I've bought some chess books

http://s15.postimg.org/f7cy3626z/IMG_4519.jpg

Postman complained about weight.

After a few days of leafing through the books (and some reading, too) I am happy with those two:
http://s15.postimg.org/3jny5qjdn/IMG_4522.jpg
Nunn's "Understanding chess move by move" and Watson's "Advances after Nimtzowitsch"

And I also liked Timmans book "Art of analysis".
Nunn and Timman are both honest as players and analysts.
I think I could learn something from those pieces.

I got also Silman's "Complete Chess Strategy" and Mednis' "From Middlegame into to Endgame".
http://s15.postimg.org/z77sw2v17/IMG_4523.jpg
http://s15.postimg.org/6rsfis5nf/IMG_4524.jpg

Silman's book is pretty "thin", too much empty space and commonplaces.

Mednis' book is so-so, too much of his own examples (in which he "amazingly" did well ha ha), which "corroborates" the chapter's title (for example HOW TO DRAW INFERIOR ENDGAME), but it's nonsense. His analysis is honest, though, but I don't think I can drew something on this book.

And today I found another book in my letterbox (postman obviously got tired of previous packages so he just pushed the book in the box) - "Grandmaster Chess Strategy - what amateurs can learn from Ulf Andersson's positional masterpeices.

Great disappointment. I should have smelled the rat from authors' names - Jurgen and Guido, as Abbott and Costello - but I was hooked on Andersson's name of course.

I was hoping to gind some deep analysis in style of Timamn or Nunn, move by move, but instead, for example only such lines
"better is 37...Bxf4 [imagine now a sign from Chess Informant], and weaker is 37...Bf8 [imagine again a sign from Chess Informant]".
They probably put the FEN position in engine and got results.

And if the chapter's title is for example "Catalan endgame" or "Minor piece endgame", there is no analysis of the whole game, just first 30-40 moves with no comments, and then some conventional, stereotypical comments which means nothing.

But at least I got a decent (?) collection of Andersson's games, many of which I recognized from "Croatian Chess Messenger" I used to be subscribed in 1980's.

Those Abbott and Costello should be sued by Ulf and pay him decent fee.

I am expecting two more books any time soon, I hope postman will be nice to deliver them to the door or at least squeeze them into the letterbox so that no one else snatches them.

So what you are saying is that you bought some chess books that didn't really help you much.

Make sure you post books that you did find helpful.

Hi Vanderveide,

Maybe the book by 'Abbot and Costello' is not too bad. Jeremy Silman, a self
confessed Ulf Andersson fan thinks quite highly of this book.

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Grandmaster-Chess-Strategy-p3688.htm

I would not judge the authors because Ulf Andersson is not there, though you are
correct about players and their games.Me and you could do a book on Carlsen's best
games and Magnus would legally not be due a penny.

Silman is right about choosing a hero. I latched onto Morphy, Mieses and Marshall
early on. When I got better about the same time Nunn was hitting the scene I
nicked his entire repertoire.

A) Because his was a similar style and B) more importantly, he wrote on a regular basis
about his games in BCM explaining all the twists and turns.

I feel the same with some chess books (and other no-chess books), as you feel with the Abbot and Costello.
.
people said, Candidates 1953 by Bronstein, is The Book....

maybe There wiil be a Candidates 2016 by Giri.... ummmm

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Vanderveide,

Maybe the book by 'Abbot and Costello' is not too bad. Jeremy Silman, a self
confessed Ulf Andersson fan thinks quite highly of this book.

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Grandmaster-Chess-Strategy-p3688.htm

I would not judge the authors because Ulf Andersson is not there, though you are
correct about players and their gam ...[text shortened]... antly, he wrote on a regular basis
about his games in BCM explaining all the twists and turns.

If that's true, Mr. Silman lost reputation in my eyes.
(Not that he would give a damn. all right.)
He was probably paid for that, the same way celebrities do commercials for products they don't use.
Andersson was hero of many and that's what was so deceiving and dishonest:
on the cover there a quote of Alex Yermolinskiy "Andersson was everyone's hero, we wanted that every game of ours looks like 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. dxc3 Qxd1 7. Kxd1 etc"
But so what, the fact Yermolinskiy was delighted by Andersson says nothing about the book.
Silman praised it and I resent that. Ok he paid some bills, good for him.
I feel pity for those fans of Andersson who loved the book, though, I simply don't believe it is possible.

With suing, I wasn't literal, but Fischer suggested that players had Copyright for their games, and that they receive royalties as musicians for their songs.
it will never come true, but in case of such books, one must think of it.

Originally posted by Schlecter
I feel the same with some chess books (and other no-chess books), as you feel with the Abbot and Costello.
.
people said, Candidates 1953 by Bronstein, is The Book....

maybe There wiil be a Candidates 2016 by Giri.... ummmm

That Bronstein's books is one of them I am waiting now...

Originally posted by vandervelde
That Bronstein's books is one of them I am waiting now...

They say that Najdorf's book is better! I don't know, never read that one; but I do know I would never part with my tattered Dover edition of the Bronstein.

Bronstein '53 is probably the last book in my collection I would sell. It's not just masterfully written, but contains games from the most innovative tournament. Every time you pick up a "top 100 games" type book, try to see how many Candidates '53 games are in it. No joke, it's usually 4-7 games from a single tournament.

If anyone likes that book but is burned out and wants something similar, Nottingham '36 by Alekhine is great.

As for Silman, I lost respect as well over the years simply from improving, reading other styles, and hearing objections from pros. A book that made me rethink a lot of things is "Move First Think Later" by Hendricks.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Vanderveide,

Maybe the book by 'Abbot and Costello' is not too bad. Jeremy Silman, a self
confessed Ulf Andersson fan thinks quite highly of this book.

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Grandmaster-Chess-Strategy-p3688.htm

I would not judge the authors because Ulf Andersson is not there, though you are
correct about players and their gam ...[text shortened]... antly, he wrote on a regular basis
about his games in BCM explaining all the twists and turns.

The book on Ulf Andersson's games is one of my favorites. I read it about a year ago, and it made an immediate difference in my games. A friend of mine at my local club and I both play the Catalan, and after I read the chapter on the Catalan ending, I started scarfing up the wins to the point where he asked me "Where are you getting this stuff?"

It was little things like white initiating trading light-squared bishops (especially when black's b and d pawns have moved), and playing f3, which looks bizarre without understanding the idea behind it.

I know that vandervelde is a much stronger play than I am, but the book did wonders for me. I even bought the kindle version after the hard copy because I was wearing the book out, and wanted to make sure I had the text in a more permanent format.

EDIT: I should add that these are the kinds of games that rarely make it into magazines, so they are learning opportunities in strategic games that are not often available to we mere mortals.

These are the kind of book reviews that carry more weight.
From people who have the book and know it helped.

Vandervelde is correct that most (not all) reviewers rarely give a bad
review because it slays the Golden Goose.

If they give a bad review the publisher will stop sending them a freebie to look at.

Back to writers (?) using other players games to score a quick buck.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/modern.html

40+ books all about the players listed below games and none written by the actual player.

Viswanathan Anand
Levon Aronian
Magnus Carlsen
Fabiano Caruana
Boris Gelfand
Vassily Ivanchuk
Vladimir Kramnik
Hikaru Nakamura
Veselin Topalov:

Some of these books may be OK. Not all great players have the writing knack.
But some, from experience the majority, will be awful computer weighted junk.
(that get good reviews!...the Golden Goose effect.)

Yesterday night I ordered also the Najdorf's book about Zurich.
I read this Watson's review:::
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

Not that I doubt in Bronstein (this fascination wuth Najdorf's book might be pure snobism!), not that I am hungry for anecdotes which Najdorf's book is according to Watson full of.
I know about Reshevsky's wig (I don't believe he was wearing it at the time though), I know that Smyslov was beating one of his wives (probably later when he lost the title), I know that Najdorf used to intimidate his opponents by violent draw offers, ok, I don't need anecdotes as replacement for analysis.

I don't doubt in Bronstein, I admire him, I even trust in conspiracy theory that he was forced to throw away his match against Botvinnik.

I just want to compare two books, as I like o read several translations of my favourite novel, just as to prolong joy of reading.

Najdorf is said to be "coffee shop player with a technique of a GM", and Bronstein is said to be monster chess brain with astonishing ideas.

It should be interesting to compare their analyses.

And I have a theory that knowledge about Zurich 1953 is all a club level player should know. I finally got that, that tournaments on that level /2000-2200 ELO/ are in fact wrestling in positional understanding.
90 per cent of games are closed opening, Queen-s Pawn, King's Indian Attack or Colle's System, or 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 e6 3. e3... with no forced variations in open games, no opening theory.
A stronger player tries to plays positional and just waits for the weaker player to make mistake.

And this games in Zurich 1953 - Petrossian's, Smyslov's, Reshevsky's are the exactly games from which those club players learned from.

I am a little bit worried about Bronstein's book - it didn't arrive, I hope it was only held at the Custom...

It's interesting, this whole question of chess books, from the point of view of wanting to improve. I have owned several hundred chess books over the years, and read many more, but of all that those I think I can identify as having helped me to play better are very few. Here are a few titles, off the top of my head:

Keene, How to play the Nimzo-Indian Defence.
Yeah, yeah, I know, "the great Raymondo" and all that. But I drew in the 1st round at my 1st tournament (Southend 1987) against a BCF 200 (and in those days, BCF 200 meant something!), as Black, playing the Nimzo, thanks to this book. And the position was a win for Black -- but we can't blame Keene for me being naive!
So, OK, I won't claim this is really on a par with the other books in the list, but just for nostalgia...

Bronstein Zuerich 1953.
Bought in Southend that same 1987, from the old chess bookshop that isn't there anymore. Great, great book.

Keres, Practical Chess Endings.
Again, Southend 1987. A great book: I have won more than one game thanks to what I learned from it.

Stean, Simple Chess.
Ealing Library 1986, if I recall rightly. Good introduction to weak squares, weak pawns, and all that other "boring" stuff.

Kmoch, Pawn Power in Chess.
Just finished this, and am now reading it again. Outstanding. I have gone from hating the Caro-Kann to playing it. And they say old people can't learn!

Anything by Tarrasch. Even when he's wrong, he's right, in the sense that the effort to show why he isn't right will teach you quite a bit. And the stuff he is right about is mostly the basics that you have to understand before you get to suspect that he might not be right about everything (if you see what I mean).

Ivaschenko, Chess School (1a, 1b, 2)
We all know we should do tactical exercises in order to improve. I think these are the best.

There are a few more I could add, but I think those are the core.

If it's Najdorf you want then his 'Life and Games:' is excellent.

One also has to remember Bronstein only supplied some analysis and
comments in 'Chess Struggle'. Vainstein who at the time was a political outcast
in the USSR did 60% -70%% of the book. Bronstein, his friend, added his name to
make sure it got published.

Originally posted by pdunne
It's interesting, this whole question of chess books, from the point of view of wanting to improve. I have owned several hundred chess books over the years, and read many more, but of all that those I think I can identify as having helped me to play better are very few. Here are a few titles, off the top of my head:

Keene, How to play the Nimzo-Indian D ...[text shortened]... I think these are the best.

There are a few more I could add, but I think those are the core.

I've heard that Keene's book on the Nimzo one is quite highly regarded. I think it's his own work as well!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
If it's Najdorf you want then his 'Life and Games:' is excellent.

One also has to remember Bronstein only supplied some analysis and
comments in 'Chess Struggle'. Vainstein who at the time was a political outcast
in the USSR did 60% -70%% of the book. Bronstein, his friend, added his name to
make sure it got published.

there is a pdf of low quality in the cloud, i just download his zurich 1953. For sure this has to improve my chess skills.... if not, nothing can do the job !!