After (approximately) several thousand posts referencing this fine book, we are… finally… ready for a proper reading review for The Seven Deadly Chess Sins.
Thanks for waiting.
Tim
*********
As I mentioned several posts ago, I really liked this book’s focus on how good decision makers made bad decisions. As Rowson takes the reader through a detailed analysis of his ‘seven chess sins’, what becomes clear is how the common thread linking these sins together is the trouble most players have with separating the general from the specific.
In the chess context, what Rowson means is that general trends and broadly accepted thinking patterns tend to dominate the way players learn to analyze the game. This prepares a player to talk in general about chess without always ensuring a player will know how to respond to a specific board during a given game. As the author notes, the relevant question in chess is not whether a rook is worth more than a knight – the relevant question is whether your rook is worth more than your opponent’s knight.
A very chess specific observation I enjoyed (and one of the only ones I understood) was when Rowson described the value of the knight as 'the critical piece (that) brings a circular element to a linear game.' I really liked this observation. It reminded me of how I think of the ways other pursuits incorporate the unusual to create the greatest aggregate effect. One fairly direct example comes from world football. In this sport, the players who are known for cleverly drifting into open space to collect passes are described as ‘playing between the lines’. Again, in a sport where the tendency is to play with linearity, the player who brings value with difference is the one able to think in curves.
A less direct application comes with how organizations report productivity changes when creating diverse teams or implementing new methods. Though it would be impossible to extend the linear/circular dynamic to this example, the idea that different points of view create a fuller picture of a task or problem is certainly not a new concept. As an individual, I can only see what my experiences and training have enabled me to see. With others of a shared background, we’ll all look at the same thing and agree on what we see; with others of different backgrounds, I’ll gain the perspective of those who look at the same thing yet see it completely differently from me.
One up: Rowson does an excellent job of linking task-relevance to his analysis of a given chess piece. Since a chess piece is only valuable to the extent of the work it is doing, he proposes that chess pieces should perhaps be rated for their energy. This means studying a position and understanding what the pieces are doing in the moment and what capabilities lying latent will awaken in its future.
This sounds basic (well, assuming I used ‘lying latent’ correctly) but the application of such thinking is rare in chess. Since a piece’s identity is more easily seen than its energy, the natural trend is to look merely at identity to determine the material value.
This, I’m afraid, is analogous to the way people take shortcuts to determine the value of another person.
One down: Part of the problem in writing a chess book about the problems of generalization is that the thesis of the book is itself a generalization. Rowson himself makes note of the self-referencing contradiction in his own book when he quotes William Blake – to generalize is to be an idiot.
What makes the book work is the detail Rowson brings to his generalization (1). Unlike the players he cites (including himself via examples from his own games), Rowson proves that he is able to separate the general from the specific. Had he not done so, it would be possible to point to the author and say – look at this guy, he talks about the problems of generalizing in a general way!
Just saying: Rowson doesn’t dig too deep into chess computers. I think the topic is avoided for good reason – the ‘chess sins’ he writes about are essentially the mental or emotional problems a player might experience during a game. These problems do not afflict chess computers because computers do not have the capacity to experience these problems…yet.
Footnotes / ! / !?
0a. Disclaimer…
It took me over a year to read this book. It was thick with chess references, chess diagrams, chess terminology… it is definitely a chess book, make no mistake about it, reader. Those who do not have a passing familiarity with chess may struggle to distill the general lessons about decision making from this work.
0b. This… claimer…?
However, I found the book a highly captivating read throughout. I do think it is possible to read this book and get a lot out of it even if you have no idea how chess works.
1. How would you know?
Reader, having read a book or two about chess – including the venerated Chess For Dummies – I feel highly qualified to make comments on what is or is not a great chess book.
