Have you EVER really finished reading any Chessbook??

Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess 

Wow, my comment gets pushed to another page even on another thread. lolz.

Impressive!  Your title, too!

the books that have helped me most were

1. Logical chess - Irving Chernev

2. Simple chess - Micheal Stean

3. Pawn structure chess - Andrew Soltis

4. 1001 winning chess combinations - Fred Reinfeld

5. Predator at the chess board - Farnsworth

6. Understanding Chess Tactics - Weteschnik

7. The search for chess perfection  - Purdy

8. Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur - Euwe

9. Chess mastery by question and answer  - Reinfeld

10. Modern opening chess strategy - Golombek

The only repertiore books that i can recommend for my level, 

1.e4 for the attacking player - Emms

The dynamic English - Kosten

Caro Kann - Houska

all others were either to advanced or too boring

The most enjoyable books I have read to date were

1. Masters of the chess board - Reti

2. Modern ideas in chess - Reti

3. Chess study made easy - Soltis

4.Tigran Petrosian - his life and games - Vasiliev

5. Reykjavik 1972 - Fischer v Spassky - Golombek

6. How to think ahead in chess - Harrowitz/Reinfeld

7. Rapid chess improvement for adult players - De La Maza

8. A first book of Morphy - Del Rosario

9. Guide to Good Chess - Purdy

10. Play 1.b3 - Nimzo-Larsen - a friend for life - Odessky

The absolutely most despicable chess book that I have in my collection is

Everymans - The petroff defence - Raetsky , Chetverik (spit ding!) it reads more like javascript than a chess book.

Yes Reti was an amazing author with an incredible writing style.  I also liked Kotov's style, it has a certain zing to it.  Sometimes I even consciously replace because with due to the fact that and such to try sounding more like Kotov

Yeah, sounds like part of the marian series.

Have any of you read Alex Yermolinsky's The Road to Chess Improvement? I have and enjoyed the way he speaks to his readers - it's like he talks to you like a friend or coach. The book contains some very helpful advice and surprising insights.

I've finished with all chess books.

i liked reading the maze funner

Chess books are the most unread of all literature, good intentions when you buy them, then they gather dust. One exception is the Oxford Companion To Chess.....I have read it page to page and used it as a reference for 30 years, it's great entertainment. 

Why don't you finish books?

I skipped to the end and ruined it.

I want a better life.

or even a life.

There are many that I would like to read but have not, Bronsteins book on the famous 1953 tournament 'The sorcerers apprentice', Chess Praxis by Nimzoveitch, My great predecessors by Kasparov etc

The problem with chess books is that they need a narrative as well.  For example, some of the best moments of Fischers 'My sixty memorable games' are in the narrative, when he describes how Sherwin pushed the a pawn out with his pinkie. Some of Capablancas best writing comes when he is boasting how great his endgame play is and how he 'mowed down' everyone at the Manhattan chess club.  Yes the games are instructive, but a chess book needs more.  I have Karpovs my best games, but its a rather dull book because it provides little in the way of narrative, excellent for chess, but a rather dull read. Opening books are like that as well, for example I have Quality chess, Experts v the Scicilain, the analysis is excellent but the narrative poor, it therefore makes for a dull read.

To compensate for this dryness, some authors split the chapters up into very short articles, Purdy does this with his books, just a few pages and you are on to a different topic, as does Odessky.

Just place a chess book at the side of your bed and you will read many chess books before you know it, provided they engage your imagination in some way :D

" I have Karpovs my best games, but its a rather dull book because it provides little in the way of narrative"

I have to disagree, the narrative is one the board itself and one can see and learn from Karpov's incredible mastery of the game.  His sense of coordination, ability to weild a space advantage, and endgame technique are simply fantastic.  He also puts up incredible and tight defense, even winning objectively drawn positions since the opponent loses the thread and winds up losing. 

I suspect its a matter of taste.

I think the consensus about Nimzoveitchs books are that they were good for the time but that he was a little too dogmatic judging by modern standards.  This is just what I have heard so i can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the statement.  I cannot listen to Sean Godlys chess videos without wanting to take a bite out of my monitor and pull the back pockets from my jeans in frustration.  Chess material is dry enough without him freeze drying it in permafrost under a monotone delivery and expressionless dialogue.  I understand that people have different tastes though.

Andrew Soltis states that much chess learning is done subliminally and thus when we read chess literature it registers in our subconscious and when we meet similar positions playing practical chess, our minds is able to draw it to the fore.  The idea being that if we simply absorb material it will at some point be of benefit.  I cannot say it has worked in my case but its an interesting idea never the less.  There is of course a disparity that exists between chess knowledge and chess ability.

Yes, The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes by Raymond Smullyan. Not all chess books are about theory of playing chess, you see. Some have theory of playing...a different kind of chess.

I recently finished "Move first, think later". Good read.