A review of Gustafsson's recent video series on the Nimzo.

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/gustis-nimzo/

proustiskeen wrote on 02/01/17 at 17:04:57:

Interesting review, thanks for this. I hadn't planned on buying this one, but now I may do so (eventually).

Do I read you correctly that there's a discrepancy between what Gelfand intended to explain and what actually comes across in the book?

Quote:


Quote:


To my thinking the trick to getting the absolute most out of a book like this must be to somehow reverse engineer Gelfand's intuition: To determine what games and patterns (or more realistically, what kinds of patterns) he must have stored in his subconscious in order to think the way he does, and also how he has otherwise trained his decision making to make full use of these patterns in practice, under time constraints.

In the first book he was specific about some of this, i.e. learning a lot from the games of Rubinstein, Smyslov and other greats. But it sounds like he's less specific here, so anyone who wants to take a (long!) shot at emulating his thinking has more blanks to fill in this time?

Oh, and I had nothing to do with the formatting. The program links are to the US Chess equipment vendor because the article is on the US Chess website.

Haven't read the article but my suggestion for players seeking to improve would be to see how moves fit together. As plans. And how different plans at different stages win games.
1. Read Irving Chernev's books. Great stuff.
2. Read through and play through GM game collections (E.g Fischer, Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov was my random playlist when younger). Play through hundreds of classic games with notes.

Throw in regular tactics work as a must and hey presto. Strategy and tactics. Win more!

The opening question of your article is
"What is the single best thing you can do to improve your chess in this new year?"

and your answer is in bold
"Answer: Make use of chess technology in your improvement plan."

First of all, I think that no-one should ever put something like that in bold. How and why someone improves in chess, and others don't, and how the latter can become the former, is a very hard problem that many brilliant people has been agonizing over their entire adulthood. I'm wary of people who speak with certainity about this. Especially if they aren't improving dramatically themselves (but actually also if they are - the De La Massa guy comes to mind).

Secondly, I'm not convinced it is the correct answer. I could think of many arguably equally good answers, IE
Answer: Get a training partner at around your level. Play training games from whatever position you find interesting
Answer: Play more and longer games. (Preferably as many as the junior players are playing)
Answer: Work your way through one of the Jussupow-books (that is the answer one could get on the qualitychess website )
Answer: Start playing correspondence chess.
Answer: Gather all the games you have lost, and try to figure out what your weaknesses are.
Answer: Start using a coach and go over all your losses with him
etc.

In the next lines you say that you are "amazed" that there are people who doesn't use chess engines (and other software) in their attempts to improve. Perhaps it is a language thing, but to me it has the connotation that you think those people are absolutely bonkers. And I don't think that they are. Perhaps they just don't enjoy working with computers? The training process should be enjoyable.
There have been many generations of chessplayers where the talented kids have skyrocketed without having access to computers. Even though I myself train with computers, I don't thinkt It is unreasonable for others to think that they could become strong players without.

Next you go on with specific recommendations, and lets consider a class-player who does train a little bit with his computer, but he has a Mac. He uses Scid to work on his own games, and on the games from the fine chesspublishing site . He does not have a large database of games. If he need that, he uses one of the many online databases. (I believe there is one on chess24. Otherwise he could be using the one on chess.com). His chess-engine is an old one, that was strong 5 years ago.

What is the advice he will walk away with, after reading the article?
1. Get a windows pc with 8gb ram and ssd drive. (500$)
2. Get Chessbase 14 and Mega Database 2017 (300$ as a bundle if one follows the direct link to a store in your article)
3. Get a newer engine. (Free? I'm a bit unsure if you recommend using Komodo as well as Stockfish. There are logos and store-links to all the commercial ones in your article. If you do, then add 90$)

So somewhere between 800 and 890$, but for what rating-gains? I think very little, if any at all.

Now ReneDescartes says that this surely isn't what you are saying, but it seems to me that it is. I think this article looks like a shopping list.

Rene - that last bit might be the best compliment I've received for my chess writing. Thank you.

ReneDescartes wrote on 01/13/17 at 19:01:18:

proustiskeen wrote on 01/13/17 at 04:14:45:


Everyone wants to be a little bit better at chess, and everyone wants to hear that they can improve by spending a little money, instead of doing hard work. A lot of snake-oil salesmen know this, and are preying on us.

Their diagnosis of the reasons behing our shortcommings vary according to what they have to sell.

Read a chesspublishers newsletter and you get the impression that what is holding you back is a lack of knowledge, and you should buy these 3 new books to improve.

Read the ICC newsletter and you will know, that all you need to do is to buy videoseries and one-year memberships.

Read the articles on chessbase.com, and you will know, that it is your antiqued chessengine, your out-of-date megabase (without the last years of important games), and your lack of chessdatabase with cloud functionality that is the cause of your stagnating rating.

It looks like you have been listening to the last camp.

Assuming you have improved at all the last few years, how much of your improvement will you ascribe to your tech-rig?

Me, personally, very little.

I will, in a week or so, put the same thing up on my blog with a few more links included.