lichess.org
Donate

Jeremy Silman or Igor Smirnov

They both teach chess to humanity, but who has the better lessons?

I believe the ultimate way to play chess is by turning positional imbalances to your favor.

However the objectively best play isn't so easy for us, maybe that explains why Igor Smirnov is a grandmaster while the other is just a IM.

Should we take a more practical approach to chess as Smirnov says, or learn deep positional chess as Silman recomends?

I believe competitions are won by the most practical people, however what is learned easy, can be learned by everyone.

For instance, you can't rely solely on improving tactics to become a stronger player, everyone can improve his tactics in a month, and it's easy even for beginners like us to avoid tactical positions.

So isn't a combination of both Silman and Smirnov ideas a better approach to chess?
Igor Smirnov is an IM.

Pavel Smirnov is a GM :-)

As you guessed, Smirnov's approach is more practical. You should pick the one you like most (there are free samples of both on the web).
Considering that several hundred "GM'S" exist. They all can not be to good
I have purchased all of Igor's lessons. I also have most of Silman's books.

Before 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. You must self evaluate your own progress. And be honest with yourself. No chess training is good if you are stagnant. It doesn't matter how good the person is who wrote the course. One example is how much of a rating gain a book is. 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. 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. You have to be fair to you as much as critical of the material you are presented.

Yes.. Igor Smirnov has been a GM for a long time. At least as long as I have had the course which is about 4 years. Beyond that I don't know. The fact that Silman is an IM doesn't matter. The best trainers in the world or history are actually merely IM's. I believe Mark Dvoretsky who is considered at this time the very best trainer in history to be merely just an IM.

I believe that to me Igor Smirnov is the best because he explained concepts cleanly and easier to understand. He touched on systems of thinking process like Silman and called them "long winded". I DO agree with this from a practical stand point. Silman is more like a Jedi. You learn his ways and you are committed to his ways. If you do his way you will find the move, almost like he is teaching you the ways of the force. They are not wrong, per say, merely very full of laws. Like Heisman. Very full of rules and regulations. Smirnov is more like getting to the point. With "LESS" rules. He sounds more like other GM's. Like Alburt, Dlugy, etc. Some of his analysis in my opinion is easier, better, and in some ways sounds like a vastly improved version of Kotov's method. The main improvement is Kotov NEVER tells you how to come up with candidate moves. He simply tells you how to calculate them. Smirnov tells you in detail how to come up with candidate moves in a very simple manner. The reason I like Smirnov over Silman for the most part is, I had to chew on Silman for 6 years before I understood his material. And after understanding I still can't say I agree with some of his material. I understood Smirnov immediately. That goes back to, "Who speaks to you."

Unfortunately I should also mention. At this time both Silman and Smirnov seem to lack something which is specific strategic themes. I believe Smirnov has the capacity to add them. He introduces them, but neglects deep analysis in them. I think since Silman is more of a philosopher in chess, he doesn't exactly have the capacity to add specific positional themes. Because his system claims the be all end all, so the only way to get more positional understanding is to stumble on it through a chess tutor or other means like transposing to another author.

My suggestion is the only way to truly know who is better "FOR YOU" is to assess both of them. And see which one speaks to you more.

Hope this helps.
Mewantcookie what I hear from players like carlsen is that they attribute their improvement to strategic understanding of the game.

Now, Smirnov adresses this point very well in his lessons of Your Winning Plan and mentions how strong players create positionally complicated middlegames in order to beat the weaker players by their better strategic understanding.

So, yeah, I think Smirnov has a better approch to the core of chess.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.