This is the kind of chess book one is likely either to love or hate; it simply doesn't leave room for an indifferent response. It either has the ring of truth and wit for the reader because the reader shares the beliefs and values of the book or it seems pretentious and overblown. I confess that I loved it. I enjoyed a chess book that didn't look like an algebra text and talked about ego, concentration, materialism and Groucho Marx. I thought there were creative ideas throughout the text. Talking to one's pieces, for example, struck me as helpful - usually I just curse their clumsiness. My good friend hated this book. He wanted prescriptions, checklists, and forced move variations. It is a matter of taste. I should add that all this psychological "stuff" might be less relevant if the reader often overlooks tactical ideas that net the opponent a piece or pawn. It's a luxury to worry about perfectionism or thinking too much when you're down a piece.