"Reinfeld was a hack, a comparatively poor player and a poor writer, but those books were adequate to my modest needs at that time."
Reinfeld had tournament wins over Reuben Fine, Arnold Denker. and Sammy Reshevsky and a draw with Alekhine before giving up competitive chess in order to make a living. He was by no means a poor player
The only thing I don't like about this stuff (I mean, the chess part of it anyway) is that it tends to make Morphy & Co somehow sound like easy pickings; in truth, a beginner is no more likely to fathom a combo by Anderssen than some ultra-subtle feint by Andersson.
And I too learned mainly from Fred in the beginning. This was my bible for a while:
(And yes, that was the version too!)
Btw it's not quite right to say Freddie was a weakie. In fact, at one point he had a 2500 USCF rating, and he won the New York Open one year--ahead of an ambitious young Expert named R Fine.
Cool book...... 
Your study time would be better served by playing over games from the turn of the century, and Morphy, Anderson, and such.
I complete agree with your comment.....
however, FYI - Anderssen
Hi guys. These are very good advice. Good recommendations of the books suitable to my level as well.
Much appreciated for the replies.
The "suitability" factor in choosing which books would be most likely to be understood and absorbed by and provide the most benefit to the development of the typical improving chess amateur is sadly neglected by those who bandy about many of the "best" chess books lists. These lists, which are typically populated almost exclusively with titles written by Masters, for Masters and recommended in parroted repetition by Masters (and others) in part in order to impress their peers, and by association with their approval of such lofty books, the approval and respect of their peers will accrue to themselves as well.
This is not to say that these books are not "good". Typically, they are certainly good. The question is, good for whom. Or more specifically, appropriate for whom.
Consider that books which Grandmasters will typically appreciate, at their level of chess understanding as providing value to themselves, are not generally books that are appropriate for those who have yet to embark upon the mysteries (to them) of, for instance, positional play. Just as a someone who has not yet mastered arithmetic or algebra will find study of calculus an exercise in futility and frustration, so will attempting to decipher books by, for example, Dvoretsky (whose name routinely appears in these lists and who writes primarily for a Master-level readership) result in a similar negative response from the typical chess beginner-novice.
Heaven forbid that any Grandmaster would place his/her reputation at risk of derision by their peers by including any book written by Bruce Pandolfini (gasp!) in their list of recommended, or best books. Yet many of Pandolfini's books are entirely appropriate and helpful for the beginner-novice. But judging from the "best" books lists, the beginner would not have been apprised of this. Instead, upon taking the revered advice from the Masters, he will naively purchase the recommend title by Dvoretsky, anxiously anticipating the pearls of chess wisdom which will quickly propel him on his way to chess expertise, only to wonder within the first ten minutes of working with it, how it is that he can't understand the knowledge, the nuggets of chess gold, offered in its pages. Then slowly, over time, the realization begins to dawn on him that perhaps he's been duped by those whom he respected and trusted to provide him with good advice - which of course, he has been, however unintentionally.
It is for these reasons that I decided to create a list of chess books that are appropriate for the improving chess amateur, primarily of the beginner-intermediate level. I have carefully considered and vetted the books that I have recommended in my lists. I own every book I have recommended, and have studied enough of each book to be very confident of its potential instructional value to its target audience. I also try to take into consideration any book reviews I can find by recognized chess authorities, authors, teachers, etc. in an attempt to confirm my own assessments.
So, is this to suggest that every, or even most of the books in my list be read by the target audience? Obviously that isn't necessary, nor practical to expect. Books were simply included when I felt that if an amateur were to choose it for study, it would prove to be of value to most of the intended readership, in most instances. The list evolved over time (years) as I identified and was able to evaluate good and appropriate books. Of course, my view is that is it better to be offered too many good books to choose from than too few - hence my lengthy list, which will, in all likelihood, continue to grow.
If you haven't already, check it out...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
I'll give some examples that I recall from the biased advice I'm saying:
- kindaspongey always bashes the "soviet chess primer" book for beginners, using IM John Donaldson's quote: "... The title might suggest it is for beginners, but that is not the case. [The Soviet Chess Primer] does start off with some basic positions, but quickly moves on to much more advanced material including chapters on positional play and techniques of calculation." IM pfren, on the other hand says that it's probably the best chess book for beginners ever, and that "Only people who love been spoonfeeded could find the Maizelis book "hard". It isn't hard, at all. It simply requires to be read carefully, and dedicating quite some work on every exercise. I think it is precisely the work part that makes some people think it is "hard", but no work= no progress - simple as that." ...
First of all, is it “bashing” the Soviet book to mention the Donaldson quote? You can call it that if you like, but, if that is the correct view, isn’t it odd that the Quality Chess site itself has presented the Donaldson quote as part of their effort to sell the book? Again, I try to make it possible for a person to get a good idea of what a book is like. Perhaps the folks at Quality Chess agree that that is a good idea. In the service of that idea, it might be noted that I often present a link to a sample of the actual book. Perhaps you think it is better to keep a potential-buyer in the dark, but I am not going to cooperate with that goal. I am unaware of any widespread belief advocating ignorance when making a book-buying decision, and anyone pursuing the ignorance agenda is, to the best of my ability, going to be exposed. Is there anyone of note who thinks that the choice is between “work” and “no work”? Between “hard” and “spoonfeed”? Between “progress” and “no progress”? Aren’t these actually matters of degree? Isn’t it properly the perception of the reader as to how “hard’ something is? Isn’t it properly the choice of the buyer as to the amount of work that is to be attempted and the amount of “progress” that is to be sought? Perhaps you think it is better for someone else to make that choice for a buyer, but my intention is to expose attempts to put the decide-for-someone-else attitude into practice.
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/the-soviet-chess-primer/
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/2/231/the_soviet_chess_primer_by_ilya_maizelis/
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Soviet_Chess_Primer-extract.pdf
- he also always suggest tamburro's openings for amateurs as one of the best opening books for beginners. IM pfren says: "a book with good intentions, and very bad content: titled "openings for amateurs", and giving plenty of engine dumps which go well past move twenty, without any verbal or rational explanation"
Perhaps you will be kind enough to admit that you have no quote of me saying that the Tamburro book is one of the best opening books for beginners? Again, I have often posted a link to a sample of the book’s contents. Have you ever looked for yourself in order to gauge whether or not it is appropriately described by the “engine dumps” thing? Perhaps you will want to take your complaint to chess.com that recently called the book to the attention of members.
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/
https://www.chess.com/blog/ForwardChess/book-of-the-week-openings-for-amateurs
https://www.mongoosepress.com/catalog/excerpts/openings_amateurs.pdf
Let's see -
Spongey and I have both offered advice and recommendations, primarily regarding books, that have been authored and reviewed by recognized chess authorities who are certainly more qualified than you to judge them. The majority of the books we have recommended have generally been judged by chess authorities (GM's, IM's, etc.) as being helpful for their intended audience.
And we are to infer, based on your chess rating, that your opinions are to be more highly regarded than universally acknowledged chess authorities (or even mine).
Judging from the overwhelmingly positive feedback we have received from forum participants, I submit that the advice which Spongey and I have provided, primarily to beginners and improving amateurs, has and will continue to be of benefit to those seeking help on these forums than the opinion you have just offered, which is simply to trash our contributions.
Your essential purpose is obviously to denigrate and minimize others, apparently to inflate your self image,
I'm sorry...didn't mean to offend anyone.
I'm not trying to inflate my self image at all....I also quoted a fide trainer and international master on the 2 examples I gave...exactly like you do....none of the quotes are mine.
I'm just bringing information, also from people that apparently know their stuff, that contradicts the recommendations that kindaspongey and you usually bring....I hope that bringing different points of view is not seen as trying to denigrate you
I agree with Spongey's comments regarding "Soviet Chess Primer" by Maizelis. I have the book, have studied it, and have concluded and mentioned in my blog's good chess books list (link below) the same assessment presented by Spongey. The book, while a "good" book, and certainly appropriate for the more experienced player and beyond, is not suitable for the typical beginner-novice, as when one ventures beyond the first chapter or so, the book quickly becomes much more challenging for those at lower levels. I have encountered exactly the same reaction from other, lower rated players regarding this book.
As you (Myohaanen) admit in your earlier post (above) you apparently have no direct experience with this particular book, but are parroting the opinion of other, albeit accomplished, chess players. But as I point out in my earlier post (immediately above), the so-called "Masters" are notorious for the self aggrandizing bias of their "best" chess books lists which are mostly oblivious to and completely disregard the abilities, or lack thereof, of lower rated chess players, for whom the majority of the books populating such lists are typically over their heads, given their current level of chess development.
However, I do have to agree with the opinion of IM pfren which you quoted regarding Pete Tamburro's "Openings for Amateurs". Basically his assessment of the book (which I also own) reflects my view - that is, it's not a book that I would recommend to a beginner-novice, for the same reasons IM pfren gives.
For these and other reasons I have expounded upon previously in this forum thread, I have created the following list...
Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond
... I disagree with the fact that anyone can offer useful advice to a sub 1100 player....I believe fide trainers and high rated players are better for this....but that's just my pont of view.
Again, I am often able to post links to detailed reviews of titled players. Trainers might be better, but they might be more focused on those interested in seriously working towards a title. Not everyone fits into that category. High rated platers can be out of touch with what works best for someone with lesser ability and/or goals.
... I'm just suggesting that you look for different points of view and recommending the forum users that, in my humble opinion, give more solid advice. ...
My humble advice is to be wary of someone who paints a picture of a choice between good and bad while seeking to be the one who prescribes the good path for all beginners.
Your study time would be better served by playing over games from the turn of the century, and Morphy, Anderson, and such.
I complete agree with your comment.....
however, FYI - Anderssen
Thanks Russ....I am notoriously bad about not checking spelling, etc.
I know what im talking about, so i assume everyone else does too :-)
Your study time would be better served by playing over games from the turn of the century, and Morphy, Anderson, and such.
I complete agree with your comment.....
however, FYI - Anderssen
Thanks Russ....I am notoriously bad about not checking spelling, etc.
I know what im talking about, so i assume everyone else does too :-)
You are certainly one of those increasingly rare birds on these Chess.com forums, who does know what he is talking about! I always enjoy reading your posts.
The only thing I don't like about this stuff (I mean, the chess part of it anyway) is that it tends to make Morphy & Co somehow sound like easy pickings; in truth, a beginner is no more likely to fathom a combo by Anderssen than some ultra-subtle feint by Andersson.
And I too learned mainly from Fred in the beginning. This was my bible for a while:
(And yes, that was the version too!)
Btw it's not quite right to say Freddie was a weakie. In fact, at one point he had a 2500 USCF rating, and he won the New York Open one year--ahead of an ambitious young Expert named R Fine.
In fact that Fred Reinfeld book is the first chess book I ever purchased, back in 1989! But I believe your edition is even earlier than the one I had...
Your study time would be better served by playing over games from the turn of the century, and Morphy, Anderson, and such.
I complete agree with your comment.....
however, FYI - Anderssen
Thanks Russ....I am notoriously bad about not checking spelling, etc.
I know what im talking about, so i assume everyone else does too :-)
You are certainly one of those increasingly rare birds on these Chess.com forums, who does know what he is talking about! I always enjoy reading your posts.
A genuine thank you to you!
Permission granted.....I think...
I'll give some examples that I recall from the biased advice I'm saying:
- kindaspongey always bashes the "soviet chess primer" book for beginners, using IM John Donaldson's quote: "... The title might suggest it is for beginners, but that is not the case. [The Soviet Chess Primer] does start off with some basic positions, but quickly moves on to much more advanced material including chapters on positional play and techniques of calculation." IM pfren, on the other hand says that it's probably the best chess book for beginners ever, and that "Only people who love been spoonfeeded could find the Maizelis book "hard". It isn't hard, at all. It simply requires to be read carefully, and dedicating quite some work on every exercise. I think it is precisely the work part that makes some people think it is "hard", but no work= no progress - simple as that." ...
First of all, is it “bashing” the Soviet book to mention the Donaldson quote? You can call it that if you like, but, if that is the correct view, isn’t it odd that the Quality Chess site itself has presented the Donaldson quote as part of their effort to sell the book? Again, I try to make it possible for a person to get a good idea of what a book is like. Perhaps the folks at Quality Chess agree that that is a good idea. In the service of that idea, it might be noted that I often present a link to a sample of the actual book. Perhaps you think it is better to keep a potential-buyer in the dark, but I am not going to cooperate with that goal. I am unaware of any widespread belief advocating ignorance when making a book-buying decision, and anyone pursuing the ignorance agenda is, to the best of my ability, going to be exposed. Is there anyone of note who thinks that the choice is between “work” and “no work”? Between “hard” and “spoonfeed”? Between “progress” and “no progress”? Aren’t these actually matters of degree? Isn’t it properly the perception of the reader as to how “hard’ something is? Isn’t it properly the choice of the buyer as to the amount of work that is to be attempted and the amount of “progress” that is to be sought? Perhaps you think it is better for someone else to make that choice for a buyer, but my intention is to expose attempts to put the decide-for-someone-else attitude into practice.
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/the-soviet-chess-primer/
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/2/231/the_soviet_chess_primer_by_ilya_maizelis/
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Soviet_Chess_Primer-extract.pdf
screenshot excerpt below taken directly from Quality Chess website, product page for "Soviet Chess Primer" by Maizelis....commentary by IM Donaldson on the book, which is also quoted by Spongey above, and commentary also by John Hartmann who publishes monthly book reviews in "Chess Life" magazine....bottom line - a good book, but not suitable for beginners......
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/2/231/the_soviet_chess_primer_by_ilya_maizelis/
Guys i am player of expert level, i just uploaded my first ever youtube video, be sure to check it out!
here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltF70LwE8A
Also did not say I'm not biased....just bringing a different bias so that people can judge themselves which bias they prefer