Who actually reads most/all of their chess books?

I gotta admit - I don't have many chess books (6) but I actually read 'em, and they help!   Freaking time consuming for the game collections (still not done with 'em), but I definitely improve every time I study them.

I've been reading this book on the Modern Defence lately that's definitely over my head, but I'm discovering that a combination of first studying the annotated games and using an engine to 'refute' your plausible alternative moves, then following up with repeated goes on a "guess-the-move" program works extremely well for studying annotated games. The guess-the-move program really helps for staying honest and not getting lazy about predicting the following moves. 

I think it's working, because even though I've just started playing the Modern defense for about 2 weeks, I've gone from getting massacred EVERY game, to beating solid opposition my level in good complicated modern type positions and having as good winning chances as my white repertoire.

I read the s*&t out of them, writing in the margins, highlighting cool quotes from my favorite players, etc. I have a system of symbols/keywords for the main themes of games, and after finishing one write down all of them in the margin next to that game. That way later, if I'm looking for a game exemplifying, say, good kingside attack technique, or a powerful knight outpost, it's easy to find. 

To be honest, I like studying chess more than playing it!

I mean, playing is great, but the difference between playing over a classic game and playing one myself is like the difference between farting around on my guitar vs listening to a virtuoso play.

I think anyone who is serious about improving at least tries to make it through their chess books. The problem is, many beginning to early-intermediate players try to start with books that are over their head. For example, Nimzowitsch's My System is near the top of almost every master's list of great books on the game, but if a player doesn't have a solid grasp of tactics first, they aren't going to get much out of this book, which focuses on positional aspects of the game. The same applies to opening study, because you can memorize lines that get you great positions out of the opening, but if you're unfamiliar with the tactical and positional nuances of those positions, once your're out of book you won't know what strategies to use going into the middlegame.

My advice to someone who is just starting to study the game is to first study tactics. Study the hell out of tactics, and practice them a lot, either on the tactics trainer here or on some other website. (I use chesstempo.com, which allows unlimited tactical problems for free members.) There are a lot of books on this; two good ones are Vladimir Vukovic's Art of Attack in Chess and John Nunn's 1001 Deadly Checkmates. (The latter will help you with far more than just checkmates, since many tactical combinations stem from the mere threat of mate... so the more of these patterns you know, the more forcing combinations you can imagine.) There are also about a metric ton of books on tactics by Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev, but many of them are mainly problems, of which the internet can provide a nearly infinite supply. Even after you have a good basic grasp of tactics, keep on practicing them as you move on to other areas of study. They're a great aid to visualization and calculation, and there are combinations that are challenging to spot for players of any rating from patzer to international grandmaster.

Next step is to study endgames. Start with the most basic endgames; a book I often recommend to someone who's never studied them is Pandolfini's Endgame Course. From there, move on to more complicated endgames with something like Silman's Complete Endgame Course or Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings. Knowing this well means you'll know when (and how) to best exchange down from a middlegame to an endgame.

The third step is to study positional chess. The aforementioned My System is good (even at 90 years old), along with its sequel Chess Praxis. Another is Ludek Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy (or better yet, the three books of his Complete Chess Strategy series it is abridged from: Planning the Pieces, Principles of Pawn Play and the Center, and Play on the Wings. Just for reference, this is about where I am in my studies. I'm working through the Nimzowitsch books now and expect to spend at least several months to a year on my first go-through.

Only after the above does it really make sense to start studying opening theory in any depth. Of course, it is wise to pick up at least a few openings before this. You'll probably want to know most lines to at least 5 or 6 moves, and a few that you play regularly down to about a dozen moves in the main variations. But by the time you get to this point, you'll find that your earlier learning will almost automatically lead you to moves that are already part of opening theory. No book recommendations from me here, because I'm not there yet myself (and, of course, which books you'll want will depend on what openings you really want to play, which in turn depends upon your playing style)... although I have picked up a few books from the Starting Out series on openings that I play.

Sorry for writing a book of my own, but going about things in the right order can save you years of frustration and make you a stronger player faster.

Well the question is, who actually reads the books, nowadays reading seems to be reducing, I have difficulty remembering the last real book I read, my reading mainly consists of online articles, ebooks, almost everything I read if read off the screen, on several electronic devices... It really saddens me. It seems to be a kind of illiteracy... :(

To me, it seems a shame that that particular series has been discontinued.

I have "Starting Out: French Defense", and while it's not a bad book, it's one of those few books I own which I pretty much don't read. 

I'm not sure who it's aimed at - the games included are high-level GM games, but there's almost no relevant play or discussion for class-player typical errors and refutations. Furthermore, it's like 2 games for each variation of the French, which is pretty near useless in terms of learning it. I know it says "Starting Out", but I was expecting things like "memorize THIS common attacking pattern" etc., but there really was very little of that aside form the heavily complicated games. 

If I had to rename the book, it would be better called "A dabbling in the French Defense - for Masters".

On the other hand, I do have "Starting Out: Rook Endgames" - which is PERFECT. One of the best books I have. Short, but super high yield, and squarely aimed at club player without esoterica.

Chess for Dummies

The French is exactly one of those openings that illustrates why I say opening study should come last, after: (1) tactics, (2) endgames, and (3) positional play. Many variations of the French are very much about positional maneuvering. Once you get through the Pachman or Nimzowitsch books I mentioned, revisit your opening books and you'll see that much of what seemed "esoteric" at first becomes almost obvious. The Starting Out series isn't aimed at masters, but it is certainly aimed at people who have a good grasp of appropriate middlegame strategy. (I'd be willing to bet that you'll find a lot more that is useful in their books on the Sicilian or the Leningrad Dutch, for example... sharp, tactical openings that don't require as much positional play as something like the French or the Ruy Lopez.)

The point of learning the game generally "backwards" is so that you understand what you're aiming for at each stage of the game. If you don't know endings, you can't really grasp positional play beyond general principles (and you won't know the exceptions to those principles). If you don't know positional play, you won't know how to handle the middlegame out of the opening (unless that opening is sharp and tactical). Your success with the book on rook endings confirms that this is the best approach.

You sound like me, krudave.  I'll repeat what I wrote to a friend recently: "You are, right, I need to play more, but I get more of a thrill playing through the games of the truly great because the games are of a superior aesthetic quality.  I don't approach that level.  It's like listening to the Berlin Philharmonic versus picking up an instrument and playing a few ditties."

Sounds like we're on the same page, man! 

I wish I could say I did, hhnngg1, but I have way too many books to read from cover to cover.  I prefer books dedicated to a great player or a classic tournament like Tim Harding's recent biography of Joseph Henry Blackburne, which I just added to my library.

Regarding my library, I'll repeat what I posted for another blog:

I have over 1,100 books, all in Very Good to As New condition.  That may sound like a lot but that's low compared to some collectors such as Jeremy Silman and Andy Ansel, to name just two.  If you want to see a phenomenal collection, one of the best aesthetically, get a hold of the limited edition book titled A Few Old Friends; unfortunately, it's very expensive.  David Delucia's collection of first editions dating back 500 years or more is photographed in full color (see http://chessforallages.blogspot.com/2014/03/delucias-chess-library.html).  Chess ephemera such as score sheets and tournament bulletins are photographed too.  You might call it intellectual porn for the chess fanatic.

Of course, just because someone is a collector of chess books doesn't make him a good player; they have to be read and understood.  In other words, don't ask me how many books I've read of the 1,100.  Quite a few, but not as many as I'd like given the demands on my time.

With chess you never stop learning, and the game can be appreciated at any level, though it gets more interesting the better you become.  It's like the Indian proverb, "Chess is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe."

I'm not bragging about my collection, I'm simply crazy and apparently have too much disposable income.  DeLucia has a lot more so he must be eccentric (ha ha).

Heh. Indeed. Only six? Geez. I have over 200 but that's because in my day, we didn't have chess sites or tactics trainers chess engines databases etc etc!

I think it's cool you actually have a chess book. Kudos bro.

Yeah, I'm old school soo I actually do refer to those sheets of yellowing paper every now n again. I even have spiral notebooks of my own eccentric collection of analyses. Heh. That's hardcore.

But I understand this generation's adversity in reading books. We used to call shortcuts, cliff notes. Alas, in Chess, studying is a commitment issue. Fast tracking to great play is still the same after 20+ years...there are no shortcuts man. Playing's the thing. Studying is always second.

Hindsight is always the best.

Yeah, me too.  I'm now quite as old as Geri, my Chess.com photo, but I have the game scores from every tournament I ever played in beginning in 1976.  Some of the early games are pretty damn bad, but I can see where I've improved, sometimes dramatically.  You're never too old to learn.

I keep these and other analysis in a 3-ring binder (I can imagine the younger folks asking, "What's that?")  I guess I should scan them and toss the originals, or just add them all to ChessBase along with my notes, but the originals have a certain sentimental value.

  I can honestly say i have only read one of my (former) chess books from cover to cover.I presently have 10 chess books and i have read some from each ot them but none of them completely. As far as regular books go I would guess i average 1 read completely each month but I have bought several hundred books of which i doubt i will end up reading more than 20% of although its really impossible to tell. I usually just read for about an hour a night just before going to sleep. I usually buy from the clearance history section at the local Half Price book store although sometimes i send away from a specific book if there is one i really want to read.

StultusIrrumabo wrote:

Chess for Dummies

That is the only book that I never recommend.

When you get a specific book don't just read it, PLAY IT THROUGH.

You will learn more.

How about Chess for Rummies?  I think Joseph Henry Blackburne wrote that one, and did very well indeed with it.

If it weren't for PGN versions of chess books, I wouldn'y read ANY of them. Too freaking time consuming to set up positions every time.

I read most of the books that I buy with the intention of reading completely.

There are a lot of old school trainers who believe students should set positions up on a real board.  Anecdotally, I find my board vision slightly better on a real board vs doing a problem from a book.

Hello hhnngg1: you play on a "guess-the-move" program. What program is that?

Thanks