The Bangiev method, developed by chess coach, chessbook author and International Master Alexander Bangiev, is a way of chess thinking, a strategy, based on squares. This means that before every move the position on the board is evaluated according specific criteria.
The Bangiev method, also simply called the B-method, does not develop your memory, but rather your thought proces. It structures your chess thinking by analysing the actual position on the board and focusing on the specific actions necessary to reach the stategic or tactical aim(s).
The B-method essentially teaches you to select the appropriate candidate moves by asking the same questions after every move that is being played, among which the most basic three questions, the Strategy Question, the Direction Question and the Colour Question, the so called Power Questions. The other questions concern whether you have to defend or to attack, the question selecting the key squares to attack (or to defend), which are to be recognised after you answered the three Power Questions, finally the question about the pieces defending the key squares and how to involve or to entangle them in the game. The answers to these questions direct you to the answer to the question of which are the candidate moves. Then, after analysing the variations these candidate moves produce, you select the move you play in the game.
I have been studying the B-method for a short while now and I'm very positive about it. However, not eveybody is so enthusiastic. In fact the B-method is a controversial training method. A lot of discussion is going on about it in the chess world.
One thing is certain however. Initially you need to put a substantial amount of energy and time in studying the Square Strategy in order to be able to understand what the B-method is all about .... and maybe all these critics are not willing to do so, they don't have the guts or the willingness to restructure their chess thinking.
... but after this investment in time and energy I'm sure you will reap the rewards and indeed save a lot of energy and time in analysing, understanding and playing your games.
http://www.chessbase.com/shop/product.asp?pid=210&user=&coin=
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The reason why I wrote the introducing remarks above is to ask people who are also studying the B-method or making use of it in their games how their assessments are of this analysing method.
What is its worth ? What are its "assets", according to you ?
Bedlam is a fan of the Bangiev series. I bought the first one and was seriously turned off. It isn't that his ideas are so radically different and i didn't want to change the way I think about chess or any of that stuff...I don't like it because I have no idea what Bangiev's point is. To be fair, Bedlam agrees that the 1st disk is basically rubbish and insists that the other 2 are much better. He's alot stronger than me, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Originally posted by BLReidBLReid: "I don't like it because I have no idea what Bangiev's point is."
Bedlam is a fan of the Bangiev series. I bought the first one and was seriously turned off. It isn't that his ideas are so radically different and i didn't want to change the way I think about chess or any of that stuff...I don't like it because I have no idea what Bangiev's point is. To be fair, Bedlam agrees that the 1st disk is basically rubbish and insist ...[text shortened]... her 2 are much better. He's alot stronger than me, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
I see. That is what I mean when I say that one should invest time and energy in studying the method in order to get what he's trying to say. It is not easy and understanding what he's trying to say does not come naturally. I myself needed to study how he explains the method more than once and while doing this I wrote down the most important notions. I made an excerpt myself, I evaluated and corrected this excerpt time after time while I was proceeding and while I was repeating the material again and again. This, writing down the essentials of the method in my own words and consequently writing down the ensueing questions which I asked myself about the material and answering them myself and again writing the answers down really helped me in truly understanding what he is trying to communicate. I have made an excerpt of his explanation of the evaluation criteria he's putting forward, among which the three most important criteria, the "Power Questions", in order to get a more clear and compact idea of the B-method. I must point out that the publisher should have taken an editor who, in close cooperation with Bangiev of course, is able to correct Bangiev's mistakes, big and small in presenting the material, especially in concisely formulating the other Questions after one has asked the three Power Questions. Here lies a serious omission which needs to be adressed. Bangiev and his publisher Chessbase should really put more energy (and money ?) in organising and presenting the material in a more coherent, efficient and precise way to make it more structured, more concise and thus more assessable and understandable. However, this is more a question of adequately arranging and presenting the material then a matter of changing the chess knowledge and chess insights the B-method has to offer. The insights and chess knowledge Bangiev presents in his books and CD's about the B-method are absolutely worth it.
By the way who's Bedlam ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeUser 240601
By the way who's Bedlam ?
Community > Player Tables > Type Bedlam into the search box and press enter.
Originally posted by zebanoI see. He's active here at RHP. Thanks. Hopefully he'll share with us his experiences with the Bangiev-method here in this thread. I'm very curious to read what he has to say.
User 240601
Community > Player Tables > Type Bedlam into the search box and press enter.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI stated long ago that I'm sure Bangiev has something valuable to offer poeple, but I simply don't get his point. Perhaps I am not bright enough, or perhaps the fact that English is not his native language contributes to the problem, but something is completely lost as far as I'm concerned. I'm not the only one, Steve Lopez made similar comments at chessbase (which I read after I made my own opinion of this material). Believe me, I don't enjoy throwing away money, so I did make an effort with the 1st disk. I just didn't get it. Maybe it is better for other people.
BLReid: "I don't like it because I have no idea what Bangiev's point is."
I see. That is what I mean when I say that one should invest time and energy in studying the method in order to get what he's trying to say. It is not easy and understanding what he's trying to say does not come naturally. I myself needed to study how he explains the method more tha ...[text shortened]... and CD's about the B-method are absolutely worth it.
By the way who's Bedlam ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeBedlam used to teach me chess on Playchess, and he taught me a bit about color coordination, obviously based on squares. IDK if this is where he got it from, but it definitely makes sense. I'd look into it.
I see. He's active here at RHP. Thanks. Hopefully he'll share with us his experiences with the Bangiev-method here in this thread. I'm very curious to read what he has to say.
Doesn't Art of Attack focus on the same topic at points?
Originally posted by z00tProbably all of them in some form or another.
Can I interupt this tete-a-tete for a second and ask again which recognised players use this "philosophy"? Recognised means OTB GM not CC cowboys.
We know you're old z00t, but don't be so put off by new ideas.
Originally posted by z00tI haven't the slightest idea. I don't think that grandmasters are very eager to expose the way they train, play and analyse.
Can I interupt this tete-a-tete for a second and ask again which recognised players use this "philosophy"? Recognised means OTB GM not CC cowboys.
By the way, the B-method is not a "philosophy". It is a way to structure one's chess thinking when assessing a chess position and determining the candidate moves.
Originally posted by BLReidBLReid: "I'm not the only one, Steve Lopez made similar comments at chessbase ... "
I stated long ago that I'm sure Bangiev has something valuable to offer poeple, but I simply don't get his point. Perhaps I am not bright enough, or perhaps the fact that English is not his native language contributes to the problem, but something is completely lost as far as I'm concerned. I'm not the only one, Steve Lopez made similar comments at chessbase ke an effort with the 1st disk. I just didn't get it. Maybe it is better for other people.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1965
Indeed a very interesting review by Steve Lopez on BANGIEV'S SQUARES STRATEGY 1: TACTICS.
Two quotes:
"One such chessplayer asked me about this disk for a very interesting reason: he'd read two separate reviews of Squares Strategy 1: Tactics and both of them were bad ones. ... "
"Another possible reason why two reviewers have taken exception to Squares Strategy 1: Tactics is that it will definitely require most chessplayers to completely restructure their thinking. Let's face some hard facts here. Generally speaking, people don't like to think. Human beings are most comfortable in rote routines; we get into certain "grooves" and when the equilibrium of these familiar patterns is upset, rationality goes spinning off into the void."
"People generally don't like to think and they damn sure don't like to be challenged. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think Bangiev's Squares Strategy 1: Tactics is already drawing flak from some reviewers. In order to profit from Bangiev's "method" (regrettably referred to throughout the CD as the "B-Method" for short), you have to be willing to accept a challenge, admit that you could use some help, and make the attempt to tear down your existing methods for looking at chess positions.
For most readers, that just ain't gonna happen. Period. You may now begin launching brickbats and tirades in my direction at your leisure. ....... etc "
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1965
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please keep in mind that certain criticism regarding the CD "Squares Strategy. Tactics" are still valid. My remarks about the necessity of more adequately, more concisely and more efficiently presenting the explanation of the totality of the Bangiev method, in particular the issues or Questions about the key squares, the pieces defending them and involving or entangling them in the play on the board, arising after asking the three Power Questions, still stand. Also the "Question of the Colour", deciding on which color complex the initiative should be developed, on the dark squares or on the light squares, number three of the Power Questions, need more clarification in the initial explanation of the method.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHere’s a much less forgiving review of Squares Strategy 1 from ChessCafe.
BLReid: "I'm not the only one, Steve Lopez made similar comments at chessbase ... "
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1965
Indeed a very interesting review by Steve Lopez on BANGIEV'S SQUARES STRATEGY 1: TACTICS.
Two quotes:
"One such chessplayer asked me about this disk for a very interesting reason: he'd read two separate reviews ...[text shortened]... s, need more clarification in the initial explanation of the method.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review469.pdf
I fully appreciate that you and Bedlam are much stronger players than me, but if the path for me to reach your level goes through Bangiev’s training, then I’m afraid I will never get there.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Square strategy one is pointless, Bangiev should have called it "I need a quick buck" It basicly consists of doing tactical problems while being told to look at the colour of the squares.....thats fine but really you can just do that for any tactical problem set......
I didnt bother with part two....opening strategy might go back and buy it one day but probably not.
Square Strategy 3 is really quite good if you are prepared to put in quite a bit of time, where as the first CD came without any real documentation to Bangiev square strategy the 3rd makes up for it in a big way. My slight qubbile with the stategy is that its aimed at e4-e5 d4-d5 strategies....while working through the CD I often found myself thinking "ok but I sometime play the dutch and Benko etc....how does this work with the square stategy." Since part of the strategy is to undermind the so called base squares and from there swing into the center of the enemy camp (mad example..but should black really care about trying to control c2 in the Danish and then swing into the center of whites camp.....🙂 ) because of this I dont use the stategy in the way Bangiev aimed for it to be used but have just assimilated the parts of it that I like into my own game. If you havent seen it already you might want to look at the thought process I posted, I got around to thinking like that after going through the SS3.
In its pure form I dont think SS is totally amazing, it fails because its not flexible enough, pointless in endgames etc, but for the information it contains/ways of thinking can be an eye opener and worth getting if you dont mind putting a bit of hard work into it.