It has been scanned online and is available for free through Google. It is written for the beginner and looks to be excellent if you are willing to wade through the old style english and the archaic chess notation.
You can make any book appropriate for your level by simply studying it and applying it on the board.
From reading the thread, it sounds like that book is written in "descriptive notation". ie, the first two moves might be notated as :
1. P-K4 P-K4
Where in algebraic notation, those same two moves would be marked as :
1. e4 e5
I learned, years ago, using descriptive notation, and I had a lot of trouble converting to algebraic. And that meant that when all of the new books were written in algebraic, I had trouble with them. I've got past it now, mostly, though I still sort of "think" in the descriptive. And descriptve notation is obsolete.
Overall, I think algebraic is better. And more importantly, algebraic is used in essentially all modern chess books. The only reason to know descriptive notation is for old books.
So I think that if you are new and learning, you should learn from books that use algebraic notation. After you are comfortable with that and know most of the basics, then if you want to learn descriptive notation to read some of the older books, that's fine. Probably not necessary, though, since most of the important stuff has been either reprinted in algebraic or newer books have sort of made the others obsolete.
I agree re-Laskers manual of chess, an excellent book for anyone taking up the game.
I completely agree that there are many classic books that are still very useful. However, for a new player (he said he had a 1200 rating) I think he'd be better to learn the algebraic system first.
Also, many of the classic chess books have had new editions printed which have been converted to algebraic. Reuben Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" for example.
I'm surprised that others find the different notation systems difficult. I understand all the systems... descriptive, coordinate, Smith, concise reversable, algebraic... I've noticed that this topic comes up alot in forums.
I found a large collection of chess books along time ago. I have done what alot of novice do with them though.... I read a bit of this... abit if that.... never making progress.
Thought that I should finally read a book from beginning to end. I tried years ago with "the complete chess player's handbook" by Staunton. But its just too dull and why too many openning to read from cover to cover..
The art of chess... is it a good starting point? or should I consider another???
Re: algebraic vs. descriptive - you should learn to read both, since many of these classic books are written in the old style.
Anyone who would say you can't learn anything from the old books is certainly missing the point.
Chernev's book is really good. Great example of a classic written in "descriptive", but still valid as a teaching tool after many years.
Hi guys. I'm rated about 1200. I found an old chess book.
The Art of Chess by James Mason
Anyone read this? Is it appropriate for someone my level?
Thanks