book suggestion's

I got this idea from lochness88 for posting book's I have in my possestion and see which book the online community suggeste I read first.

151 chess opening's for begginer's

the element's of chess

101 chess opening trap's

chess opening's trap's and zap's

how to beat dad in chess

Boris Spassky most memorable game's

Dynamic chess

Better chess for the avarage player

chess tactics 101

(oh and one more thing my rating is 1304 if that matter's).

101 chess openings traps

That's an awful lot of apostrophes that simply don't belong.

Here's a clue: plurals don't need apostrophes.

Agreed -- way too many apostrophes. As for the books, I would "How to beat your dad at chess." It gets great reviews, and worrying about openings/openings traps at a 1300 level is pointless.

Winning Chess Openings, Bill Robertie

^^ Good for a beginner who really hasn't decided on a standard opening repetoire for themselves yet, exposing them to a good amount of basic openings. (I suggested having a board handy while you read)                        Once you decide on 1 (maybe 2) it'd be wise to invest in a book dedicated to just that one opening and study it religiously.

Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess

^^ Good for any level player, filled with tons of tactical "puzzles" and displayed with a unique teaching method. Helpful to any chess player, and no board is necessary.

I must say I found this book very elementary. I'm not saying I'm a grandmaster, but honestly, very few of the "tactical" problems in the book were difficult. Although I will say that it does show a good job of simple mating techniques (rook and bishop working together, back rank mate).

I'm not familiar with the other book Devout_Monk mentioned.

 Bobby Fishcer Teache's chess is also one of the book's sorry I forgot to mention that.

 Because I'm at a 1300 level won't I most likely fall for the trap's unless I read the book. 

Here are some good books:

Chess Fundamentals by Jose Capablanca

Standard Chess Openings by Eric Schiller

My System by Aron Nimzowitsch (good read but probably not for beginners?)

Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom by Eric Schiller

Because I'm at a 1300 level won't I most likely fall for the trap's [sic] unless I read the book.

Rarely. Most players won't memorize them all. Doing so is a waste of time, since the majority will be in openings you'll rarely if ever play. If you decide on favorite openings, it may help to study just a few of those, not the whole book. Of course, as entertainment, the book may have value.

I know I won one game, partly because an opponent studied traps. He tried to set a well known one for me in a French Defense, but I knew of the trap. He wasted a tempo in the opening by having to move a bishop a second time to reestablish a guard on the "bait" pawn when I made the natural developing move which stopped it. I was about 150-200 points higher (USCF) rated, and as it turned out, losing the tempo in the opening of my choice didn't help him. He resigned on move 23, down at least two pieces and a pawn. (Who says the French is dull?)

We'll never know if he would have won or not (I had defeated him in an earlier encounter), but I think he would have done a little better if he had spent more time on openings and less on traps. (By the way, he was about a 1300 player.)

I've run into 1 (maybe 2) opening traps in my entire chess-playing career. It's best to understand strategy, tactics, etc. before worrying about opening traps (assuming you would like to improve at chess). I'm sure if you ask any NM/IM/GM (and I have), they will tell you to put those openings/openings traps books to the wayside and focus more on tactics then strategy then endgames, then openings.

As a sidenote, when I am just trying to help you and trying to share my knowledge I have acquired from asking better players/reading about it, I don't think its really necessary to give the sign to me (presumably meaning rolling your eyes.) Also, I hate to break it to you, but I am right. So before you make yourself look stupid, check your facts.

And it's "traps", not "trap's".

 I get it already.

 I only used  as a way of saying that I was confused don't get all edge whaen you don't even know what your talking about yourself duhhhh!

 OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!(lol)

chess fundamentals - Capablanca