The System

besides being a CC champion, he was a leading figure in the developement of computer chess playing programs at carnegie-mellon during the 70s and 80s. his otb chess playing days was in the 60s whene he was a top 15 US chess player..

Ok, thanks for the info.

this one looks fatal for him

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_The_System.html
(thanks for the link MR)

I think the book is worth reading. The author is strong minded and clearly trying to present his approach to chess strateg --- whether right or wrong. I would say the same about Nimzo's My System, a book on principles not entirely accepted by leading GMs, but still worth reading

Originally posted by adam warlock
Well engines don't see that far to discern that 1. d4 is indeed better. He gives strategical/positional reasons for it so I guess that's one more factor not to expect 1. d4! to be indeed figured out by today's engines.

I'm not saying he's right but I will definetely study with great care what he has to say and not just ignore him from the outset. One way or the other I'm sure I'll learn a lot.

While Berliner does have some interesting ideas, he is extremely dogmatic without properly backing up his statements. For example, in his explanation of why 1. d4 is better, he focuses only on central control and structure. He ignores that the time to build this structure is taken away from development or attack (a good way to use an extra tempo). An extra piece can often do more damage than an extra pawn. Moreover, these pawns may block good squares (such as c4 or b5 for the bishop) or create an overextended position full of weaknesses. It is all a fine balance. Berliner is not a titled player OTB yet his assertions are at odds with the experiences and analysis of much stronger players. At the 2600+ level, 1. e4 is more common and scores significantly better than 1. d4 (about twice the performance ELO differential according to Mega Database 2008). The same is true for chess engines like Rybka. Despite being published quite a while ago, not much has changed due to Berliner's book. The claim that 1. d4 is better is simply unsupported. While I currently prefer 1. d4 a bit, I don't think it's objectively any stronger than 1. e4. It's preference. I went more into this than I intended, but this kind of thing is representative of much of the book.

There are many books that would benefit one's chess much more. Moreover, if strong players actually apply his ideas with as much zeal as he suggests, they will drop significantly in strength. f3 is not always a good move. 😛 Being dogmatic is virtually always at odds with being right.

BTW: Comparing My System with The System is silly. Apart from a few ideas, like overprotection, all of Nimzowich's ideas have made their way into common practice. He is also much better at supporting his ideas. The System is not even in the same league.

EDIT: This forum software is buggy. It cuts the post when using comparison symbols.

Originally posted by exigentsky
...Berliner is not a titled player OTB...

I believe that Hans Berliner has an OTB IM title.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
I believe that Hans Berliner has an OTB IM title.

I read in other places that he was not. However, I see that Wikipedia lists him as an IM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Berliner). I'm still not sure this is true as there is no source. In any case, this is a tangent. I judge his statements on their merit and not on the presumed title he holds.

Originally posted by exigentsky
While Berliner does have some interesting ideas, he is extremely dogmatic without properly backing up his statements. For example, in his explanation of why 1. d4 is better, he focuses only on central control and structure. He ignores that the time to build this structure is taken away from development or attack (a good way to use an extra tempo). An extr ...[text shortened]... ue.

EDIT: This forum software is buggy. It cuts the post when using comparison symbols.

He's an IM you can check that on chessgames. And from what I read he doesn't seem to ignore nor development nor attack but I'll be posting his thoughts and we can discuss this. This what I'm expecting here. A lot of (possibily helpful) discussion.

For now I'll say that he says a set of axioms and he abides to that. But he says it himself that in chess tatics are king, but when you have no tactics available for a long time (Just like on propperly played CC) you have to have a deep strategy. That's what the system is about. It is not an openings compendium it is a set of rools to helping choose the best move in any given position. This concept of very best move on any given position is problematic I know that but those are his axioms and either one can choose to follow his train of thought as if his axioms are right and see if everything does follow logically or don't accept the axioms from the very outset. I'm going for the first option and see if I can gain something out of that. 🙂

Originally posted by adam warlock
He's an IM you can check that on chessgames. And from what I read he doesn't seem to ignore nor development nor attack but I'll be posting his thoughts and we can discuss this. This what I'm expecting here. A lot of (possibily helpful) discussion.

For now I'll say that he says a set of axioms and he abides to that. But he says it himself that y outset. I'm going for the first option and see if I can gain something out of that. 🙂

I read the whole book and know perfectly well what it's about and what it is. This is not a new book, nor obscure and my harsh opinion (as well as that of titled players) is not due to lack of knowledge or closed mindedness.

Among its faults, The System fails to correctly appreciate the importance of development, dynamics and active play (f3 isn't much for development). In fact, sometimes his lines are just ludicrous. For example, his proposed REFUTATION for the Slav (he admits he doesn't know), Benko, KID... oh yeah... every opening he claims to refute. He either cuts off analysis at a position known to be equal or ignores some defense known to equalize or even gain the advantage for Black. For example, ...c5 in the f3 variation for the KID is completely left out. He places structure above almost all other considerations (other than a clearly losing tactic) and this makes many of his lines harmless. By his logic, I suppose the Sveshnikov Sicilian must be refuted by now - after all - the structure is none too pleasant. As for the system itself, there is nothing scientific or methodical about it. it is just moves he likes with a few reasons. Someone who doesn't know what he likes would not come up with those moves and even Berliner himself often goes back and forth on what is or is not a system move. Perhaps there are refutations for some of the openings he mentions, but he certainly hasn't shown any.

There are parts I liked too. For example, his ideas about not blocking pawns, response pairs, chunking and maximum flexibility are interesting. However, his shoddy analysis overbearing arrogance and unsupported grandiose claims make this book a lot less than what it could be - to say the least. In any case, I don't feel it's worth my time to go into any more details. My position is quite clear and I am not about to find a million examples for every detail.

BTW: I looked at chessgames.com and did not find information about him being an IM. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=24290 All they say is:

"Hans Jack Berliner was born in Berlin in 1929, but when he was eight years old he moved with his family to America. He learned chess at age thirteen and went on to play in several U.S. Championships and earn a spot on his country's Olympiad team in 1952. However, he is remembered most for his feats in correspondence play, most notably his victory in the 5th World Correspondence Championship with the score of 14/16. His book "The System" describes his rigorous and scientific approach to chess analysis. He currently lives in Florida, and has worked to help develop chess computers in his later years."

If it's in the comments, that doesn't matter. That has no more authority than Wikipedia.

Originally posted by exigentsky
BTW: I looked at chessgames.com and did not find information about him being an IM.

I wasn't able to confirm whether he was ever an IM, either. But, if you believe Berliner's statements on page 7 of his Computer History Museum interview (I posted the link on April 6), then his rating in the 1950s was in the Senior Master category, a little above 2400 (I'm assuming he meant USCF rating). That doesn't necessarily make him an IM, but it's not exactly chopped liver, either. 🙂

Of course, his rating only means that he might be capable of writing a good book - not that he necessarily has. The book has to stand on its own merits. Since his book is pretty much over my head anyway, I'll leave it to others to pass judgment on it.

Reading the interview, I notice the same arrogance I found off putting in his book. School, chess, astronomy, everything... was very easy - a piece of cake. In fact, he claims he was beating those who taught him chess on the first day and that he found some theories about the solar system "patently wrong" at 12.

In any case, he claims he was in the top ten for the US and rated about 2420 to 2440 during 1955-1957. This suggests that he was clearly AT LEAST IM strength even if he wasn't titled. However, there wasn't a real rating system during that period so I'm not sure where he gets those numbers or what they mean. The USCF adopted the ELO rating system in the 60s and FIDE did so in the 70s.

BTW: The interview is recommended for all those interested in computer chess! There are a lot of interesting details. Unfortunately, I only understood a little of it.

Some of the newspaper clippings surprise me. "Someday, Hitech may even do something his maker could not - checkmate a grandmaster." This was in 1985, way after Berliner claims he was in the top 10 and with a 2400+ rating. How did he never beat a GM? I'm assuming the newspaper isn't literally referring to checkmate.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Among its faults, The System fails to correctly appreciate the importance of development, dynamics and active play (f3 isn't much for development).

"Later I studied the games of Rubistein who in just 6 months of self-study transformed himself from weak amateur to one of the top players in Poland. How could he have done this? He must have discovered some secret. Yes, he did, and I call it dynamism! He came to understand the dynamics of positions especially endings... Also, a rook attacking isolated pawns was much more valuable from one defending such pawns. Such discerniment of dynamics allowed Rubinstein to transform himself as a player."

All words from Berliner in the book. And I could go and write some more examples if I had the patience to do it. Understand that I'm not here as an advocate for Berliner and his ideas. I want to study his book and learn. That's all that is to it.

I think that in two days I'll post something relevant to what I initially intended this thread to be and I'll be glad if you drop by to exchange some ideas.

Originally posted by adam warlock
"Later I studied the games of Rubistein who in just 6 months of self-study transformed himself from weak amateur to one of the top players in Poland. How could he have done this? He must have discovered some secret. Yes, he did, and I call it dynamism! He came to understand the dynamics of positions especially endings... Also, a rook attacking isolated itially intended this thread to be and I'll be glad if you drop by to exchange some ideas.

Yes, I read that too and was very interested at that point. Not because it reads like many "get rich quick schemes," but because dynamics play a huge role in my own chess principles. However, this is not what he does for the rest of the book.

The rest of the book is about his "theory" of territory acquisition by pawns (usually a setup with c4 d4 e4 f3 Bd3 Nge2 Nc3) and is closer to being the exact opposite. Compare a dynamic style like Kasparov's and how he plays the openings to the recommendations err... "refutations" of all responses to d4 in the book. Don't compare it based on soundness but based only on the type of position that arises.

Anyway, I have nothing to add really. I could provide many examples and a lot of analysis, but I'm too lazy for that. 😛 I will be an observer for now and give others a chance to teach me. 🙂

Originally posted by exigentsky
Some of the newspaper clippings surprise me. "Someday, Hitech may even do something his maker could not - checkmate a grandmaster." This was in 1985, way after Berliner claims he was in the top 10 and with a 2400+ rating. How did he never beat a GM? I'm assuming the newspaper isn't literally referring to checkmate.

Keep in mind that those newspaper articles were written by local reporters - not exactly known for getting all the facts right.