Old books are of course still useful. There is far more analysis that is tactically flawed, but the ideas in old books were the basis of ideas of books of today.
old books?
Sort:
It perhaps somewhat depends on the actual age of the book in question. I suspect that I have read more of Philidor and Staunton than most players on the planet, but it does not seem to have helped my game very much.
The Art of the Middle Game by Keres/Kotov to give just one example is still very highly esteemed. And that's a pretty old book. So are the works of Tarrasch and people still read those. Many advanced players still recommend reading Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals (if I recall the title right).
But wait I just noticed you are an FM! You ought to know the answer already? And a lot better than I do!
Jun 16, 2018
0
#5
I think it's safe to say that theory from the book: The Sicilian Pelikan (1989) by Evgeny Sveshnikov is outdated. 30 years is quite some time and modern engines can refute almost anything inside that book.
Today, almost 30 years later, lines can be reinforced and improved by engine analysis. Much of the long-lines can easily be refuted.
Of course the book has still some value for learning the basics of the Sveshnikov sicilian, but the longer lines has little value as theory has envolved since the publication date.
Given how little of the analysis needed correction in that series of republished best games collections by Batsford, edited by John Nunn (aided by computer analysis), including players like Capablanca, Alekhine, and Keres, old books are obviously still useful.
So are also old opening books, in some openings. Totally agree that a book on the Sicilian Dragon or Lasker-Pelikan or the Botvinnik Variation of the Semi-Slav that is 30 years old may be completely outdated, but most old opening books actually hold up quite well, especially on the more positional openings, like the Caro-Kann, the French, the Queen's Gambit Declined, the Ruy Lopez etc. Not all variations go out of fashion because they're refuted, but because they've become over-analyzed, or found to not to give sufficiently dynamic (= give opportunities to play for a win) play, and sometimes for no particular reason at all. This can also be seen in the repertoire by the top players these days: they're revisiting all sorts of lines which have been out of fashion for sometimes more than 100 years (like 5.Nc3 and 5.d3 in the Morphy Defence of the Ruy Lopez).
The fact that an engine can “refute” lines in an old book matters if you’re rated <2000? LMAO.
Tend to think that ffolkes is on the right track particularly if readers are less than 2000 in regulated otb play not putting much stock in online play. Heck, I once reached +1900 on this site and I’m not even remotely close to being an expert. Most of those old books contain material that’s incredibly helpful to me. The only negatives tend to be writing styles that are too formal.
SmokeJS wrote: Most of those old books contain material that’s incredibly helpful to me. The only negatives tend to be writing styles that are too formal.
And that's just a matter of preference or even habit, right? I'm the other way around, I don't like Silman's verbose persiflage or his 'streety' argot at all, although I find the positions and examples very useful (even though I'm typically outside his intended target audience). One real old gem for me is Edward Lasker's writings - all of which are 50 to 100 years old - wonderfully lucid. His succinct explanations of the endgames K+B+N v K, R+B v R, and R+N v R are the best I've ever seen. Without having to give much by way of variations, the key positions are perfectly explained.
are old book still useful for the ideas? It's weird to see the engine assault a lot of old analysis (not all of it to be fair)