Who is your favorite chess author?

I recently took advantage of an Everyman chess sale (still ongoing) and bought their "Giants of Chess Strategy" and 4 other Giants books for half off (I think it was like $25 total.)

I had no idea what to expect, but I'm right now going through Giants of Chess Secrets by Neil McDonald and I'm really impressed by his clarity, choice of games, and clear-cut writing style. SO much better than Cyrus Lakdawala (who is weirdly popular as a chess writer.)

Also is set at the perfect level for me (I'd guesstimate anyone from 1300-1900 would like it). Importantly, not too many insano side variations to distract you from the point - just the most relevant ones.

I'm probably going to acquire more of Neil McDonalds chess books in the future (hopefully if there's a sale!) - I think he's the only chess writer thus far that I'd go so far as to actually choose because the author specifically interested me. 

Dare I say "heiman" ?no I know "silman"...

actually recently chernov has been speaking to me.  

As long as we're butchering names, I'll add Purty to the list.

Read about hallucinations, including the possible causes and practical advice about what to do if you experience them.

I can't do Silman. I've tried several times to go through his Reassess, Amateur's mind, and columns, and his style of writing and presentation absolutely doesn't work for me. I just get more confused than whan I started, and get discouraged when he (commonly) goes, "and this 8-move tactical shot is the OBVIOUS refutation of such move...) I strongly suspect there are a lot other folks who get similarly MORE confused with his books.

The stuff he covers is totally legit and critical for chess positional strategy, and the examples he chooses seem good, but it's his presentation style that just doesn't work for me. 

Don't even get me started on his "think of the ideal position and make it happen" fantasy as a non-expert player. If I were a class A and above player, I could def see how visualizing an 'ideal' position in a complicated middlegame would be the route to success, but as a lower than A player myself, more often than not, picturing the ideal setup is pure fantasy with the over the board complications.

In the book I mentioned, "Giants of Chess Secrets", Neil McDonald goes through a Petrosian game that explains the minority attack as simply and clearly as I've ever seen. I think every other chess author I've seen (including Soltis) chooses examples that are way too complicated for starters, or get sidetracked quickly from the minority attack. Neil Mcdonald's example game shows clearly and simply how it works - even an 1200 level player can easily understand his prose and variations, which is absolutely a fantastic way to learn basic strategic concepts. (And Petrosian is no slouch to emulate!)

Andy Soltis

You might want to consult a medical professional.

His middlegame books, like "The Inner Game Of Chess", are excellent.

His opening books are AWFUL!

I don't know if there is a "best", per se, but I can tell you which authors to avoid!

Eric Schiller

Michael de la Maza

Andrew Soltis (Opening Books)

Eric Schiller

Michael de la Maza

Andrew Martin

Eric Schiller

Michael de la Maza

James Plaskett

Eric Schiller

Michael de la Maza

Gary Lane

Eric Schiller

Michael de la Maza

It is interesting to compare two authors (Heisman, and silman).

I have books from both of them, and they both claim to be written to intermediate players in an attempt to explain the principles of the game.

I think Heisman is more practical and easier to understand.

but in some ways I think the two authors have different aims, different purposes to their writing.

I think Jeremy Silman wants to create a philosophy (or re-invent one as his critics allege)- and helping patzers see (what his is obvious) tactical calculations is Not the point of his books.

on the other hand, certain people here hate both authors and constantly rail against them, grouping them in the category, of "Modern age Snake Oil Authors that write very trashy low quality books".

so....

I thought answering hhnngg1's question with those two authors was , well, provocative.  and I am deliberately contrasting the two authors because so much of the time they are Grouped together, and both have written about basic chess principles and not just openings (as so many other chess authors obsess about).

I still expect people who hate the modern authors to come on her and give a good hating to both, as they have done on many similar threads....

I am enjoying Chernov's Logical chess- and I feel it has been giving me good insights on who to play the Queen's Pawn opening.

@sk, No, I have not had the ghost of Chernov helping me with my game,  but I think I would do quite a lot of crazy things to have this happen to me.  "Wow, what a great thing to happen to a patzer like me"

but I'd probably have to sacrifice my first-born, and the wife wouldn't like that.  she already thinks I am too crazy when it comes to chess. cheers. TGP.

@thrillerfan my fave Soltis book is art of defence in chess. I agree, his op books arent very good

Mikhail Tal is definitely my favorite.

I also like Muller, Chernev, Nunn, and Dvorak quite a bit.

The only author I really dislike is Pandolfini...  I just can't stand his writing for some reason.

I really liked Ludek Pachman's Complete chess strategy (in three volumes) when I read it decades ago. I recently bought an abridged single volume version published by Dover retitled Modern chess strategy and am looking forward to finding some time to revisit it. When I was younger and read more chess books I really loved My system (Nimzo of course), My 60 memorable games by Fischer (which surprised me with its inclusion of three losses and a fair number of draws, not to mention some real psychological insight into his opponents), and a couple of 'best game' collections for Petrosian. All the above helped me become a better strategist in OTB games when I played in club teams and occasional tournament and later on in correspondence chess. I'm still a lousy tactician though, or rather I'm quite slow in my thinking of this aspect of the game, and I'm correspondingly awful at Blitz, not to mention time trouble dilemmas!

I only have one Soltis book, and although my first hour or two with it was promising, after going through most of it, I've been quite underwhelmed.

It's his highly thought of "Pawn Structure Chess" book. The idea is promising - see the pawn structures and develop correct plans.

Unfortunately, his explanations of his plans aren't particularly good. And for me, despite going through the entire Stonewall chapter and all the supplemental games in it, I still can't play it well on either side - the plans he states are too superficial and easily stopped. 

Add to that the computer busting a good 10-15% of his recommended plans and lines completely (and without insane tactics - it often comes up with much superior plans - this book was definitely NOT computer checked), and there's a lot of room for doubt.

I liked the concept and approach, but I'm just not getting enough out of the book for it to deliver it's premise.

Loved Patrick Wolff 's idiots guide to chess, gave me a great start to chess. Seirawan's books are next...like his style!

Chernev's eye for instructional games is pretty remarkable.  Since he only got a passing mention, I'll add a bit of emphasis to his name.  Kasparov has to be hands-down on top of the mountain, as far as thoroughness.  I'm a little blown away by his My Great Predecessors.  I was really expecting him to have largely ghost written books, but they appear to be compositions of tons of analysis he's done over years, with a bit of added polish.  As far as general favorite, regarding writing and instruction, Silman has to be nearly the best, if not the best.  Heisman's works don't carry the broader perspective and scope that Silman's does, but I like him very much, too.

Fischer, there is no discussion about it. 

Coincidentally I also happen to be reading "Giants of Chess Strategy" by Neil McDonald at the moment.  This is one of the most instructive chess books I have ever read.  McDonald goes to lengths to very clearly explain the strategy, the planning, and the point of each move. The book is targeted to the Intermediate to Expert level player.  An understanding of positional concepts is assumed.  This is simply an outstanding chess book for those who have yet to add "Master" to their chess title.

trying Yusupov(the training series) - tough, but good thus far......for me and learning some

Tartakower is the most amusing. Psakhis is pretty good at explaining stuff.