You learn his ways and you are committed to his ways. I DO agree with this from a practical stand point. He touched on systems of thinking process like Silman and called them "long winded". I believe that to me Igor Smirnov is the best because he explained concepts cleanly and easier to understand. I believe Mark Dvoretsky who is considered at this time the very best trainer in history to be merely just an IM. The best trainers in the world or history are actually merely IM's. The fact that Silman is an IM doesn't matter. At least as long as I have had the course which is about 4 years. Igor Smirnov has been a GM for a long time. You have to be fair to you as much as critical of the material you are presented. But what happens if you still average around where you were? Well that wouldn't be fair to you to claim the training was good. If you read a book lets say for one year, and you gain and maintain 100 points you can say that book did you well. One example is how much of a rating gain a book is. It doesn't matter how good the person is who wrote the course. No chess training is good if you are stagnant. You must self evaluate your own progress. I also have most of Silman's books.īefore I tell which one I think is better I will say this: It really matters who speaks to you better when it comes to chess strategy.
0 kommentar(er)
