Logical Chess?

True, another good beginner book is "Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur" by World Champion (1935-37) Max Euwe. PGN can be found here: http://analysisclan.blogspot.mx/

No disagreement here since I haven't read either book.  However when basic themes are stated, such as control of the center, open lines, etc. often there are other extenuating circumstances that can render that advise inappropriate.  Never say never, but also never say always.

Some of the most interesting and controversial books (Move First, Think Later for example) actually argue that violation of basic themes and advice can lead to extraordinary positions and surprise advantages.

Also remember that GMs in the pre-computer analysis era may have let an error slip by, although most had proofreaders for quality control.  Aside from an outright blunder, I think one can usually only argue that there might have been a strong line.  I haven't seen any author that is just outright "wrong" about his/her view of how to see the board, just differences of opinion.

You have persuaded me to purr-chase said voll-ume

I’ve used Amazon before, but they had a used copy for 11 bucks, shipped from the UK; total price 18 quid! Are they taking the mickey? Ebay had one for 12. 

.. a brand new copy, to boot

Chernev's principles are grounded in the "modern" principles set down by William Steinitz, Seigbert Tarrasch, and others, but tempered by the developments of the hypermoderns--Reti, Nimzovich, Aljechin. Nunn's ideas are better, but the differences are less critical for players below master.

All this talk has me wanting to reread this book. I last read it maybe 15 years ago and it really had me playing well at the club. I haven't really played since then but am getting back into chess and will probably give this book a second reading.

Also FYI, there is a free ChessBase reader app for the iPad where you can search an online database of games. So far just about every game I've gone through in the older Chernev and Tartakower books have been in the database. It makes it really easy to follow the games while reading the book.

Also another great Chernev book is his book on tactics Winning Chess: How to See Three Moves Ahead. He has a chapter devoted to each tactical device, describes the device in detail and then gives you puzzle and solution diagrams for dozens of positions each chapter with the puzzle on one page and solution on the next. Chernev annotates each puzzle so you get more info than a standard puzzle book and then as the chapters build, the combinations build on each other. It really helped me when I was starting out.

the quality of his ideas is only one point though. how can you take what he takes seriously if he applauds one players move in a situation, then in the same position in another game chastises the player for the same move!?

So what is the best way to study this book?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I seem to learn a lot from puzzle books, but I don't think I learn as much from books like Logical Chess (I wish I learned more because I really enjoy reading Chernev!)  I'd like to figure out how to best learn from master game books too.

I played a few games against a friend yesterday and started talking about Logical Chess.  He reads it on the train to and from work, which I thought would make it difficult to absorb much of the content.  I usually set up a board and move through the game, and some (but not all) of the variations.  However, I think I could push myself harder by trying to guess the next move - lately I've tended to just play through the game and think about the move after reading Chernev's explaination.

So, how should one use this book or any book of master games for that matter?  Is it enough to just read it?  Should you play through them with a board?  Is guessing the next move the intended technique?  What else can I do to leverage this book's full potential?

very good

euwes book is not only instructive and educative its also very fun to read

Not really looking for more book recommendations, but how to use these books to really build knowledge...

I've been reading the book since December. I play through the game without annotations (I have them all in a database on my computer, and duplicated on my iPad). Going through the game, I locate the critical points in the game, identify the principal errors, assess when tactics might be possible. Often I go through the game several times over several days.

When I feel that I understand the game, I go through it again with Chernev open and study his annotations. I did game 22 this morning. I continued playing through the game in my head while walking the dogs after reading Chernev's annotations.

Now, on to game 23.

Well, I read this book as a kid because my dad had it.  Now I'm taking some lessons and my teacher recommends it.  I have two opinions of it.  First, it contains a lot of good stuff.  Second, it contains some wrong (or at least overstated) stuff.  My teacher has even asked me sometime why I don't push pawns when it's necessary and the fact is--it's very much because of the latent effects of reading this exact book in childhood.  Chernev just hates pawn pushing and he is very clear about it.  But, now that I'm older and more mature, I can go through this book (with Stockfish) and realize Chernev is just overstating his principles on purpose to make sure you hear them.  If you are the sort of person who listens carefully and takes advice on the first hearing, then the message will come in too strong for you--you need to be wise enough to self-adjust.  As an example (just one) in the first game of the book, Chernev is very hard on 7.a4 for White.  It's actually the best move.  Then, he also doesn't like 8.a5 for White.  He's right, but he says the reason is it waste's time if Black avoids the temptation to take the pawn.  Actually, it is a bad move exactly because Black can go ahead and take the pawn.  Chernev then criticizes 9.h3 when it's actually fine and not the reason for White's later troubles at all.  Rather, 10.dxe5 is the first really bad move and then 12.Nd2 is also bad (in fairness, Chernev does comment on both of these).  Fast forward all the way to the end, when Black has an impressive looking attack and White resigns to much Chernev adulation--yet if White plays Bxf7+ Black has quite some work left before he can claim a win.  Still, the principles are mostly good and illustrated well...you just have to know there are exceptions to principles (but probably fewer exceptions than you think).

if heisman reccommends a book,

then it must be terrible

or for people below 1200.

This book and Understanding Chess by John Nunn were both recommended by the NM Jerry from Chess Network, so I'm thinking of giving both a look

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092945/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review269.pdf

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Understanding_Chess_Move_by_Move.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf

Despite umirin1991's insulting comment about Dan Heisman, an award winning instructor and author of the Novice Nook column for the once active ChessCafe, he recommends Chernev's classic Logical Chess: Move by Move, but with caveats.  Here is his fair and unbiased view of the book.

Though this is somewhat off the subject, I recommend NM Heisman's 28-minute video differentiating board vision, visualization and tactical vision.  I also recommend his books, but if I had to buy only one then I'd go with A Guide to Chess Improvement: The Best Of Novice Nook.

Also, for those concerned with learning and practicing various tactical motifs, I don't think you can do better than Yakov Neishtadt's Improve Your Chess Tactics: 700 Practical Lessons & Exercises.

Lastly, thank you James Stripes (Ziryab) for your detailed review of Logical Chess.

Heisman's Elements of Positional Evaluation revolutionized my thinking about "development".