Sunday, March 14, 2010

Space
























.
.
Margriet and I just finished the book of Michael Stean "Simple Chess". We played through all the games. Margriet's play immediately made a huge progress by incorporating the idea's and she started to beat 1700 players one after another. I need more time to digest the matter since I always want to test ideas by stretching them to the extreme and beyond. But once I get the hang of it I'm sure the same will happen.

The most difficult was the last chapter, about space. It takes time to get a feeling for that, while it certainly plays a big role in my games.

The book didn't mention initiative as a factor. By applying the ideas I noticed time and again that the initiative crops up slowly as a result. Quite mysterious.

Chesstiger asked me about colorcomplexes. As soon I have found the game I want to show him I will post about that.

We will reread the book again soon.

15 comments:

  1. How do you think Stean relates to My System? Is it more or less advanced? I thought Stean was quite a primer on positional chess, wasn't there much in there that you allready knew a long time? Are you also still studying System, or have you finished that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. My System was the first time these matters were formulated. I don't consider it to be a finished theory of positional chess yet. Due to John Watson maybe nobody feels inspired to take the next step:) Steans book is highly practical and very clear explained. I consider it the best description of positional chess I have ever read. I knew most subjects, but I hadn't understand them well. Untill Simple Chess came along.

    I talked to Margriet today and we will start with My System again. For her that will be the first time, for me the third time.

    You can't play positional untill you stop dropping pieces. So Stean's book can hardly be called a primer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, studying chessbooks with your wife! Some guys have all the luck...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The truth is always simple. First book I ever read was ' simple chess ', and it was enough understanding to make me an 1800 player by the age of 10. I know many other 2200 players who feel the same about that book. Regarding ' My System ', I think it is a very bad book, but I know many disagree. From what I have seen though, it just makes most players worse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tempo,

    What read order would you advise me: first 'System' and then 'Simple' or the other way round? I now have planned to do 'System' first.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Studying together with your wife. Impressive! I wonder who read the book outloud to the other, or did you buy two copies of the book? :-)

    Btw, maybe the plan of your wife, just do it, is better then mould it over until its read to spew out as old and scale tobaco one is chewing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Simple Chess is a masterpiece and I will bludgeon the fool who says otherwise with my chessboard. It's not what he says, but how he says it. Understanding is the key to chess. Another great book in this vein is "Masters of the Chessboard" by Reti. His explanations are also top-notch. Nimzowitsch, on the other hand, is difficult to read and should be taken with a grain of salt.

    -DJ

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon,
    My System brings the knowledge as pretty ridgid rules. If you interpret it that way I assume it can make you worse indeed. So you have to be carefull as reader and always use your own discrimination. The good thing about the book though is that it touches on a lot of subtle things which he describes with sensitivity. As reader you have to add value to his sensitive observations by seeking the logic behind it. Once found, you will know when the knowledge will work and when not. That is why I call the book unfinished.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Papablanca,
    You should read Simple Chess first. That gives you a healthy basis for positional insight. Then you can read My System and interpret it. If you find a conflict between your interpretation of Nimzowitsch and Stean, Stean is right. But don't take that as a reason to dismiss the point that Nimzowitsch is trying to make. Adjust your interpretation untill it is coherent with Simple Chess. Then you will know when to apply the idea of Nimzowitsch and when not.

    Be especially aware of an interpretation which condemns your pieces to passivity. With prophylaxe and overprotection it is easy to make that mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You can find the games from the books here. Dont switch the engine on, it would be very disappointing

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/gossimit/c/book.htm

    ReplyDelete
  12. C'mon Tempo, we're waiting on you next post!

    ReplyDelete