Rating: 
Summary: A seminal work.
Review: This is one of the best books I have ever read. I own a copy of Nimzowhitsch's classic "My system" and Watson's book is billed as a refinement of that work. However, it is in fact a great deal more. Watson certainly refines what Nimzowitsch has to say but he goes a great deal further. I think that in 50 years time, every stong chess player will have read this book. I have also read Watson's "Play the French" and that book is often reffered to as "The French Defence player's bible". If you liked that book the chances are you will be overwhelmed when you see how much better this one is!
Rating:
Summary: In-depth chess strategy
Review: Those who read my review on Nimzo's My System will understand this: John Watson's book is not only a major rewrite of Nimzo's book with tons of nice add-ons (and a readable style :-) in its first part but a deep jump into the core of strategy. especially the second part. I've seen here and there some criticism to the emphasis given to pawn play in this book. However, pawn structure is the only long standing and slow changing feature of chess games. Obviously this is related to pawns slow move, in contrast with pieces fast wide ranged moves more suitable to tactical operations. So, IMHO, pawn play *is* the core of strategy in chess. I've learned that from this marvelous book. One might ask: 'and is that all?' Yes, and this simple fact makes this book the best of its kind on my chess shelves. Other themes receive good treatment as well and are good sources of wisdom and knowledge.
Rating:
Summary: A Radical and Monumental Work
Review: To my mind this is one of the greatest works of recent years, and fully deserving of the numerous awards that have been showered upon it. Watson sets out to show how the modern masters handle chess positions, and how radically this has changed since the time of Nimzowitsch some seventy plus years ago. A single review cannot do justice to the breadth and depth of the topics covered, so I decided to open the book at random in a couple of places.
The first example (opening the book at random) was a section discussing the relative values of bishop v knight. The question of when exactly two bishops are better than bishop and knight (or two knights) has long been debated. Conventional wisdom states that facing the bishop pair we should always try to keep the position closed. Watson, however, shows that modern players are by no means so dogmatic and that, paradoxically, many choose to open up the game in certain situations!
Opening the book again at random reaches a discussion on the merits of and endgame of Queen and knight v Queen and bishop. I must admit I have seen so many past writers claim that queen and knight are superior that I have just assumed it is an established fact. Watson takes an objective look at the evidence, and again his conclusions are startling.
Along with THE ROAD TO CHESS IMPROVEMENT (Yermolinsky) this is the most-thumbed book in my chess library.
Rating:
Summary: Comprehensive survey of middle-game strategies
Review: Watson is an opening theoretician who has written many books on specialized openings over the past 20 years. I havent read all of this book, but I have read several chapters and have skimmed every remaining page, and can say that the crux of this book is that you must think for yourself in every situation instead of relying on general principles. This goes beyond the obvious adapting that needs to be done due to tactical considerations, and focuses on exploding myth rules such as "never post your knight at the edge of the board".
The diagrams are large and easy to see though the text print is small. There are hundreds of interesting essential classic and modern grandmaster examples in this book, which was not written as a self-improvement method (the author agrees that most of those types of books fall short) but rather as a tour of the exceptions to every rule you ever memorized in the past. There is alot of material here and in my opinion is well worth the price. It will take a few years to digest all of these examples. This is the type of book that lasts a lifetime. These rules havent changed much over the past 100 years or so.
An exceptional book and one of my best out of a large chess library of nearly 100 books.
Rating:
Summary: No secret of modern chess strategy.
Review: Watson recurring theme is that there is not modern chess strategy.He seems to be spending much time trying to dispell our archaic notion of the do's and don'ts of our chess forefathers.The classical and hypermodern schools of Capa and Nimzo really do not seem to apply to the current state of chess. In addition the dogma of Tarrasch also seems to be passe.Dvoretsky and Watson along with many other modern day players seem to be saying that there is no strategy without variations tactics and analysis.Every position has to be seen as a seperate entity with a new fresh approach.Chess is not tic tack toe. There does not exist a secret formula for playing.In order for chess to grow and develope along with the people who play it,the game and its players must constantly reinvent and renew their ideas.Watson book embodies this modern spirit. If you want to expand your chess awareness in terms of learning what the reality of modern day chess is this book is for you.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent piece of research but not totally indisputable
Review: Watson's book is the masterpiece everyone says it is, and the few things I disagree with don't detract from the 5-star rating. His main thesis is rule independence. The book is really for strong club players and beyond, who have a good knowledge of the strategies in the Euwe/Kramer and Pachman books. It's important to understand the rules, which apply to about 80% of the cases (according to GM Gufeld), before learning about the exceptions.Alex Yermolinsky in "Road to Chess Improvement" also acknowledges that the old instructional classics found it easier to instruct with clear strategical plans, while strong players know what to avoid and try to cross the plans, so necessitating flexibility. In general, Watson makes an excellent case, e.g. with the Ivanchuk-Anand game, I think Watson's right and Anand wrong that normal pawn structure and bad bishop rules would not have helped at all, because one active rook outweighed everything else. Watson also shows some shortcomings of Nimzovich's tempo counting, and refutes Nimzo's quaint advance French lines with the move ...f6, attacking the HEAD of the pawn chain. The sections on the minor pieces are superb. He astutely points out that opposition to "dogmatic" love of the bishop pair has itself become a dogma. E.g. Flesch claims that the bishop and knight have precisely equal value, but this is a dogmatic claim about two pieces with completely different moves (p. 148). It's also clear that the B-pair does constitute an advantage in very many cases, including one dismissed by Nimzo (p. 67). A definite advance on the conventional strategy books is the advice on BvN in the opening. Most players learn that Bs like open games and Ns like closed ones. But in the opening, the side with a Ns often has a development advantage, so the best strategy is for THAT side to open the game, make use of the tactical abilities of the N, and force pawn moves that create permanent outposts. So the side with the Bs should seek to stabilize the position, catch up in development, then open up the game when ready, so the bishops can display their strength (pp. 178-9). There is also good material on good v bad bishops. Beginners often prefer bad bishops because they can protect their pawns. More advanced players learn to reject them because of the weakness of the opposite colored squares. But as Watson shows, still more advanced players will sometimes revert to the beginner's attitude, where "bad bishops protect bad pawns for good reasons". One example I can think of is neutralising enemy rooks while one's own rooks attack undefended pawns and reduce the enemy rooks to passivity. Watson does overstate his case a bit though. For example, Tal relates a post mortem after Game 9 of their first match. Tal rattled off some variations, while Botvinnik said he didn't dispute what Tal said, but just said he assessed the merits of exchanging queens. Tal first thought it was "too abstract", then came to appreciate this wisdom. Another example comes from Andy Soltis' fine book "Soviet Chess". Petrosyan thought Gufeld had violated so many rules that there just HAD to be a way to punish him, which he found. In fact, Chernev's elementary book "Logical Chess Move by Move" pointed out decades ago that a rule violation should often be punished by a rule violation. I also disagree Watson's treatment of the old masters. For example, he will excuse modern greats for annotating in ways that LOOK like they are applying rules, because otherwise too many trees would have to be killed to explain the caveats. But then the same allowance should be made for the older annotators too, which Watson fails to do, unlike Yermolinsky. I also wonder whether Watson actually read Tarrasch's "Dreihundert Schachpartien", which to be fair may have been translated into English ("300 Chess Games") after Watson wrote. For example, Watson claims (p. 41) about the Nimzo-Salwe 1911 game with 7. dxc5, "After this game, 6...cxd4 was considered better [than Bxd7]". But almost 20 years before, Tarrasch in 300 Chess Games had played 6...cxd4 and given it an exclamation mark because, as Tarrasch *explicitly* stated, Bd7 would allow 7.dxc5 with a good game. Watson makes other less blatant errors, e.g. the usual "dogmatism" accusation (p. 95), and indeed there are a number of genuine examples. But there are many times when Tarrasch appeals to the specifics of the position, e.g. where he explains that the N goes to the edge because in that position it was important to drive the B off that diagonal. Another reviewer noted the disrespect for Capablanca. For instance, on p. 94, Watson notes an example of Capa's alleged dogmatism, while Euwe and Kramer had noted Capa's NON-dogmatism. It's important to note that Capa never lived to see "Last Lectures" in print, and what he probably intended was Bogolyubov's line with O-O AND exd4. The book also has him recommending a line that falls into a trap, although his "My Chess Career" has the correct line. But I can see why Watson went just by what was written, and he does come down on Capa's side in his annotations of the famous loss to Lasker at St. Petersburg 1914. I mention these shortcomings, as I see them, because most reviewers on various websites have expended many keystrokes on praise. And I repeat, the praise is NOT overstated in the case of this high-quality book
Rating:
Summary: THANK YOU MR. WATSON!
Review: When a player is "cutting their teeth" as a beginner, they learn the classical principles of chess, as espoused by Nimzovitch and others; virtually ALL Grandmasters began this way. However, somewhere along the way, a transformation takes place ... and these gifted players (GMs and strong Masters) have learned that many of Nimzovitch's principles often can and should be ignored or changed in modern play. Where does one learn how modern play diverges from classical play and when to do it? What are some examples? Watson answers these questions and more, in great detail and with marvelous examples ... all without having to spend MANY years learning by yourself (if you EVER do). This book is not for beginners, but if you are an experienced player ... BUY THIS BOOK AND READ IT EVERY YEAR (which I would also recommend with Silman's "Reassess Your Chess"). If I could give this book 6 stars, I would. It is the ONLY book that I have found that does what Mr. Watson so capably set out to do (and I have several hundred good chess books). This book is marvelous! Buy it and you will be happy you did.
Rating:
Summary: THANK YOU MR. WATSON!
Review: When a player is "cutting their teeth" as a beginner, they learn the classical principles of chess, as espoused by Nimzovitch and others; virtually ALL Grandmasters began this way. However, somewhere along the way, a transformation takes place ... and these gifted players (GMs and strong Masters) have learned that many of Nimzovitch's principles often can and should be ignored or changed in modern play. Where does one learn how modern play diverges from classical play and when to do it? What are some examples? Watson answers these questions and more, in great detail and with marvelous examples ... all without having to spend MANY years learning by yourself (if you EVER do). This book is not for beginners, but if you are an experienced player ... BUY THIS BOOK AND READ IT EVERY YEAR (which I would also recommend with Silman's "Reassess Your Chess"). If I could give this book 6 stars, I would. It is the ONLY book that I have found that does what Mr. Watson so capably set out to do (and I have several hundred good chess books). This book is marvelous! Buy it and you will be happy you did.
Rating:
Summary: A thorough work by a great Chess Master
Review: When I first got this book I skimmed it and put it down for easier reads. The last time I picked it up I dove into some of the games, and I realized why this book is rated at five stars. In my opinion this is a work that took great dedication and a prolonged effort. IM John Watson intelligently contrasts the master strategies of the early 1900s with the practices of the modern masters. It is hard for me to believe anybody can know so much about chess. I'm glad he is willing to share his knowledge with the public. This book contains a lot of opening theory (middle game theory too). IM Watson explains the weak points in several positions. He talks about what pieces will be good and which ones can be traded. Honestly, I skipped several of the games in this book, because I don't want to play those openings. However, for the openings I do want to play, the information given is invaluable. This is an advanced book and the reader will have to make an effort to study the games annotated by IM Watson to improve. I'm glad I spent the time looking at the game's I've gone over, because if I hadn't, I wouldn't have realize how valuable this book is. Once you decide you already know tactics and how to use them, and you know you can't improve by reading tactics books, get this book. There are great ideas in this book, fascinating master games, ideas the author finds interesting, useful strategies for several common positions, there are open games and closed games, and easy to understand explanations.
Rating:
Summary: Anti-Dogmatic Chess
Review: You buy a chess book, and it's mostly a re-hash of tired ideas, the same examples over and over, etc. This book is the freshest thing in chess since "My System". It is not dumbed down, like most books, and overgeneralized, it, I think, will help push the envelope for the evolution of chess toward more dynamism and creativity.
|
