How to study chess books.

How to study games in books?

I find a copy of the game without annotations and play through it several times, looking for key ideas. When I think I have a good grasp of the tactics and ideas, then I read the annotations. I prefer playing through games on a screen, but have spent decades doing so on a board and still do some of the time. One current book for me is Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). I have the games on my iPad. I play through each game several times, then read what Chernev wrote. I started in September and have gone through the first 600 games. 

Of the three you have listed, Dunnington will do you the most good. I do not know this book. What I know is that opening study is less useful than tactics training. All games among players below 2000 and a great many above that are decided by simple tactics. Instead of an opening monograph (Uhlmann’s is exceptional), you need some basic principles and awareness of tactics. You’ll learn far more of practical value about the opening from José Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals (1921) or A Primer of Chess (1935). 

I have a couple of opening books by Joe Gallagher, including one on the anti-Sicilians that I studied in the 1990s. The lines he gives have proven useful, but some of his psychological “insights” into the motivations of players adopting certain lines takes the reader down a rabbit hole of mad presumption from which there is no rational escape. Think of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”. Gallagher will lead you into the cave to be chained.

Capablanca and others are available free on the Internet Archive, archive dotorg. Not sure if there are any in Spanish. Your English seems fine.

I prefer to use two boards. One to hold the moves actually played in the game, the other to explore side-lines and variations. Using two boards makes it quick and accurate to reset the analysis board back to the game continuation.

At chesstempo you get Capablanca’s ”Chess Fundamentals” for free in an interactive form, where you can do the exercises kind of like puzzles.

I recommend that one.

To use actual physical boards seems slow and dare I say...primitive?

You have a mind to play chess in, right?

Thanks, HabanabanafofanafanifefibobanaHabana. 😁 I like a real board to play with iterations. Mi espanol no esta bueno. Ajendrez es muy linda (palabra correcto?). Soy de Texas, el provincia menor de Mexico. Muchas a mi vecinos hablan espanol. Vaya con queso. 😁

Yes. Great resource. And algebraic notation. The editions on Internet Archive are English Descriptive.

https://chesstempo.com/chess-books/chess-fundamentals/book/165

Hello

I admit that you want to be able to visualize moves, combinations, tactics, strategy, etc. without using a set and board.  However, for us mere mortals, we need a physical set and board to help us study a book.  Or, at least a computer-aided visualization.

Some of us primitives even grunt softly while we're doing it.

You're generally better off without the board. Just look at the diagrams. You don't get to shuffle the pieces about on the board when you're playing.

And only look at the moves that are mentioned after solving it yourself, if possible.

Pawn Power in Chess by Kmoch.

Not for the faint of heart, though. This is not a chess book for weak kneed, limp-wristed dilettantes. This is a book for knuckle-dragging, hairy-backed MEN.

I have both books and almost never use either. Most of the books in my library are better.

If you get 100 replies you are going to get 100 different answers. 

For me?  I always studied old school.

Used a real board and pieces.  2 boards.  1 for the game, and 1 for sideline analysis.

Pen and paper.

Real book. 

Highlighter.

I would play through a game taking no more than 10 minutes.  This is for subconscious ideas/positions/etc.

Play over the game again slowly taking notes, playing through sidelines, and using solitaire chess (what would i do here?).  to reinforce things.

Everyone id different.  Find what works best for you.

Odd that I just responded to a comment of yours regarding Kmoch on another thread. Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that Kmoch's book is outstanding and that it's not for everyone. For the intermediate player who wants to understand pawn play, I recommend Kmoch after studying two books by Dražen Marović: "Understanding Pawn Play in Chess" and "Dynamic Pawn Play in Chess". A thorough understanding of those books will help the player to appreciate and comprehend Kmoch. More advanced players, let's say 1700 FIDE or higher, can go straight to Kmoch.

As for the initial question, simply reading a chess book will not cement your understanding. You need to play through the moves, whether on a physical board or on a computer, and think about what the author is explaining until you understand it. Think of it this way: if you just watch a professor write differential equations on a chalkboard, will that enable you to comprehend calculus? Of course not: you have to "get your hands dirty" and work through the equations yourself before you can get a deep enough understanding to apply the knowledge. It's the same with chess.