How to study several chess books

Hi Chess people,

I posted this in the chess book and equipment forum but only one person answered so I'll try here!

I am fairly new to chess and I have several chess books i would like to read.

• Discovering Chess Openings - John Emms
• Logical Chess Move by Move- Irving Chernev
• Predator at he chess board ( books 1+2 ) - Ward Farnsworth
• Silmans Complete Endgame Course - Jeremy Silman, 

Do i read them one after the other or do i read  them all simultaneously? 

If i have to read them separately...Then which order?

Are the books good or should i buy other ones?

Many thanks

Intelligent people learn in disorganized ways. If you're smart, you don't need a structured study program. However, the structure helps most people.

Do whichever one you feel like doing at the time.  The first couple of chapters in the Silman book are certainly good for beginners.

You cant efficiently study multiple books at once.  In school, did you go to Math, Science, and English class all at once?  No, you went to each class seperately.  Sure you can study mutiple books at the same time, but the best benefit is to study them one at a time.

If I were you I would leave the Endgame book last.  Opening book first.  Logical chess moves second.  So Predator at chess third.  If you want you can read The opening book and Logical chess moves/Predator at chess at the same time.

Also...since you havent played  single game here, no one has any idea of your chess strength?

"... Horwitz and Kling's Chess Studies, which [Morphy] pronounced a very good and useful book for students, although not free from error; ..." - Morphy's friend Maurian, as quoted in Lawson's book about Morphy.

I don't know of any quotes about what Steinitz read, but he did consider it appropriate to write two and produce many issues of his chess magazine. Capablanca also wrote books and did a magazine.

For some modern comments, see https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever

Sounds good to me.

I am not sure what is intended here, but I don't see anything wrong with doing some reading from one book and then some reading from another. Silman more or less explicitly advises this for his endgame book.

I agree with you that you can read from multiple books at a time.  My point is that maximum learning comes from concentrating on one book at a time.

I don't agree with Diakonia. I believe it strictly depends on the person. For me, comparing sources reinforces what you're learning. Also, totally different aspects of the game are always interrelated.

One good example would be the middlegame and endgame. What is the point in a minority attack? You can't understand this without getting into the endgame. You must know about queen side vs king side majorities and outside passed pawns.

Ok so that even connects to certain openings, such as the Sveshnikov and QGD.

You're probably not going to find all this information in the same source, so it wouldn't hurt to read these books simultaneously: some opening book about QGD, some opening book about the Sveshnikov, a strategy book, an endgame book.

You wouldn't have to read the whole book, but you could pick out specific chapters that correlate between the group of books. It would probably even be better to do that first and then go over each book one at a time.

And i have no problem with your opinion, we just dont agree.  I understand that in todays world we are supposed to attack each other for not agreeing, but im not into that.

This is precisely backwards. You should start with endings, then tactics and positional play, then openings. Repeat endlessly until you die.

+1!

The Emms book is not exactly a memorize-all-these-lines monster. I would advise reading it in bits and pieces whenever one is in the mood. Certainly there are other things to look at before trying to finish the whole thing.

I have made (and followed) study plans using multiple books and using only one book. In my experience I learn better when I focus on one book / topic.

When I was new, my first few books were and old endgame book by Horowitz, the Chernev book you mention, and Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. Later I got a book about openings, which was not very useful to me. However, reading about the Emms book you mention it looks good.

To me the most logical order is learning the basic mates, and some king and pawn endings, then basic tactic themes and strategic themes, then the opening principals. I don't know how vital this order is though.

The age old wisdom is to start with endgames. The two arguments I like are that you have to know where you're headed before you can make any sense of how to get there. Also endgames provide clear examples (because of the fewer pieces) of how to coordinate pieces, and the strengths and weaknesses of pieces (knights are not as mobile as bishops for example). It's one thing to hear it, it's another to see it in action.

Silman is not the only one to suggest partial reading, followed by setting a book aside for awhile. In one of his books about an opening, GM Nigel Davies wrote (2005), "The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line."

Hmm. Indeed. I would start out with Chernev's classic book. Though outdated, he covers the opening through to the middlegame, and the finish (mate or winning endgame) with a style & wit, you can't put it down. Great many ideas. In fact, most of his books are great to have and provide many insights. Practical Chess Endings, Capablanca's Best Chess Endings, 200 Brilliant Endgames, Combinations: the Heart of Chess, Winning Chess.

It might be useful to have a games collection of a particular Chess Icon or Chess Tourney. Annotated of course. 

Guess Pandofini's books are fundamental too. I love Fischer's Outrageous Chess moves, Chessercises: Checkmate!, Weapons of Chess etc

Anyways, yeah. Good luck with that

No body attacked you. I told you I disagree and then I explained why with examples.

To an extent, you're simply disagreeing with facts. It's not my opinion that different people learn differently. That's a fact. Some people need more structure and for others, structure is detrimental. That isn't my opinion. That's an irrefutable fact.

Agreed some learn faster than others, and that some need more structure than others.  None of those were my point.  When youre in school, you go to 1 class at a time.  Less than 2% of the worlds population can truley multi-task.  Bouncing back and forth between different books is not the best way to learn.  Just my opinion.

I guess you ddidnt catch my light hearted humor when i said "I understand that in todays world we are supposed to attack each other for not agreeing, but im not into that."

When you're at school you can have 4-5 different classes in one day. Same here. I think the word "simultaneously" from original message should not be taken too literally. But I don't see any problem to read 1 book for 1 hour, then read another book for another hour, then switch to a third one.