Reverse wrote on 03/25/10 at 20:31:51:


Well, if I'd done it today the layout would be different - but, I'm sure that somebody would find something to complain about nonetheless. Though I can't imagine that either of these belong on a list of "worst chess books ever". 

Editing is always susceptible to human error - for instance, above, Reverse just committed a handful of mistakes in just one quite brief text.

Btw, since Trafford has changed owners I'm kind of looking around for alternative chess publishers or self publishers, preferably in Europe. - in case anyone has any tips? 

Though I guess updating & trimming the FKG (& perhaps the FRG) would involve too much work... The playable ebook format is far more convenient layout-wise as you don't have spend months re-aligning text to fit the pages and then be informed that e.g. the spine requires another half centimetre internally...

TicklyTim wrote on 03/23/10 at 12:45:08:


Are you talking about Bangiev's Chessbase CD? That is indeed the weirdest chess material I ever came across… and the excess of colored, diagonal arrows, going from nowhere to nowhere in shape of giant Christmas trees, did nothing to relieve my confusion.

I was talking only about books that included on my collection and my personal experience with them. 

When I read that book and after the first chapter my interest was replaced with confusion and disappointment.

Maybe the timing was not good and if I give it one more try, maybe will attract my interest and make it worth reading.

I believe that is very difficult to read and requires a different approach to the game of chess, more scientific.

That book along with the squares strategy Dvd's by Bangiev approach the game of chess differently and in my opinion taking away some of the magic of that beautiful game

naughtyknight wrote on 03/21/10 at 19:51:39:



I agree completely that Berliner's book deserves mention.  Moody's... is it really a chess book?

I still believe Fine's Psychology of Chess (not to be confused with Krogius' excellent Psychology in Chess) is the worst chess book I've ever read.

May I be so bold as to add Hans Berliner's 'The System' to the list?

A truly awful, hubristic attempt to 'solve' chess. This man's ego came shining through.

I didn't like it! 

p.s. In Shiller's defence, his work on the Tarrasch wasn't too bad....

. .

snits wrote on 09/08/09 at 19:03:22:

Maza's primary training advice is worthy but is oversold. It is one of several valid ways to learn a subset of chess tactics.

For some people, Maza's advice of constant shot puzzle training will work for their personal way of learning, while for other people it will fail: in that regard it is like every other training method in chess.

Maza's RCI book --- has its strengths and weaknesses. But it excels over most well-regarded chess books on an important yet rarely discussed dimension:
Maza's book was/is extremely influential, in three ways:

[1] It increased the focus that weak club players have on the need to gain tactical skills.
[2] It convinced too many of them that constant shot puzzle training is the best way for any and every chess student to learn shot tactics. FischerTal alluded to this in his criticism.
[3] It confused many club players into thinking that shot tactics skill is the only kind of tactics skill there is in chess; when in contrast there are many more mundane kinds of tactics that drive the heart of most chess games. (This #3 opinion is debate-able.)

BTWay, I doubt Maza quit chess because his training method had taken him as far as he could go. I can only wildly guess, but perhaps Maza needed to focus his time on his studies at MIT, on finishing his PhD, and on the computer programming businesses he has been involved with.
I recently borrowed from our corporate library a book about the new functional programming language F#, and saw that Maza was the book's Technical Reviewer. The blurb about him says he is big into SCRUM, and it makes no mention of chess.

Thanks.

*** For good or evil --- Which other recent chess books have been truly "influential"?
Not many.

Maybe Charles Hertan's recent book Forcing Chess Moves is somewhat influential.

. . .

Magic indeed - after 1.e4 Nf6 2.Qe2 e5 3.f4 exf4 4.e5 according to Moody there is still a white pawn on f2.

ArKheiN wrote on 03/07/10 at 12:39:57:


How naive must you be not to see the nonsense of his pretentions? As I cannot think of a realistic answer I don't think his ideas dangerous at all. Even if somebody is naive enough to apply some of his ideas a few painful losses should be sufficient to cure that beginner from his/her naivity.