- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

any thoughts on "My System" by Nimzowitsch

#42

It's fine, as long as you realize that
a) the author tends to exaggerate things for clarity's sake
b) the author acts kind of like a douche, but they say he had to because otherwise he wouldn't sell
c) it is neither the only book you have to read, nor it is even an essential book to read
d) some of his analysis doesn't really hold up from engine's point of view

It won't make you a GM but that doesn't mean there's nothing good to learn from it. I've seen a lot of IMs and GMs on both sides. Some say it's only good as a historic book, the others say it's absolutely evergreen. Take from that what you will.

It's fine, as long as you realize that a) the author tends to exaggerate things for clarity's sake b) the author acts kind of like a douche, but they say he had to because otherwise he wouldn't sell c) it is neither the only book you have to read, nor it is even an essential book to read d) some of his analysis doesn't really hold up from engine's point of view It won't make you a GM but that doesn't mean there's nothing good to learn from it. I've seen a lot of IMs and GMs on both sides. Some say it's only good as a historic book, the others say it's absolutely evergreen. Take from that what you will.
#43

#37 "It is one of the 5 timelesss classics of a grandmasters' panel"
www.chessable.com/blog/2017/06/09/best-chess-books/

From the link:
"What are the best chess books ever written? We asked ten titled players this question and this article will share their answers. […] I have put the player who nominated each book in parentheses after each title.
[…]
5 - My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch (FM Daniel Barrish)"

Look, I don't like to be nitpicky, and I'm sure you can find many Grandmasters who would consider My System to be a timeless classic (and as huellyouhappy says, many who don't), but it's very hard to discuss stuff in good faith if you're going to say something was chosen by "a grandmasters' panel" when the link actually shows it being chosen by one FM.

#37 "It is one of the 5 timelesss classics of a grandmasters' panel" www.chessable.com/blog/2017/06/09/best-chess-books/ From the link: "What are the best chess books ever written? We asked ten titled players this question and this article will share their answers. […] I have put the player who nominated each book in parentheses after each title. […] 5 - My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch (FM Daniel Barrish)" Look, I don't like to be nitpicky, and I'm sure you can find many Grandmasters who would consider My System to be a timeless classic (and as huellyouhappy says, many who don't), but it's very hard to discuss stuff in good faith if you're going to say something was chosen by "a grandmasters' panel" when the link actually shows it being chosen by one FM.
#44

#43
The nominator nominates, the panel of 10 selects.
Former World Champion Tigran V. Petrosian considered "My System" together with the folow-up "Chess Praxis" as the books he learned most from.

#43 The nominator nominates, the panel of 10 selects. Former World Champion Tigran V. Petrosian considered "My System" together with the folow-up "Chess Praxis" as the books he learned most from.
#45

#44 "The nominator nominates, the panel of 10 selects."
That's not what it says in the article - there's no mention of any nomination process and collaborative selection by the "panel", it just says that they asked ten masters (note - not all grandmasters, there's a list at the bottom) and these are their answers. And my point isn't that no grandmasters think My System is a classic - clearly a great many do - it's that it's extremely hard to have a discussion with you in good faith if you're going to keep making this sort of misleading claim.

#44 "The nominator nominates, the panel of 10 selects." That's not what it says in the article - there's no mention of any nomination process and collaborative selection by the "panel", it just says that they asked ten masters (note - not all grandmasters, there's a list at the bottom) and these are their answers. And my point isn't that no grandmasters think My System is a classic - clearly a great many do - it's that it's extremely hard to have a discussion with you in good faith if you're going to keep making this sort of misleading claim.
#46

The human brain is prone to color the past golden.

The human brain is prone to color the past golden.
#47

#45
When a panel of 10 arrives at 5 books, I presume they all 10 could nominate one and then they voted to arrive at a top 5.

#46
That is right.
Wait till you grow old...
I do like old music, old movies, old wine better than new ones too.
That is not because everything was better, but because the bad has been forgotten and only the good remains.

#45 When a panel of 10 arrives at 5 books, I presume they all 10 could nominate one and then they voted to arrive at a top 5. #46 That is right. Wait till you grow old... I do like old music, old movies, old wine better than new ones too. That is not because everything was better, but because the bad has been forgotten and only the good remains.
#48

Dunno, when I read "we asked ten people this question, here are their answers" I assume that they asked them the question and then presented their answers, not that there's a whole step of nomination and voting that they didn't mention at all for some reason.

Anyway, on a more constructive note, this thread has got me thinking I should have another proper go at My System. I wonder whether there'd be some interest in a forum reading group? We could run a thread every week or so focusing on a chapter at a time, discussing stuff that we've learnt and stuff that we didn't understand. Maybe start in the New Year in case anyone wants to get the book for Christmas?

Dunno, when I read "we asked ten people this question, here are their answers" I assume that they asked them the question and then presented their answers, not that there's a whole step of nomination and voting that they didn't mention at all for some reason. Anyway, on a more constructive note, this thread has got me thinking I should have another proper go at My System. I wonder whether there'd be some interest in a forum reading group? We could run a thread every week or so focusing on a chapter at a time, discussing stuff that we've learnt and stuff that we didn't understand. Maybe start in the New Year in case anyone wants to get the book for Christmas?
#49

I have only really read one part of some book an acquaintance not wanting to play chess anymore (going for Go then) gave me.

I don't remember the title exactly nor the author. but the person who gave it to me, told me it would be good reading from a principle first writing point of view (rather that drip-feeding principles through many games, the illustrations would serve the principles). Actually this is my idealized memory of that first book part. I am still debating whether it was "my system", because of what i read about the part i did not read.

The person who gave it to me, was actually saying that it was the only book I would really need (we were in a math department, so maybe such absolute statements need some salt, only nowadays do i realize...). or if i could only read one book, that should be the one. very fuzzy memory, i guess. I recall being able to read it that part fast and be glad that it appeared concise and consistent. (maybe too consistent, to the points of having holes? i guess would be the critics from what i read here, and if we are talking about same book?).

I am too lazy to go read it again to check. i prefer remembering that such book I idealize existed...

I have only really read one part of some book an acquaintance not wanting to play chess anymore (going for Go then) gave me. I don't remember the title exactly nor the author. but the person who gave it to me, told me it would be good reading from a principle first writing point of view (rather that drip-feeding principles through many games, the illustrations would serve the principles). Actually this is my idealized memory of that first book part. I am still debating whether it was "my system", because of what i read about the part i did not read. The person who gave it to me, was actually saying that it was the only book I would really need (we were in a math department, so maybe such absolute statements need some salt, only nowadays do i realize...). or if i could only read one book, that should be the one. very fuzzy memory, i guess. I recall being able to read it that part fast and be glad that it appeared concise and consistent. (maybe too consistent, to the points of having holes? i guess would be the critics from what i read here, and if we are talking about same book?). I am too lazy to go read it again to check. i prefer remembering that such book I idealize existed...
#50

too late to edit. so EDit:
about the drip-feeding I meant "compte-goutte", and even then that was wrong in french. I meant or mean:

a game can be long, and would be the opportunity to touch many ideas or principles, so that if a book is centered on a sequence of games, and spreading the principle teaching or debating over many games and accompanied by many other ideas in one session or game, it is focusing too much on the game sequence and misses the opportunity to show many short sequences or even flash positions illustrating in same time frame (or learning time chunk, say 20 or 30 minutes), the perimeter of an idea across many games.

I prefer dislocated anonymous game excepts with concentrated aim at a idea (the game may be fictitious, or by any rating, as long as the positions involved exhibit some aspect of the concept to be transmitted). In my idealized memory, i thought that the book part i read was following that relationship between ideas and examples (or it may be that i could not remember long sequences, and managed to still understand something).

PS: more edit. just in case this is taken out of context. I don't mean to say that game studies or books of games are not good books. just using this thread to point at my taste for some complementary focus in presenting ideas, as I, mistakenly, associate "my system" with (the first part). I may have hijacked this thread selfishly, hopefully others might consider the point of view.

too late to edit. so EDit: about the drip-feeding I meant "compte-goutte", and even then that was wrong in french. I meant or mean: a game can be long, and would be the opportunity to touch many ideas or principles, so that if a book is centered on a sequence of games, and spreading the principle teaching or debating over many games and accompanied by many other ideas in one session or game, it is focusing too much on the game sequence and misses the opportunity to show many short sequences or even flash positions illustrating in same time frame (or learning time chunk, say 20 or 30 minutes), the perimeter of an idea across many games. I prefer dislocated anonymous game excepts with concentrated aim at a idea (the game may be fictitious, or by any rating, as long as the positions involved exhibit some aspect of the concept to be transmitted). In my idealized memory, i thought that the book part i read was following that relationship between ideas and examples (or it may be that i could not remember long sequences, and managed to still understand something). PS: more edit. just in case this is taken out of context. I don't mean to say that game studies or books of games are not good books. just using this thread to point at my taste for some complementary focus in presenting ideas, as I, mistakenly, associate "my system" with (the first part). I may have hijacked this thread selfishly, hopefully others might consider the point of view.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.