Neither Simple nor Winning

Taylor Kingston

Simple Winning Chess, by IM Chris Baker, 1999 Everyman Chess,
Figurine Algebraic Notation, Softcover, 144 pp., $18.95 

In preparing this review we pondered the question of what made a
chess instructional book good, in particular one aimed at readers of
average or below-average ability. The playing strength of the
author is not a guarantee: great players have written very good
books (e.g. Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals) but also bad, while
relatively unimportant players have written some superbly
instructive works (e.g. Chernev's Logical Chess). It seemed that
two major factors Chernev had in common with Capablanca,
despite an Elo gap of probably some 500 points, were simplicity
and clarity. Both had a clear idea of their readers' needs and
abilities, and were able to present simple (but progressively higher-
level) lessons in such a clear fashion that the student would
practically feel blinders being lifted from his eyes, would almost
see fog lifting and the chessboard coming into clear focus.

Despite the promise of its title, such simplicity and clarity are
mostly lacking from Simple Winning Chess by British IM Chris
Baker. This is instead a rather hurried, inconsistent pastiche, which
though presenting some good material, does it in a poorly designed
way that can confuse as much as educate. It might be more
accurately titled Cool Stuff from My Games, Plus Obvious Advice
and Recycled Clich‚s.

Firstly, Baker does not seem to have a clear grasp of his intended
readership. Early in his first chapter he seems to be addressing
beginners who think that Scholar's Mate (which he mistakenly
calls Fool's Mate) is the acme of opening theory. Yet a few pages
later he's discussing esoteric theoretical novelties by Kasparov and
making comments such as "The stem game for this move was
Petzold-Molinari, 2nd Bundesliga 1995/6." Readers who can
understand such notes will be bored by the introductory narrative,
while those to whom the introductory remarks apply will be left
behind when Baker gets down to business.

That business involves in large part the presentation of purportedly
instructive highlights from his own games. The aforementioned
lack of simplicity and clarity is apparent in this representative
example, Houska-Baker, Cardiff 1998 (See Diagram).

Baker says "Now let's look at [a position] where a decision needs
to be taken on how to proceed and a plan formed ... It is clear that
Black is nicely placed but the question is: what should he play
next? 15...Rd8, 15...0-0, 15...0-0-0 and 15...e5 all seem viable and
attractive. This is where a sharp eye, judgement and planning come
into their own. As the game shows, Black's position is not only
attractive but almost completely winning! 15...0-0-0! 16 c3 e5 17
b5 exd4! 18 bxc6 dxc3 19 Qxc3 Qg2!! - This 'quiet' move ... is
enough to seal White's fate. It was necessary to envision this move
prior to 15...0-0-0 ... I used twenty minutes on this move ..." and so
on, Black eventually winning after 20 Rf1 Rhe8+ 21 Ne2 Qe4 22
Qh3+ Kb8 23 Qe3 Qc2 24 Rc1 Qxb2 etc.

Leaving aside the grammatical question of "how to a plan formed,"
let's examine just the chess-related problems of this paragraph.
Baker says planning is important, then describes no plan. Saying
"the question is: what should he play next?" is highly redundant;
that is always the question in any chess position with more than
one legal move (unless we're talking retrograde analysis). He says
Black is "nicely placed" but does not specify how. Baker outlines
no imbalances, rather, to use Jeremy Silman's phrase, he "just
looks at a bunch of moves." He does not point out key factors the
master sees but the amateur may not, such as that Black can castle
queenside with gain of tempo while White can't, that this means
White's King might be forced to remain in the center as files open,
or that White's impending b4-b5 means Black must act quickly. He
does not even explain why his chosen move is better than the other
alternatives mentioned. He says it was necessary to envision his
19th move before deciding on his 15th, but gives no clue how he
did this. His using 20 minutes on 19...Qg2 seems to contradict his
claim of foreseeing it four moves earlier. Finally, the position is
not even a good choice to illustrate planning, as it requires
immediate (and for an amateur player rather difficult) tactical
calculation rather than long-term (or even short-term) strategy. 

This is by no means the only such example. Repeatedly Baker
presents his "greatest hits" as if their lessons were self-evident,
when to the average player they will not be. We don't fault him for
using many of his own games (what is chess for if not a little
showing off now and then?), and we will not say his examples
have no instructive value, but it is essential in this kind of book
that they be appropriately chosen, systematically organized, and
clearly explained. Instead they are just thrown together under
general headings ("Opening Preparation", "Middlegame
Technique") and given commentary that does not teach so much as
say "Look at this good move I made!". One might as well give
someone an Eric Clapton album and say "Here, this will teach you
to play guitar." 

Chapters not dominated by Baker's games are often derivative and
unoriginal. "Endgame Technique" offers little not already covered
by Lucena and Philidor centuries ago, not to mention dozens of
writers since. The material on how to play against much weaker or
stronger opponents was handled better and more entertainingly
(and for less money) by IM Simon Webb in Chess For Tigers
(Cadogan, 1990). The chapter on blunders relies on some of the
most hackneyed, over-used examples in chessdom, such as
Spassky-Fischer, 1st match game 1972, and Bronstein-Botvinnik,
6th match game 1951. Dr. Samuel Johnson once told a writer "I
found your book both good and original. However the part that was
good was not original, and the part that was original was not
good." (or words to that effect). Those comments, made over 200
years ago, still find their mark today. 

Baker commits an egregious gaffe in his discussion of the
Bronstein-Botvinnik game. In this famous position (See Diagram)

Bronstein could have drawn with 57 Ne6+, but instead played 57
Kc2?? and resigned after 57...Kg3!. Baker takes this as an occasion
for a lengthy critique (about a half-page) of what he imagines
Bronstein's thought processes were, e.g. "White, however, decided
to try to stop the e-pawn with his king and to stop Black's a-pawn
with his knight ... Had he thought further he would have realized
the error of his logic ..." and so on. What presumptuous nonsense!
As is well known (see for example Fox & James' The Even More
Complete Chess Addict, pp. 179-180), Bronstein saw the correct
move, but falling into an absent-minded reverie he accidentally
touched the King and had to move it. An advantage of using well-
worn material is that the facts are usually easily available, but
Baker seems in too much of a hurry to bother.

This feeling of hurriedness pervades the book. Some topics are
covered so superficially that they might as well have been left out.
Another casualty of haste is language. Baker's writing follows the
informal, breezy style of other British authors such as Chris Ward
and Joe Gallagher, but informality does not require frequent
grammatical error. The king's English is mangled in such phrases
as "This aides them", "somebody who has taken them under their
wing", and "a big gap to breach". Subject-verb agreement is a
problem, e.g. "nearly every move played, apart from the
inaccuracies, were considered by Fritz ...". I can hear Dr. Johnson
(among other things a lexicographer) spinning in his grave.

Several chapters are light on game examples and heavy on advice.
Some of this is interesting, worthwhile, and relatively new, such as
the chapter "Chess and Computers", which has some good tips on
using databases and playing programs. Other advice is trite and
obvious; for example a player who has trouble as Black with non-
main lines in the King's Indian and Sicilian is advised to "buy a
good book on anti-King's Indians and anti-Sicilians."

And sometimes Baker just seems to be filling up space. In the
chapter "Clock-Handling", well over a page is spent on a game in
which one player handled time pressure well and the other did not.
Baker concludes "I put this down to: a) Ruth Sheldon being used to
time-pressure. b) Krzysztof Panczyk being a good positional player
who has not played a lot of quality chess recently and therefore had
not found his 'touch'. Also he is not a very good blitz player for a
player of his standard." This information may be of use to those
who will play Sheldon or Panczyk in the near future, but for the
rest of us it seems rather irrelevant. Also the explanation that
Panczyk did poorly in time pressure because "he is not a very good
blitz player" seems more tautological than insightful.

We don't want to give the impression that SWC is entirely bad. It is
definitely a cut above the silly meaderings of Paul Motwani, and
several above the haphazard junk churned out by Eric Schiller.
Still, that is relatively faint praise. Baker appears to know some
things worth imparting to his readers, but he badly needs to
improve his writing skills, and to narrow and clarify his focus.
Both the range of topics addressed in SWC's scant 144 pages, and
the range of readers he seems to be addressing (from about Elo
1000 to 2200), are far too wide.

So, speaking as we were of obvious advice, it should be obvious
what our advice on this book is: save your money, unless you feel
that $18.95 is a fair price to pay for the few dozen pages that offer
anything worthwhile not covered better elsewhere. If a $20 bill is
burning a hole in your pocket, we would yet advise patience: we
will soon review a book (The Amateur's Mind by IM Jeremy
Silman) which costs only one dollar more than Simple Winning
Chess but is far more instructive, having as it does those qualities
of simplicity and clarity that are essential to a book of this type.