This book appears in nearly every list of "must have books" for all serious chess players. I used to own a copy of this book, I've read it and played through the games several times, and there are good quality games here, no doubt, but I didn't see anything here that was better than what Informants or the game collections of the ICCF world championships has to offer. What is it about this 60+ year old book that makes it so special?
Originally posted by mchill This book appears in nearly every list of "must have books" for all serious chess players. I used to own a copy of this book, I've read it and played through the games several times, and there are good quality games here, no doubt, but I didn't see anything here that was better than what Informants or the game collections of the ICCF world championships has t ...[text shortened]... /top-10-chess-books-of-all-time.html
Are you speaking on behalf of Miguel Najdorf copy? Or the David Bronstein? I know there are some others but these seem to dominate player study.
Bronstein being the favored author (albeit likely he wrote very little of this volume)
I know I'm being made to read it for the creativity of ideas that turned up in this tournament. Especially light and dark square weaknesses. It wasn't just the quality of players - the quality of preparation apparently took a jump of an order of magnitude. It's interesting - but thus far I can say I don't like the authors style as much as some other works.
I expect YMMV.
Originally posted by Nowakowski Are you speaking on behalf of Miguel Najdorf copy? Or the David Bronstein? I know there are some others but these seem to dominate player study.
Bronstein being the favored author (albeit likely he wrote very little of this volume)
I know I'm being made to read it for the creativity of ideas that turned up in this tournament. Especially light and d ...[text shortened]... ar I can say I don't like the authors style as much as some other works.
I expect YMMV.
-GIN
Are you speaking on behalf of Miguel Najdorf copy? Or the David Bronstein?
I owned Bronstein's version, but regardless of who wrote it, I'm still wondering what makes this book so special, that it show's up on nearly every list of "great" chess books every serious player must have.
Originally posted by mchill Are you speaking on behalf of Miguel Najdorf copy? Or the David Bronstein?
I owned Bronstein's version, but regardless of who wrote it, I'm still wondering what makes this book so special, that it show's up on nearly every list of "great" chess books every serious player must have.
So I am obviously still working through it. My coach's response to "why" via a text message is "it shows the plans of both players you need to see the clash of plans and decisions to avoid or continue a plan" He previously called this book the "bible" so he is certainly in agreement with its high regard.
I have both - Najdorf's and Bronstein's - and althoug at first I thought that the fame of Najdorf's work stem from snobism, because it is just modern to say "but not Bronstein, Najdorf!", I see that books are complementary. As much Bronstein's assistant Weinstein wrote the most of it, so did Najdorf's assistant Bolbochan for his book.
They are complementary--> what Bronstein negletct or passes over. Najdorf mentions with exclamation mark.
The reader will benefit most ih he compares both book, game by game.
Najdorf position was much more relaxed (*although he showed a lot of vanity when it came to his games!), whilst Bronstein was bittered (as he had revealed it later) because he had to comply USSR team's collective support to Smyslov.
To make long story short - one who reads both books and knows how to read between lines, he will benefit most.
Originally posted by vandervelde I have both - Najdorf's and Bronstein's - and althoug at first I thought that the fame of Najdorf's work stem from snobism, because it is just modern to say "but not Bronstein, Najdorf!", I see that books are complementary. As much Bronstein's assistant Weinstein wrote the most of it, so did Najdorf's assistant Bolbochan for his book.
They are compleme ...[text shortened]... tory short - one who reads both books and knows how to read between lines, he will benefit most.
So you are saying that certain chess books needed to be politically correct?
Must have's in every collection were Alekhines books, Fischer's 60, (My System).
This was another must have. Everyone who read it, studied it, learned something from it.
It was one of the first attempts to take away the mist giving notes and insights for club
players to understand or at least get a glimpse of the goings on in a GM game.
There are some brilliant games in there, but the more mundane wins are given the
instructive treatment.
I have it, read it, picked up a thing or two. Nowhere near as much as I got from
Tartakower's 500, or Reinfeld's Tarrasch best games. But I would never put anyone
of reading it. It's enjoyable to read and play over. That is really all you want.
You enjoy doing it and things will seep in.
Must have's in every collection were Alekhines books, Fischer's 60, (My System).
This was another must have. Everyone who read it, studied it, learned something from it.
It was one of the first attempts to take away the mist giving notes and insights for club
players to understand or at le ...[text shortened]... to read and play over. That is really all you want.
You enjoy doing it and things will seep in.
Thank You. That sounds reasonable, a great deal more reasonable than what Eladar wrote. 🙂
Must have's in every collection were Alekhines books, Fischer's 60, (My System).
This was another must have. Everyone who read it, studied it, learned something from it.
It was one of the first attempts to take away the mist giving notes and insights for club
players to understand or at le ...[text shortened]... to read and play over. That is really all you want.
You enjoy doing it and things will seep in.
I'm partway through round 2 in 1953. I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Pawn. I prefer the simple, almost quiet style of 500 to 1953.
I also would toss in 5334 as better for my chess thus far - than 1953. Perhaps I'll throw in a review upon completion.
Top level games from old tournaments like that can give you great insight into the development of the game. Obviously you will not learn much about modern opening preparation, but many of those games still hold up even today. This is why Kasparov's MGP series is so highly recommended.
Candidates Tournament of 1953
12 Feb '17 17:391 edit
Back to Top