Classic versus modern instructional books

Several books recommended for developing players are quite old.

I begin to study the "older easier" books by Capablanca and Chernev, then logically progress to the "newer easier" books by Silman, Seirawan, Alburt, and McDonald, but then after that I am advised by stronger players to study the "older advanced" books from 50-80 years ago (Nimzovitsch, Pachman, Kmoch, Vukovic, for instance).

Someone please enlighten me of the value of studying these older "classics" when there are more modern strategy books which cover the same concepts and use modern examples of GM-play.  I fear that in the long run I am going hinder my chess development by having to unlearn things in the older books.  

Are these older advanced books typically recommended more because of their historic/nostalgic value rather than their practical value?  

Or is this a case of older players recommending the books that were influential on their development when they were younger (when fewer books were available), forgetting that they had the luxury of keeping up and evolving with modern chess theory/books, and therefore never really had to worry about this fear of "taking a step back" when studying the older classics since they studied them FIRST, then continued to logically progress with newer books as they were published?  I greatly appreciate anybody's insight.

I'd say most instructional content in older books is still valid today. The only exception may be Nimzo's My system, whose strategical concepts have been reevaluated (for example by Watson) : some of them still stand (ie. 7th rank for rooks, blockading...), while some others don't really apply the way he explained them (ie. tempi in the opening, overprotection...).

Thanks for responding! 

Regarding Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy, Vukovic's Art of Attack, and Kmoch's Pawn Power...should I read those books before the Seirawan or Alburt series because they are "older" or should I read them after the Seirawan or Alburt series because they are "more advanced"?  

I don't know about Alburt's books (though he has a good reputation as a teacher), but I would heartily recommend Seïrawan's books, as he knows very well how to explain basic concepts and the contents is probably easier to absorb than Pachman's.

Pachman's is good but much more advanced, and you should tackle it later I think.

Kmoch's book can be an eye-opener, but is admittedly difficult to read. Maybe you could peek into it and read a chapter from time to time if what you find makes sense (if it doesn't, better to skip it and come back later I think).

Vukovic's book is excellent and can be read at any time, maybe after Seïrawan's refresher in tactics.

To my view, there are two types of chess writers: those who subscribe to Steinitz's theory of the accumulation of small advantages and focus on the static features of a position, and those who focus more on calculation, dynamics and looking at the position as a whole.  I would probably group Silman, Seirawan and Alburt in with the old static Steinitzian school.

The real watershed in the formation of the dynamic approach was probably Alexander Kotov and his tree of variations, but also his chapter on how pawn structures can help you to decide whether to launch a pawn storm or not in Art of the Middlegame.  Kotov's followers would include people like Jonathan Tisdall, John Nunn and Andrew Soltis.

Vukovic could also be grouped in with the dynamic/holistic school although he does focus on discrete features of a position.  The notion of pawn breaks and freeing/undermining moves is also I think central to the dynamic school.  Kmoch was one of the early ones to explore this theme, followed by Soltis.  Of recent writers of easier books, McDonald is one of the few to spend any time on pawn breaks, although it is also an important theme for Dvoretsky.

Dynamic writers will often touch on the advantages mentioned by the static writers, but static writers tend to ignore completely topics like the initiative or the tree of variations.  I think it's OK to focus on the more recent books, although sometimes somewhat older authors explain things better or in more detail than newer writers, eg. Tisdall may be the best statement of the calculation of variations approach even though Nunn and Soltis may be easier to understand.

 You got something against " fakers " ?!

Someone please enlighten me of the value of studying these older "classics" when there are more modern strategy books which cover the same concepts and use modern examples of GM-play.  I fear that in the long run I am going hinder my chess development by having to unlearn things in the older books.

Are these older advanced books typically recommended more because of their historic/nostalgic value rather than their practical value?

IMO Older books are recommended for their practical value almost exclusively![I suppose there is a historical aspect to My System.] They are recommended because they are  books that teach the concepts they purport to teach quite well. There's a reason these books have "withstood the test of time." There have been many many chess books written around the world in the past 100 years... only a select few are remembered, year to year to year.

There is absolutely nothing to fear in "having to unlearn" things from older books (opening manuals excepted) and games. The hard part is learning anything at all. All chess books are a bit strange in that they hardly teach anything directly anyway -- they mostly throw games, and fragments of games at you and say -- here, look here, the stuff you need to learn is right here, in the moves in this game -- SEE? that's how it's done... (*scritch scritch... no, I don't see... oh well then keep looking cuz there's no other way! tootles.)

Kmoch is tough going I'll grant you... but can't you leave off banging on classic literature's toes!? I think I could listen to Hopkins discuss washing his socks, the guy's such a great poet. Anyway, sprung rhythm isn't all that complicated... and what poetry Hopkins got from it... 

(You don't have to be religious to enjoy that, IMO, just alive, and able to read).

Old players learned from old books. New players from more modern ones. So it’s likely a person will recommend what they believe helped them be it old or new. In my day the older generation told me to read Tarrasch but younger players said read Pachman. Today it’s Alburt and Silman. Once you get the basics from whatever source, progress is then mostly determined by your natural ability. That’s why thousands of players read every available book, old and new, but usually don’t improve much…they’ve pretty much reached their level and further progress, if any, is usually painfully slow regardless of what books they read.

Funny but very few GM’s that I know of have said exactly what books, if any, they read as a developing player. It would be nice to know what books are in their personal libraries.

Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett likes to write about his favourite old books.  As I recall, he regarded Lasker's Manual of chess especially highly, didn't like Nimzowitsch's My System, and included Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess, Kmoch's Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces, Vukovic's Art of the Attack and Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess History among his all time favourites.  Of the new writers, he likes John Watson.

http://canchess.tripod.com/developm.htm#Q2

http://canchess.tripod.com/favorite.htm

http://canchess.tripod.com/endgame.htm

http://canchess.tripod.com/Nonimzo.htm

I've only read a few aswell, Botvinnik said that he read Capablancas Chess fundamentals and that he ranked it highly. Petrosian used to say that he grew up on The Art of Sacrifice in Chess by Rudolf Spielmann.

That's funny.     In reality, Petrosian was of course a big fan of Nimzowitsch's My System, in particular his ideas on prophylaxis.

One of Kasparov's favourite books was apparently Bronstein's 200 Open Games.

Good point.

For my first 10 years of chess development, I plan to drill tactics and endgames, and study endgames with the simpler books (Silman, Averbakh, Pandolfini, etc). For openings, I will look up in a database where I left "the book", maybe click a few moves further for my amusement, and nothing more.

For strategy/positional play, I plan to read the simple beginner-to-intermediate books --> Wolffe, Capablanca, Seirawan, Silman, Chernev, Euwe, McDonald, Giddins, etc.

But for more advanced long-term development (over 10-30 years), I would like to know what is a recommended logical order in which to tackle the more difficult books that widely vary in age...I may even read them through once as a beginner just to get a sense of what lies ahead and prepare my neurons for higher chess learning.  Regardless, a nice roughly laid-out plan helps motivate me to move forward, as I can foresee more clearly when I would properly tackle these classic difficult books.  

I clearly do not believe in "dwelling" on one book even if the book is phenomenal and I haven't "mastered" it, mainly because I believe these authors will overlap and provide many alternate examples/explanations of several similar concepts, which will facilitate learning.  

Good discussion, everyone.  

Some of the more trite books do tend to focus on the same old tired themes that strategy writers have been hacking away at over the last century.  Of the writers you mention, Neil McDonald is one of the few who really tries to incorporate some of the new ideas into books that are accessible to beginners.  His Chess Secrets: Giants of Strategy is a interesting attempt to compare the approach of older players like Capablanca and Nimzowitsch with newer players like Karpov and Kramnik.  It also has a nice chapter on pawn breaks and their importance.  Andrew Soltis is another writer who tries to write in an easier style about some of the new ideas.

That's good to hear...I look forward to reading McDonald's books and thanks for your insightful posts, rigamagician.  

Kevin Spragget's website is pretty good, the humor section with that joke with Spassky/Korchnoi is quite f---ing hilarious...

http://canchess.tripod.com/humour.htm

I learned most of what I know about chess about 45 years ago from an excellent book, old even then, by a Polish grandmaster with a long name impossibly difficult to pronounce, spell, or remember. It started with a "P" and had "z"s, "y"s, "c"s, "r"s, and "w"s in it. If anyone could supply me with the name of this grandmaster and this book, I would deeply appreciate it.

 It boggles my mind that you are trying to plan your chess study for the next 30 years!

Why not take the next two years and make a plan based on books you will grasp and enjoy, and see how it goes?

25 years from now you may be interested in something entirely diffenent.

As a priest once told me when I was trying to plan my life for the next several years, "Don't plan it all out now because you are leaving no room for the spirit."

So ease up and pick a few good books for now, not too hard, and not too old - and enjoy learning.

stwils

Words to live by, stwils, but I probably enjoy planning my chess study more than actually studying, yet I still entertain impossible dreams of becoming a "weak" GM in 30+ years when I am in my late 60's.    

I currently plan to read Silman's Amateur's Mind after completing either the Seirawan or Alburt series.  Taking in everyone's comments (thanks for the insights), it seems that Vukovic can be read at most any time, perhaps after a tactics book (thanks hicetnunc!), and everyone seems to agree that Pachman and notably Kmoch are far more difficult.  

One more question, if someone cares to humor me... 

Would someone be willing to try to rank the levels of difficulty of the following oft-recommended books or give a logical sequence in which to tackle them?  It would bring me much joy and would cover my first 10 years, I imagine (that, tactics/endgames drills, and actual playing/analysis, I know)...

• Modern Chess Strategy (Pachman)
• Pawn Power (Kmoch)
• The Search for Chess Perfection II (Purdy)
• Simple Chess (Stean)
• How to Reassess Your Chess (Silman)
• HTRYC Workbook (Silman)
• Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking (McDonald)
• The Art of Planning in Chess (McDonald)
• Chess Success: Planning After the Opening (McDonald)
• The Giants of Strategy (McDonald)
• The Giants of Power Play (McDonald)

There have never been any GMs from Poland whose last name's started with P, but I am guessing that you are talking about Samuel Reshevsky's The Art of Positional Play or How Chess Games are Won.

Dawid Przepiorka. But I think the name I am looking for was longer. He may not have been a grandmaster, but an international master of some renown. I've never read Reshevsky's book, although I wanted to.