Just want to know what other people think of Jeremy Silman's book? Do you think his books are any good to learn from, or do you think he's overrated as a writer?
Quite a decent book..
I think he's awesome... he's also a really good writer IMO
Yes, very good books to learn.
I am more of the Willy Hendriks "school." I cannot learn chess in the regimented way Silman wants us to study, going around the elbow to get to the thumb. If you are the kind of person who wants rules and protocol and structure, Silman is for you. It's not for me. Of course, some people might point out that I have not learned much about chess at all. But I am having more fun than if I played in Silman's strait-jacket.
can't one read a book critically, and still learn something.
I think it might depend on the expectation one has while consulting, reading, or going back a book (or other material with serious content). One can read a book as an essay, a manual, or a reference. Even if the author is providing some scaffold structure to use as a chess player wanting to progress in their chess playing practice, one can take some and leave some. after trying. hopefully the author would have made a good table of content to help in that regard. one could skip sections of that nature at first to consider the more general content about chess theory, if there is.
Also, one can read a book in any of the above type (essay, manual, reference), but toward general understanding of chess, without necessarily wanting to mirror it in their own practice of playing chess, just by curiosity of the chess game as an object. playing chess may have stimulated that kind of curiosity. And then, even if Silman propose a self-improvement very structured scaffold, surely one might figure out how to filter that out.
I have not read any of his books, but some reviews, and discussions in the past. and yes, for the self-improvers, and given human diversity, there is the question, that as a manual , it may not apply to your thinking/learning/etc... type. or not yet.
There is even the possibility that although you can humor the scaffolding and apply it to your games, your self-improvement goes in the wrong direction. you get worse for not having listened to yourself. but trying with all those possible caveats in mind, might be the only way to judge.
I would rather read the "cliff notes" because of my low level reading skills. or go through some courses that have digested the useful content of that author, and might even have (bonus) digested other authors with different takes on common themes for example.
I think it might depend on the expectation one has while consulting, reading, or going back a book (or other material with serious content). One can read a book as an essay, a manual, or a reference. Even if the author is providing some scaffold structure to use as a chess player wanting to progress in their chess playing practice, one can take some and leave some. after trying. hopefully the author would have made a good table of content to help in that regard. one could skip sections of that nature at first to consider the more general content about chess theory, if there is.
Also, one can read a book in any of the above type (essay, manual, reference), but toward general understanding of chess, without necessarily wanting to mirror it in their own practice of playing chess, just by curiosity of the chess game as an object. playing chess may have stimulated that kind of curiosity. And then, even if Silman propose a self-improvement very structured scaffold, surely one might figure out how to filter that out.
I have not read any of his books, but some reviews, and discussions in the past. and yes, for the self-improvers, and given human diversity, there is the question, that as a manual , it may not apply to your thinking/learning/etc... type. or not yet.
There is even the possibility that although you can humor the scaffolding and apply it to your games, your self-improvement goes in the wrong direction. you get worse for not having listened to yourself. but trying with all those possible caveats in mind, might be the only way to judge.
I would rather read the "cliff notes" because of my low level reading skills. or go through some courses that have digested the useful content of that author, and might even have (bonus) digested other authors with different takes on common themes for example.
Probably a nice read (yes, yes and yes!) but it won’t bring you far in terms of chess. He writes a novel about every chess position whereas your brain works differently. Read Move First Think Later and you know why Silman is the American Chess Pied Piper.
I think Jeremy Silman's teachings will be more useful in Chess960 than standard chess, where, as Willy Hendricks rightly pointed out, it is more important to 'know' plans than 'make' them (pattern recognition).
Silman is rated 2383, Hendriks 2438. I would rather buy a book written by a strong grandmaster. If their books were so good, then why did these not propel their authors to a higher level?
And asking opinion about chess authors is unlikely to produce huge amount information. People just like different styles of writing. MFTL describes what wrong any many chess books but I really dont see what it offers in return. I do agree that verbal description of chess positions are probably wrong because and good players fingers know where piece belongs. But you can learn JS books or from any other book for that matter. Work out the examples to degree that you either agree or disagree with author's conlclusions. Thats really hard work and matters more than selection of the book. So I would say do you find authors style such that you are willing to spend time with it? if not pick another book. There are way more 10 000 books on chess so you will definately find that suits you.
On newer ones you can see first few pages of book on preview. use that to make some kinda judgement yourselves
On newer ones you can see first few pages of book on preview. use that to make some kinda judgement yourselves
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.