Thank you Seeley.

Comparing this book of Rowson with any strategy book is like comparing it with an endgame primer. Rowson is about thinking methods and learning:
Quote:

You can find this here http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/Chess_for_Zebras.html. If the claim of fresh insights into opening and middlegame is correct ... I don't know because I was not interested in this when reading the book. But 1) 2) 3) are treated excellent.

@Bibs

Over all you took something personal not directed at you nor meant to describe you. I would have asked some questions about your perception of the text before. I only took your comment as a hook for an idea.

So all the rudeness is inside your head and not in my one. Except you find it rude that I ask myself such kind of questions. I don't take your response personal. I take it as a simple error, which is something I know too good from myself. I have to work on my own errors.

This part of answer is meant as feedback and end of this aspect from my side. Take it as you like. I reject the claim of any personal attack from my side. I'll read a feedback from your side but be aware I will not answer.

Bibs wrote on 09/26/20 at 23:25:39:

As said above, nothing crass, wrong, rude.

Quote:


(1) is clearly an opinion. Define necessary in writing a book. Goethe has imo only written unneccessary boring stuff. This means? It means I don't get what's good about Goethe's writings except some poems, which are really good. And I have read really a bunch fo Goethe's novels, letters, books in hope of finding something good.
(2) Rowson stays on topic in an associative manner and (I cannot judge the english style) but he is great in content imo! I would like to discuss this over the text.
(3) Define helpful. It is full of worthy information you have to prepare for your work yourself. These are imo the best books. But here we may differ too.

Quote:


What is SOMCS?

Once again, I ask a question and receive a wealth of advice that leaves me somewhere completely other than where I expected to end up. Much valued!

FWIW,
I found myself asking, "Why **do** I want this book in the first place?" Perhaps the answer is found in Stigma's 1st and Dink Heckler's replies. Too often when you wish someone would just, "tell me the answer." the answer is that YOU are the problem in your advancement. In fact, it is a major clue. So now I have come to believe that "Zebras" is much preferred over "7 Deadly" but is still way too much.[EDIT: way too much money] Further, after reading up reviews on other suggestions I think Tisdall's, "Improve" is much more what I ought to be reading since it is not too dry but will challenge me better than Zebras. But that book can't be had for love or money if I need it before I leave for the beach. I do have a copy of SOMCS, one of several books I ordered before I realized it was way beyond where I was back in February when I started this journey. So perhaps I 'll try that again, or maybe just bring some of my Edgar Alan Poe and just have a good read! (But I order Tisdall from the beach so it will be coming soon after I return.).

Bibs wrote on 09/26/20 at 23:25:39:

I haven't read Rowson at all, mostly because of when they came out, as my preferences were shifting towards chess books that are mostly chess moves. Although it's not a perfect parallel, your list is similar to what I find objectionable in Lakdawala's books. And yet there are people who like his books for precisely the reasons I dislike them.

I think this is what Jupp53 was driving at, that there is no universal sense of humor, just like there is no universal sense of what makes a good chess book. I didn't find those two examples very offensive, but nor did I find them very funny. Maybe they are funnier in German? Or maybe Jupp53 can't tell a joke.

The point of reviewing chess books, or anything, is to give enough information so the reader can decide for themselves if it's worth reading. Not just "it's good" or "it's bad", but why. So I may think a book is bad, but if I state why then the reader may decide it's exactly the book for them. And over time they get used to the reviewer. This happened to me long ago with the film reviewers "Siskel & Ebert". If they both said a film was good then maybe I wanted to see it, but if Siskel said it was good and Ebert said it was not then definitely I wanted to see it.

@Seeley:
That Chigorin reference rings a bell - you're probably right. I don't have SOMCS handy here and wrote from memory.

In fact, looking at Mayer's chapter, I had it exactly backwards! Mayer spends the first three paragraphs crediting Watson's Chigorin book and even coins "Watson's rule" - the exact same Watson lines you just quoted.

Maybe Watson in SOMCS at least credits Mayer with expanding on the idea? I still seem to remember he brought up Mayer's book and had a positive view of it.

P. S.: If anyone wants to dig into many of the same psychological issues Rowson discusses in another (and hopefully more concise) format, it could be worth looking up the video series Achieving your Chess Potential (The Naroditsky Method 2).

I haven't bought it yet myself and have only watched a couple of free sample videos, so I take no responsibiity for misleading anyone here. 

But it's hard not to see the Rowson influence in Naroditsky's video titles, starting with 1-What makes chess improvement so hard? and 2-Storytelling.

@Jupp. That was really weird. Ugh. Entirely wrong on both. We really don't need the pop-psych tosh here, thank you. Disagreeing does not make one 'wrong', and I politely but firmly ask you to refrain from such. Don't.

I teach literature as part of my job. I also teach grammar. One can like stories, and one can like concrete things. One can like art and poetry, while enjoying maths or chess. Key, take note 'Jupp' and remember this - one can dislike a poem without disliking poetry.

Now, chess...

All, and back to chess, away from the crass, wrong, rude stuff.
I'm asked, so I will answer why. My opinion, others may differ, and that's all fine. I disliked the books because: (1) too much unnecessary quoting of assorted random stuff ('look at me, I am clever, and this book is clever'); (2) he would start to go somewhere that might be interesting, stop, then lurch elsewhere else and (3) there was not enough that was helpful in the books.

The only thing I remember of the books was in a Torre v KF. Playing an a4 move, for space. Yes, that's obvious enough to me. And that's it. Huh? No more?

Was it in SOMCS discussing the short-termism of the knights v bishops btw? Get stuck in with the knights, NOW, before things settle. That was a revelation. Wow.

dfan wrote on 09/25/20 at 17:29:29:

True, there's a lot of similarity and the topics are a bit random and eclectic. But the tendency is that "7 Deadly Sins" is more about common human weaknesses that may negatively affect our results, like materialism, egoism, lack of trend sensitivity, overfocus on the desired result, poor concentration, etc., while "Zebras" widens the scope to include more meta-game considerations of chess itself, like the impact of the drawing margin and the difference between playing Black and White.

I remember being annoyed by The Seven Deadly Chess Sins when I first bought it due to all the qoutes and references to quasi-philosophy and Buddhism. But now I'm more into that kind of thing myself (albeit still with an intact bullshit detector, I maintain). So I really should go find it in the attic and give it another chance.

The best way to use both of these books IMO is after you have analyzed and/or seriously thought about a bunch of your own games. Then you'll be attuned to any psyhological factors that may hold you back in addition to the pure chess skill/knowledge issues, and can zoom in on the most relevant chapters. These books aren't training books in the traditional sense; they are more designed to raise awareness and make you think about psychological issues in chess. But that has its place too, especially if it leads to new training ideas or heightened awareness of pitfalls during play.

I want to add one point: While it's easy to get stuck in our chess development because of psychological issues we don't recognize or haven't dealt with effectively, there's also an opposite pitfall of "over-psychologizing" issues that are really more about pure chess skill/knowledge.

For instance, if you blunder a lot, it could be that you really need to do something to improve your focus (mental training, targeted calculation training, better sleep, more physical exercise, etc.). But it could also mean you simply don't know your tactical patterns as well as you should for the level you want to play on. Know yourself.