There are few things in life more enjoyable than sitting down with a hot cup of coffee, a chess set, and a good chess book, and playing through and enjoying the games and annotations.
Amen. Even when the coffee gets cold.
As long as the cup stays hot.
Some books or CDs are only database dumps + a bit Engine analysis + some meaningless phrases. That's often the case when a low rated player is the author, but masters also have written such books.
Sometimes a book is a bit overextended. I think Lakdawalas 414 pages move-by-move book on the slav have only about 1/3 of the chess content compared to Avrukhs Grandmaster repertoire with 432 pages because of the two large diagramms on each page and a large font.
I think a good video beats a book, as well as tatics trainer beats ant puzzles.
Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess is a waste of paper.
This book was definitely one that put me on the path to becoming one of the top 30 or so age under-13 players in the US back in the mid 70s.
I had about 200 chess books about 2 years ago....but I don't think I had ever really studied them...just never found the time. End up selling them most of them and also giving to a charity book store. If you're a strong player then they might be useful and by strong I mean over 2200 ish...
Books good.
interesting to read through the threads here and see who says what, and compare ratings.
on average, the stronger players prefer or at least value books. the weaker playes prefer video's. I leave to y'all to do the math for yourselves........
Excellent point and I am not surprised . If you take the average rating of all the pro-book guys and compare it to the average rating of the anti-book guys I wouldnt be at all surprised if the pro-book guys have a higher rating by at least 1 class , maybe more . I started in 73 and am definitely pro-books , owning about 300 that I have collected over 40+ years of tourney play .
Simple Chess is thebook. Before I read it I was just moving the pieces around. But now...!
interesting to read through the threads here and see who says what, and compare ratings.
on average, the stronger players prefer or at least value books. the weaker playes prefer video's. I leave to y'all to do the math for yourselves........
Agree using a book to study is better - you can spend hours on a single page. But years playing chess is a factor. For us older guys books were the only real option.
You are certainly right about that ! 
Growing up in the 90's there wasn't near the resources kids today have today and my parents had zero interest in internet or computers so books were my only option. I just recently got back into chess and I find videos are helping refresh my memory of openings I used to play but not to much beyond that. I'm sure that sitting in front of a board with a good in depth book is the better way to learn. I'm using videos as like a tutorial to decide which openings I want to get serious about studying.
Watching TV (and videos) lets you take cat naps while you're pretending to learn.
Reviving 2 years old threads is always persuasive too.
My only wasted book purchases from the past were on "openings." Upon which beginners waste entirely too much time.
Should have spent that money on a coach, instead.
While I have 3-4 chess books I don't think I'll buy another one until I feel like I've thoroughly mastered the material in the books I have which will probably get me into the Class A range (1800-2000 USCF rated). Then I'll most likely be spending money on tournament expenses and some coaching. I don't think most people need dozens of books to learn chess well. A few good books that key in on targeted areas is probably enough to me.
Watching TV (and videos) lets you take cat naps while you're pretending to learn.
Reviving 2 years old threads is always persuasive too.
Also, don't forget to post "easy peasy" in the comments section of the daily puzzle, regardless of whether or not you actually solved it.
Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess is a waste of paper.
This book was definitely one that put me on the path to becoming one of the top 30 or so age under-13 players in the US back in the mid 70s.
This book took me to 3rd place in San Francisco when I was 8 (for my age group, of course)...it's actually an excellent book for teaching mating patterns and how to see combinations to young players. Whiiiiiiiiiiiich...is what it was written for. So: perfect book. Bad book selection by the agrieved poster of two years past.
Yep, they aren't mutually exclusive.