Originally posted by Wulebgr I don't have any by Eric Schiller, but do have Raymond Keene's books on the 1978, 1995, and 2000 World Chess Championship matches.
My first 4 chessbooks were Schiller books.Then I got wiser.Now I use them when I need to block the door from slamming shut on warm but windy days.I find them very useful 😛
To combat my collection of chess books I'll never use, I recently donated about 30 of them to my local library. Their chess collection was crap and it gets rid of a lot of clutter around the house.
Over the past 30 years I've bought a couple dozen chess books, always with the best intentions. Chess books are the most thumbed-over, but least read things printed. It does make me feel like a better player having them on hand though.
The only chess books that I really do read and enjoy are those relating to chess lore, literature, trivia, and history, because they're mindless brain candy and easy to digest. The Oxford Companion To Chess is a good example.
Originally posted by Wulebgr I don't have any by Eric Schiller, but do have Raymond Keene's books on the 1978, 1995, and 2000 World Chess Championship matches.
I also do have some books that are very bad. The ones that annoy me the much are the some old that use the classic notation (P-K4, and so on). Once you get used with the algebraic notation, it's hard to go back.
Originally posted by Sam The Sham The only chess books that I really do read and enjoy are those relating to chess lore, literature, trivia, and history, because they're mindless brain candy and easy to digest. The Oxford Companion To Chess is a good example.
I have Oxford Companion sitting next to a couple of Edward Winter's texts and a copy of the USCF rules. They come off the shelf often. When I found The Batsford Book of Chess Records for $2 last week at my "local" Big Box Bookstore, I added it to that section of the shelf.
Originally posted by Tatarana Crocodilo I also do have some books that are very bad. The ones that annoy me the much are the some old that use the classic notation (P-K4, and so on). Once you get used with the algebraic notation, it's hard to go back.
Although I agree that algebraic is much more sensible, I have enough good old books in descriptive that I keep in practice reading it. Such books as Renaud and Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate--in a class by itself (other checkmate pattern books are not half as good)--and Karpov's Collected Games: All 530 Available Encounters, 1961-1974, which I bought in high school a few years ago.
my vice is opening books. I have dozens that i've started to read and then given up after going through page after page of variations with no text to back them up. The prospect of remembering all those variations is a lesson in futility.
yet i still hope that the next opening book will be the solution to my opening play.
I don't regret buying any books on tactics, the more the merrier.
I currently have about 40 having sold enough to get it down to using only two of my bookshelves for chess. MY favorite would be Best Lessons of a Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantery.
I thought 50 chess books was a bit much! But I'm going to the London Chess Centre soon with my birthday money so I'll probably buy more than is good for me.
I definetly won't be buying any Schiller books though.. typos in the text are bad enough but when there's consistently incorrect use of boldface (which I rely on to know if he's talking about a subvariation or not) it reallys makes my life difficult.
Oh and my favourite is probably Bronstein's Zurich.
I've come to the conclusion that chess books in general don't really do alot for ones play. I am course referring to the books that tend to focus on the positional/ strategic side of the game. Sure the study of this side of the game has it's place, if you're a master looking for improvement for instance.
However the majority of us are not in that class and what we require is a good grounding in pattern recognition, tactics etc.
I've found the study of master games PURDY STYLE to be a reasonable help with this but lately i've gone even more intensive with one or two ideas outlined by A Kotov in his book Think Like A Grandmaster. The basis of his idea is to play through games up until the position becomes sufficiently complex to warrant serious calculation and analysis. Then... give yourself say 30 mins and work out (without moving the pieces) all the relevant lines. Then check your analysis with that of the master. Then of course see how little you understood about the position. If you're going to do this you have to play over games from a book with sufficient analysis. I've personally just invested in Speelman's best games which is ideal and probably one of the last books i'll buy.
I'll see how things go.
10 Aug '08 23:25
Who has more chess books that will never read?
Back to Top