1. Logical Chess, Chernev: Already own this one and I'm reading this right now. 

2. The Amateur's Mind, Silman

3. Silman's Complete Endgame Course, Silman

4. Learn Chess Tactics, Nunn

I already own number one but I think after some research on this forum these four books should be a good starting point. Or do you have other suggestions? I also own Chessmaster Grandmaster to do the Waitzkin Academy but to be honest I realy enjoy sitting on the couch with a chessboard in front of me. I'm already spending too much time behind my computer. So I prefer a (tactics) book instead of software. 

The whole point of Silman's Complete Endgame Course is to progress through the book as your rating increases.  So it would make no sense to read the endgame book from cover to cover before reading any of the others.

Thanks for the feedback so far. @IM pfren; I already own Logical Chess so I'm not gonna skip it. And why should I skip Amateur's Mind? It's got good reviews. 

Hmm ok.. but IF I would skip the first two, I would only have something about tactics and endgames. I feel I should have some strategy/planning fundamentals too. 

I've just started playing chess for a few months so it can't be too advanced. It's hard to make decisions because there are SO many books and so many opionions. And I just want the essential and the best of the best stuff ofcourse. And I want to beat my friends. 

For tactics I would just do the stappenmethode step 2,3 and 4 (with the plus books). I think they give you a good tactical basic. Further to become very decent with checkmates: Laszlo Polgar - CHESS 5334 Problems Combinations & Games. 

What I do is every day at least 10 checkmates from the polgar book and further depending on my mood some endgames of silman endgame book or some pages of the stappenmethode book.

Would I still benefit from My chess Carreer if I've finished Logical Chess? And is the tactics book from Nunn good for my level or should I get another one? I 'know' tactics from the Waitzkin acadamy but I haven't practiced them much. 

John Nunn is rather critical of Chernev and had this to say.

"Not all of Chernev's books are bad; he was clearly a chess enthusiast
and when he stuck to elementary topics his effervescent writing style
could be a benefit, but a player of his strength is unlikely to discover
new general principles which somehow eluded great chess thinkers such
as Tarrasch, Nimzovich, and Reti. It is easy to be taken in by this type of
annotation, which may appear to 'explain' a game, but which closer
inspection reveals to be a tissue of superficiality. In the same way that
pseudoscientific theories may appear convincing to those with little
knowledge of science, 'pseudo-chess' books may appear convincing to
their target audience. Unfortunately, such misleading chess books are
distressingly common and whereas a belief in pseudoscience may not
cost you rating points, a belief in pseudo-chess probably will."

The above quote comes from the following article:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman118.pdf

In the end, Heisman recommends Logical Chess but with a caveat.

Ultimately I think Nunn fails to realize how little some people know about chess. A 3rd grade science book contains many, many false statements, over-simplifications, and even more statements that aren't properly nuanced or which are over-stater or under-stated to the point of being misleading.

Those are not faults of the text, they are what makes the text accessable to the target audience. Chernev's target audience is not players who are at expert level and who just need a few nuanced points to take them to title land. The target audience are people who barely know how to move the pieces and who can't figure out how to put together even the most basic plan. 

What about 'Winning Chess; how to see three moves ahead' by Chernev and Reinfield for a tactics book? Somehow I fear the Nunn's book may be a little too advanced for me. 

I think you have a point.  Reinfield understood the value of repetition in the learning process.  Once you have mastered the Chernev and Reinfield book you can move on to Neishtadt's book.

What do you mean? I know the question in the topic title isn't perfect English..

It's just a sarcastic response, there's no problem with the English. 

He means left to right (shame on you achintooth for not making that clear!). 

We around here prefer the phrase "delightfully droll."

He meant first the book on tactics, then the book on endgames and only then the books on strategy. Which makes alot of sense btw.

*LOL at the IM who totally dissed Silman*

He has a good point though, the books on your list are kind of useless.

I'm not sure what your playing level is but something like a printed out version of http://www.chess.com/download/view/chesskidcom-curriculum.  If you can practice all the stuff in this and do all the worksheets/ find a training partner for the practice stuff, it will be 100 times better then the chess books you listed.  Unless of course you are already a strong player.

They're not "useless". Nunn's book is especially great, even if it's a bit on the tough side (there are easier tactics books for beginners around).

Or at least, that they can convey said knowledge better via the printed page...

I have to disagree with you regarding The Amateur's Mind.  I have found the book to be a great help.  But as with anything, we all have our own ways of learning.  What doesnt appeal to one person will work for another.