Originally posted by Mahout
There are more than a few things that I didn't like about Silman already so your note adds another to this list. All the same, arrogance and patronising text aside, I'd be lying if I said I didn't learn a lot from the book...and he does hold your hand through some complex ideas...explaining, giving examples and so on. Disregarding the book due to some unpala are simply responding to his wonderful coaching.
But don't let this put you off!
Yes when I read/skimmed through the book I also feel that it elevated my game. I still think that my best game so far was a direct consequence of reading his book. 🙂 But the way he manhandles his students just sets me of... 😠I don't how one of them hasn't punched him yet.
But I really hate his
I'm all that attitude. I've read some of his book reviews and one way or another he always find a way to compare the book he's reviewing to one of his marvelous books to then conclude that either he got the idea on paper first or that he explained it better. ðŸ˜
Case in point just to amuse me:
Beim uses lots of prose to illustrate his ideas and explain what's happening in his examples. In the game Gelfand-Malakhov, Dagomys 2005 he makes some general comments about the position and then says: "Gelfand solves the problem in forcing style, alertly spotting that if his knight gets to h5, Black's bishop will have no moves. I would suggest that the game variation was born out of this observation. I believe that this variation, being the one which lies in the direction from where the main blow is most likely to come, should be calculated first, and then the remaining variations become redundant."
Doesn't this remind you of my "fantasy position" concept from HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS? White sees that he wins easily if a piece can reach a certain square, then strives to get it there. His observation in this case isn't original, but it is still very good advice.
Honestly...🙄 🙄 🙄 that guy is really in love with himself. Does he think that he was the first one to notice and write that sometimes we don't need to calculate all the way through and just play that awfuly sensible move that we
know that wins the game? http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/How_to_Calculate_Chess_Tactics.html If you haven't read the book his reviewing read it and then see for yourself how on a different class this book is in respect to Silman's book. I got two book from Beim (this one on calculating tactics and "How to Play Dynamic Chess"😉 and I can tell you the Silman got nothing on him. NOTHING! ðŸ˜
Ok, I'll be off now but Silman's a big time douche!
Edit: And returning to the point of the thread. 😳 I read the first part of My System some time ago and I liked it. I know that the themes of overprotection and liquidation still are with me till this day but apart from that I don't think I got much ore from the book. I intend to read the book when I reach and can maintain a 1700 rating. I don't know but I think that by that time I'll be mature enough to actually understand more.