Rating: 
Summary: Nearly Perfect
Review: This 'chess book' is so good it is almost philosophy! The examples are fresh, the explanations are lucid and the writing is interesting. I have not a single complaint about this offering. I enjoyed reading it AND my playing strength jumped one hundred points to 2300! Rest assured this work is challenging whatever your ability.
Rating: 
Summary: Good book
Review: This a good book, but like so many other books, Capablanca is dismissed. For example, in Niemzowitch-Capablanca, 1914 Watson say "I'dont beleive that Capablanca intentionally sacrificed the pawn. It is hardly in his style... ". For the same situation Kasparov say "a profound concept". Maybe Watson don't remember Capablanca-Alekhine 1936 where Capablanca make not one exchange sacrifice, Capablanca make two exchange sacrificies and won brillantly!!. Because the computers are now very powerful, we can re-test the modern concepts and see what is right and what is wrong. Maybe we will see that the Capablanca positional concepts are right!! For the first light you can read the Berliner book "The System". However, this book is very instructive, because have so many good games played for more than 200 great players categorized by strategic motifs.
Rating: 
Summary: Presumptuous and flawed epic
Review: This book has bothered me since it came out, and until now I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on why it bothers me. The answer is: it is Watson that bothers me! He is a very good writer and has invested an enormous amount of work into this book. However, the arrogance and presumptuousness of its message are what irritate me. I think Watson's method in this book smacks of intellectual arrogance, lacking the humility with which he should address his subject. The subject is primarily the idea that chess is largely "rule-independent" and that Nimzowitsch and the classicists were wrong in saying things like "you should only move one or two pawns in the opening." Nowhere does Watson provide the necessary qualifications to his work; namely, that the general rules are an essential roadmap to learning chess as a beginner or intermediate, and that general rules are GENERAL rules. He acts like its a big revelation that because Fritz 8 can prove that a position with 10 early pawn moves is playable, therefore the general rule that you shouldn't make too many early pawn moves is invalid. He misses the main point in this regard: that the top players in the world have incorporated computers into their home analysis and thus into their play. Yes, this has changed some of the "truth" of the game in the sense that theory is subject to being changed by computer analysis. Put it this way: imagine the computer analysing a difficult chess position is like a metal detector searching for needles in a haystack. Watson is saying, "because I have this metal detector, the general rule that it is difficult to find a needle in a haystack no longer is valid. The detector quickly finds the needle." This absurd view assumes that everyone who looks for things that have metal in them has a metal detector, just as Watson's profession to have shown the rules to be invalid assumes that everyone has a powerful computer to analyze for them. So, who then is Watson writing for? Clearly, the GM's who play the complex opening systems he describe--those opening systems that flaunt the traditional rules--do not need to hear his theory. They, after all, are the ones using the computers to provide the data Watson has used to create it. On the contrary, a book like this is really being directed at the intermediate player who has an intellectual fascination with chess. But on that level, the book is an utter failure. Because for every Sicilian Najdorf with multiple early pawn moves, there are three Ruy Lopezes with "traditional" principles governing the opening. 99% of chess players are better off following the general rules, and risk being misled by Watson's claim that those rules are not valid. Yes, there are exceptions to every general rule. Exceptions do not make a rule invalid. And yes, perhaps some of the old rules used with beginners should not provide to modern GM play. But Watson should have qualified his points repeatedly, in the way that Marovic put it in his recent work, "Understanding Pawn Play in Chess": "We have been trying to learn lessons and draw logical conclusions not in order to respect them to the letter, but in order to understand them so well that we can see beyond the rules and disregard general advice. Only he who commands the laws of the chessboard to perfection can do that" (p. 206) Marovic's further statement in "Dynamic Pawn Play in Chess" also shows the lack in Watson of a similar perspective: "It is quite easy to say that general laws and maxims are useless, that only speecific analysis of specific cases leads to the truth, but how then could we upgrade our play to the level on which we can evaluate the course of a chess game on our own? How, then, could chess teaching function?" (pp. 254-255). It is Watson's failure to add this perspective to his work that leads to its downfall. As a scholarly treatise I find that to be a fatal flaw in his work. The book deserves at least three stars just for its incredible amount of work and ambition, even though it fails as to its main premise.
Rating:
Summary: Good synthesis of strategic issues
Review: This book is a good synthesis of many strategic issues, such as dynamism, knight versus bishop, development and of how strategic rules interact with each other. When playing opponents of similar strength, it's often impossible to put into practice the principles given in classical strategy books such as Pachmans', that feature mainly only one-sided games that don't reflect tournament games practice. Watson explains why and what modern grandmasters think about these strategic "rules".Watson gives an account on the history of ideas in chess and although this book doesn't claim to be an instructional one, I think it has good instructional value for anyone above beginner level. The verbal explanations and the diagrams illustrating key positions make this book easy to follow without a chessboard, something that often isn't possible with many chess books and that I find very valuable.
Rating:
Summary: Riveting Reading - but be careful !
Review: This book is absolutely incredible! I grabbed a copy off of the shelf in a bookstore and stood there skimming it for an hour and a half. It is incredibly interesting material. My only word of caution is that if you are not already a strong player (say 1800 USCF) or above - DO NOT READ THIS BOOK! It will cause disastrous results to your chess. On the other hand, if you are already a strong player with considerable tournament experience, this book will likely catapult you to the next level. This book really focuses on the idea of general principles not always applying. It emphasizes the importance of concrete considerations over general priciples. While I totally agree with the authors point - lower rated players need to be well grounded in the general principles FIRST. Higher rated players are better prepared to determine when the general principle does not apply. The book layout, diagrams, format, binding, etc. etc. is all first rate.
Rating:
Summary: The best book on modern chess strategy.
Review: This book is one of the best book I've ever read.This book is about how modern chess have changed since Nimzowitsch.Nowdays most dynamic modern GM like Kasparov, Shirov, Anand, etc. accepts double pawn, backward pawn, conceading the two bishop, etc. to get dynamic counterplay.Watson touch on new concepts like Exchange sacrifice, Prophalaxis, and Dynamism.If anyone had not read Nimzowitsch work, I recommend to just buy this book alone because you will develop your intuition according to dynamic and modern play easier.I think I have improve my play since reading this book and sure you will too.I can't think of anyone who didn't enjoy this book.
Rating:
Summary: A Terrific Book by a Great Writer
Review: This book proves to my satisfaction that John Watson is the best American chess writer alive, if not ever. He tackles the subject of modern chess strategy with depth and humor. It's fascinating to learn how chess strategy has evolved since Nimzovich, and Watson has the literary and chess talent to create a masterpiece. It's interesting to learn, for example, that Nimzovich's principle of "over-protection" is just about the only Nimzovichian idea that isn't held in high regard today. The author also notes, among many other things, that Alekhine's Defense, Alekhine's only major contribution to hypermodern chess theory, is also one of the few hypermodern openings considered by modern GM's to be of questionable soundness. This is one of the few books about which I can go into a quasi-religious fervor, telling all my friends that I can't do it justice by describing it; but if they would only give it a try, they would surely love it.
Rating:
Summary: The sequel to "My System."
Review: This book, "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy," (Advances Since Nimzowitsch); [by IM John Watson] is a landmark in chess writing. This may be Mr. J. Watson's definitive chess book! I have a friend who writes a very interesting and informative newsletter on lesser-used openings, and he (among others!) requested many times that I review this book. First of all, I was a little intimidated by the title. The Nimzowitsch book, "My System," is easily one of the greatest landmarks of all of chess literature. (See all the reviews of this great book to begin to appreciate just what a revolutionary book this really was. Many great GM's - such as Bent Larsen and Tigran Petrosian ... among the many more famous examples - have repeatedly said this was THE most influential book in their development as a player.) So to put yourself in such [literary] company at the very "get-go," could be interpreted as a little assuming. (To say the least!) I have had this book for around six months. I have read it through at least 3 times. I have studied certain sections over and over. Repeatedly. I have tried to "punch holes" in his ideas and his analysis. While I may have found one or two minor flaws in the analysis of certain lines, (which virtually undetectable to the average player, especially one who is not using a strong computer program to check every single move); I have found no major, fundamental flaws anywhere in this book. (I have also found almost no diagrams with the incorrect position.) The book is also well constructed - a sturdy flex-cover and pages that have a nice 'feel' to them. An example of what you will find in this book? I will not give an overview of everything in the book, but just a sampling to whet your appetite. (The book is divided into two major parts.) Part 1, ("The Refinement of Traditional Theory."): Chapter One - Overview. Here Watson discusses some basic ideas of Middle-Game Theory. He shows what some of the basic concepts are and then some of the typical problems with 'standard' middlegame methodology.
Chapter Two, "The Center and Development."
Here the author goes into quite some detail showing just how modern theory has evolved and developed since its conception.
Chapter Three, "Minorities Majorities, and Passed Pawns."
Here the author examines all the ideas of these subjects. He shows exactly what conventional theory is, and then provides some fresh, new insights. As I said, I am not going to cover the entire book, but give you just a brief glimpse of what you will discover in these pages. By now you are wondering what I really thought of this book? I think the best way to illustrate this point is by looking at a concrete example. Let us consider Part Two, Chapter Two; the section on "Rule Independence." Here the author discusses in great detail virtually all of the basic ideas you have learned. He shows there are some very basic fallacies to virtually everything you have learned. For instance is a Rook really worth 5 points? What is the real value of the exchange? Do you really have to develop during the opening? I could rave on, but by now you should get the general idea. The author is determined to try to make you think for yourself. Another strong point to this book is the author almost continually quotes other good chess books - I spent a lot of time digging various books out of my library to check his almost constant references to other famous (and not-so-famous) chess books. Overall I think this is one of the very best chess books written in the last 50 years!! I personally recommend this book very strongly, and think it would make a great companion book to Silman's work, "How To Re-Assess Your Chess." [3rd Edition.] I believe the author very completely and successfully sets out what he tried to do when he wrote this book. It more than lives up to the ambitious title. WARNING: I personally feel this book is NOT suitable for an absolute beginner. (I am sure such a player could learn a great deal from this book, but I do not believe this is what the author intended.) In fact, I am quite sure you should not tackle this book unless you have been playing chess for at least one to two years, and have a rating of at least 14 - 1600. In addition, you should also - ideally - work your way through Nimzo's book first. (To better appreciate what is written here.) The author very obviously assumes you are already familiar with the basics of chess. Many times he does not stop and explain all the standard ideas of a concept he is studying. I guess he [rightly so] assumes you have already read several chess books and are pretty familiar with the fundamentals of chess. I am quite sure the very raw, absolute beginner(s) ... and those that are not very experienced in chess ... will be almost completely overwhelmed by this book.
(Indeed, one of my students who had been playing chess on the Internet for around 7 months bought this book and basically got lost attempting to really grasp the ideas involved. He found Reinfeld's book, "The Complete Chess-Player" to be much more to his liking.) But if you fit the description above, then GET THIS BOOK!
Rating:
Summary: Useful work, doubtful theory
Review: This is a very useful book for every active chess player. You learn a lot about original strategies and methods that modern chess players use. As such, the book is good, really inspiring and highly-recommended.
However, the author did not want this to be an instructional text only but rather a book on philosophical/basic aspects of chess strategy, and I find his theory simply wrong. It seems correct that chess is basically "rule independent" and that in the end only analysis counts. But unlike other authors (like Kasparov in his recently published "Predecessors" books) who stress the gradual development of chess thought with different contributions by different players over time, Watson seems to claim that there is a "conceptual shift" somewhere between modern and traditional chess, with the classical players following some written or unwritten rules and modern players relying on concrete analysis. As I know hundreds of examples of "classical players" using strategies given by Watson as "modern" and as there are plenty of quotes of classical players making a case for the concrete analytical approach and modern players talking about the "laws of chess" I must regard his theory as refuted. One could go into many details but overall his case does not convince me at all, even if it might help to correct some dogmatic player's world view.
Rating:
Summary: A good book.
Review: This is a very useful book for pretty much anyone but a beginner in chess. I am rated about 1400, and I learned a lot from it, while I could see a much stronger player getting just as much out of it. There are many well-explained examples to all the ideas, and i found the book very instructive, even as Watson several times mentions it is not intended as an instuctional work.
|
