Originally posted by Bedlam... or maybe incorporate chess playing programs like Fritz and Schredder with the different methods.
I think its the marketing sales pitch that causes the Bangiev method to get quite a bit of bad press, shame really.
What would be an intresting experiment is if someone took say 4 players of different ability 1400-1600-1800-2000 and gave them a thought process method then had them solve 20 positions both tactical and positional then give them another thoug ...[text shortened]... and weak points of any thought process and answer the question of is one better than the other.
Originally posted by BedlamI just received the CD's in the mail ...... I'm going to check them out right now.
The first CD only askes 3 questions of every position...the 3rd askes quite a bit more. Squares...the ones you control, their area, the direction you will play in, weak squares. Pieces, which of the enemy pieces need to be traded, which of your own to use, strategy. Then selecting candidate moves. The typical Candidate move in B-Notation would look like thi ...[text shortened]... ion with the exception of working out what the opponent might do next they are even less useful.
5 edits
Originally posted by briancronThanks for the link.
This is an interesting but negative review of this method
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:rbNAtgY2BWUJ:www.chesscafe.com/text/review469.pdf+Bangiev+method&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
A quote from the review: "After going through more than 50 of these positions and spending 10 to 30 minutes on each, I am still unsure how all of this stuff leads me to a candidate move. Sometimes I’m not even sure why the arrows and squares and colons are here rather than there, although some of the ideas are becoming less opaque than they were."
I wonder how the reviewer managed to go through 50 of the positions of the learning database at all without knowing what the arrows, squares and colons really signify. He should study the basics first and write down what all these signs stand for in a special selection of basic notions you have to make yourself to use as a memory support each time you encounter signs, concepts and other elements of the Bangiev method. You look them up in your own selection of notes.
However I do admit, as I pointed out before, that Chessbase and Bangiev should hire a professional editor who's capable of streamlining and structuring the learning material of the "Tactics" CD in order to make it more accessible. This criticism still stands.
It seems however that Bangiev has made up for this omission on "Squares Strategy 3", a CD on the middlegame.
I just received this CD, I checked it out and there is much much more introductory explanation of the (extended) learning material in much much more detail and there is much more explanation of how the Bangiev method is structured.
I just can't wait to dig into it. 🙂
Originally posted by BedlamThe Benko gambit is an e5 strategy in the opening phase. The Dutch is a d5 strategy in the opening phase.
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 pro ...[text shortened]... can be an eye opener and worth getting if you dont mind putting a bit of hard work into it.
You can find this on the CD "Squares Strategy 2" on opening theory.
1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMastercmsMaster: "Nimzowich's idea of overprotection is suspect at best, imo"
Ok, yeah, because pretty much everything in Art of Attack in Chess is incredible and very useful knowledge. Although from reading some of Bedlam's comments I'm a little skeptical of some of the B-Method ideas, although I think looking over it may be quite helpful.
Nimzowich's idea of overprotection is suspect at best, imo.
What brings you to this conclusion ?
1 edit
Originally posted by GolubHere's a review on Iossif Dorfman's "The Method in Chess" by John Watson:
Such a shame. His books seems interesting. Probably far too advanced for me, but still.. Would have been interesting to what a high-level player thought about it..
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_method_in_chess.html
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have actually read most reviews there are about these books ( also his "critical moment" ). The fact is that most reviews are negative, mostly because of the expectations that were on it, since this guy is obviously some guru. The reason I asked was because I read somewhere that his second book (on the same concept) was much more clear, and after reading it, the blurryness from the first book should go away. Maybe it was bad phrased and too high expectations.. but the content still seems very interesting. I think the method of evaluation seems like a smart way to do it, but I personally have about 400 rating points to go before I should probably even consider this book.. still, I think everyone can have use for those high-level concepts, even if a good positional play ability is required to read it. So, I am not so interested in the reviews of the book (especially not the first wave), I am more interested in the content. I don't think such a supercoach (for kasparov, bacrot etc) and old-dog ukranian GM just has no idea what he is talking about. Therefore I was kind of interested in any serious attempts to absorb his ideas by higher level players. After all it was supposed to have taken players from 1900-2000 up to 2500... seems to me like a real treatise. But oh well, nevermind.
Here's a review on Iossif Dorfman's "The Method in Chess" by John Watson:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_method_in_chess.html
1 edit
Originally posted by GolubGolub: "So, I am not so interested in the reviews of the book (especially not the first wave), I am more interested in the content."
I have actually read most reviews there are about these books ( also his "critical moment" ). The fact is that most reviews are negative, mostly because of the expectations that were on it, since this guy is obviously some guru. The reason I asked was because I read somewhere that his second book (on the same concept) was much more clear, and after reading it, layers from 1900-2000 up to 2500... seems to me like a real treatise. But oh well, nevermind.
The only way to get to know the content is to read the books ....... and then form your own opinion.