Have you EVER really finished reading any Chessbook??

I started two books today. Judgement and Planning in Chess and Alekhine's Best Games.

Sure, i think i have over 200 books of which i probably finished completely 15 technical ones and 20 biographical. I never finished a book on an opening. Books by grandmasters about their life were by far the most interesting together with match journalism.

When I was a keen tournament player, I studied every one of the games in Fischer's chess games (Wade O'Connel version (1973)). Of course, most of them I played through more than once over the years. 

Tried to read Alekhine's book. Was too lazy... :-(

I actually did finish the two-volume set of Alekhine's best games. But that was a long time ago.

just putting the book on my shelf helps my game.

There is heavy analysis in places but it's worth it.  It is such a fun read and they have black facing the reader when Alekhine plays black.  Publishers need to do that more often to communicate the winning side (or side intended to study from)

That's interesting, I only have seen it once, for comments on an adjourned game.

yes! yes! yes! this is why studying tactics in isolation is not much good, its much better to try to understand why the tactic works then when we play a practical game of chess we can seek to create similar circumstances :D

i am reading a kotov book

but i am not done yet

I think a big part of the addiction to and obsession with chess is the nagging feeling that you've never fully been able to consummate chess books and chess theory the way it's supposed to be done. That you've never actually gone through the books properly and fully, your opening repertoire doesn't quite come together in a way that makes playing eg. the London System significantly bad, because you wouldn't be competent enough to turn the small advantages into wins anyway nearly all the time. You can't really evaluate or review most chess books very well because you're not at that level yet. So there's always this nagging feeling that you're not really a proper chessplayer yet.  

Then if you go the whole way and do all this stuff and become good enough to actually talk about and have decent opinions on chess... there's no hope for you. It's got you in its clutches and won't leave go until death.   

That's very well stated, Uhoh. I agree with much of what you wrote as I have experienced some of those feelings as well. It's kind of sad, but yes, I'm hooked on chess and I know I'll never be very good at it, but I love it all the same.

i don't have time to read a chess book sometimes

because the plot gets boring in the middle of the book

there is knight saving a beautiful princess

or any romantic scene.

it is just chess positions and descriptions about strategy.

the authors or publishers could consider to at least include a love scene or some pictures intertwined in the chess book

I'll admit many of mine I haven't read cover to cover as parts just don't apply.  For example, if you are reading a book (not a repertoire, an actual book) on the Sicilian Dragon, and you play the Yugoslav Attack, and are one that doesn't play the Dragon as Black, there's no point in reading the parts on the Classical, Levenfish, etc.  Just the Yugoslav.

That said, the books I actually have read cover to cover include (this may not be all of them, these are the ones I recall reading cover to cover):

1) Winning Chess Tactics - Yasser Seiriwan

2) Winning Chess Strategies - Yasser Seiriwan

3) How to Win in the Chess Endings - I.A. Horowitz

4) Winning With the French - Wolfgang Uhlmann

5) The Inner Game of Chess - Andrew Soltis

6) Chess Lessons - Vladamir Popov

7) Grandmaster Preparation: Calculation - Jacob Aagaard

8) Grandmaster Preparation: Positional Play - Jacob Aagaard

9) Grandmaster Preparation: Strategic Play - Jacob Aagaard

10) My Great Predecessors, Volume 1 - Garry Kasparov

11) Bishop V Knight: The Verdict - Steve Mayer

12) Forcing Chess Moves - Charles Hertan

Then another that I pretty close to finishing (still reading) is Chess On The Edge - Volume 1

It's a shame you finished the GM Prep series books (I only have calculation and aren't even done the first batch of problems and do a problem every once in awhile and plan on getting position play and endgame play) since the positions are now spoiled for you. 

And how can My System not be on your list! 

The Yugoslav is a great system but every Dragon player expects it.  I don't like copying kingside fianchetto strategies usually but in the Dragon in seems like a reasonable way to get off the beaten paths and just play chess then castle kingside. 

How to reassess your chess

What are you talking about?  

Perhaps we have different interpretations of the meaning of the word "consummate". Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it just means to fully complete and finalise. Even if it's only for marriage I was just using figurative speaking, no need to be like that.  We are just talking about how chess can be addicting sometimes. Am I not allowed to use figurative speaking without being attacked as being "plain weird"? 

I'm not obsessed at all. Try taking a look at yourself jumping at someone on the internet for using a word. 

Well, I just gave the Yugoslav as an example.  It's not what I play as White (nor do I play the Sicilian much as Black and when I do it surely isn't the dragon - I've played the Taimanov, Scheveningen, and Dragadorf within the last few years).  I play 2.a3! against the Sicilian.

However, there really is nothing wrong with playing mainstream openings.  I play the Petroff (mainstream) and Modern (somewhat offbeat) as Black against 1.e4, for example.

I'm all for figurative speech - it enriches any converstion. Cheers! Uhoh.