Have you EVER really finished reading any Chessbook??

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.

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.