I must admit that the Nimzowitsch classic My System was never a favorite of mine (is this heresy?). Though it is filled with great information, I found the whole book to be a bit dull (I much prefer his Chess Praxis).

During a visit to a friend of mine in San Francisco, I noted that the original edition of Nimzowitsch's classic--published as several separate books---came out in German (he has them all signed by the great man himself!). These original books are very different than the English version: in the originals we see Nimzowitsch attack most of the other grandmasters of his day (This was edited out of later editions. Politically correct but artistically stupid decisions ruled the day even then!); the originals also show a biting humor that is sorely lacking in the poorly translated English editions.

Though I've played with the idea of getting these books re-translated so that Nimzowitsch's true wit and angst are given free reign, the difficulty of finding a translator who can do a proper job, and, of course, the money involved have put the breaks on my good intentions. I was actually delighted, then, when Chess Digest sent me a copy of Jan van Reek's book. The subtitle Revision of Nimzowitsch's "My System" immediately shows us that the author is either very brave or very confused. Sadly, it turns out to be the latter.

The author considers My System to be one of the most important chess books in history. However, he feels that Nimzowitsch's terminology confuses readers; naturally, Mr. van Reek feels compelled to come to the rescue and make what was once obscure very, very clear. The ability to synthesize Nimzowitsch's concepts into easily palatable bits is something that few authors possess. In the present case, Jan van Reek's lack of writing skills mix with his limited understanding of the concepts which he wants to expound to us. The result isn't pretty.

• My first gripe concerns the very poor use of the English language. Clumsy and lacking in energy, Mr. van Reek's writing makes anything worth thinking about quite inaccessible (the editors should be flogged!).
• My second gripe is a show-stopper. To quote from page eight: "Simple centralization is known as a fast development of pieces, usually accompanied by sacrifices in order to gain time, from the games of Morphy versus weak opponents. Then the pieces, placed in or nearby the center, have sufficient power for a decisive attack on the king." In one paragraph the author has shown us that he doesn't understand what he is talking about! I read this description of centralization to several grandmasters and IMs who went wild with laughter or simply groaned in despair. Everyone knows that centralization has nothing to do with fast development (they are separate things). By ending his explanation with a "decisive attack on the king," the author makes the typical amateur mistake of equating strategic thought with some sort of desire to attack. (For another example of this lack of understanding, look at page 58 where he shows that he doesn't understand overprotection either. His note to Black's 15th move is both useless and completely wrong.)
• My third criticism centers around the examples. After (poorly) explaining a concept, he offers illustrative games that contain very few notes. The little bit he does give is completely lacking in instructional content. This holds true for each and every game he presents. Next on the agenda is the author's use of his own terminology. As Hans Kmoch discovered, creating your own words and terms is possible at times, but is usually taken poorly by the chess playing public. One example (and many can be given) from van Reek's book: In a graph showing the components of prophylaxis, he starts with restraint and blockade, moves on to consolidation with doses of over protection and heroic defense thrown in (so far, so good), and then goes berserk by giving "frustrating the opponent" (I won't be too harsh with this. I know what he's trying to say and this phrase does paint a picture) and "terrier chess." At this point I saw myself playing a game, using various forms of prophylaxis, and then saying to myself, "Ahhh, now I'm going to finish him off with a dose of terrier chess!" The final two blips on his prophylaxis graph, counterplan and counterattack, are not really a part of prophylaxis. However, he claims they are and then proceeds to give absolutely horrible explanations for both terms.

Overall, I somehow see van Reek's work as being something a good chess student would do after reading My System. He would write out the ideas he has learned, perhaps come up with new examples that illustrate these concepts, and try to elaborate on these strategies in depth. All this in commendable. However, why would anyone publish the resulting personal journal? It's time for chess publishers to take some responsibility for the material they heap upon an unsuspecting chess public (and, right along with small publishers who don't care about quality control, I also take aim at Simon and Schuster, Batsford, and other big houses who put out an endless amount of garbage).

Quite honestly, this is one of the worst chessbooks I've ever seen!