31 Comments
User's avatar
Martin B. Justesen's avatar

Here is my takes on the first part of the book:

1. I knew many of the basic principles layed out. The Steinitz rule as a named rule was new to me, but I like it, and will try to remember it moving forward. In my own games I think I might not think enough about the inner battle between bishop and knights enough when exchanging. I might be more guided about me feelings than actually strategic considerations. So reading the chapter was a good reminder to think about the nuances during my games.

2. Overall I liked the examples given, but the amateur's game examples felt a little long. Fischer's game with c5 jumps to mind as a good example.

3. I'm a bit conflicted about if I think the engine analysis should be included, because a lot has happened with engines since Silman wrote his book, so at the time it was maybe the best call. But today it would be interesting to include a bit more analysis about how to go about it. In a way it is interesting to think about if the strategic ideas still are correct because it is the human way to think or if we have to adapt our strategic understanding if engines find better ideas.

4. I can connect with the amateurs in the book, so far I like this way of explaining the ideas with examples of how not to do. Maybe it is also interesting that the amateurs do not notice or prioritize the right imbalances when "reading" the positions.

Expand full comment
Tom Ewald's avatar

I read a person's comments on the idea of the book on Amazon, saying that it's bad because we need to be taught correct things, not lower rated players' errors. I have two responses to that: (1) When I taught Excel and Access classes, I made sure I would mention "and this is where people frequently go wrong" as a warning to the students. This was helpful to them, especially when I explained the WHY of the errors, which is what Silman is doing. (2) Other books show GM games and comment on their errors, which is okay, but many of us lower rated players will never make the same mistakes as those GM's; we won't even get to that point in the game! Critiquing games played (or reviewed) at OUR level can be very helpful.

Expand full comment
Martin B. Justesen's avatar

In the position Longren-Silman game position I immediately thought let's play ..f5! And then Silman writes no no! :D

Expand full comment
Nigel's avatar

1. Changing Perspectives

- Reading this chapter confirmed to me that I am relatively less good at using Bs v Ns, so I have noted to build into my study plan a lot of work on Bs and the B pair

- The idea of having a responsibility to work to improve whichever side you have of an imbalance is really powerful

- I am pleased I am revisiting the imbalance technique - I read his books over a decade ago. But I feel like my chess has moved on, and I wouldn’t want my game to go back to that era. I have a feeling that Silman’s ideas might be excellent to get one to, say, 2000 or 2200, but to go further than that they might need to be dumped - they might even start to hold one back. Obviously Silman was a stronger player than I am ever likely to be, but that doesn’t mean that ideas that worked well for him to reach IM level are best suited to the multiple, sequential “re-learnings” of how chess works that are needed by an adult improver. His mental framework feels too rigid to allow the sequential re-learnings that I need to get from 2100 to 2300.

- I feel it is of limited help to have a rule given to me in isolation - chess isn’t just something I reason out over the board, but is a language that I’m trying to learn to “speak” better intuitively. Currently I am finding that studying annotated classic games and making notes which cross-reference to specific themes that interest me is a better way for me to gradually build my own rule book, as compared to reading rules illustrated by games (the classic way learning with a chess book works).

2. Silman’s game examples

- I was impressed by Silman’s very attractive small tactics - he uses the features he has identified using his imbalances technique to identify small tactics that develop his position. I tend to be in one mode or the other - all-in-tactics, or quiet positional play - and his tactics often caught me by surprise. Maybe this awareness will enable me to merge them better. I felt that you could see that Silman is a product of his era, the pre-engine Karpov era.

- Generally his game examples are quite nice - but they feel a bit on the simple side, and they feel to me to rely upon the opponent playing in an amateur/supine fashion

3. Engine Analysis vs Silman’s Ideas

- Apart from his use of small tactics, Silman’s play/ideas aren’t centred on concrete analysis, but on use of features in the position, so I’m absolutely not surprised that his moves are not always the engine’s first choice.

- Of course there is value in his ideas, even where they are not the engine’s first choice, as humans cannot play like engines. We definitely need a pathway, as compared to just selecting the best move. However, I do worry that Silman’s pathway is too narrow/rigid.

4. Writing Style and use of Amateur Games

- If he was my coach and used that type of language in front of me, I’d not be very impressed! I also wondered how he would feel to be similarly critiqued by a stronger player than him, especially one of the current engine era like Dubov - would he be happy being called, say, a poor man’s Karpov, or a pre-engine-era dinosaur!

- I was not at all sure I got much benefit from working through the play of a 1200 player, but I did find it very instructive to see Silman’s play in defending the bad side of the positions - the way he used his opponent’s errors to progressively muddy the water, and often eventually get the advantage was very interesting (although generally not even commented upon.

5. Open Discussion

- I’m enjoying the space chapter more, although I’m on vacation this week so this book is on hold for now

- I’m definitely going to finish the book, and use my notes to add to my study plan for the future.

Expand full comment
Martin B. Justesen's avatar

"chess isn’t just something I reason out over the board, but is a language that I’m trying to learn to “speak” better intuitively." I like this observation. And Silman's rules of imbalances and other rules can at times feel a bit like a taxonomist explaining chess.

Expand full comment
Nigel's avatar

Oh, I think I misread that as “taxidermist” 😂😂

Expand full comment
Martin B. Justesen's avatar

😂

Expand full comment
Nigel's avatar

😂😂 It can definitely be interesting examine a stuffed animal but that isn’t going to help you imagine how it runs

Expand full comment
Nigel's avatar

I would just add that I’m learning Peter Svidler’s Grunfeld course on Chessable. I feel I get more “genuine learning” from how Svidler feels about the positions, even though those positions are often orders of magnitude more complex, and much more concrete, than I would have found myself. Svidler’s comments aren’t able to be boiled down to rules, and they are much more tenuous/dynamic, but I sense that floating in those comments, even if I don’t get all the subtleties of his thought, is better for me in the long run than learning Silman’s rules.

Expand full comment
Dallas's avatar

I got through most of the three chapters, but only about halfway through the knight vs. Bishop chapter. From what I read I was surprised how little emphasis was on the power of having two bishops. His rule 5 of knights vs. bishops only states the benefit of two bishops is eliminating the one color weakness each one has.

Pg 17 is the Silman-Gross game, and his commentary on the 1000 vs. the 1600's methods at the end of pg 23 pointed to a common criticism of Silman's (although he's my favorite chess author). Silman notes the 1600 does a worst job of breaking down the position than the 1000, but the 1600 still plays the position better. He even gives a light rebuke to the 1600 for only looking at moves instead of breaking down the position into imbalances.

There was a book written called move first think later that was critical of Silman's general methodology of breaking positions down before looking for moves. Silman responded to the book and defense of his method while also accepting the basic premise of the book, which is patterns are the key to chess growth. I enjoy Silman's books and agree he presents the patterns in mostly digestible ways for newer players, but for large chess growth players need to absorb as much tactics and positions as they are able

https://www.chess.com/article/view/snarky-silman-presents-readerrsquos-questions

Lastly I loved the game Rosenthal-Steinitz, in which Stenitz made it his personal goal to leave no square safe for the white knight, even temporarily blocking his fianchetto bishop with f6. I always struggle being willing to play f3 or f6 with fianchetto bishops so it's definitely a strategy I should be more open to.

Enjoy this book club so far and interested to finally read this book that's been on my shelf for 10 years.

Expand full comment
Tom Ewald's avatar

I actually got through the assigned chapters this week! Yea! I didn't learn anything new about bishops or knights, but I believe I picked up a new (to me) tip in a quiet position. As with other amateurs, I get stuck (and sometimes bored) when I don't see any tactics or other attacks available. In such a quiet position, I knew the general rule of improving my worst piece, as well as trying to take good landing spots away from my opponent's knights. But it had not occurred to me to try to manipulate the overall board to suit my pieces and obstruct my opponent's; a simple move or two, sure, but not a real plan. I'm hoping I can remember to keep this in my arsenal.

Expand full comment
Martin B. Justesen's avatar

I think that is a good takeaway and trying to notice moment when you hace a chance to manipulate!

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

I also got through the chapters. I looked at it via the chessable course. I thought Andras Toth did a very entertaining presentation of the chapters.

I look forward to learning more. I think what I have learned so far will be helpful when I can't see any obvious tactics.

Expand full comment
Martin B. Justesen's avatar

Did he add some extra nuggets of wisdom to Silman's text? And do he then cover the same position 2-3 times as Silman does?

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

On Chessable trainer you can go through material multiple times

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

Yes. He added some of his own wisdom to the material of Silman.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

For me I thought it was worth it. I like reading but in my circumstances watching the videos was a better way of getting through the material. Also I do like the chessable platform for reviewing things.

Expand full comment
Rob Old's avatar

I'm curious - do you think the extra commentary is worth the significant extra markup in cost compared to just the book?

Expand full comment
David's avatar

Changing Perspectives:

I think here it is not a matter of looking at the pieces and their strengths differently for me. It is instead a matter of ensuring you adjust the game to maximise the pieces that you do have. There are times that you are debating a trade off in these minor pieces where thinking about their strengths in the current game makes sense. But more often to me it feels one of these trades is forced and then we need to ensure we re-evaluate the position and what we want to do based on the minor pieces we have. Further to this, knowing I need to open up the position to maximise the impact of the bishops is one thing, finding a sensible pawn break to do this may still allude me…

Engine Analysis vs. Silman's Ideas:

I may be in the minority, but the engine adds little value for me. The concept behind a text like Silman’s is to see the deeper long run ideas. And the engine suggesting a move that I don’t understand and cannot follow through to see the long-run implications of isn’t that helpful. While top level chess may require the most accurate move to be played I don’t think that all chess levels require this and a good move with a strong plan is much better to someone trying to learn how to improve their play.

Writing Style and Use of Amateur Games:

I think these “negative” comments from Silman are taken out of context. These are all players he worked with and knows. Imagine how frustrating it must be to see a player hang a piece due to a fork after you have spent lesson after lesson dealing with this issue. If we understand there is some history between him and the students, we may feel more sympathy to him as a coach. At least as an educator that is how I read his frustration sometimes! Also, there are instances where he is kind to the players when comparing them and times he praises them to balance things a little. T

The whole point of the text is to show the mistakes amateurs make, so we can learn from them in our own games. So, the book is always going to feel a little like it is being critical of these lower rated players.

Open Discussion:

Tying into one of the points Silman raised is the idea of losing the initiative and ending up ‘just responding to the opponents’ threats’. Finding this balance is very tricky for me and I don’t think Silman really addresses that here. We are told to consider our opponents plan and to stop them where possible. We are also told to focus on ensuring our own plan comes into effect. Balancing these two and ensuring we commit time to the most important of these at any point is definitely something I struggle with.

Expand full comment
James Annan's avatar

On the topic of engine analysis and particularly disagreement with the recommended move: this is something I've often come across in books especially since I started using chessvision.ai (no I'm not paid by them, but I do think it's a fabulous tool so happily recommend to all and sundry). I don't worry unduly about it: generally the recommended play is still strong enough even if not (engine-)optimal and it serves to illustrate the point being made. The fact that there was a better move - or rarely, an obscure defence that completely negates the plan - doesn't take away from the principles under discussion which will generally apply in similar positions even if not that specific one. We have to always remember that although we talk strategically in terms of principles and plans, chess is fundamentally a game of pure calculation and concrete moves trump beautiful ideas.

Expand full comment
James Annan's avatar

I'll also add that in my best ever game, in which I played 22 consecutive engine-perfect moves (according to the chess.com analysis), the engine marked my 23rd and final move as an error because I "only" won a rook (and the game) whereas I could have won two pieces. Ruined my accuracy!

Expand full comment
Vuokko Vuorinnen's avatar

Changing perspectives & Silman's Game Examples: I never really looked that much at this type of imbalance beyond the: bishops are better in open positions and knights are better in closed positions. Especially the bishops are better in endgames since they can reach the other side of the board rule/strategy was an eye opener. I frequently find myself in such an endgame (most of the times with the Knights, since I tend to prefer Knights over Bishops as I'm a novice) on the losing side because of this. Something I shouldn’t do since the opening I play (My First Opening Repertoire on Chessable by Christof Sielecki which is all about getting the bishop pair and an open position. Also very interesting was taking squares away from your opponent's knight. As a novice I tend to only look at what I can do, not what my opponent can do.

Engine Analysis vs. Silman's Ideas: If playing the human move is only slightly worse than the engine move, but leads to an easier position that is easier to play for the human, I tend to prefer the human move. I also think that Silman picks the more human move just to prove a point or to give his students a fighting chance if they play correctly (there's an example of Silman setting up a discovered attack for his student)

Writing Style and Use of Amateur Games: I found the comment of 'I stopped the game in disgust' a bit harsh, but was amazed at the backlash it received in the book club thread. I'm sure that this is part of Silman's humor and writing style and he was not truly disgusted.

Open Discussion: I was just barely able to squeeze in enough time to read the chapter and play the games out on a board, thinking about them a little bit. I felt like a complete underachiever reading that Martin analyzed the positions with an engine, whereas I was just happy with what Silman explained about the position. Now with even less time and a larger chapter ahead of me I'm a bit scared of next week… But I really want to finish this book! It's good to have a goal, and to have some peer pressure that helps you accomplish it. See you all next week!

Expand full comment
Martin B. Justesen's avatar

I hope I will not pace you too hard, but I have tried my best to pick a pace that will the most of us finish. My rational for not picking a slower pace is that the risk then would be that people would lose interest in the book and drop off.

Expand full comment
Fred's avatar

"Do you look at Bishops and Knights differently after reading "The Battle Between Bishops and Knights" chapter? If so, how has your perspective changed?"

Definitely. I hadn’t these types of consideration in my mind, until this chapter.

I will now look at these imbalances and act accordingly. For me, it was very instructive.

"What did you think about Silman’s game examples? Did any particular game or position stand out to you?

Were there any examples that helped clarify the concepts of Bishops and Knights for you?"

I don’t have a particular opinion on this matter. Positions were fine to me.

"I analyzed some of the positions with an engine and found that Silman’s ideas are not always the top choices according to the engine. For example, in the game Silman-Gross, Silman played Be3 following the Steinitz Rule, while the student played Bg5, which the engine prefers slightly. How should we approach positions where the engine’s recommendations differ from Silman’s advice?

Do you think there is value in understanding Silman's ideas even if engines suggest different moves? How can we balance human strategic concepts with engine analysis?"

I think it is true to any old books. Even to any book.

So, Why should I care.

I don’t need to play like an engine.

Far from it. I wouldn’t even understand why I have made a move.

So I am okay with it.

If I can understand the reasonning behind a move, and it’s a good move, I don’t need a perfect move I don’t understand.

"Writing Style and Use of Amateur Games:

In a funny sentence, Silman concludes a game between two amateurs with disgust. What do you think about his writing style, especially using amateur play as examples of what not to do?

Do you recognize any of the amateur mistakes in your games?"

I like the style. He’s a bit harsh but he tries to make a point. May be it is easier to stick in our mind if he is disguted rather than a bit surprised.

I certainly do recognize amateurs strange moves and ways of thinking. I can do worse! 😀

"What other interesting thoughts or questions do you have about the chapters we read this week? Were there any specific parts that you found particularly enlightening or confusing?"

I enjoyed it. It’s a good book. I look forward to read next chapters.

I have the chessable course and the physical book. But I use chessable the most because it save me some time (for positions).

Expand full comment
Tjorven Hetzger's avatar

Hi Martin! I'm new to your blog. Could you quickly explain how the Book Club works? Is it just reading the book oneself and then discussing here or are there other meetings? Can everyone participate? Thanks!

Expand full comment
Martin B. Justesen's avatar

Yes, that is basically it. I hope to host a Zoom meeting at some point also to discuss the book . Everyone can join in :)

Expand full comment
Rob Old's avatar

"Do you look at Bishops and Knights differently after reading "The Battle Between Bishops and Knights" chapter?"

For context, I'm about 1450 ECF and I've read some other introductory strategy books before (Seirawan's winning chess strategy and Stean's simple chess). I don't think this radically changed the picture I have of how bishops and knights work, but it did sharpen it up in certain respects - for example, the idea that it makes a difference in an endgame if you have pawns on both sides of the board (which favours the bishop's long range) or only one side (favouring the knight's ability to control squares of either colour).

What was more interesting to me was the idea that if you have an imbalance in the material, then this is something that you should recognise and should shape your planning; as the saying goes, "strategy is deciding what to do when there is nothing to do". As someone who can burn lots of time in such positions trying to formulate a plan, I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book!

"I analyzed some of the positions with an engine and found that Silman’s ideas are not always the top choices according to the engine. For example, in the game Silman-Gross, Silman played Be3 following the Steinitz Rule, while the student played Bg5, which the engine prefers slightly. How should we approach positions where the engine’s recommendations differ from Silman’s advice?

Do you think there is value in understanding Silman's ideas even if engines suggest different moves? How can we balance human strategic concepts with engine analysis?"

In a typical chess position, I've heard it estimated that there are on average 20 legal moves. But unlike Stockfish, humans only really look at a couple of them seriously. It seems to me that the essence of getting good at chess is learning to read the board in such a way that good moves force their way into your consideration. For tactical lines, we learn that features like undefended pieces or exposed kings should prompt us to ask "how can I exploit that?". It seems to me that in Silman's way of looking at chess the imbalances are the corresponding clues that nudge us in a strategic plan. On this basis, it seems that there's a lot of value to be had from these ideas. (This is what I think @Dallas is alluding to somewhat more succinctly, when he says that it's all about pattern recognition).

The initial position given for the Gross-Silman game is one that he describes as "seemingly boring and symmetrical", and for this reason I think it exemplifies this point nicely. A quick Google suggests that his opponent was rated about 2200 at the time (https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/player/78526), which is certainly no patzer, and in the course of 5 moves from this equal position he's engineered a situation in which a player of this standard can't find the moves to hold it all together.

I've heard it said that one difference between IMs and GMs is that the latter often think much more concretely about positions; I'm a long, long way away from being able to say how true this is, but it's certainly true of stockfish. It's probably true to say that when the standard of play is so high that games are won and lost by the tiniest of margins, these positional considerations might not be the way to determine the absolute best move in a position. However, I'm going to say that 1) you don't get to be that good without learning these kinds of principles anyway 2) for those of us who are mortal, these rules might provide a signpost to play moves that are merely very good instead of mediocre or woeful.

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

I'm loving it so far. Here are my responses to the prompts:

Changing Perspectives:

I do have a better understanding of the imbalances between bishops and knights. I like the idea that neither starts out superior, but that it's up to each player to make the best of their side of the imbalance. While not comprehensive (someone pointed out there's very little about the bishop pair), I liked that there were just one or two things to focus on for each side: the player with the knight seeks advanced outposts while their opponent tries to deny them, and the player with the bishop wants to open the position and has the advantage in endgames with pawns on both sides. I found these manageable to remember and have already been focusing on them more in my games.

Silman’s Game Examples:

These are instructive. I like playing through and making my own comments at first. I'm able to identify some right ideas but also made moves that would "disgust" Silman. The Kaletski-Samalii game (p. 36 in my copy) stands out since I was also over-valuing Black's position and ability to attack on the semi-open g-file. I thought White was toast after abandoning the defense of the dark squares on his kingside with 14. Nd4, but 15. N2f3 and White is obviously fine, so I have some room to improve on evaluating attacking versus defensive potential.

Engine Analysis vs. Silman's Ideas:

This is interesting and I hadn't thought about it. I suppose the engine suggestions are useful if we can determine why it prefers those mvoes, and compare to Silman's ideas. Could lead to some interesting discussion so I'm curious to hear more about this. Silman notes that 20. Be3 baits 20...Qb4 after which he would have played 21. Bg5, so maybe it's "objectively" better to tie the queen down with 20. Bg5 but Silman's order has some element of human trickery?

Writing Style and Use of Amateur Games:

I think it's mostly tongue-and-cheek, though I find it a bit much at times. I'll give Silman the benefit of the doubt that his "disgust" is because he cares passionately about his students' success and always expects the best out of them. He was very complimentary of the 900 and 1200 players playing the Black side of Rosenthal-Steinitz (p. 41). Overall I like the use of amateur games and enjoy reading their thought processes. The overthinking of the 1700 student (which is around my USCF rating) in Longren-Silman example (p. 48) was very relatable. I know the feeling of trying to be thorough but then overcomplicating the analysis and losing sight of the most important features of the position. I was happy to have found 1...f6 though :).

Looking forward to continuing the reading and discussion next week! I also just realized there are diagram numbers, which are probably better than page numbers for reference. I'll use those in the future.

Expand full comment
James Annan's avatar

I like the basic content (having read "how to reassess your chess" it seems like it's basically the same story in a simpler package) but am not a fan of the way he sneers at the errors of average players. Eg in that NB/BB endgame, I'd say g5 is really quite a subtle move that is hard to see though a few moves down the line it's obvious that it was strong. There's a reason why a 1200 player is 1200! Seems like a large part of the chapter is ripping into weak moves and I could have done with a bit less of that.

BTW for any readers unaware of it, the chessvision.ai book reader is a truly fantastic way of reading chess books as it provides a (stockfish-enabled) board for playing out the positions.

(didn't mean this specifically as a reply to previous comment sorry)

Expand full comment
Tom Ewald's avatar

This is for the Acquisition chapter: On page 98 (figure 34), he says "Apparently, he will attempt to advance in the center..." Why is it apparent? It isn't to me; I hope it is to someone in the group. TIA.

Expand full comment
Rob Old's avatar

Not directly related to the book, but I just discovered this blog post by my local NM which is a really nice follow-on to this bishops vs knights chapter: https://www.liverpoolchessacademy.co.uk/blog/the-knight-leads-the-caro-kann-orchestra

Expand full comment