U.S. Correspondence Champion Jon Edwards has written an engaging, readable book about one of my least favorite chess subjects – correspondence chess. As an over-the-board tournament chess player, I confess to having something of a bias against correspondence chess and books about it. I enjoy the one-on-one struggle and the immediacy of over-the-board play; correspondence chess, with its opportunity to spend literally days on a move and the ability to consult other chess materials has kind of put me off. Correspondence chess games, while often brilliant, have seemed kind of like the equivalent of the bionic man – strong play sure, but is it really human?

As explained by Edwards, correspondence chess is indeed human, and darn interesting to boot. So is his book. The book contains 35 deeply annotated games plus a bunch of additional games with little or no comment. The chapters are generally built around themes, whether it be a specific opening, type of position, or type of game. The chapters have very interesting introductions that make them great fun to read – Edwards' enthusiasm for chess is contagious and it comes through in his writing

The games themselves are high-class, hard fought struggles that show just the level of play necessary to reach the top of correspondence chess. Edwards' notes are a nice blend of analysis and discussion of what's happening in the game. As a result, players of all levels can benefit from them.

I was fascinated by Edwards' explanation of the very scientific methods he often uses for finding the correct move or plan in a given position. Far from simply parroting back opening theory, Edwards often uses his database to search for previous games with similar characteristics (piece placement, pawn structure, etc.) to the game in question. In this way, he can find how plans for both sides have fared in similar circumstances. Likewise with thematic endgames. This explanation of the methods of a topflight postal player should be particularly illuminating for other postalites.

Oh, sure, I have a couple of minor quibbles with the book. For one, it is, in some chapters, hard to figure out just exactly who the participants (and their ratings) are in the main games. The games themselves are also not numbered. For those who subscribe to postal chess magazines, you also may have seen some of these games and many of the notes before. Finally, I found the sales pitch for other books that the reader could buy from the publisher at the end of each chapter a bit crass for my tastes. None of these is a huge demerit, however, and don't change my overall opinion of the book.

In the end, this isn't so much a book about correspondence chess, it's a book about chess played via correspondence. There is great chess on display here, and also great insight into the game by somebody who knows a lot about it and can put it down on paper.

Click to see SILMAN'S REVIEW OF THE CHESS ANALYST.