Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch

I'm going to give away the main thesis of this book. It is obvious if you have played chess for any amount of time, but it has never been put into writing, at least as far as I know.Chess is taught to beginners with general principles (i.e. control the center in the opening; put rooks behind passed pawns). But more advanced players know when to throw out the principles. Concrete analysis of the position at hand takes precedence over some vague principle!One such principle is "Knights on the rim [of the board] are grim [or "are dim" or "deserve a trim."]"It's true, knights don't control as many squares on the side of the board as in the center. But if analysis of the position before you shows that the such a knight move is best, you play it!Such "orthodoxy" forms the basis of the "modern" chess that Watson discusses in his book. This book should be read after reading Nimzowitsch's, as it serves as an "update" to his book by examining how Nimzowitsch's theories have fared over the 6 decades since Nimzowitsch's books. Then, in the second part of the book, Watson examines how "rule independence" (the concept I discussed above) plays a role in modern chess, and he examines numerous topics with that as his prism.Highly recommended, but it's not an easy book by any means. However, it could very well change how you think about (and thus, how you play) chess.

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 come

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.

REVIEW POSTED BY SEAN EVANSSecrets of Modern Chess Strategy Gambit Publications, 1999, 272pp. by IM John Watson Review by Randy BauerRandy's Rating: 9.5/10 While reviewing books, I often wonder if any of them will still be considered worth reading in another fifty years. I'm relieved to report that Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy has the kind of staying power and relevance that will bear reading and re-reading in the decades to come. International Master John Watson is a serious chess theorist and author with a bevy of good books to his credit. His books exhibit a care and attention to detail that is often lacking from other popular authors. This book surpasses even Watson's previous high standards.Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy seeks to take up where Nimzowitsch's My System left off. Nimzowitsch's book is often considered to be a seminal work that charted a new course in chess thought. Watson, who believes that modern chess thought is radically different than that of the best players of an earlier era, discusses the various issues raised by Nimzowitsch in the first part of his book, while the second explores modern methods and praxis.The first part is particularly useful for those who are not familiar with Nimzowitsch's original work. While Watson also seeks to "update" various concepts explored by Nimzowitsch in this section, the coverage isn't nearly as deep as in the second part of the book. Indeed, the first section covers just 91 pages. It is useful, however, for laying the foundation for the balance of the book.The second part of the book covers a variety of topics. At the start, Watson develops a key concept, that modern play is not as preoccupied with basic principles and is more focused on position-specific analysis. The author often refers to this as "rule-independence" and discusses the demise of general rules and the difficulty of relying on a general description of ideas and plans versus analysis of specific lines in any situation.Watson then delves into modern play as it relates to specific pieces. In particular, he focuses on pawn play and the minor pieces as well as the exchange sacrifice. Finally, he provides some really fascinating chapters on some little-discussed topics, including prophylaxis, dynamism, time and information, initiative, and the modern opening.While there is lots of fresh material throughout the book, I found these final chapters to be particularly interesting, probably because they explore topics that are not typically addressed in chess books. While there are many well-intentioned texts written on chess topics, they often exhibit a "deja vu...I've read it all before" tendency. In other words, the same topics are explored with the same types of examples and the same sorts of explanations. Watson's book obliterates this mold.Watson steps outside the normal topics by thinking about chess topics -- and then explaining them in the book -- to a depth t

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.