|
509 of 532 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A startling Reappraisal, September 22, 2003
By A Customer
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.
|
by Jeremy Silman
by Vladimir Vukovic
