Are there any other books like this? Which ones are worth getting?
Thanks
Neil McDonald's, Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking is really good. As is Euwe's. Chess Amateur vs. Chess Master.
Both of these are great books in the vein of Chernev's book.
Are there any other books like this? Which ones are worth getting?
Thanks
I believe that "Understanding Chess Move by Move" by John Nunn is in a similer vein to Chernev's book.
Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking by Neil McDonald is similar in style to Chernev's book.
I have this book and I like it very much.
But everything has advantages and disadvantages and I am missing postings which criticise this book, for example:
http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Chess-Every-Explained-Algebraic/product-reviews/0713484640/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=2&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
------------------------------------------------- klipp ---------------------------------
[...] Chernev put a lot of hard work into this book. He DOES explain every move--even if he has to go back to obscure 1820s books to say something new about 1. d4 when we see it for the 10th time. What's more, he does this without, for the most part, repeating the old libels about the "crazy" Steinitz or the "sadistic" Alekhine, etc., used by some authors to make reading about chess "exciting" without real work. Also, Chernev's love of the subtle move and the brilliant combination come through in the book, making us all remember why we like chess in the first place.
Unfortunately, the book's analysis is simply bad. It is hard to blame Chernev for trying to simplify what is going on in complex positions--the book is, after all, aimed at beginners--but his simplification completely distorts the situation. Of the 30+ games in the book, almost *all*, apart from five or six, are symetrical open games (1. d4 d5 or 1. e4 e5) many of them using obscure openings few play nowadays (Colle system, King's gambit). Some of this is due to fashion. But a lot of it has to do with something Chernev constantly ignores or mistates, but is of cardinal importance--the *plans* of the two sides.
Putting things very crudely, The King Indian's Defense and other asymmetrical openings allow black to concentrate on other plans--"building a solid position" for example--instead of that of immediate control of the center and rapid development. Why? Because, as Botvinnik noted, with such "asymmterical" plans white's first-move advantage is less prnounced. Conversely, the King's gambit is now unpopular since the main plan for white--attack on the black monarch--had been shown to lead to no more than a draw against accurate play.
Not much of this gets into Chernev's book. For him, the only opening plans are "develop your pieces" and "control the center". For example, he says that the reason people play 1. ... Nf6 in reply to 1. d4 is "to not allow white to dominate the center with 2. e4". Similarly, he condemns 1. ... e6 is "less agressive" (in controlling central space) than 1. ... e5 in reply to 1. e4, but at least it "opens lines to two pieces", does not allow White to play the King's gambit, and is useful against "over-agressive players".
Talk about oversimplification! Chernev's analysis is, I suppose, helpful to absolute beginners, showing them what is wrong with 1. h4 intending 2. Rh3, or with 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 intending 2. Qxe5+ (which, after the "thematic" 1. ... g6, leads to 3. QxR, 4. QxN, 5. Qx anything she can get her hands on), though they too are left wondering why anybody ever plays "inferior" moves such as 1. c4 or 1. ... Nf6. For all others, Nunn's "Understanding Chess Move by Move" is so superior in every respect comparing the two would be pitiful. It's like, to quote Edward Winter, comparing a Rolce-Royce with a rattle-trap.
------------------------------------- klipp -------------------------------------------
Regards,
D.
Are there any other books like this? Which ones are worth getting?
Thanks