A Soviet classic - that's what it says on the front cover. And for good reason, I think. At the beginning of this year, I decided I would invest some time studying strategy books. I already had a number of them in my collection, and then I stumbled upon a thread in the facebook group ”chess book collectors”. The post contained some controversial claims about the book Question of modern chess theory, which was unfamiliar to me at the time. The post and the ensuing discussions piqued my interest, and I decided to check it out. After some research, I realized that this was a stepping stone for many other books, so I put it at the top of my reading list. I read it during the summer, but haven't got around to writing a review before now. So I actually had to read it again. Anywho, I am finally ready to share my thoughts with the world. Hope you enjoy it.
If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details.
Become a Patron!
If you like these reviews, please consider supporting my work. Visit my patreon page for details.
Become a Patron!
What can you expect from this book?
Before getting into the details of the book, I would like to write a few words about the author. Have you heard of Isaac Lipnitsky before? I know I hadn't, not before hearing about this book. Researching the book (and the author) presented me with a few surprises. The book was originally published in the 1950s, and has been highly regarded among the Russian/Soviet chess books ever since. Prominent figures have praised the book, among them previous World champs Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov (who wrote the foreword to the English edition).
There is nothing unusual about this, but what is surprising is that Isaac Lipnitsky was only a candidate master. However, he was apparently a very strong player, who competed at the highest level, with wins against players such as former champs Petrosian and Smyslov, just to name a few. But for various reasons, he never managed to earn the grandmaster title.
After mentioning that the book was lauded by elite players, other sources seem of little importance. However, I would like to mention a few. There is a positive review on chess.com, which claims that ”Questions of Modern Chess Theory is without doubt one of the best chess books of all time”. The book has also received very positive reviews on Amazon (4.4/5). Elijah Logozar praised the book and gave it five stars.
My version of the book is the second print of the English edition, published by Quality Chess in 2008. So if you have a different edition, the page references may deviate.
The book consists of 16 chapters and an appendix with selected games from Lipnitsky's career. The first five chapters concern the opening and the importance of controlling the centre. Although this should be a well known principle for most, I think the importance of central control is very well illustrated.
The following four chapters are, in my opinion, the most interesting in the entire book. This concerns positional evaluation in various forms. According to Lipnitsky, this is the most important skill of a chessplayer.
A chessplayer's strength is proportional to the correctness of which he evaluates positions. Thus, the art of correctly and objectively appraising a position is the decisive factor in a player's skill which prompts him to take the right decision. (p. 73)
This is a statement that has been put forth by many masters and coaches. But how can a player develop these skills? There are, of course, many laws/rules/principles that can assist in the process of evaluating a position, but they are not universally applicable. This is something that has also been stated by many masters and coaches. One argument goes like this; grandmasters don't use principles to evaluate a position, so they are not valid at all. This is, of course, nonsense. A grandmaster doesn't need them because they are internalized - they "just know" what the right assessment (and thereby the correct move) is.
If a player studies chess seriously, then as he gains experience, certain distinct positional skills are formed. A "feel for the position", or positional flair, evolves. (p. 98)
One problem is that principles of positional evaluation are not applicable in all positions. According to Lipnitsky, one must first distinguish between two types of positions; critical and settled positions, which he defines as such: "Settled positions are those which can be assessed according to a number of positional factors without any additional calculation of variations." (p. 88)
Settled positions are often described as "quiet". It is the type of position in which a patzer, such as myself, often doesn't know what to do. It is in these positions that general principles can be applied (see my review of How to reassess your chess for a few examples) A critical position, on the other hand, requires concrete analysis and calculation. According to Lipnitsky, analysis and evaluation are intertwined and form a sort of closed circle:
The aim of analysis is to convert "critical" positions into "settled" ones which can be evaluated on the basis of positional factors. Correct understanding of the position is therefore of decisive significance for a chessplayer. (p. 98)
This is a perspective that I have never seen presented before, at least not explicitly. Quite a few pieces fell in place in my mind after reading Lipnitsky's description of this process, and examples thereof. In my opinion, this concept alone is well worth the time and money spent on this book.
Apparently, the original version (in Russian) contained about 120 pages of detailed analysis of the Ragozin variation of the queen's gambit. Some readers have complained that the Quality chess have excluded this in the English translation. I can understand the argument, as it is not true to the original book. However, I can also see the publisher's point; that the opening analysis is not as relevant nowadays. Personally, it is the kind of thing that I would probably skim through very quickly anyway, so I don't miss it.
I really enjoyed this book, and found it quite enlightening. I think Karpov sums it up quite well in the foreword:
Needless to say, Lipnitsky's book falls into the latter category. It is well written, and it has a good balance between game analyses and prose. Critical positions are explained and discussed in sufficient detail, without going too deep into various sidelines. The quality of the book makes it even more surprising that it hadn't come up on my radar before. After all, it is a classic - it even says so on the front cover.There are some books whose authors strive to convince you that two and two make four and the Volga flows into the Caspian sea. And then there are some books which stimulate thought.
If you would like more details about the book, fellow blogger and ”chesspunk” Martin/SayChess has posted a series of videos on this book. Here is a link to the first one. You should be able to find the rest from that link.
A small excerpt from the book, including the table of contents, can be found at the publisher's webpage.
Who should read this book?
Although I have labeled this as an "intermediate" book, I do not really see any reason why it couldn't be read by anyone. The content is pretty straightforward and doesn't really require all that much basic knowledge. Of course, absolute beginners will not grasp much, but once you're past that level, I think this books will make a pretty good read. That being said, you will probably get the most out of this book if you are a fairly experienced player, with a playing strength above 1500 Elo.
About this book
| Author: | Isaac Lipnitsky |
| Title: | Questions of modern chess theory |
| Type of book: | Middlegame |
| Level: | Intermediate |
Comments
Post a Comment