Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy : Advances Since Nimzowitsch
Wade Thames
by John Watson
Has anyone check out this book? I saw it in a book store and browsed through
and it seem some of things that are discussed in the book are just common
knowledge!
For example:
He talk about the isolated pawn "is weak or is it strong"! Well the
conclusion he came to was it depends on the surrounding position! Correct me
if I am wrong but didn't Nimzowitsch say the same! I haven't re-read "My
System" in awhile but I think this common knowledge! This goes for any chess
axiom or rule! No one follows general rule or strategy without evaluating
the tactics that surround it!
Another:
The pawn chain in the French Defense Advance Var. in a nutshell he said
Nimzo stressed attacking the base (...c5) but you also should attack with
(...f6). Nimzowitsch had examples where you attacked the pawn chain a both
ends but he recommended striking the base first and the use (...f6) when it
is appropriate (or tactically sound)!
Any other opinions!
Don C. Aldrich
<wth...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy : Advances Since Nimzowitsch
>by John Watson
>
>Has anyone check out this book? I saw it in a book store and browsed through
>and it seem some of things that are discussed in the book are just common
>knowledge!
>
profound works on chess strategy to date.
It is set up in two parts. Part I is a review of the state of
middlegame theory as of 1935 [a rather arbitrary date, chosen as it
was the year Nimzovich died]. This part occupies 90 pp. of the 272 p.
book [Large format, nicely printed & bound]. Watson uses My System as
his touchstone, reviewing the topics in the order they were treated by
Nimzovich. He briefly reviews the state of technique of the day, and
briefly discusses what has changed. Those areas where there has been
little change he discusses; those areas with significant changes, he
defers to Part II.
Part II is the meat of the book. He takes hard and detailed looks at
the advances and evolution of chess strategy since 1935, including
topics like the modern handling of minor pieces, the B pair, the Kt
pair, rooks & kings. He explores in great detail the modern concept
of the exchange sacrifice, pawn structure vs dynamism, and the IQP.
part II has 14 chapters, some of them quite lengthy.
He also examines some propositions using statistical analysis of
games, such as "all rook endings are drawn," and reaches some
interesting conclusions.
There is a lot of prose in the book, as might be expected. However,
all discussions are backed by concrete examples. Unfortunately,
neither the games nor diagrams are numbered [perhaps my sole criticism
at this point], but I am guessing there are about 250 games & game
fragments, and maybe 500 diagrams. These are rough guesses, and could
be way off. Suffice it to say, each chapter has many annotated games
& examples, though the notes are basically confined to the point under
discussion.
As one would expect, it is extremely well researched, and Watson has
relied on a number of excellent resources. The most cited examples
are Nimozovich's works, Euwe &Kramer's Middlegame, Pachman's three
volume set, and Suba's Dynamic Chess. You could hardly go wrong
reading that selection. Of course, there are many others as well, and
a nicely detailed bibliography rounds off the work.
If there were a Ph.d. in chess strategy, this book would be a well
received dissertation. His basic thesis is that pre-1935, the old
masters viewed chess as properly played under a fairly rigid set of
rules. Even Nimzo and the hypermoderns were, in a sense, replacing
one set of rules with another. Modern chess has become 'rule
independent' in a very real sense replacing much of positional
'understanding' with concrete calculation. That is, one still needs to
knowthe old rules, andthe 'new' rules, but virtually any rule may be
broken based on concrete possibilities.
Some of the more interesting investigations involve current opening
theory wherein players put their knights on the edge of the board,
make a lot of early pawn moves, voluntarily accept backward pawns and
other pawn structure defects in exchange for active piece play and
dynamic possibilities. These are concepts that would have been
reviled by the old masters, and indeed, some openings lay fallow for
decades because of this. One interesting example is the modern
Benoni, virtually killed by a victory by Nimzovich as white in the
20s.
This is a *very* deep and advanced work. I would not be at all
surprised if it is regarded as one of the more significant works of
the second half of the twentieth century twenty years from now.
I have been reading, reviewing and collecting chess books for over
thirty years. During that time, a mere handful came with a "wow"
factor; that is, one opens it, starts reading, and says "wow!" This
is one of those books.
As an intersting sidenote, three of those wow books for me were Three
Steps to Chess Mastery by Suetin, Silman's Reassess Your Chess, and
Dvoretsky's Secrets of Chess Tactics. What is interesting here is
that Suetin was a 'minor' GM, whereas Dvoretsky and Silman were 'only'
IMs, as is Watson. I think that there is a very valid school of
thought that one need not be the best, or even close to the best,
chess player to be able to think deeply about chess theory. Indeed,
the ability to understand it and explain it may require one not be at
the top.
One last thought. Watson warns in his introduction that the book is
not a manual, nor a how to book, but rather a theoretical look at the
state of modern theory, and how it has evolved over the last
sixtyyears.
Don't believe him. You will learn a lot from this book, but it will
be hard. Some of these concepts will hurt your head:).
Best,
==Dondo
"He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous."
Julius Caesar, Act I, Sc. 2.
nya...@pop.mpls.uswest.net
How-to-Improve book
at least twice. I bought the book only a couple of days back when Chessco set up
a stall
at the Minnesota Open Chess Championship venue (Incidentally they sold all eight
copies
they had brought).
I've not had time to go through all 270 pages thoroughly and so I can only give
you
general impressions based on skimming and selective reading. The book is not
exactly path-breaking but does attempt to give a systematic synthesis of the
modern
approach to the game, which tends not to subscribe to general rules but attempts
to understand the concrete position and emphasises calculation. Watson mentions
the people who've been responsible for this iconoclastic approach -Alekhine, the
so-
called Soviet school and contemporary writers such as Suba.
In terms of originality this book perhaps rates 2/10. As a synthesis maybe 8/10.
There
are some other flaws which I sense but which it's difficult for me to put my
finger on.
A certain lack of coherence, which perhaps betokens a lack of deep thinking
about the
subject, i.e. the book is just a synthesis of books the author has read without
he himself
having deep insights or organising ideas. But perhaps this is unfair. Any such
ambitious
attempt is bound to be flawed. The book is a laudable achievement and a worthy
addition
to my library.
Wade Thames wrote:
> Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy : Advances Since Nimzowitsch
> by John Watson
>
> Has anyone check out this book? I saw it in a book store and browsed through
> and it seem some of things that are discussed in the book are just common
> knowledge!
>
Wade Thames
will check it out!
Thanks!
Don C. Aldrich wrote in message <36df5ebd...@news.skypoint.com>...
>On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:22:41 -0800, "Wade Thames"
><wth...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy : Advances Since Nimzowitsch
>>by John Watson
>>
>>Has anyone check out this book? I saw it in a book store and browsed
through
>>and it seem some of things that are discussed in the book are just common
>>knowledge!
>>
Rahvinsong
David Carter
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Cavern/6551/frames.html
mbur...@montana.com
> On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:22:41 -0800, "Wade Thames"
> <wth...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
> >Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy : Advances Since Nimzowitsch
> >by John Watson
> I find it to be an absolute classic, and perhaps one of the most
> profound works on chess strategy to date ...
Overall, an excellent review. It makes me wish I had some extra $.
I offer a comment on this paragraph:
>I think that there is a very valid school of thought that one need
>not be the best, or even close to the best, chess player to be able
>to think deeply about chess theory. Indeed, the ability to understand
>it and explain it may require one not be at the top.
Over the board play is mostly about calculating quickly. Eduard Lasker,
Ernst Grunfeld, Hans Kmoch, and Imre Koenig all wrote excellent books
on chess theory and were always tail-enders when they played in big
tournaments. On the other hand Max Euwe, whose 'Strategy & Tactics'
is a favorite of mine, snatched the World Championship from a napping
Alekhine.
Max Burkett
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lawrence Tamarkin
Cadogan to this excellent list?
mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict!
Don C. Aldrich wrote in message - snipped...
>As an intersting sidenote, three of those wow books for me were Three
>Steps to Chess Mastery by Suetin, Silman's Reassess Your Chess, and
>Dvoretsky's Secrets of Chess Tactics. What is interesting here is
>that Suetin was a 'minor' GM, whereas Dvoretsky and Silman were 'only'
>IMs, as is Watson. I think that there is a very valid school of
>thought that one need not be the best, or even close to the best,
>chess player to be able to think deeply about chess theory. Indeed,
>the ability to understand it and explain it may require one not be at
>the top.
>
i45.5yul4...@chi.com
<Harry...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Can we add, Elie Agur's, FISHER: His Approach To Chess, published 1992 by
>Cadogan to this excellent list?
>
>mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict!
>
>
>Don C. Aldrich wrote in message - snipped...
>
>
>>As an intersting sidenote, three of those wow books for me were Three
>>Steps to Chess Mastery by Suetin, Silman's Reassess Your Chess, and
>>Dvoretsky's Secrets of Chess Tactics. What is interesting here is
>>that Suetin was a 'minor' GM, whereas Dvoretsky and Silman were 'only'
>>IMs, as is Watson. I think that there is a very valid school of
>>thought that one need not be the best, or even close to the best,
>>chess player to be able to think deeply about chess theory.
It's more important to be able to communicate clearly. I don't need to
know the difference between the way a 2500 and 2700 players think. I'm
only a 2000 player.
Marcus1968
William Hyde
> Question: Does Watson have his book 'Secrets of Modern Chess strategy', meant to as Nimzowitsch 'My System' plus more? As an expanded / advanced version of Nizowitsch's 'My System’?
For example, he comments that Nimzowitsch's ideas on prophylaxis were ahead of their time, and form an even bigger part of modern play than they did in his games.
On the other hand overprotection doesn't seem to matter to modern players.
I thought it was a good read, and if I was still an active player I'd probably benefit a lot from it.
William Hyde