Others say...

"Chess strategy changed a lot"
Recently I got this book from Amazon.Compared with Pachman's modern chess strategy which I bought 32 yrs ago it is much more advanced and different in treatment.Basic theory of positional chess play remains same but attitude towards the game by the players are no more like what it was 40 or 50 yrs past.I need more time to read the book thoroughly and study games by playing over the board before giving expertised comments.Games are nowadays computer annotated/analysed.Author presented his work in grand fashion.His depth of teaching the subject is superb. Still all my chess books are excellent five star products.Because I love to read books and play chessto my entire satisfaction.I also have Silman's How to reassess your chess,amatuer's mind and reassess your work book out of which amatuer's mind is the best of the lot.If you just read the book without playing the games over the board,you are bound to enjoy it.Watson treated the subject with new approach and technique.His teaching pattern is altogether satisfactory and of high quality.I fully appreciate this work.

"misleading and written for noise"
the book is devoted to deliver a message, apparently it is commenting about the "my System" classic book but I have doubts here.

ok, let us stick with what is apparent, the writer dedicated this volume critizing the orginal work by Nimzo for nothing, but I believe to make more value out of his work. You have to read the original work, my sytem, to understand this.

"A fine book by a fine author"
I would have given it a 5 stars. My only problem with the book is sometimes the explanations are too lengthy and complicated.

"Chess Literature at its Best!!"
There is very general agreement in the chess community that John Watson's book is a modern classic and that is an evaluation with which I would whole-heartedly agree.

SMCS aims to outline the way in which chess strategy has developed since Nimzowitsch's seminal work "My System" (published some 70 years ago). Watson divides the development of chess strategy into two broad categories - Part I of the book looks at areas in which modern chess represents an evolutionary refinement of strategic ideas in the 1930's, while Part II turns to areas in which modern chess represents a revolutionary departure from these ideas.

All major middlegame themes are tackled including modern ideas about the centre and development, pawn structure and dynamic pawn play, as well as the use of minor and major pieces. The second part in particular is replete with outstanding discussions of numerous topics including the modern treatment of damaged pawn structures (e.g. backward pawns), dynamic pawn play (e.g. positional pawn sacrifices and pawn storms without a fixed centre), the nature of battles between minor pieces, exchange sacrifices, prophylaxis and dynamism. These discussions are detailed and sophisticated and are illustrated with complex examples of high-level play in positions where no clear advantage exists.

In light of the above, this is clearly a book intended for advanced players. Nonetheless, I believe that intermediate players can gain a lot from reading it. There is, after all, something to be said for being exposed to ideas, even if you don't fully master them. I am only a mid-level club player but was able to absorb the main point - that modern players are sometimes/often willing to accept weaknesses which our standard middlegame text books strongly frown on. The conclusion we can draw, then, is that the standard text books are probably normally right but we should be a little less dogmatic in implementing their advice and at least look at the pros and cons of the weakness created.

Overarching Watson's discussions of revolutionary chess ideas is his hotly debated theory that the major difference between pre-modern chess strategy(for Watson up to ca. 1930)and modern chess strategy is that pre-modern chess strategy was more "rule-governed" and modern chess strategy is more "rule-independence".

This is a difficult thesis to evaluate because it is not always clear which claims Watson wants to make. Sometimes "rule-independence" means that modern high level chess relies much more heavily on concrete analysis of openings. Now, I don't think anyone would deny this. Other times, however, the meaning seems to be that modern players are less dogmatic about supposed middlegame "rules" and rely more on concrete calculation to evaluate the position.

Well, I don't doubt that some middlegame positions were unnecessarily discarded by previous generations of players because they seemed undesirable on general positional grounds. But this "overlooking" of the dynamic possibilities in certain positions does not entail that the same players did not understand the fundamental strategic point i.e. sometimes dynamic chances can equal or outweigh static weaknesses - see, for example, their willingness to play positions with an IQP or hanging pawns. Furthermore, I am never really sure how modern players are supposed to be more "concrete" in their approach to the middlegame. In positions of a tactical nature I pretty certain that Capablanca and Lasker "calculated" as much as modern players.

"Useful work, doubtful theory"
This is a very useful book for every active chess player. You learn a lot about original strategies and methods that modern chess players use. As such, the book is good, really inspiring and highly-recommended.

However, the author did not want this to be an instructional text only but rather a book on philosophical/basic aspects of chess strategy, and I find his theory simply wrong. It seems correct that chess is basically "rule independent" and that in the end only analysis counts. But unlike other authors (like Kasparov in his recently published "Predecessors" books) who stress the gradual development of chess thought with different contributions by different players over time, Watson seems to claim that there is a "conceptual shift" somewhere between modern and traditional chess, with the classical players following some written or unwritten rules and modern players relying on concrete analysis. As I know hundreds of examples of "classical players" using strategies given by Watson as "modern" and as there are plenty of quotes of classical players making a case for the concrete analytical approach (and modern players talking about the "laws of chess" as well!) I must regard his theory as refuted. One could go into many details but overall his case does not convince me at all, even if it might help to correct some dogmatic player's world view.