What's a good book for a relative beginner?

The complete idiot's guide 2nd edition is a wonderful book too. just think it too advanced for a beginner or near beginner.

For a relative beginner I recomend:

Openings: Starting out series 

Tactics: Back to Basic Tactics by Dan Heisman and Chess Tactics for Champions by Susan Polgar

Strategy:  The Amateur's Mind by Jeremy Silman

Endgames: Silman's Complete Endgame Course by Jeremy Silman

I mean, I don't know everything here, so I could be off.  But Silman introduced "grandmaster strategy, theory and technique" to the masses(the average chessplayers). Mainly because he got hot as a chess author.  And, he did so in a way that 'worked', average level players 'got it'.  It's like that saying.. "An A+ student can't teach a C student".

Sure, chessmasters had been busting at the seams with the knowledge of mastering imbalances, and writing TONS of info on the stuff.  But a HIGH percentage of the readers just couldn't get it, or they just didn't find it 'interesting'.

Discredit Silman all you want, but, a high percentage of 'well kown' chess philosophy and knowledge that today's younger players take as much for granted as knowing how to castle... it all started with his courses on imbalances for student level players

"Capablanca's you can get as a free download. Big bonus - it's a great book."

It is public domain in a lot of countries in the world. However for misfortune in my country this book have copyright because the time to freeing for the old publications is 80 years after the death of the autor.

"Beginner" covers a large range of ratings. He is 1266 online, so I think that book would be suitable. After that I would study Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.

Horrific advice.

"However", internet has no borders, so here is a link for Chess Fundamentals in algebraic with  boards.

Copycat.

I fully agree. My System is, atleast according to me, the best chess book written till date. It covers from openings to endgames. But it explains nothing about tactics and concentrates on Positional play.

I'm not talking about just that one book, I'm talking about Silman's entire works(including his teaching).  He wrote the stuff for his students, and started focusing on lower level players.  He started 'comparing' lower level player's mindsets to the masters.  No one had done that before, and ANY serious chess student that came up in the 90s, and 00s HAD TO OF been a student of Silman's works.  And like I said, they most likely 'take it for granted'.  

Taking 1800 and below students, and showing them secrets that chessmasters have mastered, showing them in a way that they comprehend it and 'make it a part of their game', that is what SIlman did for chess.  And like I said, because he became so popular, it had a MASSIVE impact on 'where' most players are nowadays.

Besides that Adriaan DeGroot guy who did it in the 1940s, yeah Silman was the first.

The idea that Silman showed the way to some hidden treasure trove of GM secrets is laughable.  People have been writing about how chess masters play chess since people have been writing books about chess.  

Silman's works have a neglible impact on the super GMs of today.  That's not meant to be a criticism of Silman's material, just your idea.  Silman has certainly influenced a lot of sub 1500 players to continue to play sub 1500 chess.  Everytime someone recommends a Silman book to a class D player, Caissa dies a little.

Again, I'm not saying Silman's works have zero value to chess players, but the idea that he's the reason chess is played at such a high level today is ridiculous.  His sweet spot is in the class B/class A range.  But a good troll nonetheless.

I didn't say he was "THE" reason chess players are ranked so high these days.  I said he was 'one of the reasons'.  ANY(99%) master or titled player under 25 years old, was HEAVILY influenced by Silman's works in their beginning stages, and early studies.  Is his work the 'reason' they are masters? No.  But, that's not my point.  My point is that the way he 'popularized' teaching lower level players master technique, teaching it to them in a way that they 'got it',  this 'helped' raise the bar, so that what was once a 1800 player is now a 1400(thats not an exact math comparison--but, you get the point).  

So, once again, I'm not saying that Silman was "creating masters".  I'm saying he 'helped' raise the bar(of the chess world as a whole).  To just take him, and claim he was 'copycatting' other authors...? He was taking 'well known' techniques, and converting the information for lower level players.  And he did it on a MASS scale.  

Silman did as much to 'get players playing' in the 90s and 00's and Fisher did in the 70s.

Chess 5335. Lots and lots of mates in 1, 2 and 3s - a good foundation in tactics and calculation.

Which is worse, plagiarism or libel?

The specifcs that I can see here are that the plagiarism is alleged but the libel is obvious.

I really don't know what rating I am. Some bits from chapter 3 of Chess Fundamentals went over the top with the checkmates 8 moves in advance. 

The first 2 books I bought were logical chess move by move and how to improve your chess....I bought them from the library for 3 bucks!! The pages are falling out, but they are both great books!

Reb wrote:

As a beginner one of my first books was How to Improve Your Chess by Horowitz and Reinfeld ....  I dont remember a lot about it now however . 

Okay this is why I suggested Silman's How to Reassess your chess":  I don't know if he wrote it by himself or took idea from somebody but the fact is Silman presented the 'ideas' or basics of positional play in a very easy and enjoyable way. I am sure ask any <1600 player to read Nunn's book and good chance his insomnia will be cure. Definitely Silman's book is not for >2000 player but for relative beginner they are fantastic.  Atleast I think so.

Second: I have also read it many times here that Silman's book is not for 'relative' beginner. Well if you have passed that stage of recognize how a piece moves (say you are >1100 player) and you still not understand basics of positional play better try to find some other hobby. 

Chess  need a certain kind of skills, vision and understandiing. If you don't get that by himself and with little help ( Silman presents it in easy way), good chances are you wont get it after 10 years.

Most of the 'conversation' wasn't about that book in particular, but about Silman's entire body of work.  Hell, Silman writes chess.com's "Chess Mentor".  He's kinda a big deal, and a lot of the 'higher ups' think lowly of him.  Kinda like movie critics when they SLAM blockbuster flicks for no real reason(jealousy).  I think Silman is THE PERFECT place for any beginner to start, hint hint.