Secrets of Positional Chess

Rating:
Summary: Positional technique vs. strategy
Review: For a book on chess strategy, Watson's "Secrets of Chess Strategy" is acceptable (I find Watson more of a reference than a cover-to-cover read, though the book is good), but for some deeper analysis of positional chess this new book by Marovic is the way to go. Twenty complete games and another 300 positions! analyzed in depth divided into two main parts- the chess board (space, squares, ranks, files, diagonals) and pieces (the power of the pieces, endgame technique).
Theres alot here and taken in conjunction with Marovic's prior work titled "Understanding Pawn Play" you have a fairly complete set of works on positional play. This book is heavy-duty all around- the analysis, the quality of the typesetting and paper used, large clear diagrams, and the binding are all first-rate. The book has enough weight to lay open without cracking the spine. This is one of Gambit's best books, easily one of their best (and they know it!).
Aagaard's "Excelling at Positional Play" is somewhat different- Aagaard's book presents some self-improvement concepts and then subjects the reader to 100 positions taken from grandmaster games of the 1990's, concentrating on just a half-dozen different chess players such as Karpov and Short. I own both books (and Watson's also!)

Rating:
Summary: Updated review
Review: Ive found a much better chess book on this topic- Creative Chess Strategy by Romero by Gambit publishers which covers the topics using complete deeply annotated games instead of the snippets that Marovic uses- I prefer the complete game approach rather than being overwhelmed by too many random positions.
Watson's and Marovic's books have been boxed and Im using Romero now. Aagaard I also have found a bit too superficial, and Ive already found an error in Silman's Reasses You Chess Workbook where one of the solutions he gives to one of his "puzzles" completely misses a winning tactic that I spotted easily and which my chess computer verified- either Silman didnt even analyze the position he placed in his own book, or he is an incredibly weak player- either way it points to the classic case of an American writer being so superficial in his approach and hardly interested in obtaining the real hidden truths of a position, like a Dvoretsky or any red-blooded Russian player would do.