I never read this book, or heard of Timothy Taylor although I looked him up and at least he's a master. From now on stick to books written by IMs and GMs with good reputations, which still doesn't guarantee 100% good chess book purchases but at least it's a start.
As far as naming "bad chess books" goes it's been done before here, many times and the bottom line is you'll discover many time-honored classics such as "My System" by Nimzovitch and "Chess Fundamentals" by Capablanca to name but a very few really suck ass - at least according to the big-time "experts" (sic) who say so.
If you're really interested in an authoritative opinion on crappy chess books go here: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter06.html
I know this topic is unoriginal, but I have a really stupid book that I want to get off my chest.
The book is Beating the KID and Grunfeld by Timothy Taylor. I checked it out to see what White had up his sleeve to beat my beloved KID.
He claims every line in the Martz line of the FPA is winning for White, and his "Liz" variation as well. He also writes false premises of the Na6, e5 line that features a pawn sac, proven by computers, and OTB play. He seems to think White is just up a pawn, even though the evidence shows against it.
Lets look at his suggestions:
(with his comments and annotations)
Thats why you should look over author analysis with an engine, before you use it in a real game.
P.S, I know some of you will say the book was old, but it was published in 2006, where strong engines somewhat existed, at least they played to grandmaster strength, or more.
Anyone else read this book?
Oh, and post your worst books here as well! This way, we can warn potential chess book buyers of bad books, saving their money, as well as ours if we ever buy a book.