[Event "Al Wallace Memorial"]
[Site "Denver, Colorado"]
[Date "1974.03.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "John L watson"]
[Black "Alan Piper"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. ♘f3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. ♘xd4 ♘f6 5. ♘c3 a6 6. ♗c4 e6 7. ♗b3 b5 8. O-O ♗b7 9. ♖e1 ♘bd7 10. ♗g5 h6 11. ♗h4 ♕b6 12. f4 ♘c5 13. ♗xf6 ♘xb3 14. axb3 gxf6 15. ♔h1 ♕c5 16. f5 ♔e7 17. fxe6 fxe6

click for larger view

18. ♘d5+ ♗xd5 19. exd5 e5 20. ♕g4 ♕c8 21. ♘c6+ ♔f7 22. ♕h5+ ♔g7 23. ♖e3 ♖h7 24. ♕h4 h5 25. ♖f1 f5 26. ♘e7 ♕xc2 27. ♕g5+ ♔f7 28. ♖xf5+ ♔e8 29. ♕g6+ ♔d7 30. ♕e6+ ♔d8 31. ♖xf8+ ♔c7 32. ♖c8+ 1-0

<I'm always hearing (and reading) that "If the players of yesteryear could only catch up with opening theory, they'd be as good or better than today's players". The funny thing is that the many years (usually decades) of study that modern players put into opening theory should not only count towards their strength, but that study and practice contributes vastly to their understanding of the middlegame and even some endgames. The silly idea that you can just 'catch up' in opening theory ignores the vast undertaking that this would involve, especially to absorb the vast number of openings and opening variations necessary to a complete chess education.> -- John Watson

<John Watson

Hi, I'm John Watson and I'm not a GM, unlike most of the others on this site. I started chess a bit late at age 13 and, true to my later experiences, I learned from books. They were in fact reasonably advanced books - I never read a beginner's book - and after one year I walked into the Omaha, Nebraska chess club and beat most everyone there!

After one tournament my first U.S.C.F. rating was over 2100 and it stayed about there or above from then on. The few dedicated chess players in Omaha had access to just a few regional tournaments a year, so we didn't improve much. But I got lucky and took first place at the initial U.S. National High School Championship. I knew absolutely nothing and relied upon totally unsound tactics to win. Maybe there's a lesson in that: Now I play soundly and lose.

I went to Harvard for a couple of years, traveled a lot in strange lands doing odd jobs (sometimes hustling chess), and returned to do some full time work in two factories.

I began to play more chess and had some successes. My greatest triumph in that time period was the release of Chessman Comics, co-produced by Chris Hendrickson and self-published at the local copy shop. We ran a business called the Chess House that attracted a number of nice people and a much larger number of mentally disturbed ones!

I spent a few years working to become an International Master and wrote my first books (on the English Opening!!) in 1979. As of this date I've written 22 wildly popular books, the majority of which went out of print in less than a year. I've saved a copy of each...I think.

In 1988 I managed to complete a degree with honours in Electrical Engineering at the University of California in San Diego and spent five mostly forgettable years working as a Design Engineer specializing in communications algorithms. Upon reviving, I ran away and wrote some more chess books, this time for firms that have fortunately stayed afloat. I've also written many articles and had a bundle of students over the past 30 years.

My real interests include my wife, politics, socioeconomic issues, music, eating, sleeping, literature, and my dog (sometimes).>

<May-23-08 James Demery: I read a review that John Watson wrote about fellow author Bruce Pandolfini in which he said BP had never written anything original. It seemed rather mean. The same John Watson was shocked when Jacob Aagard slammed him in one of his books. Interesting.>

<Mar-28-15 James Demery: Anybody know why Jacob Aagard writes so negatively about Watson in his books? What is the source of his animosity?>

It possibly stems from the poor review John gave to Jacob's publishing house for their 'My System'. (which BTW I think is good.).

Jacob and John actually shared a hotel room together in Berlin 1997 and got along just fine. By all account they fell out years later due to a misunderstanding over a review.

More here which throws some light on the matter plus Jacob and Jeremy crossing swords with each other.

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/...

Maybe Jacob said he was thinking of writing a book called 'Chess Strategy in Action' and John said he was thinking of writing a book called 'The Attacking Manuel' and they nicked each other's idea!

Hi perfidious:,

I saw that too. Ouch!

http://www.colorado-chess.com/Histo...