Jonathan Rowson's The Seven Deadly Chess Sins is an extraordinarily original book that tackles the broad issue of practical chess psychology. This is clearly a labor of love, sometimes disorganized but remarkably comprehensive in its look at the psychological reasons for failure at chess. I have never gotten much out of the attempts to describe chess in psychological terms, and in particular to identify the many ways in which our attitudes and feelings can get in the way of our play. The works by Fine and Hartston, for example, are never serious or coherent enough to assist one; and Krogius' Psychology in Chess, the best effort that I have seen, is nevertheless a hodgepodge of insights which are in themselves valuable, but somehow too disparate to get down to the essence of what we are doing wrong.

With the proviso that I haven't read quite everything in Rowson's book yet, it seems to me that he has clearly, explicitly, and in context laid out most if not all of the most common thought processes that lead us to error (in the broader sense of that term, including blunders, blindness, misassessment, time trouble and the like). I should make clear that this applies to errors for which the cause is psychological in origin. One can always claim, of course, that all chess errors are such, but to have the relevant terms retain their meaning, I think that we need to acknowledge experience, 'chess-related' intelligence, early disposition, and the like as vitally important and effectively separate considerations. In other words, the mastery of all factors in Rowson's domain would still not make you a Karpov or Kasparov.

That said, Rowson's is a remarkable accomplishment, because the psychological causes are so numerous, varied, and subtle. This is the problem with so much advice in chess, by grandmasters or others. It sounds so wise and fine (and simple), but is really too one-dimensional or inapplicable to our multitudinous problems that at best, it temporarily inspires us and then fails to make a difference. Rowson's thoughtful and multidimensional analysis avoids this 'easy fix' trap. Moreover, the advice in this book is primarily practical, even when the author is just telling you to loosen up or retain your sense of humor.

As to actual content, an incomplete list of key areas discussed would include overthinking, mistrusting your intuition, being insensitive to the trends of a game, worrying about the result instead of the game before you, thinking of material as a static numerical value, loss of perspective (in many senses), perfectionism, the value of emotion as well as logic, and avoiding what the author calls 'looseness' in favor of what might be described as a generalized flexibility. Those themes and others are treated intelligently and in considerable detail. Beyond that, the book is sprinkled with interesting observations about the specifics of chess thought which are not particularly related to broader themes, but which I find valuable and insightful. In general, the book stands out for its extraordinary originality and for it's dedicated attempt to be both specific and practical.

In order that you are not instantly turned off when you start to read Rowson's book and say to yourself "What is wrong with Watson (again)?" I should draw attention to several possibly offputting features. The cute title and related formal organization are limiting and even slightly misleading--some work is required to keep the advice, which doesn't always fit the chapter themes closely, clearly in mind and transcendent of categories. I also think that the book could have been considerably shorter. Although some may like the approach, I think there is too much only marginally relevant philosophizing, far too many quotes (a bad tendency in books these days), and a kind of general pop psychology that doesn't remotely approach the quality and depth of Rowson's insights when it comes to chess itself. Perhaps it's inevitable that such enthusiasm and originality combine with flights of fancy, and I hope I can say without condescension that while Rowson seems wise beyond his years (or most anyone's years) when it comes to his subject, his speculations in areas outside of it can be a bit embarrassing. But that is just my opinion, and in any case it would be a great shame to let any of the above deter you from reading this book to the very end.

The bottom line is simple: Despite some minor flaws, I feel that this is easily the leading book on chess psychology, by far the most useful one, a very possibly a classic that will be avidly read by players for many years to come. If ever a book could lead directly to improvement without study of moves, strategies, techniques and the like, I honestly think that this would be it. Finally, let me just quote one brilliant paragraph which summarizes much of the essence of this book: "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins reveal that we need to reconsider much that has become habitual. The game of chess, as outlined here, rewards those who are able to feel as well as think, love the contest as well as the result, view the game from a pluralistic perspective, harness their ego and acknowledge their opponent, be confident and willing to make a mistake, while concentrating intelligently at all times." Terrific stuff. Read it.

ADDENDUM:

I didn't get any analytical input for Rowson's book, but some general commentary instead. Before I get to that, at least two reviewers pointed out that this is a book for experienced players, something that I should have made clear. The always-interesting Randy Bauer stated this as follows: "This is not an easy book and will primarily benefit a reasonably advanced audience. The 'chess sins' are problems that confront the player who has already achieved a fairly high level of play -- for the beginner who frequently leaves pieces en prise, the lack of attention to non-material factors may be essentially irrelevant." Okay, I would put it that the advanced way in which Rowson presents his material renders its usefulness questionable for lower players, but the thought is the same.

Three readers complained that the book was difficult to read (one was completely alienated), but two had no such problem, one disagreeing with my characterization of Rowson's New Age pontifications and finding them stimulating. I believe that many readers will best maintain their interest by skipping parts that they perceive to be too difficult or unproductive. This is a great book for browsing--I have in fact used that approach, to my great delight.

Matthew Sadler's review in New In Chess, which shared much of my enthusiasm for the book, noted similarly that "some of the language is a little heavy going." He also brought up the question of whether the book would actually improve one's chess. Sadler summarized: "Bottom line--should you buy this book? Of course--there is masses of stuff in it. But be careful as well--it's the chess you should be thinking about during the game, not the thoughts behind your thoughts!" I agree, but I'm not sure about the question of improvement--perhaps the fact that you can gain insight into the fundamental thinking processes of the typical chess player will itself lead to some improvement, provided that it increases your subconscious monitoring(?) of affairs without actually overloading your thought process. (Did anyone follow that? I'm not sure that I did). In any case, the overriding factors for me are the book's originality and superb characterization of chessplayers' non-analytical thinking. For fairly experienced players, it should provide hours of stimulation and enjoyment.

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT