Thoughts on Silman's Book

Originally posted by TacticalJoke
I'm not a Master or anything, but my strategic play is not bad. In fact, strategy has always been the part of chess I found the simplest. It's those pesky little moves I keep overlooking. 🙂

I don't agree that looking at imbalances before moves is how one learns to play positionally.

Imbalances are definitely one aspect of positional play. And Silman isn't the only one to use them in a teaching system. I've seen a number of articles (Chess Cafe, for instance) that talk about this too as a useful exercise. But everybody thinks about these things differently and its certainly reasonable to say that Silman's system just doesn't do it for you.

I'm reacting more to the idea that tactics are a lot more important than this. I see this a lot in this forum in various forms and I'll say this: Both are important and you need to study both to get better. And the stronger you get, the more likely you need to study strategy, not tactics. But it almost never hurts, at any level you're likely to see here.

I'm not saying imbalances aren't important — they are. What I'm saying is that Silman's advice of looking at imbalances before individual moves is really bad in my opinion.

As for why Silman's books are so popular in spite of this, I honestly don't know. Perhaps people are ignoring the advice about thinking technique and just focussing on the other stuff? It's hard to say. I've not read Think Like a Grandmaster, for example, but I know that parts of this book have been criticized as being unrealistic (in many places, including Tisdall's Improve Your Chess Now), and yet the book is considered a classic.

Originally posted by TacticalJoke
I'm not saying imbalances aren't important — they are. What I'm saying is that Silman's advice of looking at imbalances before individual moves is really bad in my opinion.

As for why Silman's books are so popular in spite of this, I honestly don't know. Perhaps people are ignoring the advice about thinking technique and just focussing on the other including Tisdall's Improve Your Chess Now), and yet the book is considered a classic.

i also did not get anything from the Silmans books that i read and believe me i tried, i wondered why people bought into them, was i so lowly rated that they were above me? I do not know. i thought Retis writing in Masters of the chessboard was much clearer and his narrative more interesting and Michael Steans book, Simple chess, more lucid in developing positional concepts. I guess its everyone to their own, for there must be as many thoughts on proper chess procedure and the thought process as there are chess players. Best course i have readd on chess strategy to date, so good that i can recommend it, is Basic principles of chess strategy course by Professor Aleksey Bartashnikov, it was filled with clear explanations and the concepts illustrated with games from master play.

I think "How to Reassess Your Chess" is an excellent book. This book raised my rating 200 points in OTB tournament play. It was more valuable to me that the dozens of other books I've used.

I would say it is my favorite chess book and helped my game the most. I thought it went great with his Amature mind book as well. I don't follow any set of instructions from the book, mainly just pulled the idea that you should always be working on a plan and try to make your pieces better that your opponents

Originally posted by TacticalJoke
I'm in the minority here, but I don't like Silman's middlegame books. IMO his thinking technique, which is a key teaching in both books, is very unrealistic.

He says to never look at individual moves until you understand the imbalances in a position, but in my opinion this is just bad advice. You need to be looking at checks, captures, and other sh n looks like a good alternative. I admit that I haven't read this yet, but will do soon.

Silman actually covers this, so I think he meets your objection. First and foremost, he coaches that you should look for hanging pieces and checks. Only then does he get deeper.

Stean's book, IMHO, is one of the best chess books ever written. I would recommend reading Silman first, and then Stean second.

In HTRYC and TAM he says you must NEVER look at individual moves before looking at the imbalances, and in HTRYC he said you must follow this rule in any position — whether 'tactical' or 'strategic'. So I don't agree that he coaches that one should look at checks and such first.

But even if you were right, I still don't think that would be sufficient, as mentioned in my second reply.

Wow, I didn't realize my original question would start such a debate. Now I am confused. I guess, as with any book, some people will get a lot out of it and some won't.
I will probably see if the library has it so I won't put any money in it. The weakest part of my game is the middle game. That is where my concentration needs to be. Hmmmm, what to do.

Originally posted by Porky1016
Wow, I didn't realize my original question would start such a debate. Now I am confused. I guess, as with any book, some people will get a lot out of it and some won't.
I will probably see if the library has it so I won't put any money in it. The weakest part of my game is the middle game. That is where my concentration needs to be. Hmmmm, what to do.

The truth is... Silman's book is about the journey. Many people think they play great positional chess when they are just moving wood because it is their turn. Silman tries to give you tools to judge whether a plan is positionally correct. Thinking techniques are just that: "techniques." It is not a recipe to be followed exactly.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
The truth is... Silman's book is about the journey. Many people think they play great positional chess when they are just moving wood because it is their turn. Silman tries to give you tools to judge whether a plan is positionally correct. Thinking techniques are just that: "techniques." It is not a recipe to be followed exactly.

Exactly, the strength of the book is it gives you concrete things to look for, and a method to identify imbalances. There is nothing wrong with looking first at positional things before the basic tactical stuff. Look at the big picture first, then the obvious tactics seems to work well, for me at least. Then, when I respond to tactical threats, I might choose to retake with a bishop rather than the knight or whatever, because of the current imbalances.