Chess studying advice. Too many books?

For the first time in my life(I'm coming back to chess) I'm reading chess books. I still consider myself a beginner so I need your advice: Is studying several books at the same time good or not? Right now I'm with Silman's Amateurs Mind, Jesús de la Villa' 100 Endgames you Must Know and just starting Fundamental Chess Openings by Van der Sterren. I'm also with the book Chess for Zebras from Rowson, I know it's not exactly for beginners but I'm finding it fascinating due the psychology aspects of it. I'm also with the chesstempo tactics. Is it too much? I'm willing to dedicate about an hour a day to chess and reading one part of those books each day trying to skip from one to another for the better assimilation. Am I starting good or is it too much? I have a list of the next books I want to read like Silman's HTRYC , Stean's Simple Chess and Soltis Pawn Structure. How long do you take to read a chess book? Will I be able to assimilate the information that way? I'm on the right track? Any advice is welcome. Thanks in advance

At your or my rating it's most important to play and do the right training. Most important are tactics, endgames and analyzing your games. When you analyze you will also take a look into the opening book.

Maybe (for your given one hour) doing daily 10-15 minutes tactics and after that endgames, analyzing one long game, review the openings from a series of blitz games or work on the positional or pychological text.

Right now you're in what I call "the kid in the candy store" mode, running from one goodie to another.  It's a fun phase.  The trick is to grow out of it gracefully without having burned out on too much "Chess candy".  One thing to immediately realize is that a number of books you mention are mainly reference books.  FCO in particular is best approached "as you need it".  Anyway good luck with your studies.  I've gone mostly digital with my approach and my books sit there unread and unloved.  Still, just in case this whole computer thing is a passing fad, I'm holding on to mine.

EDIT: Just noticed you have Silman's HTRYC on your short list.  I know Heisman has suggested that many folks try reading this long before they are ready.  It's only after incorporating the concepts from The Amateur's Mind into your play that you'll find it useful.  In fact I'll give you a link to Heisman just in case you don't have his book list.

http://danheisman.home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Events_Books/General_Book_Guide.htm#anthologies

My personal experience is to look at your own games. Analyse them without the computer, checking your ideas if they are right or wrong and come to a conclusion. Afterwards you can check those ideas with a computer if your conclusion was indeed right or wrong.

Same goes for analysing GM's games, pick the games you also play in the opening and compare them with your own games. Ask yourself why is the GM playing this move, why is it better(or worse?) then what I normally play, what is his idea and what is the advantage(disadvantage) in playing like this.

Personally i  don't believe so much in practicing tactics, I believe more in general ideas and understanding of the position. However if you still hang pieces a lot, you defently need tactics training. End game is also more about general ideas, you need some basic ideas for rook and pawn end games(creating pawn majority), break throughs(center) and creating a passer in the end game.

Don't put too much energie/time in less important things, for example: Who cares about practicing mate in 5 when you never get into a position doing so? I know some GMs will disagree with me, I think the Polgar sisters practice endless mates(tactics) in 3/4 and so on.

Why practice a difficult mate with two bishops if you rarely never face it? Why put time in many different openings? You need to learn 1 opening first and the basic ideas behind it.

The quality of the thought put into whatever you do (game analysis, studying books, watching chess videos, etc.) and the vigor are what matters.  I know people who passively go through books and simply suck.  I also know players who can put in about 2 hours of solid study, then the quality of the thought they put in absolutely tanks.  The quality of my study suffers after many, many hours, and so diminishing returns is relevant to consideration.  Overall, the closer you get to putting the totality of your being and thought into your study time, the more you will benefit.  I can put in consecutive 12-hour days of study before I have to take a day off 9and beyond 12 hours, my quality of thought takes a significant hit.  Everyone has their own threshold, contingent upon passion, cognitive endurance, physical fitness, age, etc.

To answer your question, specifically, "too many books," is like saying "too many resources of knowledge": I don't think there is a such thing.  Now, if you want to say that there can be too many books, on account of some not being worth reading, then that's another thing.

It's not about quantity of chess books.  It's about whether or not you are reading the right stuff.

For example, reading a book on Advanced Tactics, another on Positional Sacrifices, and another on Tal's games, combined with a book on the Colle is probably not the smartest combination.

I have over 10 books I'm currently reading:

1. Liquidation on the Chess Board
2. Grandmaster Preparation: Endgame Play
3. The Grandmaster Battle Manual
4. Various books on the Exchange Ruy, French Advance, various Open Sicilians, offbeat defenses to 1.e4, and for Black, various books on the Najdorf, Taimanov, Anti-Sicilians, Grunfeld, and Dutch.

q