Taljechin, I don't view your question as a hijack. It is a very interesting question. So I think it is interesting to look at both quantity and quality.

I feel myself that I have read few books cover to cover even though I have done work with others and so would consider myself to have not read enough.

In addition, Uhohspaghettio's comments really resonate with me. I don't think that I am translating the reading of a book, especially middlegame books, into improved play. I have seen more of a practical benefit with endgame books such as saving some technical endgames as in using the Philidor position.

I also have a hard time understanding strategic endgame books. Maybe the issue is I haven't read enough middlegame or strategic endgame books? Or have not looked at enough master games.

Gerry

I think discussing what it means to read a chess book isn't hijacking a thread about how many chess books we read at all.

Books on the Opening
I have "read" hundreds of chess books. I have flipped through many opening books and studied the lines that interested me without reading other sections very closely at all. For instance, I have Watson's Play the French books.  But I don't play the Winawer much, so I just flip through his recommendations in those chapters to see if there's anything interesting. I do peruse the sections on the Exchange, Advance and other stuff. I count that as a book I read.

Instruction Manuals
I have read cover to cover such books as My System, Dynamic Chess Strategy, and tactics books. 

Tactics and Endgames
To read a bunch of tactics books or endgame books, just stick one in your bathroom, or take one on your commute to work (as long as you aren't the one driving). 

Game Collections
I have played through almost every game in my chess collections, but I didn't bother setting up the board and really studying the positions on many of them. I guess that's one of the secrets to reading many books: Can you follow a game score without setting up the pieces?

ErictheRed's comment about skipping classes to read chess books resonates with me. I missed several classes playing chess. In order to read many chess books, you have to really love chess.  I've missed countless lunches to study chess, yet I'm fighting a losing battle with my weight. Go figure.

As the Nike slogan said, "Just do it."

Yeah, it really depends on what "reading cover to cover" really means, which is not obvious when it comes to chess books. If you mean reading every word and looking at every line, I have probably read around 5 beginner books, and after that, none. If you mean turning every page and reading enough to get a grasp of what the author is saying, then probably around 50. Which I guess accounts for 20-25% of all the chess books that I have read parts of.

TalJechin wrote on 10/02/13 at 05:38:38:


Somewhere between 100 and 150. I lost count a long time ago.

MartinC wrote on 09/30/13 at 09:08:07:


That would be a great new topic - what chess books have you actually read from cover to cover? Quality before quantity!

I'd swear blind that you can't beat a good book in almost anything you do. Sometimes it may be a big help to listen to people who know and understand the field and watch how they talk about and what they emphasize, how they have interpreted it. And of course you want to obtain listening skills and know how to talk about the subject. But for the greatest verifiable learning and understanding per time, a book is better. Universities are also faced with the situation that their lectures can easily be put on video now and watched at any time, which puts lecturers in a tricky situation.    
   

Thanks for the tips.

In terms of Eric's suggestion I am wondering if he is yanking my chain or if it's really true. Like many times when I am sitting at a chess board I just don't know.

Gerry

I did it by skipping a bunch of classes in college.