Jeremy Silman's Imbalances

Hello! Can someone analyze one of my games using Silman's Imbalances advice from "How to Reassess your Chess"? Silman says that every position can be broken down into Imbalances: 

and that the thinking process should walk around those.

but I don't really understand how to put those into my game/my analysis.

Thanks in advance!

You already are probably thinking about these various things already.

For example when you decide hmm. I wonder if I should trade this knight over here for that bishop over there you are already have Superior minor piece thinking in action.

Or if I sacrifice an exchange to double his pawns you are thinking of perhaps pawn structure and king safety and material.

That diagram is shown at the very beginning of the book, and it is a long book. As you read through it further the advice should make more sense. Jeremy Silman has also written "The Amateur's Mind" book which is also about the subject of imbalances and is a bit more accessible. Reassess Your Chess is more aimed towards advanced players.

If you give me a few days I am happy to give it a go analyzing one of your games. You are a better player than I am, but my maybe we can both learn something from the experience.

Ouch

I know this is old, and I’m new so if this isn’t allowed, please let me know.

there is a great video by Silman on YouTube showing how to apply the thought process around imbalances. It helped me tremendously as a new player with a low ELO. (664). I’d recommend you “check” that video out, or anyone else that stumbles upon this. I’d say it’s gold, and the visuals with the in game analysis on the screen helps more vs. printed book format.

This definition in a nutshell isn't much use, since "an imbalance is any significant difference in the two respective positions" fails on two levels. Firstly, it depends on the significance of the word "significant". So "significant difference" itself needs a definition or an explanation. One good explanation is that to be significant, it should lead to an imbalance that changes the outcome of the game from a draw to a win for one side (or back again). Otherwise, there's no reason to assume that it's significant.

Then again, the "two positions" he refers to don't really exist, since they're mutually interdependent. A chess position may be level or it may favour either player. The list of key points he refers to cannot be considered as seperate entities since they're also interdependent. For instance, material is balanced against initiative. In fact, with a sufficient initiative, none of the other factors may matter much. So maybe Silman's ideas don't apply all that well, because a beginner has to learn to balance them or trade them off against one-another within the dynamics of a game. By the way, isn't "control of a weak square" almost an oxymoron?

If you trade a knight for a bishop, the material is even. However, knights are better in closed positions. Bishops are better in open positions and in endings in which there are pawns on both sides of the board. So, an exchange of bishop for knight in the opening can influence how both sides should play the rest of the game. This is an imbalance.

or suppose one side has an isolated pawn. The pawn is weak since it can never be guarded by another pawn. The square in front of the pawn is weak because it can be occupied by a piece that can never be driven away by a pawn. On the other hand, the side with the isolated pawn has open files and diagonals. So, one side should play positionally, playing against the weakness of the pawn. The other side should play actively, using the open files and diagonals. This is an imbalance.

I tell students to think of trades—not of material, but of ideas or plans. Pawn trades, pawn structures, pawn blockades, etc. all influence how the two sides should play.