Rating: 
Summary: Right and wrong
Review: Aagaard with his presumption that the players who are better than other players just understand chess better (this "understanding" idea seems to stem from Botwinnik), the secret, mysterious hidden rules, is in my opinion right and wrong at the same time. When I play against a lower rated player, he might find himself in a position with a bad bishop, weak pawns, whatever. Maybe he did not know these concepts, maybe I forced him into the mess, by superiour calculatuion and vision. When I play against a higher rated player, I get into exactly the same trouble - but have I not proven before, that I do know these rules? The point is, that chess is tactics and very concrete. The better player tries to force the weaker one to "break" the rules. To suppose and prove with just a few examples, that Kasparov "understands" the game better than Karpov is at best highly speculative. How about all the games that Kasparov lost to him? In the end, every aging world champion gets beaten by his successor, but does that mean that the successor has a higher "understanding"? Still, Aagards book is great reading for every chess player, because he DOES tell us many aspects on how to improve - by study and work, not by learning some mysterious "rules". A good buy!
Rating:
Summary: Right and wrong
Review: Aagaard with his presumption that the players who are better than other players just understand chess better (this "understanding" idea seems to stem from Botwinnik), the secret, mysterious hidden rules, is in my opinion right and wrong at the same time. When I play against a lower rated player, he might find himself in a position with a bad bishop, weak pawns, whatever. Maybe he did not know these concepts, maybe I forced him into the mess, by superiour calculatuion and vision. When I play against a higher rated player, I get into exactly the same trouble - but have I not proven before, that I do know these rules? The point is, that chess is tactics and very concrete. The better player tries to force the weaker one to "break" the rules. To suppose and prove with just a few examples, that Kasparov "understands" the game better than Karpov is at best highly speculative. How about all the games that Kasparov lost to him? In the end, every aging world champion gets beaten by his successor, but does that mean that the successor has a higher "understanding"? Still, Aagards book is great reading for every chess player, because he DOES tell us many aspects on how to improve - by study and work, not by learning some mysterious "rules". A good buy!
Rating: 
Summary: Not for beginners (perhaps not intermdediates, either)
Review: I enjoy reading about chess at least as much as I enjoy playing it, and I look for books that will improve my play by (1) giving me something to practice (i.e. workbooks) or (2) correcting my thinking. This book purports to be in the second category, but I can tell you, as a beginner, I got nothing out of it. There is very little English describing how to excel; rather the author gives you games to look at as examples and you, the reader, are supposed understand the brilliance behind the moves. For me, this is not enough: I need a tour guide to show me the sights, not just a taxi driver to take me to them. I'm guessing that very good players don't need such hand-holding, hence my title for this review. One reviewer suggested that you will like this book if you like Rowson's "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins". Well, I'm only partway through TSDCS but I can tell you that I'm really enjoying it, but did not enjoy (or learn from) Excelling at Chess.
Rating: 
Summary: Taste
Review: I'd say the book is great, but as the title shows, that's a matter of taste. Some people like their books full of analysis, all filled with moves, and moves and... moves. Others like the books better when the moves are explained by letters, not by moves. That's what this book is about, it explains the moves in a nice way by telling what the thoughts are, and why some moves are so 'natural' to play. It makes you want to think that you can play just like the GM's in the book. Most of the time you're like 'I would have played all those moves as well, cos I understand the meaning of it, this must be a beginners-game', then you look at the names of the players and you see 'Karpov - Kasparov'.
For me this is a book which really helped. I think it is a good book for 1700 - 2100 rated players.
Rating:
Summary: Thank goodness someone would stand up to Watson!
Review: It has been a long four years in the world of philosphical discussion about chess, since John Watson came out with his epic Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. Watson's book is a comprehensive look at the elements of chess, as they have evolved since the time of Nimzowitsch. His book is based on the premise that the old masters were incorrect in thinking that chess is basedon rules, which more or less dictate the strategy and tactics to be applied in a game. I have always thought that Watson's book is a travesty in terms of its logical argument. It is a great chess book, due to the depth of its discussion, on both an historical and a substantive level, but his whole philosophical argument about the nature of chess is ridiculous. The whole argument that evaluation of a position must be based on concrete analysis rather than the application of rules is a truism in one sense, and false in another. In any field of knowledge, there are general rules or principles. For instance, when driving a car (in the USA), there is the rule that you should pass on the left. But if there is a snow plow traveling at 5 mph in the left lane, the "concrete analysis" dictates that you should pass on the right. Similar to this argument, Watson presents old rules such as "don't move a piece twice in the opening," and then presents specific examples to show that a player did the right thing by moving apiece twice in the opening. This is so Mickey-Mouse and simple an argument that it is amazing that Watson's book has received the acclaim it has. However, the present book, Excelling at CHess, is the first systematic attempt at refuting Watson's argument. Aagard likes Watson's book (as does everyone apparently), but he points out that general rules of positional understanding do often dicate that correct strategy to follow in a game, even though of course any ideas must be verified by concrete analysis. This is obviously true, and it is refreshing to hear someone say it. There is no question that Watson went way overboard with his arguments. THe Aagard book is an excellent, entertaining read that is full of insights into chess, what makes a great player, the competitive aspect of pklaying chess and imnproving, and many other issues. It is everything I love in a chess book. If you like The SSeven Deadly Chess Sins, Watson's book, The Road to Chess Improvement, and that type of book, you will like this one too. In summary, highly recommended: a refreshing and challenging book.
Rating: 
Summary: Muddled and Disorganized and Useless
Review: It is almost impossible for a negative review to survive the cutting process, so consider yourself lucky to see this one. I am USCF rated 2136 and I have enjoyed many chess books over the years from great authors such as Bronstein, Tal, Euwe, Jeremy Silman, and many others. This book from Aagaard is definitely not one of them. I regret the time I spent trying to read and comprehend it. I am not the only one who says this: for years I have heard veteran tournament chessplayers give the running joke that when we come across an incomprehensible, silly chess book, we wonder if it was actually ghost-authored by Aagaard.
Aagaard wrote this book with the same methods he uses for all of them: he looks in the CHESS INFORMANT for analysis and then he repeats it. Occasionally he tosses in his own ideas about what should have been done, and his variations almost invariably have giant holes in them that Fritz sees through in a millisecond. The guy is a weak chessplayer and it shows in his books. The only analysis worth anything is available to anyone who reads Chess Informant, i.e., any tournament chessplayer with a clue. Then Aagaard tosses in many paragraphs of his own philosophical reflections on chess which are so senseless, vague, disorganized and useless that it makes an eighth-grader's essay on his summer vacation seem like a model of order and sense.
Probably you have heard that ChessCafe.com gave this book an award for best chess book of the year. Remember the source: we are talking about people who answer online polls in their free time. Not exactly a select audience. Aagaard's works should be entered into competitions for the most silly, worthless, muddled chess writings available in English.
Rating:
Summary: entertaining
Review: This book begs comparison to Yermolinsky's The Road to Chess Improvement. And, the winner is ... they are both great! This one was motivated by Aagaard's intense self-analysis over his failure to achieve GM status. He honestly and objectively looked at himself, and at great players. He has some bizarre theories, such as that Kasparov is not NEARLY as good a calculator as Shirov (by the way, why is it that so many chess authors have bizarre theories?). There is a lot of great stuff in this book, especially the chapter on unforcing play.
Rating:
Summary: An inspiration to the serious chess player!
Review: This book is a true inspiration to all chess players that are serious about the game. The book is written in a very personal way and without question will help the tournament player (the ideal reader should be a tournament player). It talks about many topics from chess strategy, psychology of chess, and good training methods and advice. Are you a real chess player?
Rating: 
Summary: For weaker players
Review: This book is for the player whose rating is below 1800.
Aagaard's best books are Excelling at POSITIONAL Chess, Excelling at Chess Calculation and Excelling at Technical Chess, not this trite.
Excelling at Chess is the type of book Silman fans will love, but its overhyped by a bunch of extremely weak internet chess players.
If you think Excelling at Chess is a great masterpiece you have been mislead and are easily manipulated.
Rating:
Summary: A bold, 21st century classic
Review: This book sets itself apart from others of its ilk for a few reasons. First of all, Mr. Aagard has an engaging voice that comes across in the pages. He comes across as a real human being who has had ups and downs with chess. He has a lot of wit and warmth interspersed with very forthright analysis. A rare combination! This does not mean, however, that the book is somehow not serious. Far from it; he has a thesis regarding positional play and he defends it with rigor. He's not "my way or the highway" but at the same time makes a convincing case regarding what it takes to take a quantum leap in playing skill. But wait, there's more: Mr. Aagard's background in neuropsychology takes this book to a new level. He integrates fascinating info about cognition and perception and how it relates to chess. This is stuff that is compelling in its own right. Ultimately, I wouldn't have changed much with this book. It accomplishes exactly what it wants to, and points towards a "humanist" perspective on chess: train hard, but also realize that (a) it's a game between 2 human beings who must respect each other during the course of play, and (b) it's important to have fun. I really think this book will have a long shelf life--it certainly had a deep impact on how I approach the game.
|
