books

Originally posted by wormwood
aren't you assuming the bangiev method works here? 🙂

has anybody ever gotten anything concrete out of it? because all I've ever seen are people who admit that it takes a lot of work, and sort of assume it's gonna pay off eventually, even though "they don't understand it fully yet". is there any solid evidence to suggest a bangiev follower has any advan ...[text shortened]... are simple, straightforward ways to progress. -people did get good already before bangiev.

actually Bangiev utilizes master games to illustrate the basis of his theories, but you wouldn't know that, right?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually Bangiev utilizes master games to illustrate the basis of his theories, but you wouldn't know that, right?

any method not illustrated in such way would have little to do with chess. just show me a single player who's ever gotten any better doing the 'bangiev method'.

I'm not trying to put your hero down, but the method being laborous and time consuming is hardly any indication of it being effective.

Originally posted by wormwood
any method not illustrated in such way would have little to do with chess. just show me a single player who's ever gotten any better doing the 'bangiev method'.

I'm not trying to put your hero down, but the method being laborous and time consuming is hardly any indication of it being effective.

having tried it of course naturally you would know whether its time consuming and laborious, having tried it of course naturally you are in a position to say whether it will make one a stronger player or not? are we in the habit of thinking for ourselves or are we in the habit of taking it upon trust from others whether a method has any merit. surely wormwood my honorable friend, anything which increases our understanding, self sufficiency and aids our thought process is a worthwhile endeavor, i myself hesitate to answer as i am a very very incredibly low/average player, what can i say other than if one has not tried it how does one know? perhaps you could profit by it, perhaps not, i dunno, but to dismiss it on hearsay is the greatest folly of all. The only other player i know who practices this is Ivanhoe who is a 2100 rated player, he has been playing chess much much longer than I and is probably in a better position to estimate its benefits against other forms/methods of learning than I. Bangiev is not my hero, Fischer is and for the very same reason that i admire the Bangiev method, in that Fisher was not afraid to think for himself, nor to make original and innovative moves, exactly what Bangiev would have us try to attain to ourselves. it is a noble and worthwhile endeavor is it not?

I apologise for being flippant in tone, it was not my intention, there is enough ill will and bad feeling on this forum without me adding to it - regards Robert.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
having tried it of course naturally you would know whether its time consuming and laborious, having tried it of course naturally you are in a position to say whether it will make one a stronger player or not? are we in the habit of thinking for ourselves or are we in the habit of taking it upon trust from others whether a method has any merit. sure ...[text shortened]... here is enough ill will and bad feeling on this forum without me adding to it - regards Robert.

no problem with the flipping.

I think ivanhoe has been studying bangiev a couple of years now, or that's about how long ago I think I saw one of his threads on the subject. I don't see any progress during that time.

I'd just like to know if anybody really got any results from it, that's all. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if bangiev's method doesn't fall into that category, I don't know what does.

Originally posted by wormwood
no problem with the flipping.

I think ivanhoe has been studying bangiev a couple of years now, or that's about how long ago I think I saw one of his threads on the subject. I don't see any progress during that time.

I'd just like to know if anybody really got any results from it, that's all. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if bangiev's method doesn't fall into that category, I don't know what does.

its really interesting comment, actually i dont think that Bangiev, well not what i have read anyhow claims that his method will add one point to your rating system! nor does he claim that his work is original! he states that the knowledge has been around for a long time, its just his format that is different in that he has crystalised these ideas and presented them to the public in a completely stand alone type of method. this is what he claims! lol, and i quote

I should like to emphasize that the B-Method always makes it possible for you:

- to make a reasoned judgement about a position, independently of how strong your opponent may be.
- to find the best moves in any position by logical methods.

Now what is essential about the method: despite the fact that you are being trained to search for answers or solutions in various types of positions, the types of positions themselves (the range is huge) need not be committed to memory, only the way of searching, which is always carried out in exactly the same way. This should lead to you feeling at home in positions of all types, because you feel able to act independently instead of raking about in your memory for material you have learned by rote.

and of tactics he states

2.1. Elementary tactics

This includes tactical exercises or positions which can be solved by the use of well-known and simple methods, e.g. diversion, attraction, etc. Such tactical exercises all have one thing in common: certain elementary tactical motifs must be present, e.g. an insufficiently protected opposing piece, a weak back rank, etc. It is important to master elementary tactics, i.e. to be able to solve the tactical problems.

and so forth, as you can see its not knew, its just the method for searching for solutions that has caused some controversy. i wish i could post the lessons in full but i dont know how to insert the little diagrams, not because i am trying to recruit anyone to his method,nor influence them in any way, just that they may get a taste and decide for themselves! respect to you wormwood - regards Robert.

Originally posted by max92
As a beginner what book helped you improve the most and help to understand certain aspects of chess most effectively,which one do you remember the most in your learning years.

The book that helped me the most is Yasser Seriwan's tactics book.
In my opinion a must read for everyone under 1500.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Platonic philosophy is a deception in itself, as is many things purporting to impart wisdom but doing none thing of the sort. however this is a chess forum and i have not read him since i was fourteen, a long time ago.

what he does elucidate upon however does have a bearing on chess and was admirably captured by the Scottish philosopher John Stua ...[text shortened]... a rather appreciative and in my own measly world an enlightened one, kind regards robert.

I can see this chess guru Mr. Bangiev has obviously got well in to your psyche and you obviously feel that you have found your messiah. Nothing wrong with that, I personally am a big fan of Purdy's ideals and thoughts about the game.
The one thing that all the great teachers of the game will tell you though, Mr. Bangiev included if you could speak with him is: No matter how you break a chess position up in to strengths, weaknesses, pawn majorities, open files, doubled pawns, weak squares, weak colour complexes etc, there comes a point where you simply have to start to calculate variations. Sometimes they will be very complex, sometimes not, but calculation will always be necessary. I am starting to sound like a stuck record and apologise for that but it really is the simple truth of the game. If however Mr. Bangiev really has found a formula to cut away deep calculation form even the most complex positions then he truly is something special.

Even FISCHER had to calculate you know, just take a look at the annotations in his 60 memorable games, reams and reams of variations and analysis. Yes he had an awesome positional sense, but again i stress this positional sense merely set him on the road to where he should start the calculative thought process.

I really don't mean to cause any bad feeling; I’m just a very average player looking for improvement much like you. I just happen to have very strong feeling about this subject.

It wouldn't surrpise me to learn that every GM has a far superior positional and strategic understanding of chess than even the best chess playing computer. But even so, the best chess computer will absolutely crush the top human GM's (remember Hydra over Adams 5.5-0.5?) because the computer is a vastly superior calculator. Strategy is always subservient to tactics.

Having said that, books like How to Reassess Your Chess are enormously helpful because tactical opportunties tend to arise from positions in which a key strategic asset exists (e.g. a strong knight outpost, an advanced pawn chain that cramps the opponent, etc.).

Originally posted by Talisman
I can see this chess guru Mr. Bangiev has obviously got well in to your psyche and you obviously feel that you have found your messiah. Nothing wrong with that, I personally am a big fan of Purdy's ideals and thoughts about the game.
The one thing that all the great teachers of the game will tell you though, Mr. Bangiev included if you could speak with him ...[text shortened]... g for improvement much like you. I just happen to have very strong feeling about this subject.

I don't expect to make a habit of agreeing with Robbie, but I guess this is one time that I have to come to his defense. I think in a later post of Robbie's, he did finally state that the B-strategy does include the more traditional tactics (and I assume by extension, also traditional calculations of variations).

Of course, I still have no idea how the B-strategy is supposed to be integrated with the more traditional tactics and variation calculations. In fact, after reading the Chesscafe reviews and the Steve Lopez reviews/previews, I still don't have a clue of what the principles behind the strategy are supposed to be or how they're supposed to work. The only thing that Lopez is very clear about is that the B-strategy is HARD to learn (he says that MANY times), and you must be willing to unlearn a lot of conventional knowledge that you preiously learned. Nowhere in Steve's reviews do I see him claim that the strategy has helped him (to be fair, I got the impression that he hasn't yet actually gone through this HARD learning process) or that the B-strategy is supposed to be superior to conventional learning methods. In Steve's review of the #1 CD, the most optimistic statement I noticed was when he asked the question "Will it work?", and he answered his own question with the response, "Time, as well as later volumes in the series, will tell."

thanks Mad Rook for defending me, even though we have 'crossed swords', in the past I applaud your objectivity. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to convince those who are either interested, slightly intrigued, amused, bemused and those who are vehemently opposed is to put the two strategies to the test. so before giving the details of the position away, i would appreciate those who look at things in a 'variation', type of a way to suggest appropriate variations, and the reasons behind those variations and those who view it first and formostly positionally (thats right gaychessplayer, FIRST AND FOREMOSTLY POSITIONALY), that would be me, to post how Bangiev, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR EXTENSIVE CALCULATION, finds the strongest continuation. here is the position,



please try hard, white to move, regards Robert.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thanks Mad Rook for defending me, even though we have 'crossed swords', in the past I applaud your objectivity. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to convince those who are either interested, slightly intrigued, amused, bemused and those who are vehemently opposed is to put the two strategies to the test. so before giving the details o ...[text shortened]... pbN1N1P/4PBP1/3P1Q2/PqP5/R4KR1 w kq[/fen]

please try hard, white to move, regards Robert.

any evaluation by a GM will be superior to ours. what would show the b-method to have any worth, is you making the 'bangiev evaluation' for that position.

Originally posted by wormwood
any evaluation by a GM will be superior to ours. what would show the b-method to have any worth, is you making the 'bangiev evaluation' for that position.

lol, Bangiev is only an I.M. and i cant make a proper appraisal wormwood my friend as i know the answer already! I know its unfair, i just thought that it would be interesting, go on be brave, you will probably get it right anyhow! I myself would never have got it, that black queen is just too scary for me, i would have freaked out ! its not a test of the strengths of the players but the methods at deriving at the strongest continuations that are interesting !😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, Bangiev is only an I.M. and i cant make a proper appraisal wormwood my friend as i know the answer already! I know its unfair, i just thought that it would be interesting, go on be brave, you will probably get it right anyhow! I myself would never have got it, that black queen is just too scary for me, i would have freaked out ! its not a test ...[text shortened]... the players but the methods at deriving at the strongest continuations that are interesting !😀

no, it simply makes no sense comparing my judgement to bangiev's, in a position he has carefully chosen for his agenda. it can't possibly give any other result than 'bangiev method works'. it's a rigged test, it can't be falsified.

unless bangiev did some huge mistake, regardless of him checking the result with computer AND 'normal' analysis. which is quite unlikely.

mmm, its from quite an old game, played in the 1800s, actually the move is probably the strongest tactically as well, am i tempting you yet ?, if not i plan to post Bangievs method regardless! tell you what, if you try this one i will try anyone that you choose applying bangievs method😉

I like experiments.
First thoughts upon looking at the position: isn't this from a famous Andersen game where he sacced both rooks?And didn't those sacs turn out to be faulty after being checked by an engine?
Second thoughts: white rooks hanging but white army is much better developed and aimed at the black king which is still stuck in the center.I'm gonna look for a mating net and disregard the hanging rooks.
Third thought: unable to work it out in my head,I'll just go for glory starting with Nc7+ because that looks most promising to me.
Conclusion: Nc7+ must be the move and that is what I will play.

Ok,how wrong was I? 🙂