The masses of newly published chess books keep pouring forth, some horrible, some well-done or even excellent, but very, very few thoughtful and/or original. In fact, in recent memory the only original and thought provoking chess works I can recall are Watson's SECRETS OF MODERN CHESS STRATEGY (click to see Silman's review of this book), his CHESS STRATEGY IN ACTION (click to see reviews by Bauer and Donaldson), and Rowson's THE SEVEN DEADLY CHESS SINS (click to see reviews by Silman and Watson).

When Eingorn's new DECISION-MAKING AT THE CHESSBOARD arrived in the mail, I certainly didn't expect to find anything extraordinary in its pages. However, surprises do happen, and this fine book turns out to be a case in point. The realization that I was looking at something special dawned on me in Chapter One ("Individuality And Style"). After looking over the famous fifth match game from the Schlechter-Lasker World Championship match (a game I've seen dozens of times), I was surprised to read a completely fresh point of view: "People basically associate Lasker's achievements with questions of chess psychology - quite misguidedly, it seems to me. His manner of play (like that of Petrosian at a later date) simply didn't fit into the customary framework of standard chess thought: attack, defense, playing for position. Anything not expressible in wholly concrete and sufficiently graphic terms is very difficult to grasp. Conversely, vivid ideas, striking maneuvers or even individual moves implant themselves in your memory as soon as you encounter them, and stay there more or less for good."

The fact that the author was actually trying to explore news areas of chess thought gave me a rush of pleasure. This feeling intensified when, in relation to a game of Eingorn's where he was outplayed and beaten, he said, "Black was merely trying to utilize the features of the position, whereas White was going all-out to alter them in the way he felt was necessary."

Staying true to the chapter's premise, Eingorn was taking a serious look at style and at the question of whether many positions contain a "best move" or simply "moves that are a question of personal preference and philosophy." This discussion was highlighted when he showed how two players could look at a fairly simple position in vastly different terms by presenting the following position (achieved after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 - the critical starting point in the Latvian Gambit).

WHITE TO MOVE

In Nimzowitsch-Behting, Riga 1919 he gives us Nimzowitsch's comments after 6.Ne3!

"In conjunction with the following Bishop maneuver, this is in every respect a master move. Even if all the rest of the world should play 6.Nc3, I still consider 6.Ne3 to be the best continuation, having regard to the requirements of my system."

White achieved a clear advantage after 6.c6 7.Bc4! d5 8.Bb3 Be6 9.c4 Qf7 10.Qe2 Nf6 11.0-0 Bb4 12.Bd2 Bxd2 13.Nxd2 0-0 14.f4.

In Bronstein-Mikenas, Rostov 1941, we get to take a look into Bronstein's view of this same position after 6.Be2!

"The value of this game resides in one sole move, namely 6.Be2. This novelty refutes not just a particular variation but an entire complex of variations united by a general idea."

After 6.Nc6 7.d5 Ne5 8.0-0 Nxc4 9.Bxc4 Qg6 10.Bb5+ Kd8 11.Bf4 h5 12.f3 White also got a clear advantage.

Eingorn's comment about this difference of opinion is quite interesting: "The two grandmasters (Bronstein's commentary was written in 1969) are assessing the opening position in its full context, and they approach this task in different ways. For Nimzowitsch, after 6.Ne3, Black's possible counter-measures are not of fundamental significance - his 'system' should work in any eventuality. Bronstein sees the general idea of Black's set-up in the specific maneuver .Qg6, and thinks that White's best strategy is to prevent this. In other words, Nimzowitsch at this moment is thinking rather about the formation of his own position, while the opponent's position is what Bronstein is concentrating on. In addition, no small role is played by the two grandmasters' aesthetic impressions of what is taking place. One of them likes blockading; the variation 6.Be2 Qg6?? 7.Bh5! appeals to the other."

What I love about this is Eingorn's enlightening point that one player might find a plan that is aggressive and "positive" while another player, in the same position and with just as much justification, will find a plan that seeks to limit enemy activity. He clarifies this at the end of Chapter One by saying, "No one has yet managed to turn chess into applied science - in other words, to demonstrate a method for discovering the best move in any position, with a sufficient degree of accuracy. When this happens, strictly speaking, the game itself will lose its point. The adherents of various systems and methodologies should be reminded that, above all else, such intellectual exercises splendidly express the cast of mind of their authors; they serve not to systematize chess itself, but to give unified systematic form to the authors' own views about the game."

Chapter Two ("Tactical Complications") is quite a different matter. Here he freely discusses the often-random nature of tactical complications: "When it comes to assessing purely tactical complications, the matter is a good deal more involved. Here the placing of some particular pawn or piece may be of overriding significance while general considerations recede into the background. Tactics is like a cat that likes to 'go its own way.' Going for a walk with it is most interesting, but a player doesn't always know where it is going to lead him. Luck therefore becomes a major factor, and the result too often depends on defensive or attacking resources that arise by chance."

"Luck?" When was the last time you heard a grandmaster admit that many areas of tactical play involves a certain degree of luck?

There follows various games (Many of his own; this is a good idea since it allows him to share insights that wouldn't be possible from games he didn't play himself.) that show highly intense tactical battles. He then says, "True adherents of the 'active lifestyle' in chess are not put off tactical complexities by the unpredictability of the final outcome. In order to disturb the balance, they just need a plausible reason, together with faith in their own powers. Other players usually feel a little anxious about how it will end, and therefore prefer to sidestep a fight with 'no holds barred.' However, if this very manner of playing is the most suited to attaining an important strategic goal, it must be considered before anything else. Refraining on purely general grounds from intensifying the struggle is wrong by definition."

Chapter Three ("Active Defense") once again shows Eingorn's to the point and often-unique perspective: "A classical principle of chess theory states that the side with the advantage must attack. If this is not done, the advantage cannot be increased and may be lost. A much more difficult question arises when you have to play an inferior position. What should your policy be? Here there are no hard and fast recommendations, although today the principle of 'active defense' has acquired almost universal currency. The phrase denotes a strategic counter-initiative to be undertaken in more or less unfavorable conditions."

Other chapters explore more hard to grasp concepts: Chapter Four ("A Feeling For Danger"), Chapter Five ("Incorrect Play"), Chapter Six ("Simple Positions"), Chapter Seven ("In Search of an Idea"), Chapter Eight ("Mindswap"), Chapter Nine ("Analyze This!"). Here (in chapter nine) he gives eighteen positions for the reader to analyze and understand. The answers are in-depth and makes for a very nice end to a great book.

Clearly, all of Eingorn's points are fascinating and make you think. But how useful are they for players under 1900? Fun to read, yes. Interesting, no doubt. But the following paragraph from this chapter shows how difficult it is to really learn anything from advanced concepts if you don't already possess a solid grasp of the game's tactics and strategies: "In the worse position it is very important to form an accurate enough prognosis for the future. Then if a chance to play actively crops up, it is much easier to assess the strategic risk and make your decision. If the prospects are unfathomable in any case, you just have to trust your intuition." That's not very helpful to those in that under 1900 group, is it?

This forces me to wrap my recommendation around the question of the book's proper audience. Much like the two magnificent Watson books listed earlier, Eingorn's wonderful effort here is something that can only be truly appreciated by someone already imbued with a large dose of chess "culture." However, this doesn't mean that others won't fall in love with this book. DECISION-MAKING AT THE CHESSBOARD is perfect for anyone of any rating that appreciates the beauty of chess (even if he/she doesn't fully understand it) and finds deep satisfaction in pondering the majesty of chess philosophy and ideas. If you're looking for a book of instruction, though, players under 1900 will be disappointed.