I have been reading the classical My System by Nimzovitsch. The book is interesting but I don't believe it added any playing strength to me, interestingly I started to play worse??I also read the old book how to win in the chess endings but...🙁.
I play much better when solving tactics intensely. Any advice? How to go about to improve steadily for someone with limited time for chess? Opening study, end games, chess books or tactics?
I'd say tactics and endgames.When I worked on my endgame I noticed my openingplay improved too,even much more than when working my way through an openingbook.I think it's because you get a better feel for the real possibilities of each piece.And also because I find openingbooks dull and cannot keep concentrated on them 😉
Originally posted by kenanStudying My System by A.Nimzowitsch will certainly improve your play in the long run. It happens quite a lot that if you learn new things about how to play better chess that you get confused about what to play and when to play it. Studying the fundaments of modern positional play, that's what My System is all about, is a must if you want to improve your play.
I have been reading the classical My System by Nimzovitsch. The book is interesting but I don't believe it added any playing strength to me, interestingly I started to play worse??I also read the old book how to win in the chess endings but...🙁.
I play much better when solving tactics intensely. Any advice? How to go about to improve steadily for someone with limited time for chess? Opening study, end games, chess books or tactics?
So, keep up the good works .... 🙂
Yeah this is a pretty common problem. When you learn something new in chess, a lot of times it adversely affects your play for a while. It's probably because when you learn new things, it affects your game and what you think about during the game more than it should. Once you get a little less in touch with the material and go back to playing the way you normally play, you'll play better. It will be more like yourself, except you will understand parts of the game better. I took lessons from a GM last summer for an hour or two a week, and I got worse until I stopped for a while, then I got much stronger!
Tony has it spot on.
I've been coaching and watching players develop for 30 years.
You go up, learn more and take dip, you go up, learn and dip.
You never dip below a previous dip. It's like a staricase.
Of course gifted players go straight up but hit a ceiling.
It because the more you learn about the game you try to put
new ideas into your games and it takes a wee while for things to gell.
Which 'My System' do you have?
The original translated version was like reading treacle and,
according to German players, poorly translated. A lot of the
humour and teaching was missing.
There is a new version out, much clearer and enjoyable to read.
you will improve reading and studying it. But watch the dip in form.
Originally posted by kenanOne book you must have,although old now is still a"bible" by many,including myself....MCO-14 by Nick de Firmian.
I have been reading the classical My System by Nimzovitsch. The book is interesting but I don't believe it added any playing strength to me, interestingly I started to play worse??I also read the old book how to win in the chess endings but...🙁.
I play much better when solving tactics intensely. Any advice? How to go about to improve steadily for someone with limited time for chess? Opening study, end games, chess books or tactics?
Also,if you have the money,better yet is Susan Polgars essential chess pks's.there are different CD levels depending upon your playing strength.Also chess Informants will teach you alot.All available from various sources like the USCF online.I'm more of a believer in playing offbeat openings like the trompowsky,sokolsky and my favorite...the Basman defense against 1.e4 which would be 1.e4,g5.Sometimes the element of "surprize" where you opponent is not prepared for an opening like a basman can lead to quick victories.
Also,may i suggest getting a tabletop computer like the "phantom"which moves its own pieces across a real chess board,so its like playing an real invisible opponent.Better than looking at a computer screen!
Originally posted by Vanquishcan you show links to the phantom and the sokolsky and basman?
One book you must have,although old now is still a"bible" by many,including myself....MCO-14 by Nick de Firmian.
Also,if you have the money,better yet is Susan Polgars essential chess pks's.there are different CD levels depending upon your playing strength.Also chess Informants will teach you alot.All available from various sources like the USCF online.I'm ...[text shortened]... so its like playing an real invisible opponent.Better than looking at a computer screen!
Originally posted by greenpawn34I have the new translation published by quality chess in 2007 . I started to read the book a few months ago. It seems like there are a lot of mistakes in the book.
Tony has it spot on.
I've been coaching and watching players develop for 30 years.
You go up, learn more and take dip, you go up, learn and dip.
You never dip below a previous dip. It's like a staricase.
Of course gifted players go straight up but hit a ceiling.
It because the more you learn about the game you try to put
new ideas into you ...[text shortened]... and enjoyable to read.
you will improve reading and studying it. But watch the dip in form.
Originally posted by kenanI have this too but not looked through it yet...can you give page references for some of the mistakes.
I have the new translation published by quality chess in 2007 . I started to read the book a few months ago. It seems like there are a lot of mistakes in the book.
Quote:
"It seems like there are a lot of mistakes in the book."
I am very surprised at this, but take your word for it.
Are the mistakes in notation (ie Nf3-c6) or are you comparing
the original translation with the new one.
You are using the phrase 'seems like' is there some
analysis in the book you do not agree with?
A list of errors you have found would be greatly appreciated.
Originally posted by MahoutActually the editor singled out many mistakes by the author. Especially Part I is full of mistakes. Also, Nimzovtisch speaks of some of his lines as absolute truth whereas when you analyze many of the positions with a computer nowadays there are other solutions. (although the author's teaching style and his examples are very appropriate)
I have this too but not looked through it yet...can you give page references for some of the mistakes.
Also, after seeing this book I realized that Silman blatantly copied Nimzovitsch's writing and teaching style in his books although many of Nimzovitsch's ideas are universally accepted now.
This is what I think. I am not extremely impressed with My System but I accept it as a great book in its era, I would rather read modern books with computer analysis to improve.
Originally posted by kenanSo do you mean the mistakes that have come to light with computer analysis are resolved or at least indicated in the recent edition...or do you mean that the recent edition contains errors.
Actually the editor singled out many mistakes by the author. Especially Part I is full of mistakes. Also, Nimzovtisch speaks of some of his lines as absolute truth whereas when you analyze many of the positions with a computer nowadays there are other solutions. (although the author's teaching style and his examples are very appropriate). .
Also, after seei ...[text shortened]... a great book in its era, I would rather read modern books with computer analysis to improve.
Nimzovtisch speaks of some of his lines as absolute truth whereas when you analyze many of the positions with a computer nowadays there are other solutions.
Personally I don't have a problem with this. So long as the underlying instruction is sound. I'm reading the new version of Art of Attack (updated by John Nunn) and there are one or two points that have been discovered either by John Nunn or his computer analysis or discoveries from more recent GM games...but overall I'm deeply impressed that there are so few of these corrections.
To me it seems something of a harsh critique to devalue a book first published in 1925 because a computer - which has all the evolved theory from years of GM play to draw on - can refute some assertions made by a GM 80 years ago.
I guess I'll have to read it myself to decide if I think Silman has been a bit liberal in the cut and paste department or not.
Originally posted by MahoutExcellent post.
So do you mean the mistakes that have come to light with computer analysis are resolved or at least indicated in the recent edition...or do you mean that the recent edition contains errors.
[b]Nimzovtisch speaks of some of his lines as absolute truth whereas when you analyze many of the positions with a computer nowadays there are other solutions.
P f to decide if I think Silman has been a bit liberal in the cut and paste department or not.[/b]
I agree with you completely but one thing. I am not devaluing the book or 80 year old GM. It was probably the best in its era. I think Silman improved My System greatly by his "Reassess Your Chess" and "Amateur's Mind".
You might give me some credit when you read these books.
Who am I to criticize My System, it is a great book but it's old in computer era and modern GMs and IMs think, play and write differently now, of course still referring a lot of ideas from My System.
Quote:
"My System, it is a great book but it's old in computer era
and modern GMs ...."
You are correct it's dated. But worn well.
All the great players in the 40's 50's 60's valued this book highly
from Larsen to Petrosian.
Reading and studying it will not do any harm at all, but yes modern
books ('good modern books - there is a lot of junk out there'😉 written
by good writers (good at chess does not mean you can also write/teach) are far superior.
My only real gripe with the modern writers is they use comp analysis
like a crutch. I'm not alone in the opinion that large amounts of
analysis never sees the light of day. It's spat out, never checked,
dropped onto a page and never played over. What a waste of time,
effort and trees.
Yet they give reams of this stuff to back up a point when a few well
written sentences will suffice.
A chess book should be enjoyable to read. You want to read it.
You want to play over the games and see and study the notes.
You do not want confronted with 30 move, no words analysis every page.
It will simply never get played over.
Light well written notes is the key. And if you hit upon a move you
don't understand...you stop and figure it out and THEN you give your
engine a look to see if agress. Or shrug your shoulders and carry
on playing over the game which is what most of us do.
All chess players are lazy - bless them.
(what a way to spend your lunch hour - nattering on a chess forum)
Originally posted by kenanApologies...I see what you're saying...I missinterpreted the intentions of the original post.
Excellent post.
I agree with you completely but one thing. I am not devaluing the book or 80 year old GM. It was probably the best in its era. I think Silman improved My System greatly by his "Reassess Your Chess" and "Amateur's Mind".
You might give me some credit when you read these books.
Who am I to criticize My System, it is a great book but ...[text shortened]... , play and write differently now, of course still referring a lot of ideas from My System.
Anyway I find your comparison with Silmans books interesting. I worked through about half of "The Amatuers Mind" and it has made a significant difference to my play...restricting the opponents knights with judicious pawn moves is just one of several practical ideas I learned directly from this book. As mentioned before I have yet to look through "My System" so can't comment properly on it.