Hi,

December 25th is right around the corner. It is once again time to update the ol' Christmas chess book wish list  :D.

I have spent the last hour or so looking over book reviews at Silman's site, and Hansen's column at Chess Cafe. I also looked at 2008 book releases on Quality Chess, Gambit, and Everyman.

Except for Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual (I own it), there seems to be a shortage of new, interesting, NON-opening chess books this year :-?.

In your opinion, what have been the best chess books released this year? They can be on the opening, but since we all have so many of these, and since we do have ChessPublishing to save us, I would like something different. Personally, I prefer instructional material (the more challenging, the better), but this thread welcomes any and all ideas  :).

To start: Attacking Manual 1 by Aagaard looks interesting. Silman's review (http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Attacking_Manual_1.html) notes it has annoying, "Dvoretsky worship," but since I am one of those worshippers, that doesn't bother me.  ;D

My 60 Mememorable games algebraic new edition

end of thread  :P


I wonder what Lipinsky's is like?

Well, sometimes you learn a lot of chess in opening books ! my favourite amongst recent books in this resepct :

- The Safest Sicilian, 2nd edition, by Delchev & Semkov. (as revealing as Kasparov & Nikitin's Sicilian with ...e6 & ...d6 in its time)
- Play 1. b3 by Ilya Odessky. (Despite the opening, if I may say)
- Khalifman's "Kramnik" update, not just moves but ideas, and honesty as far as I can see.

As a practical player (= no computer chess, and never met OTB that mythical 1900 player knowing all theory on all variations), I would be interested in books showing "little theory leading to interesting equality" rather than "big theory leading to debatable & at most short-term advantage", but perhaps this is just me.  

I didn't actually buy that many chess books this year, but of the ones I got Hertan's "Forcing Chess Moves" is my favorite. Training to consider the most forcing moves first is very useful, and I was pleasantly surprised by the many challenging positions (I had expected the book to be geared towards weaker players).

Re Odessky I was a bit put down by his lack of faith in 1.b3, theoretically. Browsing a few critical chapters only strengthened my resolve never to play 1.b3 in a serious game again. I really enjoy his English Defence book though, except it appears to be 5 years old! Didn't anybody think of updating the theory for the english translation after such a long time?

I second the choice of Hertan's Book and also nominate Cox's Berlin Wall, which I feel is much more than just an opening manual.

1st: Forcing Chess Moves
2nd: Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual
3rd: Not sure, but Grandmaster Repertoire 1.d4 - Volume 1 is definitely a candidate, as would the Attacking Manual.

"The Berlin Wall" also seems a worthy contender for "Chess Book of the Year".

I have read Silman's review of Aagaard's Attacking Manual, and although I have many reservations against the review, I will limit myself to saying that it is biased and seems out of character for Silman.

I will pass on Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual because almost 90% of the book content was already published in various web sites (chesscafe.com, e3e5.com, chesspro.ru). For me this book does not contain anything new. Of course it is good to have all those articles together.
As for the best book my preference is as follows:
1) John Cox - Berlin Wall - superb book. It is not another one opening book but it is a true manual of the Berlin structures.
2) Jacob Aagaard - Attacking manual Vol.1
3) Tsermiadianos - How to beat the French Defence
3) Artur Yusupov - Build Up Your Chess Vol.1
4) Bob Rice - Three Moves Ahead - a very good reading about chess and business.

Perhaps we should also have a worst book list as well !

drkodos wrote on 11/20/08 at 02:07:13:

I second the choice of Hertan's Book and also nominate Cox's Berlin Wall, which I feel is much more than just an opening manual.

I third Hertan and second Cox's Berlin Wall.

Cox' Berlin book has to be great. The structure is just my ideal for an opening book and I like some of his earlier efforts (Alekhine, d4 Deviations) Sadly, I haven't bought it yet, since I don't play the Berlin from either side... maybe I should take it up!?

I also have have a very good impression of Aagard's Attacking Manual. If only we could see an end of the annoying quarreling with Watson and Silman...

I also would vote for Cox The Berlin wall.
But a good non opening alternative candidate is:
Muller/Pajeken How to play the endgame.

No mention for Kasparov's book? The parts of it I have gone through so far were impressive.

Thanks for the responses. Please keep the recommendations coming!

Despite what I said about openings, I will have a serious look at The Berlin Wall. If it is true that it is as instructional as you have all said, I'm sure I will enjoy it. I do play 1.e4 e5 sometimes as black, and having an endgame-opening handy might be an effective weapon in certain cases.  ;)

Forcing Chess Moves also sounds like a good idea. How does it compare to Perfect Your Chess by Volokitin? I am halfway through that book and it has given me a tough time in places  :o.

I am also strongly tempted by Aagaard's Attacking Manual. The more exercises, the better.

I like Yusupov, but I am not sure I would learn much from Build Up Your Chess Vol.1. I am 2265 FIDE, and the sample chapter I saw looked a bit simple.

As for the How to Play Chess Endgames book, I have it and heartily recommend it to anyone, even if they do already have Endgame Manual and Fundamental Chess Endings. These make quite a nice set, and will keep you busy for a long, long time.  :D

To those mentioned, I would add The Ultimate Chess Strategy Book Vol. 1.  It's especially good for 1.d4 players.  

Yes, i simply forgot Muller's book and it should be placed maybe before Tsermiadianos. It is really great book on endgames (and not only).

Stigma wrote on 11/20/08 at 16:22:28:

Cox' Berlin book has to be great. The structure is just my ideal for an opening book and I like some of his earlier efforts (Alekhine, d4 Deviations) Sadly, I haven't bought it yet, since I don't play the Berlin from either side... maybe I should take it up!? I also have have a very good impression of Aagard's Attacking Manual. If only we could see an end of the annoying quarreling with Watson and Silman...

I agree. Now that Aagaard has had the chance to state his opinion about Watson's book in a book of his own, I doubt that he will continue discussing Watson's books in the future with the aim of proving Watson wrong.

Silman used to be a good reviewer, but the review linked to at the start of this thread makes me doubt that he still is. I recommend that people disregard his reviews (at least those covering Aagaard's books), as he clearly is not reviewing the book, simply what he thinks about the author.

IM John Donaldson, who recently captained the US Men's team to a bronze medal in Dresden, takes a more objective look at Aagaard's Attacking Manual here: http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/Three_Books_on_Attack.html. I appreciated his leaving out the Watson-Aagaard-Silman feuds in the review.

Donaldson also talks about "How to Crush Your Chess Opponents" by Simon Williams, and "The Art of Attacking Chess" by Zenon Franco. I own Franco's great solitaire chess workbook, "Chess Self-Improvement," and this new book of his sounds good as well.

Hi!
What about Lars Bo Hansen's "How Chess games are won or lost"? It has just been very favourably reviewed by Silman. I guess it is both very instructive and readable. Lipnitsky's manual looks pretty good to me. The titles of the chapters may not sound very original and thrilling but the choice of games is tremendously good.

The german book "Die Macht der Bauern" from GM Hickl looks very good to me. Unfortunately german language is required.

I think Tzermiadianos', How to beat the French Defence was a very good effort.

True Lies in Chess by Lluis Comas Fabrego is also quite thought provoking, but I don't know when it was released.

Tops :)

High praise for John Cox's book from Carsten Hansen's most recent "Checkpoint" column:


Quote:

If you are interested in becoming a better chess player and want to understand the pawn structures in the Exchange Ruy Lopez or Berlin Wall, this book will carry you far. It is truly fantastic and should be a candidate for book of the year.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen115.pdf

Like the pub member "Zoo" i like very much : - Play 1. b3 by Ilya Odessky. (Despite the opening, if I may say) by the way i have 2,5/3 awith 1.b3!?! and  i agree with the author 1.b3 is maybe not very good but fun to play !

And ChessCafe.com just named "Forcing Chess Moves" by Charles Hertan as the 2008 Book of the Year!!! Incidentally, by complete accident, I received this book as a birthday present three days after the book got its award. 8-) After taking a skim through it, the material looks very intriguing. I predict I'll have alot of fun with it.



Two other books that made it the the final stage of voting, were:

"Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess Part II, Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-1985" by Garry Kasparov

"How Chess Games are Won or Lost" by Lars Bo Hansen

Offhand, I'd say the length of title probably doomed Garry's book.  :P

I received the Kasparov book as a present and wish I'd received another.  This was one of his weaker efforts despite covering every single game he played against Karpov through 1985.

I'm hoping the next volume is more interesting.

Interesting smyslov Fan, I browsed the Kasparov book and i wasn't convinced that it was a good as the reviews said ( i've like dall the previous titlesin the series) at least not at the price of £30 I may still get it if it reduces in price.

Has anyone seen Hertan's book? What rating level is it aimed at? how is it different from just the standard advice to look at all checks and captures in case there is a tactic?

The Hansen book looked a good one to me in the shop- for people looking for a serious coaching  manual

I have all three of these books (I have a chess book problem, but I guess many of us do).

I liked the Kasparov book, and that's coming from someone who never found the My Great Predecessors books intriguing enough to buy.  The thing that left me ambivalent about the MGP books remains, which is the annotation style - lots of long lines, not many explanations.  I, as an 1800 player, felt that a lot of it was over my head.  I can handle long lines if they are explained well (two great examples are Mihail Marin's LEARN FROM THE LEGENDS and Colin Crouch's HOW TO DEFEND IN CHESS), but there wasn't enough context here for me.  What I did enjoy was all the backstory of the matches (although I realize that a lot of it is subjective), and the back-and-forth feinting match of the openings.  I actually found the long string of draws in the first match very interesting for this reason.

FischerTal asked what rating FORCING CHESS MOVES is aimed at... I hate it when weaker players (like me!) say that a given book will be useful for someone much stronger than them, but I'll say that it is certainly aimed at players through at least 2200.  It's not over my head at all, so let's say 1600-2200?  It is basically a big cataloged collection of positions in which various sorts of forcing moves played a role in a combination.  It is useful to look through all these positions, especially when they've been precategorized like this, but it's not really an instruction manual.

I'm midway through HOW CHESS GAMES ARE WON AND LOST, and am enjoying it, although it, also, is less of an instruction manual than you might think from the title.  I was hoping that it would be a manual telling me how to get from 1800 to 2000 (as I wish every book would be, I guess!), but it is largely a meditation on how Hansen himself has improved and how he thinks about the game.  At least half the games are his own, with the remainder largely being models that he learned from.  That said, it is well written, the games are well analyzed, and he has a lot of interesting things to say.  I'm not sure how much it will improve my game, but I'm enjoying it very much.

dfan wrote on 03/02/09 at 22:41:13:

I have all three of these books (I have a chess book problem, but I guess many of us do). I liked the Kasparov book, and that's coming from someone who never found the My Great Predecessors books intriguing enough to buy.  The thing that left me ambivalent about the MGP books remains, which is the annotation style - lots of long lines, not many explanations.  I, as an 1800 player, felt that a lot of it was over my head.  I can handle long lines if they are explained well (two great examples are Mihail Marin's LEARN FROM THE LEGENDS and Colin Crouch's HOW TO DEFEND IN CHESS), but there wasn't enough context here for me.  What I did enjoy was all the backstory of the matches (although I realize that a lot of it is subjective), and the back-and-forth feinting match of the openings.  I actually found the long string of draws in the first match very interesting for this reason. FischerTal asked what rating FORCING CHESS MOVES is aimed at... I hate it when weaker players (like me!) say that a given book will be useful for someone much stronger than them, but I'll say that it is certainly aimed at players through at least 2200.  It's not over my head at all, so let's say 1600-2200?  It is basically a big cataloged collection of positions in which various sorts of forcing moves played a role in a combination.  It is useful to look through all these positions, especially when they've been precategorized like this, but it's not really an instruction manual. I'm midway through HOW CHESS GAMES ARE WON AND LOST, and am enjoying it, although it, also, is less of an instruction manual than you might think from the title.  I was hoping that it would be a manual telling me how to get from 1800 to 2000 (as I wish every book would be, I guess!), but it is largely a meditation on how Hansen himself has improved and how he thinks about the game.  At least half the games are his own, with the remainder largely being models that he learned from.  That said, it is well written, the games are well analyzed, and he has a lot of interesting things to say.  I'm not sure how much it will improve my game, but I'm enjoying it very much.

Thanks - useful

Quite suprised by Smyslov_Fan's comments. Ok the annotations of the second match are not much better or different than his older book from twenty years ago. For the first match though it is clearly best book available at least in english language. This match was probably the most intense sporting event of any kind. Kasparov describes it in a very egotistic but interesting manner. Don't see how a chess player chould not like this.
         Personally not very impressed with most of the MGP series, except the Karpov/Korchnoi one. Whole tracts from older books are shamelessly copied and pasted.

TN wrote on 11/22/08 at 02:48:33:

Stigma wrote on 11/20/08 at 16:22:28: Cox' Berlin book has to be great. The structure is just my ideal for an opening book and I like some of his earlier efforts (Alekhine, d4 Deviations) Sadly, I haven't bought it yet, since I don't play the Berlin from either side... maybe I should take it up!? I also have have a very good impression of Aagard's Attacking Manual. If only we could see an end of the annoying quarreling with Watson and Silman... I agree. Now that Aagaard has had the chance to state his opinion about Watson's book in a book of his own, I doubt that he will continue discussing Watson's books in the future with the aim of proving Watson wrong. Silman used to be a good reviewer, but the review linked to at the start of this thread makes me doubt that he still is. I recommend that people disregard his reviews (at least those covering Aagaard's books), as he clearly is not reviewing the book, simply what he thinks about the author.

I think Silman's point and beef has been that Aagaard has stated his opinion repeatedly in pretty much every non-opening book he has written. He made his opinion known years ago and should have been able to move past it by now. Silman just keeps taking him to task over it since he continues on his crusade. I'm pretty sure that while he spends a large amount of his reviews hitting back, he has always given Aagaard a thumbs up for the material he has written on chess. I think he has made it clear he would be a big fan if Aagaard would move on from his Watson bashing.  

snits wrote on 03/13/09 at 20:36:57:

I think Silman's point and beef has been that Aagaard has stated his opinion repeatedly in pretty much every non-opening book he has written. He made his opinion known years ago and should have been able to move past it by now. Silman just keeps taking him to task over it since he continues on his crusade. I'm pretty sure that while he spends a large amount of his reviews hitting back, he has always given Aagaard a thumbs up for the material he has written on chess. I think he has made it clear he would be a big fan if Aagaard would move on from his Watson bashing.

I had the same reaction as Silman when I started reading the Attacking Manual, something like "for ****s sake, leave it alone already!" I've never understood what Watson and Aagaard really disagree about either; to me it seems like mostly semantics.

Chess history shows a development from a narrower to a wider range of position types and strategies. So, some will say "the rules aren't rules anymore" and others will say "there are just so many more and nuanced rules to take into consideration these days"! It's just two ways of saying the same thing isn't it!?

If I have to side with one of them though, it has to be Watson. I don't believe strong players spend large parts of their thinking time on "rules"; instead any rules are silently implicit in processes of pattern recognition. Aagaard, writing for strong but still improving players can usefully focus on rules, but if his readers grow up to be GMs those rules will be followed or broken largely by unconscious, automated thought processes. Explicit verbalized rules are crutches that are useful up to a certain point, but must then be delegated to the unconscious for further progress (the same goes for the "Silman Thinking Technique" and similiar systems).

Besides, Aagard's contention that the rules are valid "all other things being equal" is strained; in the real world you want to work out what's going on in one specific position (with a ticking clock), not speculate about how typical or untypical that position is.

Example: If I can play ...Nf6-h5 to attack just the right squares or pawns to give me a dangerous attack or an endgame initiative, I couldn't care less if "knights on the rim are dim" most of the time. Aagaard wants me to think:

"I know knights don't usually belong on the rim, but this seems to be an exception where h5 is just the best square to attack the specific weaknesses my opponent has in this very unusual position".

Instead I just want to think:

"My knight will be great on h5 here!" and go ahead with the necessary calculations; any "rules" bussiness already taken care of by unconscious pattern recognition.

You tell me which thought process is more efficient...

End of rant  :)

Yawn! Giant Yawn!!

If only this Aagard - Silman feud was as good as the Jon Steward vs. Jim Cramer  ::) I would be tempted to buy all of Aagards's books just for the entertainment  ;D

Antillian wrote on 03/14/09 at 00:58:20:

Yawn! Giant Yawn!! If only this Aagard - Silman feud was as good as the Jon Steward vs. Jim Cramer  ::) I would be tempted to buy all of Aagards's books just for the entertainment  ;D

The debate raises some interesting questions I think, kind of chess philosophy... You know, if you're not interested nobody's forcing you to read or post!

Btw. Aagaard's books are great, despite his views on Watson.

Stigma wrote on 03/14/09 at 01:08:14:

Antillian wrote on 03/14/09 at 00:58:20: Yawn! Giant Yawn!! If only this Aagard - Silman feud was as good as the Jon Steward vs. Jim Cramer  ::) I would be tempted to buy all of Aagards's books just for the entertainment  ;D The debate raises some interesting questions I think, kind of chess philosophy... You know, if you're not interested nobody's forcing you to read or post! Btw. Aagaard's books are great, despite his views on Watson.

It was an attempt at humour. But, I suppose not eveyone watches or even gets the  US TV channel, Comedy Central . 8-)

Antillian wrote on 03/14/09 at 01:27:25:

Stigma wrote on 03/14/09 at 01:08:14: Antillian wrote on 03/14/09 at 00:58:20: Yawn! Giant Yawn!! If only this Aagard - Silman feud was as good as the Jon Steward vs. Jim Cramer  ::) I would be tempted to buy all of Aagards's books just for the entertainment  ;D The debate raises some interesting questions I think, kind of chess philosophy... You know, if you're not interested nobody's forcing you to read or post! Btw. Aagaard's books are great, despite his views on Watson. It was an attempt at humour. But, I suppose not eveyone watches or even gets the  US TV channel, Comedy Central . 8-)

I haven't watched the interview yet, but it should be good. :)