How can a book by the present second best player in the world (only Kasparov is superior) be bad? Well, if that player is Anand, it can't! In many ways, the Indian genius is a mutant chess player: incredibly strong, modest and down to earth, honest, calm; nothing like the megalomaniac who holds the number one spot at the moment (not to mention all the other socially challenged players at the top).

In the present book, Anand analyzes forty of his best games, right up to Biel 1997. He also gives some light history about his chess travels, but he admits that this isn't the real purpose of the book. Personally, I found this game collection to be highly enjoyable. Anand's style is devoid of the usual self-worship, and he sounds like someone you would actually enjoy hanging out with (which, I should add, is right on the money! He's a hell of a nice guy).

Now for a reality check. If a player doesn't really bother with too much biographical material or in-depth explanations about life at the top, we are left with the games. Since all the games can be found in many other sources, that leaves us with the notes. In this book, Anand's notes are both a strength and a weakness.

The strength of his notes centers around his ability to tell a story in the midst of reams of analysis or in the midst of a complicated opening discussion (as can be seen on page 23).

The weakness of his notes (if it can be called a weakness...it really depends on the audience he wishes to address) is that he tends to explain positions with moves and deep analysis instead of explanation. He tells us that one side is better because he has two Bishops, but why are the Bishops good in that position? He explains that he wants to place his pieces here and there (showing his planned piece deployment), but why should they be brought to those squares? This makes the book less useful for players under the expert mark.