Secrets of Modern Chess: Advances Since Watson

I am reading the book "Secrets of Modern Chess" by Watson right now, and I find it a very interesting book.  I like how Watson uses modern gameplay and statistics to analyze whether certain classical rules are still applicable today.

Nevertheless, Watson's book was written in the late 90s (1999, I think).  The time the book was written appears to have an impact on the book's contents, as the book had numerous examples of "breaking the rules" in the King's Indian.  Of course, the King's Indian was the favorite of the champion at that time - Garry Kasparov.  However, since Kasparov v. Kramnik, 2000, the KID has not been as popular and neither Kramnik nor Anand nor Carlsen plays it regularly.  So, sometimes, it is a bit difficult to see whether "breaking" a particular rule is only commonly accepted in the KID and perhaps other hypermodern openings (e.g. Modern Benoni) or if players still continue to break that particular rule.

Conclusion/TLDR: Is there a book out there that critiques Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess" and updates it for the 21st century?

The evolution of chess theory takes decades, not years. Watson's remarks are still current. Caruana, Nakamura, Ganguly, Morozevich, etc. all played the KID this year.

Watson plays chess? I thought he was just into Jeopardy and cooking..

He also hangs out with Sherlock Holmes...

No, no, this Watson: http://www.chessgames.com/player/john_l_watson.html

And this book: http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Modern-Chess-Strategy-Watson/dp/1901983072

        touche  mosai

Bump

If the King's Indian is dead it is because Kramnik killed it.

If the King's Indian is still alive it is because Gelfand can't kill it.

#givesquarestogetsquares

My last reply:

In mathematics there is a general principle that is worded as follows:

THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES.  AND, THE EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE.
did not give you much insight into what I think.

Here is an example:  In the endgame (K+2Bs vs. K+N) it was thought for 300 years before computers that it was a dead draw.  With the advent of computers it was discovered that except for a very few trivial positions it is a forced win for the K+2Bs.  But, that is not the important discovery.  What is important is that we discovered how limited our finite organic brains really are.  It has to do with our brains limits concerning spatial recognition in our 3-dimensional universe and the  evolution of our brains adapting for survival in that universe.

What was discovered might as well have been in another dimension outside of our own  3.  The discovery was that when a B goes to any  edge of the chessboard it necessarily has to switch diagonals, and in doing so automatically gains a tempo.

A discovery, that not even, Robert J. Fischer whose name is given to "Fischer endings" where the B gains tempii on the N and is able to transpose to a won ending; was able to, thru complete dedication, laser-like concentration and absolute rigor in his analysis, was able to uncover.  Even when it was right in front of his face on the chessboard.

The fact that the B gains a tempo when it goes to the edge of the board and transfers on to the new diagonal is now a well known chess technique that just about every GM, IM, Master, Expert has added to his/her arsenal of opening, middlegame, and especially endgame technique.  

I hope this illustrates to you with crystal clarity what I think.  In other words,  a chess technique discovered thanks to computers could not have been taken into account when GM Nimzowitsch first formulated his "System" of Siege Warfare and how the Bs fit into that system.  I am reasonably certain that Herr Nimzowitsch would have made it the focal point of his new conception of the center and how his "System" is deus ex machina. 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a thought.  All 4 Bs begin the game on the edge of the  board.  So, there is an opportunity to gain a tempo from the second move of any game of chess.  Oh, how Nimzowitsch would of treasured this knowledge to conclusively demonstrate how "My System" is deus ex machina

  22 minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #9

Yaroslavl

I understand the concept of what you are saying, but do you have an example? I do not see why a bishop on the edge is different than a bishop in the inner board. A bishop in the inner board also changes diagonals when it moves.

 do you have an example?

Chess Endgame King+2 Bishops vs. King+Knight google search

Secrets of Minor Piece Endings by John Nunn.  Last chapter pg. 265 of the book covers K+2Bs vs. K+N in depth.  GM Nunn references the mirror manouvre with the Bs and the gain of tempo repeatedly throughout the chapter. 

 I do not see why a bishop on the edge is different than a bishop in the inner board. A bishop in the inner board also changes diagonals when it moves.

You could  very  well be right.  The important part is that as a chessplayer you are aware of the concept and have added it to your arsenal of chess techniques so that you can apply it in the process of analyzing a chess position. 

I'm still working through the Nunn example. But he makes the analogy that in science we went from general laws (Newtonian physics, etc) to today's science which is very concrete and full of things are too complex for us to understand. The analogy is to chess in the form of endgame tablebases. For example, computers show us that there are forced mates 500+ moves long. Our brains are likely to never understand something that complex. And that's chess strategy post-Watson. Is that about right?

As inexact as "My System" and all of its embellishments by subsequent authors, including Watson, it is the best we have for our human brains.  Short of implating chess engines in our brains we will have to make do, refining as we go when the chess engines discover some new technique, or enhance an old technique such as the "mirror manouvre" with the B.