Nope, I try to stay away from Reinfeld, Horowitz, Schiller and Pandolfini. Bad for your chess education (with some few exceptions).
Can you explain why doing tactics puzzles is bad for your chess education? I'm really puzzled by that one.
Nope, I try to stay away from Reinfeld, Horowitz, Schiller and Pandolfini. Bad for your chess education (with some few exceptions).
Can you explain why doing tactics puzzles is bad for your chess education? I'm really puzzled by that one.
I did not write that doing tactic puzzles is bad for one's chess education. I wrote that I try to avoid authors such as Reinfeld, Horowitz, Schiller and Pandolfini, whose books often turn out to by sloppily written and full of errors. Reading worthless books is bad for one's chess education.
I have that book
It has old english notations
There are both algebraic (1 e4 e5) and descriptive (1 P-K4 P-K4) versions of Winning Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf
i almost completed the book
I am no chess book reviewer expert. I like Rheinfeld's insight. Those guys sure knew how to think "outside" the box. I don't know whom you mean by the "rest", but in my modest estimation, Nimzo, Rheinfeld, Chernev and their likes knew the intricacies of chess mental calculation. I like Silman too.
I meant the other books mentioned on this thread.