Customer Reviews

How to Reassess Your Chess: The Complete Chess-Mastery Course, Expanded 3rd Edition

5 star:		(89)
4 star:		(29)
3 star:		(17)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Several years ago I was 1400 after drifting down from 1600 due to inactivity. I decided to rededicate myself to chess by studying this book. I carefully went through it cover to cover, did all the exercises and even made a notebook on the book similar to the way I had outlined my college text books. I started playing more frequently, trying to use the Silman Thinking Method. Unfortunately I didn't get any better (well, maybe 50 points). I thought the book was very difficult and I was discouraged. I took another break. I decided to put HTRYC aside any study tactics exclusively. I went through Combination Challenge, Sharpen Your Tactics! the big Chess Informant Anthology volume and a couple of others. I also got tactics program for the computer (the Renko CD's). I spent about 10 hrs a week on tactics. I switched to an an almost all gambit opening repertoire. When I took a break from tactics, I worked on the endgame, reasoning that I might go into a lot of endgames a pawn down and needed to hold my own. I came to really enjoy tactics and endgame studies. In less than 2 years I hit 2047 (I'm at 2029 as I write this). I thought this might be the time to return to HTRYC.

Please excuse the lengthy preamble but I wanted to make my relationship with this book clear and also to make it clear that I have actually thoroughly read the book. Many of the reviews seem far too generous to me, given the book's many deficiencies.

Many have already pointed out, and I agree, that there are far too many typos. It is also true that for a book that claims to be "a complete course to chess mastery" that the endgame section is too skimpy and there is virtually nothing about tactics. Another negative is the unengaging format. The pages are single columned with very long paragraphs. Many pages look like a solid mass of words. You have to really want to study this book because it does not beckon you.

Thanks to Amazon for this reader review section. The opinions of others have started me in the right direction on several occasions. One of the main reasons I didn't just jump back into HTRYC is because of several reviews that suggested the book contained flawed analysis when checked by a computer program and also that much of the material came from Euwe and Kramer's Middlegame books. So I decided to find out for myself.

I found that 22 games & diagrams are identical to those found in Euwe and Kramer (20 from Vol I and 2 from Vol II). I also found 8 from Pachman's "Modern Chess Strategy." I only have the abridged l volume Pachman book. If I had the 3 volume complete set, I suppose I would find more. Silman doesn't add anything to the original sources except for a lot more words. I very much prefer the Euwe and Kramer and Pachman explanations.

Next, I went through some of the Silman games with Fritz 7. I didn't bother with the non-Silman games because most of them are games by world class GMs who don't make so many errors and also the analysis has been made by world class GMs as well. I was amazed at how many errors there are in the Silman games and how misleading the annotations are. I didn't go through them all, but enough to satisfy myself. Two very troublesome things are constantly repeated: 1) Silman gives one of his own moves a "!" or "!!" with no explanation. Since Fritz analysis often does not even consider Silman's move best, it is nearly impossible for the student to figure out why a move is worth a "!" 2) Silman's opponent makes a serious error or blunder and Silman does not give it a "?" Sometimes it is a game-losing blunder but Silman ignores it and that gives the false impression that the game represents a triumph for whatever stragegical theme is being demonstrated. Both of these situations greatly short change the student. This is especially true when it is one of the Problems in the book where the student might get a wrong answer that is actually right or the reverse. Here are 3 examples:

In the "Solve These Problems" section of page 240, there is Diagram 151 a position taken from Silman-Fedorowicz, Lone Pine, 1976. Silman is up 2 exchanges, is down a pawn, has doubled pawns and Fedorowicz has the 2 Bishops. The "right" answer is Rxe6 (with the ubiquitous "!"), giving back one of the exchanges. At this point I put Fritz 7 into Shootout mode and let it play the game out against itself. Allowing this 2600 playing program to play against itself should get closer to the "truth" of the position than a game between Silman at 2310 and Fedorowicz at 2200 (he later became a GM but at the time of this game he was 17 or 18 and rated 2200 per my database). In Fritz 7 v. Fritz 7, BLACK WON. Getting back to game as played, Silman gives himself several "!" moves which are unexplained and not supported by Fritz analysis. More importantly, Fedorowicz makes 2 major blunders. The first comes at move 32 where he plays ...d5 instead of ...a4! which will create a WINNING endgame for BLACK. Of course Silman does not give this move a "?" or even comment about it. Later, with the game essentially even, at move 37, Fedorowicz makes the game-losing blunder, ...a3. Again, no "?" or comment from Silman (37...h6 keeps everything pretty even). So the "solution" to this problem is totally misleading and not very helpful to the student.

On page 288, there is Diagram 184, R. Ervin-Silman, Berkeley 1976. In this game Silman plays 15...Nd3!! This is actually a major blunder giving White a big advantage (15...Rb2 gives Black the advantage). At move 16, Silman plays ...f5! This is actually a game losing blunder (16...Nf4 would keep White's advantage to a minimum). Then Silman is saved because at move 18 White plays 18 Rxf4--a total blunder. Silman does not give this move a "?" either, instead he points out that 18 Rg1+ also wins for Black. Maybe so, but 18 Qg5+ convincingly wins the game for White. Another totally misleading game. It is incredible that Silman could miss this analysis because 18 Qg5+ is quite easy to see. You would think he would consider it, after all it is a check!

At page 267 there is a Problem to Solve, diagram 167, Silman-Petranovic, American Open, 1989. In this problem Black is nearly lost already and it is a matter of how White should finish him off. Silman gives the "right" answer as 1. h3! I have no problem with 1. h3 being a good move but in analyzing the position with Fritz, the best 5 moves in order are: Kb1 and Rdg1 (tied), g3, h3 and Nb5. They are all evaluated at approximately the same strength (+1.22 to +.94). For what it is worth I had Fritz play out the position after both 1. h3 and 1. Rdg1. In this case Rdg1 won much quicker than h3. I'm not quibbling that the point is that Rdg1 or the other moves are better than h3 but simply that Silman considers only 1. h3 (with "!" yet) as the "right" answer. He doesn't discuss any other moves. Doesn't this do a disservice to the student who decided that Rdg1 or Kb1 or g3 was the "right" answer?

In the interest of keeping this already very lengthy review from getting any longer, I'm not going to list the other examples I have. You get the idea. I picked the examples at random and did not begin to check them all. I can say that I found serious errors in every game I checked, however. The most common theme would be a Silman opponent error that is not acknowledged by Silman and therefore undercutting the instructional value of the game. Silman makes some errors as well but since his opponents are usually rated 100-250 points lower than him (and some of them are less than Master level), they make a lot more.

Including the Silman games with the games of world class GMs and World Champions is a mistake in my opinion. This is doubly true when the annotating isn't honest.

I give the book 3 stars because it does have some very useful instructional information. Silman has put Steinitz's classic theories in a convenient and somewhat usable form.

Since the Silman games make up such a large portion of this book, re-reading HRTYC is not a real option for me.

Thanks to those of you who alerted me to this problem. Now I only have to decide whether or read Pachman or Euwe and Kramer.

Certain situations that the author feels are important are covered. They become example positions and the planning and ideas that are mainly for one side to get to a goal is well covered. There are some limits to what this book can cover as these are only some examples of some of the many things that can occur in games. I feel that good books to go along with this one would be on positional chess like "My System" a book on attacks like "Art of Attack" and a book on opening traps and tactics like "Winning Chess Traps for Juniors", then you will have covered the most important all around situations that may occur. I think this book is, by far, the best book Jeremy Silman has written!

The word "classic" should be reserved for those few book which fit the criteria, and one criterion is that everyone should own a copy. Silman's book fits that description. His style and detailed explanations hit his targeted audience exactly--the average chess player. The book describes his method for improving: a thinking process using "imbalances"--any difference between the white and black position (Silman's definition). Silman then devotes about eight chapters explaining in detail the elements of strategy which will likely lead to imbalances: minor pieces, space, the center, weak and strong pawns, weak squares, material, temporary imbalances (lead in development or the initiative), and open lines. He closes the book with "Three Keys to Success" and a discussion of how imbalances look in the opening, middlegame, and endgame. Any chess player who repeatedly studies the material in this book, and plays regularly against strong players, will certainly rise to Expert level of play. Silman is to be congradulated for both writing a modern treatise on chess strategy and for explaining to amateur chess players how to employ such strategies in their games.

This is an overall good book covering various concepts that the author feels are important. There are a lot of good lessons in this book. Perhaps a little bit of grammer improvement and a little more clarity could be used in a few cases. I liked the part about if you have a bad Bishop to try and get the Bishop on the other side of the Pawns. The author's "How to Reasses your chess workbook" is good and I think the game analysis books, "Unbeatable Chess Lessons for Juniors" and "Logical Chess, Move by Move" also go well with this one.
This is a book for an intermediate player.

It's hard for me to understand why this book is so popular. Maybe it is because this was one of the first imbalances chess books? The book is well written including the part with the first imbalance - minor pieces, where Silman lay out a set of guidelines for the minor pieces. But in the rest of the book Silman does not do this. That's confusing, it's seems like Silman got lazy. Silman "game-comments" are very often not very good and it is often not related to the subject (imbalance) discussed. Often Silman manage to confuse the reader instead of guiding him. An example is the chapter about doubled pawns. Silman tells us that one advantage with doubled pawns is the possibility to attack in the open file, and he gives us some examples. In diagram 109, in the chapter about doubled pawns, this is not a subject at all, Silman tells us that white only could attack on the queenside only if white's pawn-structure on that side was intact. Silman never explain why white couldn't attack in the open b-file (because of the doubled pawns).

There are some exercises in this book. What differs between a tactical exercise and a positional exercise is that a tactical exercise very often has very few alternative solutions (often only one), but a positional exercise seldom has just one clear solution. Silman give just one solution to each positional exercise. Positional puzzle book as this book should explain why other alternatives are wrong/less attractive. So in addition to this book you will need a teacher, who can explain why your solution to a puzzle from the book is wrong.

This book gives you almost nothing, except listing Silman's imbalances. It doesn't explain deeply how to use the imbalances together. And Silman's imbalances you can get for free from many different Internet sites. An irritating thing about this book, is that many positions are present from the middle of a game after move for instance after white's move number 23. And then the game continues for 15-20 moves. That means that you very often have to set up a specific position on the board, and that is very time consuming. Silman could instead always use complete games.

This book was original from 1993. I think that the idea about imbalances is great, and my hope is that the next revision from Silman is more complete and "up to date".

Alright alright, it averages 4.5 stars in Amazon. But take a closer look -- how many 5 star reviews are more then three or four lines long? How many include references to material included in the book, or, heaven forbid, citations? This book has a reputation that far precedes it, and while there are certainly useful ideas in it, the book presents a very one-sided, hard-to-learn approach to chess.

When I first started using this book as a 1400, I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread; finally a book on how to play chess positionally, presented with an easy structure and presentation! Silman offers a very easy, "scientific" approach to the game by listing seven imbalances and subsequently devoting a substantial amount of time to each. As soon as I'd finished the book (or was partway through) I started to try this same thing in my games. And suprise of all surprises...it didn't work. Why not?

The book ALWAYS presents the critical position of a game, lists the imbalances, then plays a tactical sequence that is "winning" (not always, as in the Silman-Federowicz game, where black's dragon should win). There is a complete lack of holism in the examples given, and so the question of *when* to use Silman's scheme doesn't really work. Chess is more dynamic that Silman's rigid structural evaluations can hope to accomplish. There are many openings, middlegames, and even endgames that require much more sophisticated planning than seven imbalances can hope to achieve.

A personal pet peeve that I and others have about this book is how Silman almost always uses himself for examples. Once at a tournament a friend came back from his round and told us he played "just like Silman". We took a look at his score card and saw that next to every one of his moves was "!!" and his opponent had earned "??" for her moves. Jeremy Silman loves to heap his moves with "!" even when it isn't earned. It wouldn't be problematic to be an egoist, but for a developing chessplayer, all the "!" and "?" give a very false impression of how chess really is played.

Jeremy Silman is a guy that gets a lot of credit for this book because it's favored by lazier teachers and students; it tries to give an easy fix to an incommensurable puzzle. Positional chess is not always about the imbalances, and not every move gets an "!". Your opponents will not always play "?" moves and many times the imbalances will shift every single move. It is a much more amorphous entity than this book presents.

The book does deserve credit for putting together -somewhat- useful examples. You get an idea, albeit a very compartmentalized one, of how to plan in chess. It's not all bad, but PLEASE read the reviews of the book that don't focus on "this book made me into a succhess story!" Think twice about taking the easy road in chess, and replan a purchase to an annotated full-game collection by a higher-caliber player.

I am a strong "B" / weak "A" rated player. I've always known that my chess has been tactically very strong, yet positionally average. This book has changed my outlook on the way a chess game is played. The author starts off by explaining his "thinking technique" (which is worth the price of the book alone!), and then moves on to explain the various imbalances that occur within a game. What really impressed me about the book, was the clear lay-out, excellent english, and error-free chess notation. (I cannot stand chess books written in the passive voice - or even worse, with errors all over the book!).

Mr Silman's choice of examples were always pertinent, and clear. He provides several tests, at the end of each section of the book. I found the tests at just the right level...challenging, and not trivial, nor ridiculously obtuse.

I recommend this book VERY STRONGLY. This is THE best book for players of moderate strength.

I am an International Chess Grandmaster and am the highest rated American Chess player. Over the course of my career I've read many chess books and now have another regret about my career: where was this book when I really needed it? This book is simply superb. Silman's prose is clear, entertaining and instructional. The book is aimed at club players or better, so if your not a beginner, this book will be over your head. For all other players, BUY this book, it is a must read.

MY BACKGROUND: Rated high B (1760 -- performance rating in last 4 tournaments). I've read 14 books since I last played in a tournament, and am probably around "Expert" ("2100"). I also coach a high school chess team.

The List of 51 books for continued study at the end will rudder you to "Master." For beginner to "B," the book will probably add 300 to 400 points. An "A" player or "Expert" will appreciate the nuances of knight and rook play, and the suggested reading list at the end. Even a master might appreciate "spying" on another master's suggested reading for the middle game and end game play.

The book in general is a good overview, with insights better than other positional books. Don't be turned off by the phrase "positional" - "positional" means positions allowing for a successful attack - or to be attacked if you're not leary.

Minor advantages over other positional books: 1) How to squash 2 knights (or knight & bishop) with 2 bishops; 2) Getting a rook to the 6th rank; 3) ways in which weak pawns can be used as an advantage.

Topics: 1) Basic Endgames: A) King & Pawn; B) Rook & Pawn.

2) Thinking Techniques: A) What is a Plan? B) Imbalances

3) Calculation & Combinations: A) Calculation & training - Nowhere Near "The Inner Game of Chess" or "Think Like a Grandmaster," but a useful comment or 2; B) Rules of combination -- 1/20th of a combinations book, but a few useful comments.

4) Minor Pieces in the Middle Game: A) Using the Bishop; B) Understanding N's; C) B vs. N; D) The power of 2 B's; E) 2 N's

5) Space: A) Squeezing; B) Disadvantage of Space; C) Block Before You Punch

6) The Center: A) The Center under Sige; B) The Indestructible Center.

7) Weak Pawns & Strong Pawns: A) Doubled Pawns; B)Isolated Pawns; C) Bakward Pawns; D) Passed Pawns.

8) Weak Squares: A) The Creation of A Weakness; B) Making Use of a Weak Square.

9) Material Loss & Sacrifice: A) Exchangin Material for Other Imbalanaces; B) Making Use of Extra Material

10) Temporary Imbalances: A) Slow Play vs. Fast Play -- Static vs. Dynamic. B) A lead in development; C) Initiative.

11) Open Files: A) Penetration down an open file; B) Domination of Open Files.

12) 3 Keys to Success: A) Mastering Positon With Many Types of Imbalances; B) Preventing Counterplay; C) The Art of Fighting Back;

13) Using Imbalances in Every Phase of the Game: A) Opening; B) Ending; C) Imbalances That Last Until the end game.

I strongly agree with his recommendation to read "The Art of the Middle Game" by Keres & Kotov. Kotov's section on the 5 considerations when castling on opposite sides is inidispensable. Kotov's section on how to form a plan depending on the center structure is also classic.

Yes, it is true. This book can, if you follow it seriously, help you to vastly improve your game and add many points to your rating. But that doesn't matter. As Silman rightly says elsewhere, the vast majority of amateur games are decided simply by a). who makes the last tactical blunder and hangs a piece; and b). one side psychologically giving up instead of fighting back and waiting for the opponent's next blunder. So, want to add 300 points to your rating? Write every move down and ask yourself "does this hang anything?"; and, no matter what the position, look for the opponent's move and ask yourself, "do I have a two-move-or-less combination to win material?". There. Here's the dirty secret that will make a 1500 player and 1800 one.

This, however, means nothing. The sad truth, says Silman (and, from experience, I must agree) is that the vast majority of amateurs have NO understanding of the game whatsoever, sometimes even when they're experts (2000-2200)! An "A" player's rating of, say, 1900, more often than not means simply that he played a lot of games against "patzers" and they hung a piece (or ignored a mating attack) first. He usually still plays, in tournaments, just like a 1100-rated player: that is, sit at the board, look randomly at a few moves that "feel" nice, and then try to calculate them to death. The player who is the first to miscalculate something in this boring and extremely stressful mathematical excercises usually loses.

Even when winning, this is no fun, but merely a gruelling excercise in calculation after calculation; and the amateur has (or should have) almost no sense of accomplishment, since their "brilliant victory" is almost always due to the opponent's blunder, not their own good play.

The main virtue of this book lies, not in the rating increase, but elsewhere. It not only shows you good chess moves; it explains the principles behind it. Above all, it allows you to begin to UNDERSTAND chess. Chess, says Silman, is a game of IMBALANCES--for example, having an isolated pawn (often a negative) for more space (usually a positive). To win in chess, you must find the right plan that enhances your positive imbalances without allowing the opponent to use his. With many, many examples, Silman shows how this is done.

The result of this is that, when taken to heart, you will gradually stop playing like an amateur. Instead, you will start to look for the correct plan and implement it. You will try to UNDERSTAND THE POSITION instead of wildly calculating variation after variation without any insight, and PLAY ACCORDING TO A PLAN instead of move-by-move. In short, you will start to understand what you are doing, and what chess is all about. Yes, you will still often lose, of course (an unpleasant fact which Silman doesn't deny, and actually considers important in building the mental toughness of not being terrified of errors: if worse comes to worst, you'll lose a chess game!). You will evaluate the imbalances incorrectly, or choose the wrong plan, or ignore your opponent's own plan, etc. But even if you DO lose, you will have at least some idea of what you're doing; you were not just sitting there calculating variations endlessly for no purpose.

With this knowledge, the reader will be able to make chess FUN--which is the highest praise a book on chess can have, in my view. The game becomes a real battle of wits (e.g., between plans and imbalances), instead of the fake one of "who will blunder first". Even losing while playing according to Silman's advice, even if you follow it pretty badly, is still more fun than winning like an amateur, by the "I didn't blunder first" rule. The amateur will be able to begin to understand gradnmaster's games--imperfectly, to be sure; but far better than most players, who usually see no point at all to most grandmaster moves who do not threathen some immediate tactical win (As Silman shows, Grandmasters almost NEVER play such moves!) The amateur will begin to see the game as a whole; openings and endings will stop being a case of memorizing variation after variation, but instead will be seen as part of the overall idea of creating and using imbalances.

So, why only four stars? Two reasons. First of all, the book has LOTS of annoying typoes, which sometimes makes it hard to follow the game. It is obvious that the editing was done in a publishing house by somoene who doesn't know chess too well; there are rarely spelling or grammar mistakes, but the notations of chess moves often confuse, for example, "b4" with "d4". It is extremely annoying to look incomprehensively at a game where Karpov or Alekhine seemingly left a rook hanging for several moves, only to find out later that the rook was never there in the first place.

Second, I give four stars, not so much to flaws in the book, but as a warning of sorts to the reader. Tarrasch, the great player, said it best: "strategy-shamattegy, checkmate ends the game." He exagerrated, of course, but his point was that there is little point to talk about "chess strategy" when one still hangs pieces, or allows the ever-popular "stupid knight trick" of letting the opponent fork your king and queen.

This is a book about chess STRATEGY. It is a very good one, too, for the amateur. But one should not think that reading this book means that one NEVER needs to do any deep calculations, or that looking at imbalances and figuring out the strategic plan is ALL the thinking one needs to do in a game. Silman, of course, knows this--all he is saying is that strategic understanding of the game will enable the player to calculate WITH A PURPOSE, instead of doing it in all directions with no goal or understanding of the point of calculating. The "lost" star is a warning to those who think that this book is some sort of magic elixir that will cure all their chess ills. It won't, and doesn't intend to do so.