Logical Chess Move by Move - Criticism

I am a novice. I started playing chess 6 months ago. I have already read:

Seirawan's  " Play Winning Chess "

Dan Heisman's  " Back to basics: Tactics" (an excellent first book for tactical motifs)

Silman's  " Complete Endgame Course " A,B and C Class

Silman's  " Amateaur Mind " (good introduction to strategy and positional evaluation)

Nunn's  " Learn Chess Tactics "

Chandler's "How to Beat your Dad at Chess"

Then i decided that it was time for my first game collection book and started Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move", induced by the comments i 've seen about it. My goal was to absorb everything i had read until then, learn some opening systems and see in a real game how chess masters plan, when they decide to attack and how etc

I tried to play through the games, mostly as white, and predict the next moves. If the move was different, of the one i would have made, i was trying to understand it, before read author's annotations. Then i was analysing the move with stockfish 6.

I can say that, given my targets, i was hugely disappointed:

1) Chernev does little about explaining the plan each player has, with some exceptions. He does a good job presenting the strategy behind some openings (he actually made me consider colle system for my own games), but some lines are not the best (eg game 9 ruy lopez) and he doesn't say anything about that.

2) He contradicts himself from game to game. I understand that general rules (the so called rules of thumb) are not "iron rules" but just guidelines. But he tries to declare a general rule in every single game, to bend this rule later in another game.

3) He has 16 games mainly about kingside attack but he barely explains what are the preconditions for a succesful kingside attack. Of course it's not only that the opponent has weakened his pawn structure in front of the castled king, as he repeatedly states.

4) Most of his games never reach endgame phase.

5) Pretty often his analysis is not accurate. A few times i was able to realize that myself, but i also checked it with stockfish.

To sum up i think that this book has a certain purpose: introduce a beginner with the basic principles of the game (although in a non-systematic manner, but in a form of scattered rules throughout the book) and is decent on that.

But i also believe that are better books for that purpose such as Seirawan's excellent  " Play Winning Chess ". It's more to the point, more systematic and probably a beginner like me would find easier to digest.

Someone,also, could use chessmaster 11 tutorials if he owns or can buy the programm.

Finally, if someone wants a book of move by move annotated games, that actually achieve the above goals, i strongly recommend Neil McDonald's " The Art of Logical Thinking " which i currently read.

Of course i don't expect Chernev be as accurate as Stockfish, or include analysis with long lines and variations. That would be against the nature and target audience of his book.

But in many cases he doesn't point out the wrong moves in  the games and sometimes the moves and lines he proposes are at least inaccurate.

I consider myself as a beginner as well, and i can safely state that this is just a first book for someone and nothing else can be expected from that

Yes, depending on the edition you are reading, there are errors in the book. Some have been corrected in later editions.

But to say you are a "beginner as well" may be stretchng it as you state you have read all of the following:

Seirawan's  " Play Winning Chess "

Dan Heisman's  " Back to basics: Tactics" (an excellent first book for tactical motifs)

Silman's  " Complete Endgame Course " A,B and C Class

Silman's  " Amateaur Mind " (good introduction to strategy and positional evaluation)

Nunn's  " Learn Chess Tactics "

Chandler's "How to Beat your Dad at Chess"

Not exactly the books a beginner has already read. I have been playing a while and still have not read either of those Silman books.