I have actually had the book for a few years but wisely knew I was not ready for it. So I held off on it until now. It is a pretty good book. Not great, not bad. Before I summarize the verdict, I will start with a bullet point presentation on the pros and cons:
Pros:
- McDonald does his customary GREAT job of annotating for instruction and entertainment. McDonald really is one of our best annotators! (He really should tackle a book on Pillsbury!!)
- Some great games featuring Capbalanca, Nimzowitsch, Petrosian, Karpov and Kramnik!!
- All the games are very well chosen for the topic at hand. (maybe a few more Petrosian games could have been added)
- Few typos, nice layout.
- The book doesn't know what it really wants to be! Is it a games collection? Is it a text book on strategy? (more on this later in the post!)
- The game snippets interrupted the flow of the book. Again, I can't tell what the book really wants to be. I don't think this is the author's fault! Everyman Publishers gave him a concept and he did his best with it. I think the concept is too wishy-washy.
- Switching from player to player also interrupted the flow of the book. I found myself drifting!
- I am glad I went through the book and I think there is some great instruction, BUT the book can't decide what it is trying to do and that harms its over all effectiveness. If it is a strategy text book it should focus mostly on game snippets that make a point, with plenty of prose and then some tests! If it is a games collection it should have no snippets, all the good annotations that McDonald always gives, and more discussion per move. Oddly enough, I can't recommend the book or NOT recommend it!! :) There are better game collections ( a few by McDonald himself!) and there are better strategy textbooks (Silman's, "The Amateur Mind."). Overall, you can probably pass on "Chess Secrets: Giants of Chess Strategy." It won't hurt you to read it but it ain't gonna help all that much either. It is a shame, because McDonald always does such great work but in this case he was stymied by the publisher's concept.......
- .......................WHICH brings me to my final point. I think that too many chess books suffer from the same malaise as the one I just reviewed. They don't know if they are text books, puzzle books or games collections, etc. etc. Games collections should only try to draw out the lessons of the current game on the page. The annotations should include historic tidbits, remarks on the opening theory, instructional prose and relevant variations. By playing through 60 or more annotated games of the same great player, one can not help but to intake some of that player's style and chessic acumen. (which would then be greatly enhanced by astute self analysis of that same player's games!!) Text books should use EXAMPLES, not entire games. The examples should be focused, and well annotated and should last longer than the moves surrounding that particular topic. There should be tests in a text book! If the chess publishing world as a whole, could get a handle on these concepts we would all be better off! (and don't get me started on opening books!!) :)
I have two questions (hopefully I do not get smacked on the fingers with the wooden stick again :-) will answer your comment on previous entry later)
ReplyDelete- Did you learn something from this book? Its not really clear in your review.
- How long did it take for you to finish this book? Did you go thru it quickly or did it take you a very long time?
Hey ChessTiger!
ReplyDeleteSorry about the previous smack on the wrist. :)
Just as you are trying to help me be a better chess player I thought I would try to help you be a better teacher. (teaching music, which is a LOT like chess, is a big part of my career.)
To answer your questions above:
1) I can't say I learned much from the book. Maybe in passing. But again that is not the author's fault. McDonald did a great job of annotating. I think it is more the in-between nature of the book as I mentioned in the review. The book isn't really written with a bent towards educating. It is trying to be too many things at once.
2) I would say it took me about two months to go through book. I would generally go through two games a day trying to understand the variations and the annotations.
I appreciate your thoughts on the book. I find this sort of commentary helpful in determining whether a book may be useful for me (i.e. it goes beyond the loved it/hated it type of comment).
ReplyDeleteI also have to agree that middling types of chess books, which may be well done but are unfocused, aren't particularly helpful for training, or at least are not optimal for it. They may be better suited for more recreational purposes.
Prodigal Pawn's motivation to keep chess blogging alive motivated me to go over another game of Keres' tonight. The great thing about going over an annotated game of a great player is that sometimes your theoretical understanding of chess is "in a rut", and such an annotated (with words, otherwise one wouldn't learn what to emphasize, and instead merely be looking at lines) game can elevate one's understanding of correct strategy in a given position.
ReplyDeleteAlso, an annotated game can be gone through quickly. Sure, studying a theoretical endgame would be better, but that takes up too much time, focus, and one may well lose (or win) before reaching such an endgame.
Hey ChessAdmin!
ReplyDeleteI am going to try and do a few more objective reviews like this one after the holidays.
Linuxguy:
Keres rocks! The second volume of his game collection is next on my list to read after the holidays.
I probably won't get any long games in until after the new year as well. :(
Tommy, i've gone through 13 of Keres' games so far. Definitely eye-opening for attacking technique, for me it is anyway.
ReplyDelete