Have you EVER really finished reading any Chessbook??

books almost always seem a bit dogmatic, Its hard to come off any other way when you are trying to get a point across.

Was that boring? :)

Quality books is part owned by GM Jacob Aggard who lives near me, i bought one of their books, experts against the scicilian but I did not like some of the lines that it advocated.

The only one I've ever read is William Hartston's How to Cheat at Chess. It's the only chess book you'll ever need!

I just want to clarify that I didn't mean to suggest that My System wasn't a good chess book. Quite the contrary! The point I was trying to make is I think I'm perhaps guilty of believing to some degree that the answer to being a good player can be found in chess books, and if I read the right books and understood them I'd be a good player.

I have read literally about thirty chess books, maybe more and I suck.  There is a disparity that exists between chess knowledge and chess ability for sure.  Its really strange though for i would rather study chess than play it mostly.  I like reading chess books for entertainment, cold scottish winter, real fire, glass of single malt, chess book, its awesome :D

yep, i agree with ya in a way. me, too read that book only long time ago.

but it's about combining skills strategy of that book"the elements" and puzzles, tactics, positions, principles, and understanding your own game and patience. in summary, is the outcome of these as chunks and applying them. adding the skill of playing the board and calculating without fear, overestimation and so on. be confident and do it with precesion

Most chessbooks are really dull and I just consult them ocassionally for openings and endgames... However Jeremy Silman's books are more entertaining. (but no, I still never read the entirety of any chess book lol)

Almost all books written prior to about 2000 contain errors which are now apparent because of the ability to check them with chess engines.  The great thing about books written prior to the advent of computers is their ideas, they are very human and can yield a great wealth of chess knowledge and ideas in contrast to today's standards where many books are simply a collection of engine lines.  I am not a great fan of Silman although I have read his literature, its simply a rehash of the ideas first espoused by Steintz.

The only one I have finished is Bobby Fisher teaches chess.

i've downloaded more than 30 books. but didn't read more than 3 or 4 pages any of them.

I have read 70% once, thats as close as I got!  :)

See?

If you'd read 50% twice, you'd be there by now!

There are times when I really want to stop on a book.  I reviewed Soviet Middlegame Technique and really hate how he sometimes has ambiguous notation (you play a move, play further on, then it looks illegal, you move farther back to move the correct rook or knight) The major piece endgame section was also sorely out of place given the book's theme but is still good to read if you get over the writer's annoying style. 

Overall it's a good book for planning and combinations, and tomorrow I start on Soltis' New Art of Defence in Chess I have a study notebook handy for it too and some additional questions to self-quiz myself as if I were taking the subject in school itself and there was a big exam after finishing the book.  Maybe I should do it by chapter instead? 

i like watching opening dvds because it is easier than going through a million variations that never happen in my games

i like the foxy opening dvd series because the presenter gives the high level ideas and main ideas

james plaskett is the best foxy dvd presenter. 

Chess Traps, Pitfalls and Swindles (Horowitz/Reinfeld)

It was my father's book the only chess book I knew about when I was 7 years old. I read that book throughly and it was entertaining because it also told stories. I did not discover that there were other chess books until I was 14 years old. And just like every beginner, I made the mistake of being attracted to MCO.

When I was a child I used to swear by Reshevesky's books and I was also obsessed with studying Karpov's games.

I took off from Chess for poker for a good 10 years and ended up becoming a full-time grinder, now that I'm back playing Chess I've found myself drawn to puzzles or just playing.

I believe I read all of Reinfeld's Complete Chess Course when I was fourteen. It contained many short chapters introducing a basic idea with several short examples, like tiny morality tales in which White or Black was swiftly punished for some strategic or tactical sin.

This was confusing when I got out into the real world of tournament chess and my opponents regularly flouted Reinfeldian chess morality. Yet I found myself unable to rain down Reinfeldian vengeance upon them.

I finished Mayhem in the Morra. It was incredibly interesting.

What else would you do if not finish reading your books? Get the Cliffs Notes?

Once I start a chess book, I don't read the book cover-to-cover....I DIGEST it. Sometimes I even utilize a board.

Of course, I've only read/digested three chess books

Some exceptions for some opening books...some I use as reference, and may or may not read cover-to-cover. I am more likely to read cover-to-cover if it is an opening book that really explains the reasonings behind moves. For example, John Watson opening books do this and I believe that is helpful.

I don't own MCO and doubt I would read it cover-to-cover...at least not at this stage in my development...but then again, I may never become an IM like pfren.