sagwa wrote on 10/05/10 at 19:15:49:


Highly recommended. Ignore any poor reviews of this book - you will improve your play by studying it properly.

I disagree sagwa, see other thread on books recommended by IMs and GMs. This book gets recommended alot and with good reason. Errors? Sure... but find a book that doesn't have one? I've found an error in every book I've ever read (and thats not talking just chess books). The errors here aren't on the level of Eric Schiller. Re: Erictheread, the benefits outweigh the nitpickers.

sagwa wrote on 10/07/10 at 19:32:52:


I think it depends on what you want.  If you want high quality, honest insight into the decision making process of a bunch of GM games, buy the book.  If you want excellent insight into the openings and middlegame structures covered, buy the book.  I'd go so far as to say if you're a 1.d4 player, buy the book--there's just so much material that should be helpful to 1.d4 players.

If off-topic rambling, the occasional sexist comment (I only remember 1), and incorrect historical information bother you, skip it.  (Actually, according to Edward Winter, only the 1910 Lasker-Janowsky match was for the World Championship, so maybe Yermolinsky was right about this and Mortal_Games is wrong?  But even if Yermolinsky is wrong, do you really care?  It's not at all the point of the book.)  If you don't play any of the openings/middlegame structures he covers, maybe you want to skip it.  Personally I think the actual "chess content" far outweighs any of the mistakes, though the book could have been even better.

Quote:


I would like to offer the Oxford Companion to Chess to GM Yermolinsky for a careful reading and for not saying the beastiality that Janowsky played two matches with Lasker for the World Championship! The problem is that a naive guy could believe! Who knows a bit of chess, knows that a GM despite being, can be ignorant.

GeneM wrote on 10/06/10 at 02:32:01:


Actually, I don't think Yermolinsky uses the term "dynamism," that was my own term to try to capture the differences in chess style between "average" masters back in the 1920s and average masters today.  I'm currently working through How to Play Dynamic Chess by Valeri Beim, which is probably why I chose the word dynamic.  Anyway the point is that, in my opinion, the games by Yermolinsky vs. a 2300 player are often times more relevant than a lot of those old Capablanca vs. Weaker Player games.  

Of course, I respectfully disagree with Smyslov_Fan.  He gives a tremendous amount of "other concrete advice," like how to play vs. the Grand Prix, a lot of insight into the White side of the Grunfeld, the Moscow Semi-Slav with 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Qc2!?, as Black against the London, as Black against the Fianchetto Grunfeld, as Black in the Richter-Rauzer, etc.  And I learned a lot from Janowsky-Capablanca game.  In fact, he doesn't go into the opening at length at all (he briefly mentions that 4...Bf5 is dubious due to 5.cd cd 6.Qb3 and more or less leaves it at that), and uses the game for its instruction value in similar "Queen's standoff" type positions where White plays Qb3 and Black responds ...Qb6.  He also shows game fragments where he himself misplayed those "Queen's standoff" positions (by mistiming a pawn exchange) because they weren't really explained in the classic literature.  I thought that section was fantastically helpful.

As with all books, its usefulness depends on the reader's prior knowledge.  Personally, I found that my opening repertoire matched a tremendous amount of the material in the book; if you're a 1.e4 player, for instance, you won't find as much useful stuff in there.

But I think the best thing about it is the chess analysis/commentary.  It's one of the most honest books I've ever seen in that respect, Yermolinsky tries to explain why he chose certain moves when others looked plausible, he tells the reader when he missed something, etc.  That "behind the scenes" look at the thought process of a strong player is priceless.

.
ErictheRed wrote on 10/05/10 at 21:00:50:


EricTheRed: A question for you...
Can you summarize or define in a sentence or two exactly what Yermo means when he uses the chess term 'dynamism'?

Is it mostly -- A position that can be transformed quickly has more dynamism than a position that cannot be transformed quickly?
.

I know we have discussed"improve your chess at any age" but what do you think of Yermolinsky 's  "-The Road to chess inprovement?"
Sagwa