ifeather, Freud was a neurotic charlatan whose ideas were based on his studies of equally neurotic middle-class middle-aged Austrian women, an', btw, what's this got to do with bad chess books ? 
The worst chess book I've ever read, and why...
Sort:
Apr 12, 2010
0
#83
The value of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess stems not from any breakthrough in chess content (Fischer's forte), but from an innovative approach to instruction (Stuart Margulies' forte). Fischer agreed to put his name on, and probably consult in the work of Margulies and his colleagues. Fischer was offered a considerable portion of the proceeds in exchange.
He was paid to promote the work of Educational Design, Inc., and he did so with enthusiasm.
My vote goes to Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca. I have tried to read this book, but just can't get interested in it.
Apr 13, 2010
0
#86
smileative wrote:
ifeather, Freud was a neurotic charlatan whose ideas were based on his studies of equally neurotic middle-class middle-aged Austrian women, an', btw, what's this got to do with bad chess books ?
Freud is not much different than Galileo, he is one of the the greatest scientists history has ever witnessed. Not everything with his work was perfect, but he took an enormous role in actually founding a new area of science. You know how we see people who called Galileo a charlatan at the time...
I read some glimpses of the Fine book that's been mentioned above, and I must say, yes, it was ridiculous. Freud is nowhere close to that.
Apr 13, 2010
0
#87
Ziryab wrote:
The value of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess stems not from any breakthrough in chess content (Fischer's forte), but from an innovative approach to instruction (Stuart Margulies' forte). Fischer agreed to put his name on, and probably consult in the work of Margulies and his colleagues. Fischer was offered a considerable portion of the proceeds in exchange.
He was paid to promote the work of Educational Design, Inc., and he did so with enthusiasm.
I heard Fischer curse at the publishers for basically stealing his name. I unfortunately don't have the link to the audio right now. Besides, the book is seriously awful, I think Fischer would do much better if he was involved. I doubt he changed his mind so drastically to have any enthusiasm about the whole thing later or before giving that audio interview. I'd appreciate any sources.
philidor_position wrote:
smileative wrote:
ifeather, Freud was a neurotic charlatan whose ideas were based on his studies of equally neurotic middle-class middle-aged Austrian women, an', btw, what's this got to do with bad chess books ?
Freud is not much different than Galileo, he is one of the the greatest scientists history has ever witnessed. Not everything with his work was perfect, but he took an enormous role in actually founding a new area of science. You know how we see people who called Galileo a charlatan at the time...
I read some glimpses of the Fine book that's been mentioned above, and I must say, yes, it was ridiculous. Freud is nowhere close to that.
You're comparing Freud to Galileo? Spurious.
Apr 13, 2010
0
#89
Captainbob767 wrote:
My vote goes to Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca. I have tried to read this book, but just can't get interested in it.
Capa's book ("...fundamentals") was published in the early 20th centuary and while it's not he most engaging book ever written on chess technique it actually one of the most cogent and most useful interms of really letting a beginner/intermediate know what must be understood in order to make serious progress. I love how in that book he teaches in "reverse order". He starts by explaining aspects of the end game, then the middle game and only then does he talk about the opening. He re-cycles through this progression several times, each time with more detailed and advanced concepts and analysis. If you can get through the rather stilted writing it's an EXCELLENT BOOK and in no way deserves a place in this thread as a "worst" book.
Apr 13, 2010
0
#90
philidor_position wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
The value of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess stems not from any breakthrough in chess content (Fischer's forte), but from an innovative approach to instruction (Stuart Margulies' forte). Fischer agreed to put his name on, and probably consult in the work of Margulies and his colleagues. Fischer was offered a considerable portion of the proceeds in exchange.
He was paid to promote the work of Educational Design, Inc., and he did so with enthusiasm.
I heard Fischer curse at the publishers for basically stealing his name. I unfortunately don't have the link to the audio right now. Besides, the book is seriously awful, I think Fischer would do much better if he was involved. I doubt he changed his mind so drastically to have any enthusiasm about the whole thing later or before giving that audio interview. I'd appreciate any sources.
No to get too picky, but "authorship" of the book is not relevant to this thread. But back on topic, BF teaches chess is not "seriously awful". It's actually quite good if you're a BEGINNER. It's like the "tactics trainer" here at chess.com. Is that seriously awful too? If you're too advanced for a book, that doesn't mean it's an awful book, it means you need a more advanced book.
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is one of Dan Heisman's recommendations. How seriously awful can it be?
Add me to the side who thinks it's a good book for people of the appropriate skill level.
There are no bad books , whether it is chess or otherwise!
Apr 14, 2010
0
#93
slvnfernando wrote:
There are no bad books , whether it is chess or otherwise!
slfernando...that's just silly. There are PLENTY of bad books.
Apr 14, 2010
0
#94
polydiatonic wrote:
philidor_position wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
The value of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess stems not from any breakthrough in chess content (Fischer's forte), but from an innovative approach to instruction (Stuart Margulies' forte). Fischer agreed to put his name on, and probably consult in the work of Margulies and his colleagues. Fischer was offered a considerable portion of the proceeds in exchange.
He was paid to promote the work of Educational Design, Inc., and he did so with enthusiasm.
I heard Fischer curse at the publishers for basically stealing his name. I unfortunately don't have the link to the audio right now. Besides, the book is seriously awful, I think Fischer would do much better if he was involved. I doubt he changed his mind so drastically to have any enthusiasm about the whole thing later or before giving that audio interview. I'd appreciate any sources.
No to get too picky, but "authorship" of the book is not relevant to this thread. But back on topic, BF teaches chess is not "seriously awful". It's actually quite good if you're a BEGINNER. It's like the "tactics trainer" here at chess.com. Is that seriously awful too? If you're too advanced for a book, that doesn't mean it's an awful book, it means you need a more advanced book.
I was once a beginner too, not so long ago, and I'm familiar with books that are intended for beginners, and BFTC might be the worst one I've come across with. Tactics Trainer is one of the best tools available for all levels. Polgar has a "brick book" full of mate in ones and twos etc, that would not be very useful for me, but I can fully appreciate how useful it can be for beginners. The material covered in BFTC however was selected very poorly and inefficiently, in my opinion.
Apr 14, 2010
0
#95
notlesu wrote:
The quotation in the previous post--- " I heard Fischer curse at the publishers for basically stealing his name" was about the other Fischer book "My sixty Memorable Games." The English edition had several hundred errors and Fischer screamed to high heaven. One of the errors was Fischers overlooking a mate in two.
Bobby Fischer teaches chess was a unique beginners book---in it's day. It took positions right out of Fischer's games and explained them simply but interestingly to beginners. There was Fischer v Keres candidates 1959 (interesting to any chessplayer), fischer v Larsen 1958, Gligoric v Fischer 1961, Fischer v Reshevesky USA ch 1962 (not too shabby), Fischer v Benko 1965 and a host of others. And who do you think Fischer would intrust to explain his games---only the kid from Brooklyn, thats who!!
The next time you quote someone---make sure it's an accurate staement.
No no, my sixty games is a whole different story, I'm pretty sure he directly mentioned the Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess book. I'll share it here if I can find the source.
Edit:
OK, I was partly wrong, it seems that according to Soltis, Fischer has allowed his name to be used in the book, but hasn't contributed anything. The interview I recall was probably this one I found here:
''(The US) government's expropriation of my property . . . is the same
government that wants to put me in prison for 10 years, the same
government that is giving Lerner International owned by the giant Times
Mirror Corp., the right to say that 'Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess' is
their trademark,''' he said.
''That is a license to rob me and my estate forever . . . They can come
up with a 'Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess' set.
They've already come up with a CD-ROM (and) they're giving me nothing,
not a penny. This is not a joke, this is a trademark to my name,
(that's) much more than a copyright. That means they can use my name
anyway they see fit . . .
It's a license to rob me and exploit my name for eternity.
government is in on this, the US is filth.''
So I think I have forgot it was the CD-ROM he was talking about,
and other products with the same name.
Edit 2: or perhaps this one here:
"this fake forged book, called umm uh, I mean CD-Rom called Bobby
Fischer Teaches Chess. Now they're behind this mega-robbery of all my
stuff at the Pasadena storage house, the robbery and auctioning off of
all this stuff. You know, they grabbed this stuff on the cheapest,
meanest trick. The most transparent ploy you can imagine."
The Texas Lawn Guide by Steve Dobbs
Learned absolutely nothing about chess from it - But actually lawn care does involve strategy and is in a sense a competitive game with opponents like the weather and insects. And it is played on a relatively flat surface.
Apr 14, 2010
0
#97
notlesu wrote:
You're talking babble. Soltis said in his book on page 10 That Fischer made some contributions to the book but chiefly---his name!
Chill, I already quoted Soltis on that, and we don't know if he "contributed" in any other way.
notlesu wrote:
Fischer contributed many of his games with notes to that book---a sizeable contribution.
Almost all Fischer games were probably already recorded and is part of public domain, but OK maybe he could've shared some simultaneous games etc. But where are his notes in the book? If you are referring to the few "this position is from my game against X, which is a master from Y" type of sentences, to me it seems obvious they're not written by Fischer, but even if they are, there's nothing special about them. By notes I mean annotations or analysis, there's none done by Fischer in the book.
Regarding the comment on Silman's amatuer's mind, I thought it was a great book. The imbalances are just factors in the game. I do find it a little strange he wants you to go through all these imablances (even if it's only 7) before every move, which totally disagrees with other grandmaster advice (take the candidate moves - check them out - you don't have time for this complex dissection). That's pretty much irrelevant though, the book is about analyzing different situations in chess and playing well, how can you go wrong there especially from such a great writer. I haven't seen many books even close to as good, he even puts in a lot of chess history in the books.
I didn't realize Bill Wall was posting in this forum! I posted a commendation over in the Good Books forum. Sorry Bill, but I do like your Ruy Lopez minis.
Apr 15, 2010
0
#100
notlesu wrote:
My friend, you are wrong. If you've got a minute, pull up a chair and sit down---this might take a while.
I am going to list some of the game positions from the book Bobby Fischer teaches chess.
1. Keres-Fischer Zurich 1959 A very important game to Fischer. It was the first time he defeated one of the leading Soviet Grandmasters. This is one of the games in My 60 Memorable Games. Just think the beginner who bought this book not only learned something about the chessboard, the pieces, and chess notation---but also got an advance look at one of the classic chess books.
2. Fischer-Larsen Portoroz 1958 An object lesson in how to mount an assualt against a fianchettoed King. The aura of inevitability about the outcome of this game reminds one of the Fischer-Larsen candidates match of 71'. By the way another preview of "My 60 Memorable Games."
3.Gligorich-Fischer Bled 1961 Each move in this game is interesting and, to this day, appears flawless. And guess what---you guessed it, another preview of MY 60 Memorable games.
I'm beginning to feel like I'm kicking a dead horse so I'm going to back off and move on to something else.
But I cant help but feel that Fischer was already writing My 60 Memorable Games at this time. The Letelier game and Reshevsky 62', Pilnik 1959, Sherwin 1957 in Fischer teaches Chess were all part of his 60 Memorable games.
And remember too that the games may have been public domain---the annotations and notes are not. If you want to play chess detective, read the notes to a move in one of the games in BF Teaches Chess and read the notes to the same move in 60 Memorable games. Are they similar---does it sound like Fischer in both books?
The note from the Larsen game: "Draw an arrow pointing to the one square to which black can flee:" [basically find the only legal move, it says]
The note from the Gligoric game: "Assume white's pawn captures the black knight. Draw an arrow to show how I would then mate in one move:"
I won't even bother to find the next example. These "notes" you're talking about are only there to fill in space and to give the reader the impression that Fischer has something to do with the book, I'm 99% sure they aren't even written by Fischer, and these "annotations" have nothing to do with the analysis in My 60 Memorable Games, the two are not even comparable. And no, they don't sound similar at all.
Yeah Freud was an interesting fellow to come up with the ideas that he did. To me they seem absurd, but despite that, also reasonable.