Others say...

"Refreshing"
I am only a class C player but I have read lots of chess books. I am and have been dedicated to chess improvement. So what went wrong? I have not fully understood the degree to which oversights, blunders, and tactics decide the outcome of a game untill I read Rapid Chess Improvement. That is the central message of this book: that avoiding blunders and seeing the tactics available to both black and white are the two most deciding factors to one's chess results. Period. It is true that the book is kinda skimpy and the reader's letters at the end may not be appropriate and that it is overpriced. But the book is so refreshingly different and honest. Aside from the other no nonsense: Master at Any Age (great) book by Rolff Wetzell, almost all other books seem to be no good for me. I think both of these books (and Chess for Tigers and a couple of others) are much deserving of praise for being so different and honest. I have the J. Silman books, the Kotov books, and scores of others that try to impart positional and strategic knowledge to the reader. But the simple truth is that the vast majority of all chess games is decided by an oversight, blunder, or missing a tactic that you or your opponent have available. Unless it computer vs. computer. I humbly dissagree with any player who says that a tactic must come from an advantage in position first. Countless tactical resourses in a game arise EXACTLY FROM TRYING TO RESCUE A BAD POSITION! So I think the book does exactly what it intended: to let the reader know how important it is to study tactics and avoid blunders (to the extent that it can be done). He may have overstated the importance to drill it into one's head. But since most players have the positional/strategic/opening books in their library, one should thank the author for doing just that. I think the reader is expected not to ignore the other stuff. I think you don't have to do it EXACTLY as explained in the book, as long as you make a very determined effort to study lots of tactics in whatever time you have. I have read the Jeremy Silman review of the M. de la Maza book and it seemed like a personal attack (or counterattack?) for possibly taking some chess (and money?) away from Silman. But, as la Maza correctly states in his book: the best players are not neccessarily the best teachers, including masters and GMs. In fact I personally believe the best teachers are players rated only 200 to 400 points above you. They are the ones that can understand where you're coming from, in chess terms. And they are the ones who understand chess in a way similar to the way you do. GMs and IMs are just too far removed from a class player. And possibly only interested in selling many chess books.

"Great Motivational Piece That Shows the Effort Required to Dramatically Improve"
The controversy surrounding this book is interesting. Some appear to resent the fact that the author has made some money providing a dramatic story of something we all know in our hearts is true. Namely, if we were all as diligent as he was about studying tactics and drilling how the pieces move into our heads, we would dramatically improve our results. I for one don't have the time (or the discipline) to do so, which is why I'm a patzer. If you want substance, this isn't the right place to go but this book does provide a motivational story about the author's great success with a specific study plan for those who have the time and may need some help with the motivation and discipline. The good news from this story appears to be that there is hope if we are serious about studying.

Will you become an expert if you follow his plan? Maybe or maybe not, but you'll get better. Is his plan the only way to study tactics? I don't think so because I think the point is the drilling of tactical patterns into one's brain so that the patterns are second nature based on experience. For those interested in trying to understand tactics and the associated patterns rather than just to drill them in by rote repetition, I'm working my way through Weteschnik's "Understanding Chess Tactics" and it seems to provide some insight. Understanding Chess Tactics

Are tactics all there is to chess? I think it depends on what your objective is. If you're a class player and what to win more games, it seems to be a critical ingredient and maybe the quickest way to pick up points. It certainly seems to be for a patzer like me that drops pieces to good tactics and fails to see many of my own tactical opportunities. Whenever I study tactics my results improve, at least temporarily.

Nevertheless, if you want to really understand chess better, then aimlessly wandering around the board waiting for a tactical pattern to arise doesn't feel quite right. Understanding seems to involve studying pawn structures, the opening, strategy, endgames and annotated games, which may not immediately have a dramatic impact of your rating. For these Silman's books seem helpful, including his new one on Endgames. Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner To Master For the opening, I've started Watson's Mastering the Chess Openings, which so far seems to provide some interesting insights into understanding the opening phase of the game and recognizing patterns there. Mastering the Chess Openings: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Modern Chess Openings, Volume 1 Mastering the Chess Openings: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Modern Chess Openings, Volume 2

If you put as much time and effort into studying the above material as Michael put into studying tactics, would your rating dramatically improve? I would think so. For example, I've heard of people's ratings going up because they memorized games (presumably because they studied them intensely and developed some understanding of what was going on and memorized it so some patterns were ingrained in their head). Neverthless, so far I haven't heard of anyone with a story as dramatic or as motivating as Michael's in terms of final results for those of us looking up from the bottom of the chess world.

See Wetzell's Chess Master at Any Age for a similar story and a book with a little more substance. He provides his own program of improvement and I think one of the key items is flashcards developed from one's own games to drill certain patterns and concepts into the brain until they are second nature. It is another somewhat controversial book but again good for inspiration if nothing else from someone who made it to Master after age 50 based on the program he lays out. Chess Master...at Any Age

I have to wonder if those so quick to critcize Michael and Wetzell can demonstrate any dramatic improvement of their own and whether they have reached Expert or Master level. If so on either count, it would be helpful if they shared exactly what they did and how long it took. If not, maybe they shouldn't be so quick to criticize because at least these two can demostrate some dramatic positive results in a reasonable period of time that we can all learn from.

"Play Like a Computer"
de la Maza is an expert (rating ca. 2100). Why listen to him? Because he became an expert in two years, as an adult, starting as a "D" player. How? Tactics, tactics, tactics. He does not deny the importance of strategic planning on top level, or that strong players (such as Kotov, or Silman of "How to Reasses your Chess" fame) could use strategic planning to (easily) beat him. His point is that amateurs who *think* they are following Kotov- or Silman-like plans will, in 99 cases out of 100, overlook a simple tactical shot somewhere and lose outright. Tactics--not strategy, opening knowledge, or endgame virtuousity--win 99% of amateur games.

de la Maza's innovative method of improving one's tactics concentrates on boring, repetitive, simple--but absolutely essential--mini-drills, which aim to make basic tactical sight a second nature. Yes, you SHOULD put that knight on the board and point with your fingers on where it can move hundreds of times. Yes, you SHOULD solve a zillion mates-in-one and mates-in-two. That way, you will put them into your subconsciousness and will be able to see them at the board instantly, using your time to make more detailed calculations--as well as not missing (or giving) opportunities to win the game by a tactical shot.

The book's weakness is taking this to extremes. Not content in developing a training program to improve your tactical abilities, he tries to literally make you "play like a computer": he recommends ignoring strategy completely, and just develop pieces and calculate variations in every move, every time, just like a computer does. It might make you an expert--or might make you give up chess completely as just not worth the boredom. Also, de la Maza underestimates the degree in which strategy influences the game. Many amateurs lose games not so much because of tactics, but because their (pseudo-)"strategic" principles--e.g., "avoid doubled pawns at all costs", "bishops beat knights always"--are themselves flawed. Surely improving the undestanding of strategy is important to avoid this.

This book is excellent as a tactics training program, but concentrating *only* on tactics, as he recommends, will be both boring and not be good for your chess in the long run. Instead, use a balanced view: use de la Maza to improve your tactics, but also read Botvinnik (or Silman, or Kotov, etc.) to improve your strategy.

"Underestimated..."
I am surprised to find that the book that once was nominated for the "Book of the Year" award ended up with the quite unimpressive average of 3 stars. I truly believe that the emotional charge of some of the criticism stems from the frustration (and recognition) that there is simply no quick fix for and adult player who wishes to improve and not be mated on the sixth move by a kid who holds a toy bear on his lap. It is quite amazing that all the chess literature can not guarantee even a minimal progress if one is not committed to hours and hours of practice day after day. The author deserves five stars for several reasons:
1, He struggled as we all struggle (just look at his own two chess game samples), he was not a prodigy, but did not give up.
2, He developed a system that may not work for everyone, but certainly did work for him. The improvement he demonstrated in his rating is amazing (although he appears to be stuck at the same level according to the USCF rating list).
3, He never states that this is an easy way. Chess vision drills (not only vision, he wants you to physically move the pieces to achieve almost a body memory pattern), tactical puzzles, 8-step thinking process etc. Hours and hours of practice, dedication and commitment are required.
(4, But: you can not neglect the knowledge of opening principles, positional ideas, as your tactics may not get a chance if your opponent's tactics ambush you first from his/her carefully prepared position.)
Overall, this is a decent attempt to find and demonstrate a way what it may take to get your game better. I wonder, how many readers criticize the author without ever giving a shot to his advice.

"Inspiration in Search of Moderation"
First, let's give credit where due. Michael DeLaMaza has (1) earned a
USCF Expert rating, (2) won a major prize at a big tournament, and (3)
published a book about it. Most of us chess nuts would be lucky to
achieve just one of the above! Perhaps his biggest achievement was to
have single-handedly launched a tactics craze among chess wannabes
around the world, and consequently triggering a proliferation of
tactics books, software and netware in the market. Sure, none of his
ideas were original (anybody remember Ken Smith?), but his rather
dramatic story had the power to inspire like no other. There is even a
group of bloggers, calling themselves the "Knights Errant," devoted to
a program of chess study derived from DeLaMaza's 7 circles.

Having said all this, it must be conceded that all the criticisms of
the book are valid. Yes, it is mostly repetitive, abrasive,
self-promoting fluff. And the notion of studying tactics maniacally
and exclusively is obviously flawed. I see the effect in some of my
students -- they end up with a rather brittle style that is apparently
very hard to overcome. Even if they reach 1500, they get into trouble
getting squashed by players who understand positional chess. But at
least they're all studying tactics!

So, four stars for the cultural impact, one for the message of studying
tactics, minus two for content.