After reviewing a previous book by Mr. Aagaard, he and I shared a short correspondence. In the review, I had wondered why he felt it necessary to attack individual players when nothing was gained by doing so. In fact, it seemed to me that his criticisms of the ideas of his fellow IM and GM writers (and, at times, his subtle and not so subtle barbs) were rather shallow and off the wall. When all was said and done, it appeared that he intended to stop this kind of thing and leave people who couldn’t defend themselves on his pages alone. Sadly, I was mistaken.

In his EXCELLING AT CHESS (which won the ChessCafe.com book of the year award – one of its competitors was the awful RAPID CHESS IMPROVEMENT, which tells you a lot about the level of nominated books), Aagaard went after John Watson’s brilliant and award winning SECRETS OF MODERN CHESS STRATEGY with a vengeance (To see Silman’s review of Watson’s book, click HERE. To see Watson’s review of EXCELLING AT CHESS, and his discussion of the horror he felt when viewing this unprovoked attack for the first time, click HERE.). To MY horror, when I cracked open Aagaard’s new EXCELLING AT POSITIONAL CHESS I noted that he jumped right into his anti-Watson diatribe again (Apparently, he’s unable to understand what Watson is really saying, or perhaps he’s merely threatened by a man whose thoughts are far deeper than his own.).

Other disturbing features of EXCELLING AT POSITIONAL CHESS: his list of recommended books features two of mine, but in both cases he gets the publisher wrong (first giving “Silman James Press,” when in fact it’s Siles Press, and then going completely berserk and giving “Jeremy Silman Press,” which I think was an ill-conceived attempt at humor on his part.); the beginning of his introduction sees him denigrating himself, and then he does an about-face throughout the book when he tries to make the reader believe that the most obvious aspects of basic strategy are somehow his own creations.

The fact of the matter is, I’ve enjoyed most of Aagaard’s books and usually recommend them. But his “trash the competition” attitude is completely unnecessary and only cheapens the good work he does.

Here’s a case in point, where he u

ses an example from Watson’s SECRETS OF MODERN CHESS STRATEGY.

WHITE TO MOVE

Yusupov played 1.Nh3 and Watson commented: “Don’t put your knights on the rim! Well, knights are living on the edge these days, as we shall see in chapter 5. But the case before us is really simple. Neither side is about to make any dramatic pawn-breaks, so there is plenty of time to manoeuvre pieces to their best posts. In the case before us, that would involve the knight going to d3 via f2; where would it go from e2? As McDonald points out, Nf2-d3 could be followed by Nd2-c4 and Bc1-d2-c3 with a three-way attack on the forward e-pawn.”

I’ve used this position as an instructive tool for many years, first pointing out how White’s position is without weakness, and then showing them that White will try to take away all advanced posts from the black knights by c2-c3 (If black plays …Nc6. The f3-pawn already effectively kills the f6-knight.). Next I ask them where black’s weakest link is, and eventually they come to grasp that this target resides on e5. Thus, as white develops he will do two things: deprive the enemy pieces of advanced squares and maneuver as many of his own forces as possible to squares that enable them to attack e5.

One dream position (where black has played like a lemming) is:

TIME TO DROOL

Note how all of black’s pieces are immobilized and how white has more space on both wings. The most instructive thing, though, is how white’s two knights are banging on e5. Though white can win in many ways here, the most thematic is 1.Bf2 followed by 2.Bg3 when e5 falls.

Aagaard doesn’t bother with any of this. Instead, he argues that knights on the rim eventually head towards the center, and this means that the old rule, “Never place your Knights on the rim.” is still valid. In this example, of course, he’s right; the knight move to h3 was merely a way to get to f2, which in turn allows an eventual Nd3. Unfortunately, Aagaard then went berserk in his usual confrontational way, by saying, “I believe that John is mistaken in his view on Tarrasch and the others as dogmatic people who did not think.” Who are these mysterious “others?” And, since Watson (Whom I consider to be America’s greatest chess writer on advanced concepts.) never said that Tarrasch “did not think,” why is it necessary to misquote people in a lame effort to prove your own point?

Let’s look at a quick case where a knight on the rim is actually a hero.

KNIGHT ON THE RIM IS GRIM: FOR THE OPPONENT!

The white knight is ideally placed on a5 since it hits the target on b7 and also puts pressure on c6 (preventing the b7-pawn from moving). It has no interest in rushing back to the center, though that might happen in the future. In simple terms, “Your pieces should be able to strike terror into the opponent’s weaknesses.” If this calls for sticking a knight on the rim, then go for it!

I think the idea of the “sanctity of rules” is what drives Aagaard’s “problem” with Watson. But let’s face facts: even though I myself spout rules galore in my books, I recognize that ALL rules are meant to be broken. Dogmatic rules like “Never place your Knights on the rim.” or “Bishops are stronger than knights in open positions.” give the student something to grasp onto. Such rules give players a base of understanding, and are a critical factor in everyone’s development. But, once you reach a certain level (perhaps 1600), you realize that knights really are well placed on the rim from time to time, that doubled pawns ARE often good things rather than bad, that a well-placed knight in an open position CAN dominate a bishop. And, once you get even higher up the ratings ladder (perhaps 2200), you start to make use of the exceptions as easily as you follow the rule.

It’s this ability (in fact, this need) to step beyond dogma that makes chess endlessly interesting. And the idea of stepping beyond dogma is what Watson’s (somewhat advanced) book is all about.

Aagaard should proudly present his beloved basic rules because all teachers know that they are absolutely necessary for proper chess growth (You can’t become a master of ballet if you don’t know how to walk!). But he should also quit barking at ideas more profound than his own since John is, ultimately, correct. Yes, Watson’s arguments might not be useful in a practical way to non-masters, but this doesn’t mean they don’t present a deeper, more realistic view of what chess is all about at the highest levels.

Though Aagaard’s comments and ideas (such as improving the position of a poorly placed piece, or making use of a weakened square) simplistically parrot my own (Not to mention the many far better players who wrote about these same things long before we did.), the examples he’s chosen tend to be excellent and any reader who tries to solve these positional problems will benefit. If we push aside Aagaard’s misguided attempts to prove himself and his unnecessary snubs, we are actually left with another good effort by the Danish international master.