Here are 100 of Rubenstein's best games against such opponents as Euwe, Janowski, Kashdan, Marshall, Tarrasch, and many others. His highly original contributions to chess theory cannot be overlooked by any serious player.
I liked Kmoch at first, but as I worked my way through this one he began to get on my nerves. Lots of wonderful vars but also a few gaffes; the main problem though was his dogmatic and high-handed approach (referring over and over to the "correct move," as though there were only one in every given situation). Also his use of annotator cliches ("etc" and "despair", most notably) were more than a little annoying. Still, at least he kept the proceedings mercifully jargon-free, unlike in Pawn Power. The book too is riddled with notation typos and unclear designations; I was really starting to pull my hair out about that toward the end.
At any rate, the games were of course marvelous. Rubinstein was quite a bit more aggressive than I thought he'd be, and his propensity for the 2 bishops was palpable. And of course his endgame mastery bordered on wizardry at times; I think in particular of that bishops of opposite colors ending against Johner at Karlsbad 1907 (how in the world did he ever end up winning that?!...I mean, even as I was playing through the moves I kept saying that to myself! lol).
I've read at least half a dozen chess books, and this one remains my favorite. I usually play better after studying a game or two from this book. Hopefully I play better after reading any chess book, but for some reason I've come to expect myself to play better after studying a game or two from this book in particular. Rubinstein's attacks are conducted so carefully because of his preference for positional play. I suspect it is easier to calculate tactics when one has as strong an understanding of positional play as Rubinstein had.