re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess" by Mikhail Suba - 2006/10/18 18:14I can't help you except to point out that Amazon.com expresses that the title of the book is actually `Dynamic Chess Strategy' and that it's out of print.. ---------
The devil made me do it the first time, and after that I did it on my own.
re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess" by Mikhail Suba - 2007/09/14 20:40The name of the book is as Mozai said `Dynamic Chess Strategy' and the name of the author is Mihai Suba You can find an E-book version, extended and updated at: http:/menssana.co.uk
re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess" by Mikhai - 2007/09/23 02:53A soiled copy of the paper book was bid up to 700$ on ebay. The demo ebook is free and the full version is only 13€ Hurry up, the dollar is still a currency!
re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess" by Mikhai - 2007/09/23 16:57I wasn't there! That's what a wellknown chess writer (Jeremi Silman)says about it on my profile in chessmoves.com I've seen the book, more than once, ofered on amazon.com just below $400 It's going down as some pirate PDF became available. My ebook is not just a copy of the old stuff, it is a new and different thing.
re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess" by Mikhai - 2007/09/24 08:51maybe it's considered 'prestigious' to own the material book (not virtual) - and they're looking to drive up prices? It sounds ridiculous to me though.
re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess" by Mikhai - 2007/10/07 18:55I got the book for free through my library, and, honestly, it's not all that great. Just looks like yet another collection of annotated games to me.
The only things that sets it apart from other chess books is some entertaining commentary on Communist-era chess politics, and the author's advocacy of what he calls "dynamic chess". The latter is an anti-dogmatic approach (similar to Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy") that calls for a striving for activity even at the price of violating some classical principles.
Unfortunately, most of the book isn't about that. There are parts of it that are about this "new dynamic chess", but they read more like a political manifesto than any kind of practical chess instruction, and in the annotated games, which form the vast bulk of the book, Suba hardly ever even mentions any of his "dynamic" principles (and when he does, he usually just calls a move "more dynamic" without any kind of explanation as to why). So, I was pretty disappointed with the book, considering all the hype.
At least some of the anecdotes about Communist-era Romania are funny.
re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess" by Mikhai - 2007/10/08 12:42Noosphere says: "I got the book for free through my library, and, honestly, it's not all that great. Just looks like yet another collection of annotated games to me." Well done and that's what it is, a collection of games with biased annotations. later: "The only things that sets it apart from other chess books is some entertaining commentary on Communist-era chess politics." I was a bit influenced by Tartakover and some Bridge books. Why a chess book can't be entertaining? It doesn't seem as a waste of your money. 'and the author's advocacy of what he calls "dynamic chess"'. There is some confusion here, that was a term used by R.N. Coles to designate everything which did not fit the static approach of Steinitz and Tarrasch. It can be tracked back to the Hyper-Modernists' manifesto and included the Soviet school search for initiative. I used a term "dynamic potential" to designate a hidden energy acumulated by each move, the way an opening development move does. I neither advocate nor discredit the idea of "dynamic chess", just warned the reader on its merits (freedom of choice and - depending on the opponent - psychological advantage) and its drawbacks (running after initiative, same as the classic desire for material or structural advantage, can exhaust the general fighting potential). later: "The latter is an anti-dogmatic approach (similar to Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy") that calls for a striving for activity even at the price of violating some classical principles." I would rather say, Watson's approach is similar to all streams mentioned above, and more. Antidogmatism is a "sine qua non" for all respectful chess players and authors, sometimes they disguise it as "rule independence, etc." Watson accepts the idea of a dynamic potential, although this is less measurable than a pawn count and less visual than "activity". I tried to avoid "activity" as it is largely misunderstood, even by players of high levels (there is a note on this matter in the book). Very usual expressions lose their clarity and precision due to difference in players' level, language, etc. This justifies Nimzovich's funny expressions when reinventing the wheel as well as when introducing original and/or polemic concepts. "new dynamic chess", "more dynamic", etc. may be we are talking about different books (there were several after 1991 with a title apt for confusion, e.g, Jansa's "Dynamics of Chess Strategy"). The title of the topic may have the guilt too. My friend in noosphere, perhaps has read "Dynamic-Chess Strategy", the one in question he hasn't, or he shouldn't. Dame says: "Over-publicized if so..." Perhaps they put all money on that, because I haven't seen any
re:Looking For - 2007/10/09 05:58subasis wrote: > > > The only things that sets it apart from other chess books is > > some entertaining commentary on Communist-era chess politics." > > I was a bit influenced by Tartakover and some Bridge books. > > Why a chess book can't be entertaining? It doesn't seem as a waste > of your money.
I wasn't implying that it was a waste of money because it was entertaining. Quite the opposite... I appreciate chess books that manage to be entertaining as well as instructive.
Now, whether an entertaining chess book is worth $700... well, I guess that depends on the size of your pocket book.
> > and the author's advocacy of what he calls "dynamic chess" > > There is some confusion here, that was a term used by R.N. Coles > to designate everything which did not fit the static approach of > Steinitz and Tarrasch. It can be tracked back to the > Hyper-Modernists' manifesto and included the Soviet school search > for initiative. > > I used a term "dynamic potential" to designate a hidden energy > acumulated by each move, the way an opening development move does.
Right, I remember reading that and hoping for more examples in the form:
"this move has a lot of dynamic potential, and this is why ___. while this move has less dynamic potential, and this is why ___"
In fact, despite most of the book consisting of annotated games, it seemed that very few moves were annotated as having "dynamic potential", "potential", or "dynamism"... and the few moves I could find that did refer to these concepts didn't explain why they were labled as such.
For example, on page 40, you write "Later on I met more refined players who greeted my queenside attack with a3 and b4, which is more in keeping with the dynamism of this position than a kingside attack." Just how is the position dynamic? Why are a3 and b4 "more in keeping with the dynamism of this position than a kingside attack" ? The reader is left guessing.
It's fine and good to talk about these concepts very generally, but (being interested in coming away having learned something practical from a book like this) it would be nice if there were more concrete explanations and examples. How can I apply these concepts in my own play? That's what I'm primarily interested in.
Anyway, back to the idea of "dynamic potential". I can't find the place right now, but I seem to recall that you differentiate this concept from mere mobility. A cramped position could have lots of "dynamic potential", couldn't it? In the starting position, would a rook on a1 hemmed in by a knight on b1 and a pawn on a2 have any "dynamic potential" ? Once the White a-pawn is gone and the a-file opens up, does the rook acquire more or less "dynamic potential" ? And how about your "bad bishops [which] guard good pawns" ? (I love this saying, by the way) Do they have any dynamic potential? More or less than good bishops?
> I neither advocate nor discredit the idea of "dynamic chess", just > warned the reader on its merits (freedom of choice and - depending > on the opponent - psychological advantage) and its drawbacks > (running after initiative, same as the classic desire for material > or structural advantage, can exhaust the general fighting > potential).
That sounds reasonable. You might have the initiative but be powerless to exploit it without enough material or if what you have is disadvantageously placed.
> > The latter is an anti-dogmatic approach (similar to Watson's > > "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy") that calls for a striving > > for activity even at the price of violating some classical > > principles." > > I would rather say, Watson's approach is similar to all streams > mentioned above, and more. Antidogmatism is a "sine qua non" for > all respectful chess players and authors, sometimes they disguise > it as "rule independence, etc." > > Watson accepts the idea of a dynamic potential, although this is > less measurable than a pawn count and less visual than "activity". > I tried to avoid "activity" as it is largely misunderstood, even > by players of high levels (there is a note on this matter in the > book). Very usual expressions lose their clarity and precision due > to difference in players' level, language, etc. This justifies > Nimzovich's funny expressions when reinventing the wheel as well > as when introducing original and/or polemic concepts. > > "new dynamic chess", "more dynamic", etc. may be we are talking > about different books (there were several after 1991 with a > title apt for confusion, e.g, Jansa's "Dynamics of Chess > Strategy"). The title of the topic may have the guilt too. My > friend in noosphere, perhaps has read "Dynamic-Chess Strategy", > the one in question he hasn't, or he shouldn't.
Sorry I got the terms mixed up. You have to admit they're all pretty similar in their colloquial meanings. In the ordinary sense, "dynamic" and "active" are interchangeable.
re:Looking For - 2007/10/09 16:02I sayd: 'I used a term "dynamic potential" to designate a hidden energy acumulated by each move, the way an opening development move does.'
Noosphere says: 'Right, I remember reading that and hoping for more examples in the form: "this move has a lot of dynamic potential, and this is why ___. while this move has less dynamic potential, and this is why ___"
In fact, despite most of the book consisting of annotated games, it seemed that very few moves were annotated as having "dynamic potential", "potential", or "dynamism"... and the few moves I could find that did refer to these concepts didn't explain why they were labled as such.'
Dynamic is opposed to "static" and related to time. Activity is a bit less than that, meaning that one or more pieces have a good purpose or can move with an immediate good pupose. Some players just confound "activity" with freedom (in case of rook, queen, bishop) or centralization (knight, king). Unless such things have "effectiveness" they are "nice pictures" only. Dynamic potential (shortly "potential") is the total energy accumulated by one side. A move can add to or deduct from the potentials of both sides, ideally increasing yours and diminishing your opponent's. Not necessarily an "active" or "attacking" move does that, while a "passive", "retreating", "defending" or "recicling" move may result in a favourable change in potential ratio. The latter can be sometimes released in a form of "combination", forcing favourable exchanges, or simply to get static advantages (material, structure). A move does not have "potential", just contributes to it.
Noosphere says: 'For example, on page 40, you write "Later on I met more refined players who greeted my queenside attack with a3 and b4, which is more in keeping with the dynamism of this position than a kingside attack." Just how is the position dynamic? Why are a3 and b4 "more in keeping with the dynamism of this position than a kingside attack" ? The reader is left guessing.'
Within the book there are several implicit or explicit statements on the level and/or general chess culture the reader is supposed to have. One reviewer on Amazon (if you can read Spanish) put it quite clear (and optimistic, I would say). In the chapter "Lest We Forget the Classics" you can find: "The reader is supposed to be fed up with classical strategy" Have being fed up with classical strategy and being helped to remember some essential points by the dialog Master-Fan in chapter I, would have been enough to recognise where is the "space advantage" and which is the "direction of attack" corresponding to each side. Understanding why one should go for (in that particular position) an (objective) queen-side attack, instead of a much desired (but unjustified) king-side attack, wide opens his way to mastery.
Noosphere sayd: 'Sorry I got the terms mixed up. You have to admit they're all pretty similar in their colloquial meanings. In the ordinary sense, "dynamic" and "active" are interchangeable.'
Having very clear and concise concepts helps very much, they stay in our subconsciuos mind and are "guilty" of our (chess) decisions, a lot more than the conscious mind. Just a few days ago, I explained one of my students (French) that Russians have more suggestive and concise words for some (chess) procedures, e.g, "dolnoboynost" (~capacity to fight from distance). There is an English equivalent (checking distance) but I still find the Russian term more comprehensive. Other languages are not so helpful with this concept. My advice to all players is to sharpen the concept meaning of some chess words. Due to your "free book" I've just lost my free launch (not a big pity, I'm fatty ) so I hope this post helps. Read more in the third page of the free book (demo) which you can download from: http://menssana.co.uk Please use IE as browser, others may not function well. Click on "DOWNLOAD" and follow the instructions. As a premium you'll get a chess symbols font.
re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess Strategy" - 2007/10/13 16:03Going on with my answer to Noosphere's questions, I first apologize for my tough "haven't read the book". That was provoked by some quotes he gave quite freely "out of memory", which could pervert the original meaning. With these posts we are trying to amend the fact that he (and other readers) was at the border of "shouldn't". The actual eBook is a bit less "esoteric", and there is more stuff like this (and diagrammed exemples) on the 3rd page of the demo version : http://menssana.co.uk/download.htm (IE pls.)
Noosphere says: "It's fine and good to talk about these concepts very generally, but it would be nice if there were more concrete explanations and examples."
I understand you mean more detailed explanations of terms (possibly with text examples, comparations, parabolas, etc) and more chess examples.
Try the page suggested above, that might be helpful. I know that "general problems cannot be solved ... generally" In the paper edition I was more limited to the number of pages (by contract, you know) so I fixed the level of readership quite high. Nevertheless you get 32 games with comments centered around my subject (sometimes even biased or exaggerated, to single out a moral). The other 4 games (in chapter "Lest We Forget the Classics) were presented by contrast, as pieces of a static (classic) approach.
Noosphere: "How can I apply these concepts in my own play? That's what I'm primarily interested in." Being aware of things is supposed to help. Plese read my post on "CWisnewski Play 1...Nc6!" for some more things. Some variations of that opening fit to my "Black's dynamic potential grows by just watching white pawn moves" I sayd that in reference to "Alekhine Defence" but things are similar with many antidogmatic and provocative openings. The Chigorin Defense, prefered by the author, is looking for an instant "cinetic energy" in shape of initiative, and a "potential energy" apt for "blokade" and breakthrough (generally with ...f5), all these in change for static values conceded to White (centre, 2 bishops). In fact, Mikhail Chigorin was the first one to oppose the exaggerated dogma of Steinitz and Tarrasch, both in write and play. People inclined to Steinitz because he won the matches (by small margin) although this result was not due to the system, but to a tougher chess character. Chigorin started chess late (age 25) and sometimes, in decisive moments, had some grave slips. I'm connecting those 2 elements, because I think I had the same problems.
Noosphere: "Anyway, back to the idea of "dynamic potential". I can't find the place right now, but I seem to recall that you differentiate this concept from mere mobility."
I differentiate even "activity" from mere mobility. "dynamic potential" is ... a dynamic potential - a latent energy.
Noosphere: 'A cramped position could have lots of "dynamic potential", couldn't it?'
Of course, look at Hedgehog games where a cramped-looking position "explodes" and dominates just in a few moves.
Noosphere: 'In the starting position, would a rook on a1 hemmed in by a knight on b1 and a pawn on a2 have any "dynamic potential" ?'
At the beginning of the game all pieces have their nominal value. That's why we "develop", trying to improve thir attacking and defending value. We cannot yet attach any potential value on the a- file to that rook. Opening the a-file would require a lot of time and cooperation, without any objective in mind.
Noosphere: 'Once the White a-pawn is gone and the a-file opens up, does the rook acquire more or less "dynamic potential" ?' Let's talk about h-file. In some openings where Black plays ...g6, that is standard policy, sometimes involving sacrifices of 1 or 2 pawns. In Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games", Evans has a nice expression (apart from "Slaying the Dragon"), which I don't remember exactly ~ "plim, plum opens, the KR-file". That's the ideal way of improving the potential of a piece - without moving it Players grew wiser and everybody answers h4 with ...h5 today.
Noosphere: 'And how about your "bad bishops [which] guard good pawns" ? (I love this saying, by the way) Do they have any dynamic potential? More or less than good bishops?'
A (good) move can increase the potential of one side (player), diminish the potential of the other side, or ideally both things. Please think at "potential" as a total sum of these contributions, by pieces or moves, which corresponds to one side. A piece may not be active or dynamic, yet contribute to the whole. Having a pawn formation well protected, obviously gives other pieces more freedom. In endgame, the king is less endangered and takes over a lot of defending duties, so that the attacking ability of other pieces becomes the most important. The necessity to protect pawns, entries, etc. often leads to zugzwang.
re:Looking For "Dynamic Chess Strategy" - 2007/10/20 12:50More around a good question. Noosphere's question: 'A cramped position could have lots of "dynamic potential", couldn't it?'
My answer: 'Of course, look at Hedgehog games where a cramped-looking position "explodes" and dominates just in a few moves.'
Here is what Korchnoi himself had to admit (he had the reputation of the most ferocious Hedgehog crusher): "There is something that the Hedgehog fans got right ... the most important thing in chess is neither material nor space, but the co-ordination and activity of pieces, and this co-ordination can be achieved even within a restricted space". My manual on "The Hedgehog" (Batsford) would make you love this opening scheme. Some quality comments on Hedgehog games have been also done by Shipov on Kasparov's former web site, I don't know where they are now. Does anybody?
post new topic
PDF became available. My ebook is not just a copy of the old stuff, it is a new and different thing. 
) so I hope this post helps.