what is a good chess book for a beginner ? (sub 1000)

I have started reading both the "Soviet Chess Primer" by Maizelis and "Journey to the Chess Kingdom", by Averbakh/Beilin.

I feel that the book Journey to the Chess Kingdom also has insanely difficult exercises for a beginner book. The guy explains the movement of the pieces and the exercises are about mate in 5, mate in 4, with very subtle moves (not forcing checks/captures, for instance).

Is this effective as a learning method?? I get them right maybe 70-80% of the time I guess, but sometimes it takes me 20-30 minutes to find the answer. Are these books actually effective for beginners? I know a beginner can work on them, but isn't it better to try to build the skill more gradually (mate in 1 first, then mate in 2, forced moves first, etc.?)

Should I stick to these books or should I switch to books that have a more gradual approach? 

These books have such a high praise from respected players that I feel very confused....do they like them because they are actually that good? Or only because they were the ones available at that time? Are there better modern options around of good, solid, comprehensive chess books for advanced beginners (1300-1500 FIDE I would say)?

Thanks!

Agree with the above. I found Seirewan's 'play winning chess' to be a great starting point.

Seirawan's play winning chess was actually my first book. I liked it, but I give it 3 or 4 stars out of 5....it's very difficult for a beginner to work properly with concepts such as space, tempo, pawn structure....I believe this can even backfire....I would have preferred a more classical approach such as Tarrasch's Game of Chess or Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals....maybe the more modern books Wolff's Complete Idiot's Guide, Antonio Gude's Complete chess course, or Chess for Dummies...,..even though I don't find any of the last 3 at the same level of the more classical options, imho 

play winning chess by seirawan.

Many "best books" lists are heavily populated with books that are appropriate primarily for advanced players....that is, not necessarily appropriate for the beginner-novice.

This is precisely the motivation for the list I have created which contains primarily books that are accessible and more useful to the improving amateur player, including beginner-novice...

Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond

"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever

The first chess book I read when I was U1000 was Winning Chess Tactics by Yasser Seirawan. I read it over a year ago, and i still read it sometimes even now. I highly recommend it -- actually, all the books in that series are good. 

Hi RussBell, thanks for your response and for doing the list, which is quite good! I have seen it already numerous times in the posts about chess books for beginners. I appreciate your effort for creating it...it's quite useful.

However, I couldn't find exactly what I'm looking there....I'm looking for a comprehensive first chess course...you suggest Pandolfini's Ultimate Chess Guide and Winning Chess Strategy for Kids. But, personally, these 2 options are not exactly what I'm looking for...I find the structure of the Pandolfini book horrible...written as a conversation between two people, with no topics, table of contents ....it's too hard to find and review things...too disorganized for my taste. Coakley's book is better, but more of an exercise book...I'm looking for theory, words, explanations, something that it's more like a text book than a workbook.

The 2 options in your list that are very similar to what I'm looking for are Wolff"s Idiot's Guide and, obviously, The Soviet Chess Primer....I'm looking for something deeper than the first one, but easier than the Soviet Chess Primer...something in-between...maybe that doesn't exist....Grau's Tratado General de Ajedrez is similar to what I'm looking for....but it's old, sometimes too difficult for a first course, and very disorganized.

Anyway, I'm thinking of sticking to Averbakh's book and the going for the Soviet Chess Primer anyway....I guess I'm not that far for the appropriate level for it....it's just a matter of working a little bit harder :-)

I would love to hear if someone actually recommends a different comprehensive first course.

Thanks!

http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_beginner/ev_winning_chess.asp?KATID=BO&ID=BO-Beginner

Coincidently, and based on your response, I believe Lev Alburt's Comprehensive Chess Course is closest to what you are looking for.  I consider it to be appropriate for any improving chess amateur (and not just children), especially those below 1600,  It's really quite good. and comprehensive as the title indicates.  At your level you would only need Volume 2, which is targeted to those who have some experience playing the game.  Volume 1 is targeted to young school children as a very first exposure to the game, getting them used to how the pieces move and interact, board vision exercises etc.  The course provides a lot of very useful chess instruction.  It is not "conversational" like Pandolfini's Ultimate Guide to Chess.  

https://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Chess-Course-Vol-Tournament/dp/1889323012/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?crid=KDWPN4LBUNZK&keywords=comprehensive+chess+course+volume+ii%2C+pelts+and+albert&qid=1572576431&s=books&sprefix=comprehensive+chess%2Cstripbooks%2C217&sr=1-2-fkmr0

I included mention of the book in my list of chess courses article here...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/beginners-chess-course-instructional-resources

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell

As for Soviet Chess Primer, the title is misleading.  It is too advanced for the beginner-novice, as after the first chapter or so the book quickly becomes very challenging for those rated below about 1600.  It is targeted more to the advanced intermediate player and above.   I would think a reasonable approach would be to complete Lev Alburt's course followed by something like Michael Stean's Simple Chess and/or Jeremy Silman's The Amateur's Mind, both of which introduce and focus on positional chess concepts, before tackling the Soviet Primer.

Hi RussBell,

I've read Alburt's volume 1 already when I started playing. I'll take a look at volume 2 and then see Simple Chess and the Amateur's Mind.

Thanks for the recommendations!

Kind regards

Just a quick warning, The Amateurs Mind is only in descriptive notation .....

I own this Silman book and my version is in algebraic notation...maybe there is also an older version which I'm not aware of... :-)

This is mine:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1890085022/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=the+amateurs+mind&qid=1572618444&sr=8-1

EDIT -- I mixed it up with Chess Master vs Chess Amateur by Max Euwe, which is only in descriptive notation 😅

It's meant as part of a series tbf which is also part of the book's appeal. Although I think I probably did benefit quite significantly from going through all of the starting out tutorials on the game Chessmaster first.

It's a short book which goes over some things quite fast.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094112/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review332.pdf

Amateur's Mind by Jeremy Silman
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094419/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/ammind.pdf
https://www.silmanjamespress.com/shop/chess/amateurs-mind-the-2nd-edition/

Simple Chess by Stean

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104258/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review400.pdf

http://store.doverpublications.com/0486424200.html

Euwe's book is also very instructive.  A classic, excellent chess book!

I agree  I'm in the process of reading it now, but the descriptive notation is hard to read

@1_a31-0 -

Algebraic notation is certainly much easier to process than descriptive notation, when one is not used to the latter.  However, consider that every (serious) chess player prior to the 1980's was able to deal with descriptive notation (there was no choice).  It just takes getting used to.  I've been (slowly) working through Hans Kmoch's "Pawn Power In Chess"(in descriptive notation), and as a result I have finally gotten to the point where I now have no problem reading it.  But it took a little while to get to there.  With determination and perseverance, I'm sure any dedicated chess player could do the same.

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/pawn-power-in-chess-by-hans-kmoch