How long does it take to read a chess book?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
chess books are meant to be enjoyed, you need a large bottle of single malt, a huge open fireplace somewhere secluded away from family, preferably in a castle with forty rooms, so that they do not bother you with trivialities and just relax and enjoy. if its rubbish you can always toss it on the fire and try another.

You just read a book about chess? Don't you use a chess set to follow the game(s)?

Originally posted by wormwood
months, years.

Years? When you experience the first death you will probably have a lot of unfinished books.

Originally posted by gambit3
Years? When you experience the first death you will probably have a lot of unfinished books.

what about the second?

Originally posted by orion25
what about the second?

Best to not have a second death. Rev 20:10-15 should tell you something about the second one.

Originally posted by gambit3
Years? When you experience the first death you will probably have a lot of unfinished books.

I was born finnished.

Originally posted by Eladar
I look at my Play 1.b3! book and see that it's about 250 pages. A 250 page book should take me two or three days. But reading chess books takes much more time than regular books. What's a realistic ratio of time it takes to read a chess book as opposed to regular books?

I like many other followers of this wonderful game have developed a bit of a thing for chess boooks and over the past few years i've ready plentiful amounts. I have to say that the ones i get most benefit out of are the ones that work the brain cells. That is to say the problem solving type books or the master game collections where i have to try and work things out for myself prior to checking the solutions. These are the type of books to be savoured and played through slowly. I mean what's the rush?
Of course you can read through a book in very rapid fashion but your brain just won't be able to assimilate the information. In fact if we're talking about books that contain all the positional type of information it's highly likely that the content will be irrelevant to your improvement anyway.

I have to say that of late i've taken to the idea that books are only of very limited use anyway. I find simply setting positions up on a board and trying to work it all out to be of far more benefit. This opinion has been compounded by an extract from the short Autobiography of Harry Nelson Pillsbury.

" I did not learn to play chess from reading books on the game. Most of them are written by amateurs, and their ideas did not assist me. Their tons of analysis are valueless. I threw the books to the dogs, when i commenced to learn and play in ernest, and took to the board itself.
I studied it long and thoroughly. I evolved every move i made. To originate is the only way to be successful. A copyist never gains anything"!!

Interesting stuff. It begs the question are we all being brainwashed by the chess literature machine?

Hi T.

Quote:

"Interesting stuff. It begs the question are we all being brainwashed by the chess
literature machine?"

In Pillbury's day some of the chess books were really naff and he describes
them perfectly.

These days it is slightly different and I'm sure he would rate 15-20 of them
as very good.

Having said that there are 1,000's that fit his original description.

There is also a lot of confusing stuff out there.

One just needs tp look at the adverts:

Win with the Pirc sits next to How to Beat the Pirc 😕

Originally posted by wormwood
I was born finnished.

That was funny! And I've meant to ask what may be obvious, but the "Swerve and Prozac" is a play off the Los Angeles Police Department's "Serve and Protect" motto, right?

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
That was funny! And I've meant to ask what may be obvious, but the "Swerve and Prozac" is a play off the Los Angeles Police Department's "Serve and Protect" motto, right?

you gottit, leggit!


(and ice, I know you're sooo jealous now because my crappy pun scored. it's in the properly silly walk, I tell you!)

Originally posted by wormwood
you gottit, leggit!


(and ice, I know you're sooo jealous now because my crappy pun scored. it's in the properly silly walk, I tell you!)

LOL
Well played GG 😛
edit: sorry about the GG comment, I lost my head.

For kicks I used to make fun of an American chess player from the South.

I done read me one whole chess book. I deciphered them there move hieroglyphics the best I know'd how.

I done recollect that in some of them there move Hieroglyphics it had a question mark after that move. Now I recon that meant that the feller wadn't too sure if that was the move the other feller played, but to the best of his recollection it was.

I been a readin' this other chess book for 20 years, the danged thing's in Roosun. 😞

I’m currently struggling through “The Fascinating King’s Gambit” by Thomas Johansson - it is brilliant, and certainly the only text you will need on the Bishop’s Gambit for the next decade. But it’s also one of the most difficult Chess books I’ve ever read. If it’s Opening books we’re talking, I can usually start playing the thing after about a month of reading the book for an hour or two a night after work. But I’ve had this thing 3 weeks now and I’m still on the main line! It’s certainly worth it though.

Originally posted by Ice Cold
LOL
Well played GG 😛
edit: sorry about the GG comment, I lost my head.

For kicks I used to make fun of an American chess player from the South.

I done read me one whole chess book. I deciphered them there move hieroglyphics the best I know'd how.

I done recollect that in some of them there move Hieroglyphics it had a question mark after that m s.

I been a readin' this other chess book for 20 years, the danged thing's in Roosun. 😞

yankee!, the south shall rise again! greatest american players wre all born in the south, Paul Morphy - New Orleans, Robert Fischer - south Bronx, Capablanca - south America.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi T.

Quote:

"Interesting stuff. It begs the question are we all being brainwashed by the chess
literature machine?"

In Pillbury's day some of the chess books were really naff and he describes
them perfectly.

These days it is slightly different and I'm sure he would rate 15-20 of them
as very good.

Having said that there are 1,0 ...[text shortened]... ok at the adverts:

[b]Win with the Pirc sits next to How to Beat the Pirc 😕[/b]

Yes i have to agree, the chess literature market has gone crazy and to be honest i think i've read just about every chess book that i intend to. I have just one on the go at the moment, CHESS TACTICS FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS by Averbakh which is a quality read. Once i'm done with that i shall be putting the books on the back burner!

No doubt that the books in Pillsbury's day were all iinferior and writtten by amateurs and yes, today there are many fine chess books written by Professional players. However, i think it shows just how overly dependant most of us have become on books. If a player can master the game to Pillsbury's level without the aid of books then why can't we all become reasonably strong players simply by following his advice. Obviously he was blessed with an enormous amount of talent which makes a big difference but i for one intend to start doing my own thing.

One more point about modern day books, even the good ones. most of the analysis is either done or backed up with computers. You purchase a book by GM Superstar hoping it will reveal something new to boost your rating and invariably it's full of the same old stuff just recycled a little. A new set of master games with the same old positional themes backed up by reams of engine analysis.

Well.. i know what a weak pawn looks like, how to fight for an open file, what a support point is et etc. I also have Crafty on my PC! So thanks GM Superstar but from now on i'll be keeping my money in my pocket.