24 Jul 09
1 edit
This generally means asymmetry of some kind. For example if both sides have the same number of pawns, but one side has one extra on the kingside and the other has one extra on the queenside, then both have chances of using their extra pawn to gain an advantage on that side of the board. Similarly, if the minor pieces are not the same, e.g. one side has two bishops and the other two knights, then each player will be trying to steer the game into a position where their minor pieces are better than their opponents.
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by gritSilman discusses at great length what imbalances are in his book, "How to Reassess Your Chess." It might be a good idea to read that before "The Amateur Mind."
I have Silman's The Amateur Mind and he starts right off talking about "imbalances." I honestly don't know what that means in chess.
Would someone explain to me in simple language what he means. Please.
grit
25 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by gritMaybe you skimmed the text on page one paragraph one:
I have Silman's The Amateur Mind and he starts right off talking about "imbalances." I honestly don't know what that means in chess.
Would someone explain to me in simple language what he means. Please.
grit
"IMBALANCES
The heart of my system of training is based on the dynamic and static differences (known as
imbalances) that exists in every chess position."
On page two he has a list of imbalances:
Minor pieces, Pawn Structure, Space, Materiel, Files and Squares, Development & Initiative
with a brief explanation for each.
This list is I think quite similar to one that Karpov employed but that's another story.
The simple explanation of imbalances then is "differences"
e.g. one side has a knight and a bishop the other has two bishops,
or
one side has more material than the other,
or
one side has a more cramped position and less space to maneuver than the other,
or
one side has more knights and bishops developed than the other.
The book then explains first how to recognise these differences (imbalances) and then suggests how to go about exploiting them to your advantage.
25 Jul 09
Originally posted by gritThe amateur's mind is meant to be read before how to reassess your chess, once you get through both (and really absorbed the material, not just read it), you will be a much stronger chess player.
Marhout, that helps. I think I understand now.
Do you think it is best to read the Amateur Mind before How to Reassess your Chess? Both seem hard.
grit
Oh, and work on your tactics 😉
25 Jul 09
Originally posted by GarnothI agree, although I Read Reassess Your Chess first simply because it was published first. A also agree about working on tactics at the same time. That's very important, because all the strategy in the world doesn't mean much in the face of a tactical shot.
The amateur's mind is meant to be read before how to reassess your chess, once you get through both (and really absorbed the material, not just read it), you will be a much stronger chess player.
Oh, and work on your tactics 😉
25 Jul 09
Originally posted by GarnothMostly, but not completely correct!
The amateur's mind is meant to be read before how to reassess your chess,
In an e-mail from Silman to Dan Heisman, Silman recommended that the first 52 pages of Reassess be read first, then the Amateur's Mind, then the rest of Reassess.
BTW, Heisman classifies The Amateur's Mind as an intermediate book (USCF 1300 to 1650) and Reassess as an advanced book (above USCF 1650).