Art of Positional Play (Chess)

Of course, when a world class player like Reshevsky writes a book on chess, it cannot possibly be horrible. Unfortunately, like Tarrasch's musings, it is not set in stone. Just like Tarrasch's theories were later regarded as not the only acceptable ones, much water has flowed under the bridge since the time of this book (1976). So, yes, the title explains itself. It's the (somewhat to me) rudiments of positional play, according to him (and being a world-class player - one of the best in the world at the time! - it counts for something). The games are presented with variations (and naturally, before the invention of the modern chess playing PC, some errors, though we can hardly fault him for this), no more, no less, with such well-known players as Portisch, Korchnoi, Spassky, ad infinitum. There are some typos, sadly, but one shouldn't have too many problems.

With the used titles: The Art of Defense and the Art of Attack, then why not the Art of Positional Play (TAoPP)? My first "chess teacher" of positional play is Chernev. His writing is interesting and instructive (and "short and sweet"). I bought this book (with descriptive notation, pub. by McKay) 20 years ago. I went over about half of the games and finally gave up. There were 3 problems (one with the publisher, two with the games) that made me give up. Interestingly, all 3 "problems" (all are correctable) are still applicable to the new edition somewhat. One "problem" indirectly caused the next one to appear. They are: 1) The book is in *descriptive notation*. 2) There are many long games. 27 games with 50 moves or more; 9 games with 70 moves or more. The shortest game is 26 moves; the longest one is 90. 3) There are "many" draws. 5; Wow! That many, huh? ;-) Now, the corrective actions: 1) Actually, I was kidding about the descriptive notation. I have no problem with it. According to some reviewers, the new Algebraic Notation edition has too many errors; therefore the old Descriptive Notation is a "blessing". It was just the book was published that long ago, McKay Co. didn't bother to use a good binding technology, (as bad as the Mammoth Book of The World Greatest Chess Games, pub. by Carroll and Graf.) Except TAoPP used thicker papers (WORSE, about 3 times as thick as in Mammoth), and narrower width which make the book harder to open flat. The binding and glue on the spine are not good. The heat and dry weather make the glue crack by itself, and leaves much dust. The book spine was broken in four or five different places. All right, this is the publisher's fault. 2) Because the book is hard to open, I am nervous to use it (cumbersome to handle and don't want to damage it more and more), especially over the long games. I used to Chernev's writing where he often picked "short and sweet" games for his books. (For long games, more diagrams may be needed, and then it would make the book even thicker. And problem continues.) 3) And I, chess-student, like a movie-goer; I want to see happy (or decided or won) endings. Draws are no good. For this book, in particular, after much effort to fight to save the book spine, going over 60 moves (plus some sub-variations) the game was not won. That's sad. (Chernev's selection is always decided.) Having discussed the last two "problems", now I see that they are not "problems" at all. They are in fact the good "learning experiences". It's just my lack of patience for the long games and I used to short writing of Chernev (His selected games are about 35-40 moves in average). At sub-1700 and up, I begin to see the hard and long fighting the opponents are willing to throw in when they are down by 2 pawns or even a minor piece. Patience is mother-of-all-skills at this stage. I saw many games (including mine) lost after gaining substantial early advantages. And the drawn games are good examples for not giving up too

Once in a while, at some point in the depths of a chess book, it occurs to me that, "this might be the only chess book I would need, if I could keep only one." Despite the nightmarish vision of a world in which you were allowed only one chess book, my point is that this work on positional play by Reshevsky is such a book for me. I will summarize a few reasons why it is one of my all-time favorite chess books: 1) Brilliant games, many of them very long, with endgames. Many of the games are over 60 moves long. The annotations do not bog you down, though, so you do get through the games. Reshevsky brilliantly points out themes at various points, and you naturally start to see it as you go through the games; 2) annotations that are concise, and dead-on the point. Each annotation seems to relate to the ideas inherent in the position. There are variations as necessary to flesh out ideas. The annotations are very instructive. They remind me of Fischer's in 60 Memorable Games, but from a d4 type player instead; 3) the book in effect presents an entire opening repertoire, basically Reshevsky's. This means that you play 1. d4 with white and the Sicilian (he normally played the accelerated dragon or the Najdorf; I have settled on the accelerated dragon). There are a lot of games where Reshevsky is white defeating a King's Indian. These games alone are worth the price of admission for me, as I often face the King's Indian. For these reasons and more, this is one of my favorite books. It is true that there are numerous typos in the book, but it has not bothered me. Normally, it is clear what was meant, and I just write the proper number or letter over in pen. I have the older McKay edition, which is very nicely formatted, with diagrams in well-thought out places. I really love this book a lot.

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rudel. I think Reshevsky's annotations are excellent, though I agree they are brief. The important point for me is that I feel that I am going through the game with Reshevsky. Somehow, this book grabbed me. And I like the way it is made, with an excellent layout and superior production. This is a very good book that has withstood the test of time and has recently been reprinted.

I've had this book for 7 years and keep going back!Reshevsky was a tremendous player from childhood and played for 77 years. He presents the concepts of positional play as the foundation of the game and as the vehicle for all his tactics.The book shows the positional emphasis within the real game setting. While this is not the clearest textbook I've ever seen, It is one of the most convincing!