Who's your favorite chess author?

The OTB method is by far the best.

I lived in the Edinburgh Chess Club as caretaker for 4/5 years. 77-82

I sat in on all the post mortems, played serious chess, skittles and blitz
with some great players. You could not help but get better.

I listened and learned (of course I ignored a lot of the stuff - endings primarily).
Had heroes Morphy and Marshall and would not budge from these two.

I wanted to and strove to and at times suceeded in producing games
like these two.

There is a note by Alekhine in one his volumes of best games.

"....a typical Marshall trap."

I wanted so much to have someone write that about me (sad I know).

Later Tarrasch (Reinfeld's book on Tarrasch gave me a big leg up).
Then Tartakower. Then Nunn (whose style I liked so I nicked his opening rep.).

So there I was, a good player, white hot at tactics. (but little else).

Often in the club, long before computers, players analysing their fresh game
would call on me to find the missed mating combination and if it was there
then I would find did.

So there I was, and here I still am, a good (well now reasonable) player,
not quite so hot at tactics. (don't keep my eye with the daily stuff I used to do,
you have to keep your powder dry).

Ruxton singled out my weakness about 9/10 years ago.

"You fear quiet postions and although you can stir up trouble even in
the most quiet postions you take awful chances. Play the quiet positions,
you are a good player and you will simply outplay them."

So I gave that a bash and I was stunned how good I was.
(and how easy it was).

Ah Well. No regrets, I'd do it all again. Had some great fun.

At club had acess to a library of over 4,000 books, it was from there
I got my simple love of just reading about chess or playing over games.

---------------------------

Just had to check which volume. it's 1924-1937. game 16.

Alekhine - Marshall, New York 1925

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Ne4 4. Nfd2 Bb4



Alekhine writes:

"A typical Marshall trap: If now 5.a3 then 5...Qf6 with an immediate win."

Alekhine played 5.Qc2 and went on to win the Brilliancy prize.

Alekhine's best games 1908-1923 is a wonderful book I keep forgetting about.

I owe that book a lot and in a poll I did in the early 1980's from over
40 players (GM's and IM's etc that were playing in a chess event)
that came out near the top (Fischer's 60 walked it).

Originally posted by nimzo5
Interesting question div-

I study with an IM and he had me go over about 5-10 games of Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik and asked me to decide which one of these players styles I liked the most and would like to model.

This sort fits the idea of a chess hero I think. My coach didn't like the idea of studying older players like Capa or Alekhine because he felt ...[text shortened]... enthusiasm for the game going. If there is one thing you need in chess, it's persistence.

So... which one did you like best and why? 🙂

And what are there respective styles? I find it difficult to accept that one could play chess according to a certain style. I always just try and make the best move. If there are forcing tactics then obviously that's the path I choose. Otherwise I just try and improve my position in whatever way is obvious to me.

Although I probably don't have a right to say such things as I have not studied games of Petrosian, who was apparently a great defensive player, next to those of Tal, who has been called attacking.

Also @ Paulfromspace (I don't know how to quote 2 posts at the same time, anyone else know?):

I believe that books must have helped you improve if you say they did... But at what level does one start with them? I have heard that you shouldn't read Reassess Your Chess until you're 1800, save My System until you're 2000+, etc. I don't believe I am anywhere near those ratings. And you seem to have studied Fischer quite a bit. I am American too so Fischer appeals to me... If I were to study any GM's games it would be his. At what level did you start studying his games? Do you regret studying certain books/games too early or too late?

Originally posted by DivGradCurl
Also @ Paulfromspace (I don't know how to quote 2 posts at the same time, anyone else know?):

I believe that books must have helped you improve if you say they did... But at what level does one start with them? I have heard that you shouldn't read Reassess Your Chess until you're 1800, save My System until you're 2000+, etc. I don't beli ...[text shortened]... tart studying his games? Do you regret studying certain books/games too early or too late?

I really don't have much more to say on the subject. The fact that you haven't studied chess from books compared to your games is a real statement against books. Your methods seem to work fine too.

On the other hand, don't let ratings keep you from reading a book. It is never too early to pick up some extra knowledge. You might not understand it all at first, but it will come to you over TIME not rating points.

Fischer is one of the greatest of all time. Some of his games are real instructive gems. The problem though, is that being so good, a lot of his games are too complex to understand.

My favorite players to study improvement-wise are Capablanca-techique, Lasker-complicating lost positions/defense, Petrosian-overall defensive play, and Karpov-technique again. Kasparov and Fischer are surely the best, but you can't really imitate genius (You either have it or you don't.). I feel the same way about Carlsen.

Just My Thoughts

I remember reading through Fine's The Middlegame in Chess dozens of times when I was younger. Another one that I liked a lot was Kotov's Play Like a Grandmaster, though some of his ideas can be hard for average players to follow at times. Graham Burgess is another good author in my book.. And recently I've taken to playing through Alfonso Romero's Creative Chess Strategy. I've had it for a while now, but just got around to seriously looking at it.. Good stuff.

But if I just HAD to pick some favorites, in no particular order: Fine, Euwe, Nimzovich, Kotov, Keres, and Capablanca. Fischer's 60 games is also a good choice.

the kasparov series is a one of a kind work. all the chess history and openings. and you've gotta love his enthusiasm. high class analysis.

I bought entire series for £20.00 and sold them a fortnight later for £40.00.

I had only got through a quarter of Book 1 and the bit on Fischer.

I made up my mind fairly soon that I had seen all the games 'and
a lot of the notes before.

It was good that it opened the door to history of chess to a lot of players,
but there are better books written by players and writers who knew and
met these great players.

Once again you just need to glance at Winter's site where he rips it to sheds.

"A very great part of the analysis (certainly more than 95% ) has been
"copied from earlier sources, mostly without proper acknowledgement."

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

Did anyone mention Nimzovitz? I played a boy on another site who swore My System was the only book he read. He beat me horribly. Anyone here read it and liked it?

Grit

Originally posted by grit
Did anyone mention Nimzovitz? I played a boy on another site who swore My System was the only book he read. He beat me horribly. Anyone here read it and liked it?

Grit

Yes and yes. Get the more modern translation, the one with the jokes in.

Originally posted by grit
Did anyone mention Nimzovitz? I played a boy on another site who swore My System was the only book he read. He beat me horribly. Anyone here read it and liked it?

Grit

I once read a quote by Larsen where he said that reading Nimzovitsch's My System was like reading "magic", and that it was a huge influence for his play.

I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on the best chess annotators?

I have heard Alekhine, Bronstein, and Keres are supposed to be very good. And Shirov and Igor Stohl in recent times. Anyone else? And what works are their best?

Reinfeld and Chernev, for the classics. Honorable mention for I.A. Horowitz.
Silman and DeFirmian for modern.
Anthea Carson for being herself.

Just chiming in to second Nimzo5 when he picked Yermolinsky. In a way, kind of a joke because Yermo has only written only a few English language books, but one of them, The Road to Chess Improvement, is very entertaining (as well as instructive).
If you've heard Alex annotating games you'll know why he is so popular. The thick accent hides a very engaging and likeable fellow who loves the game and people, and basically shoe-horned his own considerable improvement and skill in the years leading up to that book. Alex Yermolinsky was a model for young Naroditsky, who's own recent book ain't bad either.

DGC- I opted for Karpov. Kasparov's chess makes sense to me, albeit once I decipher the variations.

Yermo really needs to write more. Kasparov's collection of books are good stuff, but man, to have Yermo's take on the last 50 years...