Mr. Wykel (1700) wrote:

I just purchased the REASSESS YOUR CHESS WORKBOOK and have been solving the first four problems.

I am very disappointed so far. Let me explain.

I studied your first book (HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS). I really liked the concept of imbalances. However in attempting to really use them in practical play it just did not work. I have many good books.

After failing in the use of your ideas I turned to others. My favorite of all is Tisdall's book IMPROVE YOUR CHESS NOW. This book really helped me a lot (1700). It contains very practical ways of thinking at the board plus ideas to improve play.

I also got the book you disdain, RAPID CHESS IMPROVEMENT. I am following some the ideas of studying the CT- ART general way of thinking while using Tidsall's concepts as well. My tactical vision is improving. However I have real difficulty in so-called quite positions on picking good moves.

So I went back to some of your ideas in hopes of helping me. John Watson recommended your workbook so here I am. After working the first 4 problems here are my complaints:

The solutions do not at all show in a clear way how your idea of imbalances helped in picking the right moves.
  
Yes I know your solutions are titled "Imbalances and Ideas".

I suspect here that a computer program was used to find the best move and then you studied to come up with the ideas to support the move.

The listing of imbalances is a real bummer. It does not go through each of them and explain things, plus it throws in ideas that are relevant of course, but have nothing to do with imbalances. A real cop out.
 
Am I missing something here? How in the world in these problems does going over the imbalances which are difficult enough to identify clearly in these problems help in finding the good move?.

PS: I play againset Schredder10 and Rybka set at 1700

SILMAN REPLIES:
Dear Mr. Wykel,

I don't really have time to explain these things in detail to the dozens of people that write me every week. And, I tend to respond to those that are polite (or write short letters!) far more than those that are combative or, in some cases, simply rude, or write pages and pages (these things usually force me to reach for the delete button).

However, though I'm facing a horrible deadline, I will try and explain my reasoning.

First, every book and body of ideas has fans, and also has detractors. Some things just don't sit well with some people. This doesn't mean you are wrong or right, it just means that the way that particular author communicates isn't right for you.

On the highest level, following any set of rules about tactics or imbalances is bogus. But we aren't on that level, and we never will be. My goal is to give the chess fan something to grasp onto -- something that will allow him to understand and appreciate positional chess. I DO think that everyone needs to study tactics -- every author believes this. But that's been covered very well in many books, so I try and avoid the subject. As you relate about yourself, it's the "simple" positions that prove to be difficult.

This makes sense. A position that can be solved by a tactic is pretty easy to understand (you might not see the tactic in over the board play, but once you are shown the variations, it all seems quite logical and easy to grasp). But positions that require non-threats and buildups based on understanding the imbalances is far harder for the amateur to grok.

Thus, I'm trying my best to help players improve in this area, and also have a tool that allows them to look at master games in a totally different light. Thus my lessons not only are practically useful, but also let you enjoy the game artistically too.

Whether or not I've succeeded is quite another matter. It works well for most (based on the many kind letters I've received), but there are some that appear to be of a different opinion.

Anyway, let's briefly discuss those first four problems.

This problem was meant to show the importance of giving up a square. If Black plays 1...Bxf5 he develops a piece and attacks the white Queen. Sounds good. But it also cedes the e4-square to White (after 2.Nde4). Perhaps this is kid stuff for you, but I find players in the "B", "A", Expert, and even low Master class constantly making this sort of error.

This is a very advanced position. It's meant to teach the student that passed pawns (even protected passed pawns!) can be a liability (thus, the obvious 1.e5 is actually a mistake). Perhaps you know this. That's impressive since most Masters screw this kind of thing up with alarming consistency.

This problem teaches you to be very aware of weak pawns (important since you can create them right in the opening and punish your opponent's weak pawns for the length of the game). The idea of talking your way through the imbalances makes this difficult position appear easy: Black has a weak square on c6 and potentially weak pawns on a6, c7, and d5. The one black piece that is holding things together is the b4-Knight, which defends a6 and d5 and the c6-square. Thus the move 1.Na2! makes perfect sense.

This problem teaches you the importance of creating artificial support points for your pieces. Both examples show Black fighting for control over e5, often in ways that would surprise many players.
ALL 4 problems CAN'T BE SOLVED by tactics. If you just calculate you would fail in playing those positions correctly. You need to understand the imbalances (basic positional building blocks), and you need to practice seeing them in every game you play or look at. It's not easy, but over time it will be a walk in the park, and it will help you play these situations with the subtlety that most players will never be able to demonstrate.

I will add this: I have taught many players in the 2100 to 2400 range (and have even trained some famous grandmasters). Many times a position will be reached where my student had trouble finding the right path. Afterwards I would come up with something based on a very simple idea ... a bad Bishop for example. He would say, "Yes, yes, I know all that!" And he's right, he knows of it, but he is so busy calculating and thinking of "bigger issues" that he can't make use the simple, juicy goodness right in front of his nose!

Your goal should be (aside from improving your tactics, which you SHOULD always strive to do) to first learn all the imbalances. Next you have to understand them by studying many examples where they play a big role in the game. Finally you will notice (after time) that you are making use of these concepts more and more.

It DOES take time and it takes some effort. But, in my view, it pays real dividends by making you a stronger player and helping you appreciate chess as art in ways you never thought possible.

Good luck!

PS: I don't really understand your comments about me using a computer. Yes, I do computer check tactical sequences while writing a book. But the positions discussed here are either very basic (for me), or else (in the case of problem 3) were discussed by chess giants Anand (who came up with Na2), Short (who played it), and Karpov (who lost to it). Making use of a computer in strategic positions of this sort would be a waste of my time.