|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Devious Chess How to Bend the Rules and Win Reviewed by Rick Kennedy
Amatzia Avni is a psychologist and chess International Master. His interest in chess psychology is shown in his books Danger in Chess: How to Avoid Making Blunders (1994, 2003), Practical Chess Psychology: A Chess Player's Behavioral Guide (2001) and The Grandmaster’s Mind (2004). He also likes imaginative and out-of-the-ordinary chess, as he showed in his Creative Chess (1991, 1997) and Surprise in Chess (1998). His latest title, Devious Chess, subtitled How to Bend the Rules and Win, is related to all of these books – but arrives with some packaging that will no doubt frustrate or befuddle some would-be buyers. My dictionary defines devious as “deviating from a right, accepted, or common course,” which seems to be a reasonable enough description of the chess within. However, Batsford has chosen to add to the Queen, Bishop and two pawns on the cover of the book a red and devilish-looking Rook with the requisite horns and pointed tail – can we expect, then, an updating of Jerry Sohl’s Underhanded Chess: A Hilarious Handbook of Devious Diversions and Stratagems for Winning at Chess (1973) [e.g. fussing with imaginary flies and against unseen spectators], or of William Hartston’s How to Cheat at Chess (1977, 1994) [e.g., the pawn move to “KR3 ¾”] ? Especially when we’re talking about “how to bend the rules and win,” right? Apparently not. Even though the back cover pumps up the possibility:
What Avni means by “devious” is not underhanded gamesmanship per se, but chess that may be complex, risky, opportunistic, impudent, not obvious, double-edged, materially unbalanced, sometimes unsound, sailing in uncharted waters, or lacking familiar anchors and stratagems. His contrast: "Regular chess is anchored on clearly defined principles, leans on a theoretical body of research." Here Avni seems to duck John Watson’s argument in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (1998) that modern chess does not have such principles – but it is clear in any event that his Devious Chess is not a challenge to the rules of the game according to Hoyle (or FIDE or the USCF). Rather, it is a challenge to stuffy or routine play. Substitute the word “unconventional” for “devious,” as the author does in the Introduction, and we’re still talking about exciting, often tense and unpredictable chess, which he suggests can be found in the games of “Tal, Shirov, Morozevich, Murey, Miles, Rossolimo, Larsen, Bronstein and Planinc, among others.” It is here that Avni is in his element, and why club players in particular (the target audience) will enjoy Devious Chess. Weaving his insights from chess and psychology around over 150 games or game positions (or occasionally a position from a study), as well as 14 puzzles for the reader, he explores the nature of “devious chess,” how to conduct it and how to combat it, where to find game examples, and what this form of chess might hold for new practitioners. His own envoi to the adventurer, as it were:
Which kind of reminds me of those t-shirts that proclaim “Chess is Life” – and I suspect Avni might be talking here about more than just the 64 squares… A few closing notes: The chapter on “Coffeehouse Chess” made my heart soar – but only for a scant six pages. Attention chess book publishers: give psychologist Avni a database of games by Diemer, Gedult, Gunderam, Myers, Nakamura, and Shirazi – for starters – and set him to work on a definitive work on the subject! A book twice as thick as this one would barely scratch the surface. The layout of Devious Chess has the usual diagrams, fonts, bolding, italics and white space, as well as Parts, Chapters and sub-chapters, all of which produce pages that are easy on the eye. While I see the book as a buffet of unorthodox play, its organization would never be mistaken for that of Avni’s more structured, earlier Practical Chess Psychology (2001) – although Devious does have a page of academic-style references/footnotes, similar to Practical – and one reviewer has raised questions about the quality some of the writing, as well. Finally, my favorite position in the book, the one truly living up to the title:
|
The
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
