Oh my, what did I get myself into when I got this?????!!!!!!
I'm not smart enough for this book! This book is for the Isaac Newton's/Albert Einstein's of the world, it reminds me of some university macho math book, stuff I could never pass/do well in, and thus my life as an inferior human being is sealed! This Kotov is a machine, a real living breathing machine, probably he was used as a computer back in the 1940's when he wrote this book because computers were crappy then. Anyways, if any advanced players are really super smart and good at chess, and want to become the next Gary Kasparov, then this is the book for you, funny, I never really encounter such books around this playing level, the book "think like a grandmaster" would be more accurately titled, "For NM's and IM's who want to become grandmasters". I thought some ppl might be interested in it, because I suppose even the Ironman's of the world need a challenging and instructive chess book, and often they complain there are no books to help them improve.
Originally posted by mateulosei read it - and another book he wrote as well ... it didn't do much for me though did it!
Oh my, what did I get myself into when I got this?????!!!!!!
I'm not smart enough for this book! This book is for the Isaac Newton's/Albert Einstein's of the world, it reminds me of some university macho math book, stuff I could never pass/do well in, and thus my life as an inferior human being is sealed! This Kotov is a machine, a real living breath ...[text shortened]... ing and instructive chess book, and often they complain there are no books to help them improve.
Originally posted by flexmoreIndeed, these university type books are as useless as they come to me, they teach me consequently nothing and waste money, it's not like you can learn anything if they speak a language you cannot understand, ie: scientific.
i read it - and another book he wrote as well ... it didn't do much for me though did it!
I too think it's overrated. I'm beginning to wonder if there is a system for selecting candidate moves, which is the real problem. the great ones: Tal, Fischer, Kasparov never really explain their "method." I think the secret is they have no method. they have vast experience and the intuition garnered from that experience. All the books explaining "the" method for finding good moves are bunk. Books can explain general principles and give examples, but that's about it. I think chess has become an industry for mediocre masters to sell books, and we as chessplayers should be wary of those which profess to show how grandmasters think. They think like everybody else, only better when it comes to chess.
Originally posted by buddy2Well, it's important to note, that perhabs the greatest tactical player deemed in the history of Earth, Tal, admited that in half of his sacrefices it was 100% intuition and he could not see some stunning 10-20 move variation that annotators thought he saw. He even went on to say that as he analyzed some of his games crazily, some of his sacrefices may have been unsound, but very hard to find refutations. Of course, at the time Tal said this, the man was simply dying and they beleived that even a dying genius like Tal tend to say "crazy" things. Could he simply of been right? Maybe there is no strategy/method/technique/study to winning complex variations and all these books are just garbage?
I too think it's overrated. I'm beginning to wonder if there is a system for selecting candidate moves, which is the real problem. the great ones: Tal, Fischer, Kasparov never really explain their "method." I think the secret is they have no method. they have vast experience and the intuition garnered from that experience. All the books explaining " ...[text shortened]... how how grandmasters think. They think like everybody else, only better when it comes to chess.
Maybe it's all a matter of being partially phychic, spoting possible danger, and simply playing with intuition? Guys like Fischer, Kasparov, Spassky, Nimzo, etc have never really explained exactly HOW they do it, maybe they don't even know themselves how they do it, they just do it? Like a track runner who wins a race, he cannot tell you HOW he does it and no book will make you track champion, he just does it and wins, mostly through a lot of training.
Guys like Fischer, Kasparov, Spassky, Nimzo, etc have never really explained exactly HOW they do it, maybe they don't even know themselves how they do it, they just do it?
I disagree strongly about Nimzo,as I've read ''my system'' but not read other players' books.
Nimzowitsch explains accurately in every aspect of chess his moves and tactics and why this move and tactics are made:it's not casual that ''My system'' is an all time best seller amongst chess books,a miliar stone in chess history.
Originally posted by mateuloseKotov's book "Think like a GM" should be preceeded by "Play like a GM" by Kotov... The latter is related to identifying the key features of the position and its character to proceed to make a plan. Kotov wrongly assumes in "Think like a GM" that the reader is already familiar with planning and identifying key elements of the position... Read "Play like a GM" before "Think like a GM"
Oh my, what did I get myself into when I got this?????!!!!!!
I'm not smart enough for this book! This book is for the Isaac Newton's/Albert Einstein's of the world, it reminds me of some university macho math book, stuff I could never pass/do well in, and thus my life as an inferior human being is sealed! This Kotov is a machine, a real living breath ...[text shortened]... ing and instructive chess book, and often they complain there are no books to help them improve.
Indeed, "Think like a GM" is a very difficult book... The problem is that Kotov is too dry but all in all the book has some value if read slowly and after "Play like a GM". Go through each and every move and explanation at turtle speed to digest everything and have a notebook available to take notes and don't take less than a month per chapter...
Ok, Ravello. Nimzo was a great writer and grandmaster. He is great in explaining in general principles. I have a copy of the book, which is a classic. HOWEVER, when Nimzo played Alekhine, he was hopeless. At one point, after being trounced by Alekhine in Nimzo's favorite opening the French, Nimzo wailed, "He treated me like a child!" Did Alekhine have a "system"? If he had, I have never read heard about it. Alekhine did write two great game collections, but made no statements of general principles. all these books take you so far. Your instincts, intelligence, experience are lots more important. How many frustrating games have I played against supposedly inferior players who never read a book in their life, played double fianchetto pr a6 (or something else weird) against EVERYTHING and still managed to beat me easily. Why? They were smarter, calculated better, and were more adaptive out of book than me.
Originally posted by mateuloseI'm 5, I played chess 1 month old, my dad helps me with things, like this website, but they say I'm like Albert Einstein, E=MC2. E= Energy = M= Mass x M= Light speed2. I'm a good chess player too. I read relativity books, and time travel too. I love chess
Oh my, what did I get myself into when I got this?????!!!!!!
I'm not smart enough for this book! This book is for the Isaac Newton's/Albert Einstein's of the world, it reminds me of some university macho math book, stuff I could never pass/do well in, and thus my life as an inferior human being is sealed! This Kotov is a machine, a real living breath ...[text shortened]... ing and instructive chess book, and often they complain there are no books to help them improve.
Originally posted by buddy2I agree but your point has nothing to do with the affirmation I argued.
Ok, Ravello. Nimzo was a great writer and grandmaster. He is great in explaining in general principles. I have a copy of the book, which is a classic. HOWEVER, when Nimzo played Alekhine, he was hopeless. At one point, after being troun ...[text shortened]... er, calculated better, and were more adaptive out of book than me.
I argued mateulose's Guys like Nimzo, etc have never really explained exactly HOW they do it which is an absolutely false statement,at least regarding Nimzowitsch.
How Nimzowitsch lost by Alekhine is matter for other discussions,however everyone has been beaten by someone other better than him,no one can be the ''best guy'' forever.
No, I think that is Mateulose's point. Although My System is a great book for amateur's, it's simply knowledge taken for granted at the upper levels of chess. Any dogmatic system will not work at upper levels because it doesn't take exceptions into consideration. Sometimes you can't attack a pawn chain at its base. You have to hit it head on. Sometimes a knight does belong at the edge of the board. As I said before, the Kasparov's, Alekhine's, Fischer's, etc. do not write books explaining "their system" for winning. they just analyze using vast experience and choose the line which ends up best for them. They are the best because they are the best at doing that. They surprise their opponents time and time again because these lesser players didn't notice a quirk or analomy in the position that enabled them to ignore the "systems" and come out on top.
Not to belabor the point, but look at the game between Alekhine and Nimzovitch (Bled 1931). It's in Alekhine's second volume of My Best Games (#43). You can also examine it on the web at http://www.angelfire.com/games3/AJs01Downloads/html_stuff/ale-nim_sh.html. You can see Nimzo trying to establish a French pawn chain in the opening and Alekhine gleefully turning him away with piece play and tactics and giving up pawns and beating Nimzo in 19 moves.
Originally posted by buddy2That's EXACTLY what I mean, guys like Silman, Nimzo, Kotov, and Pandolfini may be good at offering a few pointers and writing books, but why are they simply not one of the best chess players if their methods are deemed so effective? Why is it a phycho/wacko disorganized person like Fischer can beat their "beautiful and logical" systems? Why is it a guy like Tal can sacrefice rashfully just for the heck/gut of it and really hand it to them? Why is it some anti-social drunk like Alekeine can demolish these supposively intelligent writers/educators?
No, I think that is Mateulose's point. Although My System is a great book for amateur's, it's simply knowledge taken for granted at the upper levels of chess. Any dogmatic system will not work at upper levels because it doesn't take exceptions into consideration. Sometimes you can't attack a pawn chain at its base. You have to hit it head on. Someti ...[text shortened]... uirk or analomy in the position that enabled them to ignore the "systems" and come out on top.
The amateur players who read these books and enjoy/praise them, can any of them HONESTLY say these books led them to master status and beyond? Have any of these books significantly improved their play at all? (slight improvement is irrelevant, that could be the result of you simply gaining experience) Most would say, no, no, and more NO.
It's like a pitcher in baseball, you know it's not practical to do, say, throw 3 fastballs in a row, just like you know it's not practical to do, say, put a rook on a closed file in chess when an open file is beside it, but really, what good does this knowledge do? Everyone from 1000 rated and up probably knows this, and if they don't, they probably practicly play it correctly anyways. Knowing about rooks on 7th, underpromotion, isolated pawns, doubled pawns, passed pawns, knight outposts, fianchettoed bishops, pawn storms, etc will simply not make you become a master player. In fact, before you picked up "My System" book, you probably already knew this stuff practicly from your games, you were just not aware of the terms. So here you are reading "My System" thinking you will improve, when in fact, your rating stays the same, because you are DOING the SAME THING YOU ALWAYS PRACTICLY DONE, who cares if you know the terms or not? Terms mean nothing in chess games. . .
Personally, I think it's time to chess community REFOCUS completely on how they teach chess players, because I don't think it's working. Most chess books you pick up claim to be from beginner to advanced, how can that make sense? Is there a universal school book that goes from grade 1 to grade 12? Of course not, and I imagine chess is very much the same, you can't make a book that will make a player go from begginer topic at the start, to becoming an advanced chess killer machine at the end, the notion and goals of most, if not all, chess books that do this is simply absurd.
Originally posted by buddy2I agree with most of everything you wrote however I don't think the purpose of any of the books mentioned above is to develop these skill directly. Or even to directly improve your chess. I think it's single purpose is to give you a frame of reference to answer one question. "In game X the master player played move Y while I would have played move Z. Why is move Z inferior or better than Y?"
Your instincts, intelligence, experience are lots more important.
I, an amateur and one who does not have a lot of time to devote to chess insights, would be unable to answer this question well without the insights provided to me by one of these "think like a chess god" books.
Only after going through many master games and analyzing your own games while applying the gained insights and your intelligence, will you gain chess instinct and experience. I am certain simply reading any book will do little or nothing.
However I do agree that the chess industry is pumping out a lot of books whose marketing jacket says otherwise. But then again, what industry does not do this?