6 examples and 12 exercises, that's 3888 instructive positions to put on the board, to think about them and try to solve and understand them.
This is why in order to work on Yusupov books you have to be fresh and rested. There are no shortcuts, no sitting back and enjoying reading same good literature, only hard work.
I can relate it with studying physics (since I am a physicist myself). It's nice to read a theory textbook, everything is nice, interesting and makes lots of sense. But it's worthless if you don't finally sit down, sharpen your pencil, open the problem book and solve several hundreds of problems by your own. Then and only then you can say that you've learned some physics.
@dboing
"But what I understand is that by reading such a book I might build some grab bag of ideas that would help me understand what plans are, or even if I still don't get it, I'll have more chess move "vocabulary" in the back of my head (more imagination?)."
Exactly. Reading that book with the expectation of adding to your bag of ideas on "how to create a better move than I did yesterday" is a very healthy mindset.
The reasons that this perception is best is because it keeps YOUR creativity focal, where the book can simply ADD to your process.
However, if you take that book too seriously, you'll find yourself outsourcing your own creativity to the book; then, come game time, you'll find that your ghosts can't play chess for you.
Trying to REPLACE your own creativity with what's mentioned in the book is a very bad idea.
Using that book to ADD to your own creative process in terms of move selection/move creation, is what it's all about.
"But what I understand is that by reading such a book I might build some grab bag of ideas that would help me understand what plans are, or even if I still don't get it, I'll have more chess move "vocabulary" in the back of my head (more imagination?)."
Exactly. Reading that book with the expectation of adding to your bag of ideas on "how to create a better move than I did yesterday" is a very healthy mindset.
The reasons that this perception is best is because it keeps YOUR creativity focal, where the book can simply ADD to your process.
However, if you take that book too seriously, you'll find yourself outsourcing your own creativity to the book; then, come game time, you'll find that your ghosts can't play chess for you.
Trying to REPLACE your own creativity with what's mentioned in the book is a very bad idea.
Using that book to ADD to your own creative process in terms of move selection/move creation, is what it's all about.
@ProfDrHack
"Reminds me too much of a used car dealer (downplaying the challenge, stressing how much you will improve (for sure!) if you follow his ways)."
You know what? I fully agree.
The book is good for people in their 20s and under.
I can see where his engaging style of writing has a benefit.
I thought the book was written excellently when I was in my 20s.
But after dusting off that book and reviewing it a few months ago, I actually couldn't stand his tone.
Leaving aside the pretentious writing style as being only a matter of 'attitude' and 'style', it's actually got a very nasty and impractical side effect as well.
*** Best way to read "Reassess Your Chess":
When Jeremy says, "follow my ways," simply tell him, "Stop wasting my time. You're not going to be playing my next game for me, so do you have some information that will help me, or not?"
When Jeremy says, "plan," just replace that with the word "reason". ***
I already know that I'm not the only one who realized NO BENEFIT from that book until YEARS after I read it.
It was only once I completely forgot about "follow my way"...
It was only once I completely forgot about "do not move without a plan"...
Once these two instances of TERRIBLE advice had time to dissipate, all that was left was the information that I had absorbed from that book.
It's only when you completely unlearn/forget them, that you're finally actually free to use the rest of the very good ideas in that book.
Those two ideas are effectively paralyzing and Jeremy would do well to author a 25th edition where he never pens a sentence that has nothing to do with chess-information, and also where he replaces the word "plan" with "reason".
"Reminds me too much of a used car dealer (downplaying the challenge, stressing how much you will improve (for sure!) if you follow his ways)."
You know what? I fully agree.
The book is good for people in their 20s and under.
I can see where his engaging style of writing has a benefit.
I thought the book was written excellently when I was in my 20s.
But after dusting off that book and reviewing it a few months ago, I actually couldn't stand his tone.
Leaving aside the pretentious writing style as being only a matter of 'attitude' and 'style', it's actually got a very nasty and impractical side effect as well.
*** Best way to read "Reassess Your Chess":
When Jeremy says, "follow my ways," simply tell him, "Stop wasting my time. You're not going to be playing my next game for me, so do you have some information that will help me, or not?"
When Jeremy says, "plan," just replace that with the word "reason". ***
I already know that I'm not the only one who realized NO BENEFIT from that book until YEARS after I read it.
It was only once I completely forgot about "follow my way"...
It was only once I completely forgot about "do not move without a plan"...
Once these two instances of TERRIBLE advice had time to dissipate, all that was left was the information that I had absorbed from that book.
It's only when you completely unlearn/forget them, that you're finally actually free to use the rest of the very good ideas in that book.
Those two ideas are effectively paralyzing and Jeremy would do well to author a 25th edition where he never pens a sentence that has nothing to do with chess-information, and also where he replaces the word "plan" with "reason".
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.