Actually I like a lot of Chernev’s books and sometimes promote them in these forums. But they must be read critically.
He makes historical claims that are simply unverifiable. One of my favorites: “white announced mate in eight” in Taylor v. amateur in The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Taylor says something quite different when he presents the position in his Chess Brilliants (1869).
Also Chernev was not a master and did not have engines. There will be errors in analysis.
I think that Logical Chess Move by Move is a vey good book for players to study after they have worked through Capablanca’s Chess Fundamentals and A Primer of Chess. In game one, however, White resigned prematurely. Do not blindly accept Chernev’s assessment. He can be wrong.
#21
There are better authors than Chernev.
He makes historical claims that are simply unverifiable. One of my favorites: “white announced mate in eight” in Taylor v. amateur in The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Taylor says something quite different when he presents the position in his Chess Brilliants (1869).
Don't leave us hanging! What did Taylor say?
Brilliant comment! Made me laugh too
A lot of the time when a player violates some principle, and you know they have - it's still really difficult to take advantage of it.
Difficult game, chess.
The first book I ever read was called "How to Think Ahead in Chess". Instead of diagrams it contained photographs of a chess set and board.
It was basically a repertoire book, and each of the opening lines chosen was apparently a forced win.
IIRC the suggestion for White was to play some Stonewall thing, and most of White's moves were followed by one or more exclamation marks so 1 d4!, then 2 e3!! and 3 f4! and Black should think about resigning.
Hi all:
So i just started to read chess books and I noticed that it takes me about 30 minutes just to read 2-3 pages. It takes way too long to read a chess book. Also, will you be able to improve when reading chess books?
Basically, I wanted to know if reading chess books is worth the time or is it better to mostly play and have somebody stronger analyze your games instead.
They should be done in combination with one-another. Chess books by good authors are an excellent way of learning. Of course, there are many chess authors who aren't good, because it's become a way of trying to earn money rather than teaching the game. A player whom you consider "stronger" may or may not help you develop as a chess player.
Budding chess players should also play against players of approximately the same strength as they are, in order to gain more confidence and practise their new-found skills. They should also play against weaker players than they are. That's a very valuable method, especially in practising attacking, taking advantage of weaker play and also in winning won games.
The first book I ever read was called "How to Think Ahead in Chess". Instead of diagrams it contained photographs of a chess set and board.
It was basically a repertoire book, and each of the opening lines chosen was apparently a forced win.
Think I remember that one. Terrible book.
He makes historical claims that are simply unverifiable. One of my favorites: “white announced mate in eight” in Taylor v. amateur in The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Taylor says something quite different when he presents the position in his Chess Brilliants (1869).
Don't leave us hanging! What did Taylor say?
The book can be read free on Google Books: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chess_Brilliants_One_hundred_games_examp/3BpdAAAAcAAJ
Here's all that can be known with certainty about the game. The five moves leading to the position can be reconstructed with some variability in move order. The checkmate in eight can be worked out. Everything else is speculative and unsourced.
IIRC the suggestion for White was to play some Stonewall thing, and most of White's moves were followed by one or more exclamation marks so 1 d4!, then 2 e3!! and 3 f4! and Black should think about resigning.
I read that book, too, but happily did not adopt the Stonewall.
I read it too I think it's the origins of why I started playing QGD lasker.
Absolutely not.
All knowledge that takes time to accumulate is worthless.
If you cannot become a GM in under a week you should probably stick to playing chess on weekends for fun. incase it wasn't inherently obvious, this stooge is either joking or wrong.
When I was starting out, his dogmatic principles helped me cut down reams of variations of calculations, and instead to focus on a few. They were usually right, too. Of course, I later outgrew such rigid principles, but they definitely helped me in many ways.
Improvision is faster than books.
Improvision is faster than books.
yes, light is faster than sound.
If I know anything about chess that is not true, the likely culprits are books by Irving Chernev or
Two posters not impressed by Chernev! - what do you think he said that was bad advice? I know that for years after reading "Logical Chess Move by Move" I'd never play h3 (or h6 with Black) if I'd castled short. I loved that book though!