Customer Reviews

The Seven Deadly Chess Sins

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I agree with the other reviewer who commented this book was a good read but wouldn't improve their chess. I feel the same. I am a relatively newer, but serious chess player. Books like The Amateur's Mind by Silman were many times over more helpful to my playing. Rowson's book is more like...chess entertainment. The majority of the book is annotated grandmaster games, intertwined with quotes from famous philosophers. I like this book, it just isn't helpful to my game. When it boils down and I am in the middle of a real game, I am thinking back to Silman's book for ideas, never Rowson's - his book is just too abstract for me.

I am an international chess master and I have about 1000 chess books. the 7 deadly chess sins is superb. Honest,erudite,practical and philosophical. I wonder how Rowson managed to finish Oxford university,get GM title,write chess books,and remain sane and witty. I did not buy any chess book for 3 year(because they write books for money not for players!) but i sensed in this book great love,will to help,genuine research and dedication. Buy this book and you will understand chess deeply.

This book needed an editor.

The author sat down and attempted to write a book based on 7 different psychological aspects of the game. He successfully did so. Previous attempts on the subject (I am thinking of Krogius' book) were awfully dry. This book is anything but. In fact, the overarching theme of his book (the 7 deadly sins) lends itself, in the author's hands, to exposition rambling to the point of discursiveness. In short, this author occasionally goes off of "chess topics", which seems like heresy to some people.

His self-annotations of his games are brutually honest and illustrate the points about the sins that he wishes to make. They alone are worth the price of this book

But I sense that the author was in a fog as he wrote this book ("I must write the chess equivalent of physics "Theory of Everything", I can almost imagine him saying to himself), at times semi-blindly reaching to make his points, and using a barrage of words as a shield to duck behind.

He makes many good points, and if the prose in the book had been tightened a bit at points, this would be an excellent book.

I loved this book, but focused on the negative aspects of it to better inform the potential buyer. If you are willing to occasionally wade through the author's verbiage, this is an excellent book that covers a vastly under-explored area of chess literature.

This is the kind of chess book one is likely either to love or hate; it simply doesn't leave room for an indifferent response. It either has the ring of truth and wit for the reader because the reader shares the beliefs and values of the book or it seems pretentious and overblown. I confess that I loved it. I enjoyed a chess book that didn't look like an algebra text and talked about ego, concentration, materialism and Groucho Marx. I thought there were creative ideas throughout the text. Talking to one's pieces, for example, struck me as helpful - usually I just curse their clumsiness. My good friend hated this book. He wanted prescriptions, checklists, and forced move variations. It is a matter of taste. I should add that all this psychological "stuff" might be less relevant if the reader often overlooks tactical ideas that net the opponent a piece or pawn. It's a luxury to worry about perfectionism or thinking too much when you're down a piece.

This is a high quality book by a young upcoming grandmaster which takes on a very difficult subject: Self-psychology at chess. It is provocative, original, and honest.

However, it is my belief that players below USCF 1800 will not benefit from the work put into this book nearly as much as from comparable work put into any of several good books for the improving untitled player. I guess I think psychology needs to come after Tactics, Endgames, and Analysis of Grandmaster Games.

If you are over 1800, ignore everything I say for I know not what will improve your game.

I am currently rated 1860 uscf and over the last year my rating has increased from 1490. This book was instrumental. After playing chess for 10+ years I had no idea why I couldn't seem to play better. In nearly every game, I would see the correct move, discard it and play an obviously weaker move I KNEW was bad. Strong experts and masters would tell me after analyzing with them that I didn't need more chess books or a coach, what I needed was a psychiatrist. In comes Seven Deadly Chess Sins. My results since my purchase have been excellent. The last tournament I played in I defeated 3 1900+ players and drew a 2000+. This book will not teach you how to play chess, generate plans, or discuss the pros and cons of Na6 in the King's Indian. It will help you understand yourself and the struggle that typifies chess. This is exactly what I needed. By allowing me to eliminate my mental mistakes and play chess I was capable of, my results and playing strength have increased.

If you want books to make you a "better" player buy a Silman or Dvoretsky. If you are like me and already own these, and have read them and want to understand why you still play moves you know are wrong this is your book. His ideas are abstract, and sometimes hard to understand but the time invested pondering what Rowson is trying to say will help you understand your chess better. This book also reminded me through stories and anecdotes why I love chess.

In my opinion, if you are serious about your chess, you should own this book.

After reading many chess books, it's clear that they are written for many different reasons. Some are written to make money, others are written to educate from the perspective of the long-time teacher (Soltis and Beim .. both excellent!) and others are written from the perspective of the student. The later is the approach from a very young Jonathon Rowson, Scotland's youngest GM (so says the cover of the book, I wonder if they'll still put that on there in 30 years when he also might be the oldest!).

In any case, Rowson does an excellent job explaining what he believes are the most important lessons in chess through the use of weaknesses or deficiencies that we all have (and need to fess up to). The book is very much written as a self-examination with very obvious academic references pulled in that most likely the author experience in his non-chess education at the same time he was maturing as a chess player. The end result is a very fine work with many very well annotated games with just the right pauses to consider points not often considered in the every day annotation. He also references other GMs with the reverence one has for a fine teacher and attempts to translate that wisdom to the hopefully sponge-like reader.

The bottom line is that most of it works quite well and the material is probably most effective if you're of a somewhat advanced player. Even lower rank players can benefit from this book if they truly want to dig a bit past the general result of a loss.

The book has plenty of diagrams and can be read without a chess board. The production of the book is wonderful and if you get past a bit of the pretentiousness and the gimmicky nature of something like "Seven Deadly Chess Sins", you'll find a very instructive book. I will add though that the book is mainly targeted at the middle game but full games are almost always given. The book lacked a bit in explanation of technique in some cases in winning, but one really should look to other books for finishing games off with good technique (Soltis' book for example).

The four stars (rather than five) really has to do with some of the material including antecdotes, examples and other explanations a bit too far from the theme that he was trying to achieve. The biggest problem was the lack of synthesis of the deadly sins. Some minor cross references were given but rarely was any real explanation given for the presence of multiple sins (or faults) and how they play together. The book would have worked much better if he cut the chapters in half and then went through illustrative examples using an approach of synthesis of all sins.

In any case, the reader who wants a bit of something different with high instructive value should definitely consider this book. It certainly is worth the money.

Rowson has created a very interesting and insightful work. Having been a sales manager, CEO, and owner of my own business during the course of my career, these 7 deadly sins can be applied to most anything.

I think what Rowson is trying to say is that in addition to hard work one must also be able to look deep within themselves and decide how bad they really want to improve their results. Do you want to be a better father, husband, employee, Chess player, whatever. Chessplayers, much like obese people, look for hope in every fad book, or fad diet. The answer lies in working hard and having the discipline to hone your craft. "Disciplined people; discipline thought; disciplined action." (Good To Great, Collins, J.)

As the quote on page 66, says: "It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; It is because we do not dare that things are difficult."

How often have we decided to put off practice (in whatever capacity) until the next day? How often do we concern ourselves with the end result while not enjoying the journey? How many of us have skipped a tournament because we were "unprepared." It is these points that Rowson is making, and he does so brilliantly when he ties them into the chosen chess games within the book.

If you want a book that can help you look at Chess from a whole new perspective, this is the one. If you are looking for a theoretical chess training guide you can look elsewhere. The bottom line is that this book belongs in your chess library, provided you are at least 1800 and old enough to grasp some of the deeper messages that are captured within.

One of the most enjoyable and thought provoking chess books I have ever read, and certainly one of the few that, if I was forced to give up most of my collection, would remain with me.

This book is not for all chess players. It is not a book about tactics, combinations, opening, middle-game or end-game strategy. It is also not a book containing analysis of "famous" games. This book re-examines the intangible and cloudy thought process that the player goes through during a match, and proposes a new methodology ("approach" may be a better word) for "thinking" and "feeling" by identifying what the author considers the major mental "traps" of the chess player (hence the title "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins"). It is more philosophical and abstract in nature and is not really designed to improve your chess from a technical perspective. It does however, in great detail, show you how to re-evaluate how to "think" about chess. And in that sense this book is a delightful rarity and extremely valuable.

What are the seven deadly sins? "Thinking", (yes, Rowson tells us you can think too much in chess!), "Blinking", "Wanting", "Materialism", "Egosim", "Perfectionism", and "Looseness". In a nutshell, Rowson explains that emotion is much more involved in our chess thinking than we would care to admit, and that emotion can manifest itself in these various "sins" without us ever realizing or caring to acknowledge it.

The author has a great writing style that exudes his love for the game, that is one of the books biggest appeals. Perhaps it is his Scottish lineage which makes for some interesting quips, like this one: "Black may point to them and say `Look! Weak pawns: doubled and isolated!' But that is a bit like pointing to a mole on Cindy Crawford's face and saying `Look! Black spot; obvious and protruding!' As with any face, you miss much if you look at the parts seperate from the whole". The book is full of dry and humurous analogies like this one which make for a pleasurable read.

It is true, as one reviewer noted, that Rowson delves into subject matter which may not be his area of expertise, but so what? His insights are interesting and in most cases quite relevant. A few reviewers have also said, they liked the book but claimed it wouldn't help their chess. I submit that, just as with concentrated study of chess "theory", this book will help, but first you must open your mind to Rowson's theories and "practice" them as you would any other technique. Chess is not for the lazy and applying Rowson's ideas are no different.

There are hundreds of thousands of chess books available to choose from, but to me this one is a diamond in the rough. Simply put, if you love chess, you will love this book.

Jonathan Rowson is a GM and a three-time British champion. His "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins" is a book about how we think in chess. Although it is pitched at the level of expert players, even a wood-pusher like me found some valuable insights. Rowson writes engagingly and with considerable wit - this is not another dry-as-peeled-paint book about chess. It is a philosophical reflection on how chess is played at the highest levels and what we can all learn from this. The most fascinating part for me were Rowson's thoughts on objectivity.

He makes two radical claims about objectivity in chess:
(1) that it is impossible to be objective during a game
(2) that it is not even desirable.

Rowson, "When we make decisions from a 'subjective' viewpoint we tend to think that we are making some sort of mistake, and should strive instead to be 'objective'." Being 'objective' in chess means seeing the position as it actually is, uncontaminated by our own wishes and plans. Rowson believes this is largely a mirage: "...seeing things as they 'actually are' would be an enormous achievement which goes against the grain of human perception... humans by their very nature are enormously self-deceptive, will only see that which experience has shown them to be there, cannot help but want the position to be a certain way and will always see the position from a background of emotional memories and pre-established patterns... you cannot escape your subjective perspective during the game." Please note the word "during" - Rowson says it may be possible to annotate a game objectively after it has been finished.

"To maximize your chances of competitive success, it is essential to be aware of your opponent's likes and dislikes and all their human fallibilities. You must remember that you are a subject playing another subject. Consequently, to view the position objectively is to miss an enormous reservoir of insights into the ways in which the game is perceived during play. To be 'objective' is to treat as an object that which is primarily a battlefield between subjects." By trying to be objective "... you undermine your capacity to sense your opponent's subjective perspective, and miss opportunities to exploit this." Rowson believes that his own development as a chess player was hindered by his striving to be objective: "I began to view chess more as a series of intellectual problems than a fight, and thus behaved more like an academic than a warrior... the pursuit of beauty and truth is incidental to the battle between psyches over the board... In games against grandmasters I found that they were almost never asking 'is this move true?' but rather 'will this move work?'"

I think Rowson is saying that if you are playing a person, rather than a computer, then you are handicapping yourself if you do not take psychology into account.

Reading Rowson's book made me realise that it is crucial to see chess dynamically. It is wrong to evaluate a position without reference to the sequence of moves that reached this point, to momentum, to dynamics, to the trend of the game, and to the psychological flow in the minds of both players. Looking at a position in isolation from the flow of the game is like attempting to make sense of a movie by examining a single frame. Likewise, looking at the position from scratch on each move to find my "best move" in the current position is like designing a building one brick at a time. Each candidate move must be seen as part of a sequence of future moves designed to improve my situation. That sequence should embody a strategy or a tactic, and cannot just be made afresh on each move.

Rowson contrasts the static method of position evaluation with a dynamic approach. The former considers factors such as material balance, king safety, badly positioned pieces, central control, space advantage, pawn structure, and bishops vs knights. The dynamic approach looks at the momentum or dynamics of the game, rather than the position frozen in time. It focuses on trends and how they change. He points out that there can be an upward trend for the player who currently has the inferior position.

There is much else of considerable interest in this fine book. He goes a long way towards giving the role of emotion in chess its due importance.

Rowson is arguing that we should apply a variety of ways of thinking about chess, avoid applying rules and heuristics, and jump out of our old thought habits. Instead we should make the most of each position while being alive to the trend that is current. In particular, to avoid the sin of egoism we need to adopt an "inter-subjective" perspective, ie remain fully aware of our opponent from a psychological point of view, as well as applying prophylaxis.