Not sure which thread to post this fascinating blogpost by IM Jeremy Silman over at Chess.com.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-books-and-youth-vs-old-age It features the 4 amigos (literally) who might also be the greatest IMs US have ever produced who never became GMs, especially in terms of chess authors.
They are IM Jeremy Silman, IM John Watson, IM John Donaldson, and IM Cyrus Lakdawala. (I know the last will cause some raised eyebrows. The other two out three IMs (guess which is the odd one out!) have only good things to say about Lakdawala's books. There is a sort of explanation given in the blogpost about Lakdawala's high productive output. Check it out. BTW, Lakdawala's last two books have been reviewed favourably over at USCF's blog:
https://new.uschess.org/news/review-tal-move-by-move/ https://new.uschess.org/news/how-to-really-learn-an-opening-review-first-steps-t... But there were more interesting bits than the above:
IM John Watson:
Quote:On the other hand, for reasons I’m not clear about, you see very few original ideas or even observations in modern chess books (apart from opening innovations, of course). Masses of books blindly repeat dull (or even dead) stereotypes about strategy, players, chess “tips”, etc. In annotations, simplistic interpretations abound regarding why strong players make mistakes; we are told, implausibly, that they mysteriously fail to “understand” elementary positional ideas.
On training books:
Quote:I can’t assess training books, except to say that there are many out there and in my opinion they tend to be too complicated and lack focus, so I don’t use them. There are still no books that succeed in telling you how to think, or improve more than slightly, in spite of many attempts!
Quote:And of course there are other excellent older books. But most of the classics by grandmasters and world champions before 1940 now seem dry and/or too obvious.
IM Jeremy Silman:
Quote:What do we mean by “quality?” A book isn’t necessarily a quality piece of work just because a grandmaster spews out perfect variations while the masses of chess fans scratch their head in confusion.
I’ll say this: There are many, many more quality books for advanced players. But books for the vast majority of chess lovers are, in many cases, nothing more than literary snake oil.
Quote:There are certainly far more books for advanced players—lots and lots of quality information if you don’t mind drowning in variations. I love those books, but most of them are useless for players under 1800.
However, are these books (and books for lower rated players too) “better.” Some are, but most modern books lack charm. There are exceptions, of course, but the majority are dull and much too serious.
Quote:One chess writer that stands out is Cyrus, whose material is very good. However, what I really like is his prose, which is fun, and it also humanizes his books. A really great chess book needs some humor, an amazing amount of energy (for example, "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal"), charm, and/or something that is so profound (for example, "Watson’s Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy") that you can’t take your eyes off what’s written.
Yes, a book might be magnificently drafted and offer many things of great importance. But if the author was able to add one of those things I just mentioned, it would be so much better. Sadly, offering profundity, charm, humor, or energy is a skill. Most people can’t do it.
Quote:I really prefer old books to new ones. For example, there are tons of endgame books on the market, and though some are very nice the vast majority of them are incredibly boring. And, if a book is boring, very few people will read it. Compare that to a little endgame book (written way back in 1940) by Fred Reinfeld titled, “Reinfeld on the Endgame in Chess.” It’s not big, not pretty, but Reinfeld’s prose is a delight, and he goes out of his way to teach you something. He does this by explaining everything in a way that is both fun and incredibly instructive. He somehow makes you feel that he really wants to help you improve. Not many writers are capable of doing that.
There is also a plausible explanation by IM John Donaldson and IM John Watson respectively for the popularity of Zurich 53 by Bronstein as the all time great chess book.
Quote:Donaldson
Zurich 1953 was a great tournament. It had pretty much all the great players of the time (except Botvinnik) playing a 15-player double round robin. The Candidates' tournament in its current format is something special, but this mammoth event was 28 rounds and lasted nearly two months!
Bronstein was a participant in the tournament and one of the best players in the world (drawn match with Botvinnik in 1951 and equal second in this tournament) so he was well-qualified to write a book on it. The analysis is important, but what gives this work lasting value is his prose commentary which reads well. Bronstein credits this to his collaborator Boris Vainstein. Keep in mind I don’t read Russian and am referring to the Dover publication translation of "Zurich 1953" by James Marfia. It may be even better in the original.
There are many other great books, and limiting one’s answer to just one title is pretty much impossible. "Zurich 1953" is a safe default choice in much the same way that the "Master and Margarita" by Bulgakov is for Russian grandmasters when giving the title of their favorite book in Just Checking.
Quote:Watson
First, tradition. In some countries (definitely in the United States) the Bronstein version was for many years one of a small number of chess books available in conventional bookstores and at a very low price. Everyone grew up with it, and when choosing favorites we tend to be more nostalgic than objective. I wouldn’t be surprised if something similar applied in England and perhaps even Russia as well. It’s certainly not on my list of favorite books at all, but as connoisseurs have pointed out for decades, the Najdorf book about the same tournament (recently republished with extra features by Russell Enterprises) is a superb book; it is far more complete and absorbing, with better analysis and writing.
IM John Watson's "like" books:
Quote:I particularly admire "Soviet Chess," "Why Lasker Matters," "Bobby Fischer Rediscovered," and "Mikhail Botvirnnik [by Andy Soltis]Tim Harding also seems to escape notice; his work has steadily improved, and it includes a number of wonderful books on both historical subjects and correspondence chess. Tibor Karolyi is an author who has put out many terrific books in recent years yet doesn’t seem to be widely recognised. [.....] Endgame books are also much more reliable, and a handful are superior for reasons of originality and readability. A few standouts are Marin’s "Learn from the Legends," "Silman’s Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner To Master," and the hybrid endgame/problem book "Van Perlo’s Endgame Tactics."[......] Most middlegame books are similar to each other, and I seldom see any that expand the range of our thinking. But many of them are improvements over earlier attempts. Just for example, I like Nunn’s "Understanding Middlegames" a lot as an excellent teaching book, and Gelfand’s recent "Positional Decision Making in Chess" is insightful and fascinating.[......] extremely interesting games collections. Some of many that stand out for me are Shirov’s brilliant "Fire on Board" volumes, Gelfand’s "My Most Memorable Games," and Browne’s recent "The Stress of Chess." [......] "My System" is still a masterpiece, and incredibly entertaining. Extending the question a few years past age 20, "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" is another book that wears well.
There are other lists of favourite books if you are interested within the blogpost.
Universally, GM Boris Gelfand's collaboration with GM Jacon Aagaard, "Positional Decision Making in Chess", received the most distinct praise for a recent book:
IM Jeremy Silman:
Quote:One person that managed it [ie offering profundity, charm, humor, or energy is a skill] was Gelfand, whose "Positional Decision Making in Chess" is full of charm, and though it’s advanced, it’s absolutely fantastic.
Tal's books on the 1960 World Championship Match with Botvirnnik and Life and Games were another universally praised books.
Will end with this pertinent Q&A:
Quote:Are Club Players Able to Value Good Books?
Lakdawala
Some are, and others are swayed by a writer’s rating, where they praise a crappy book, based on a writer’s super-GM status, or bash a very well written book based on the writer’s relatively lower rating of an IM or FM, rather than the actual content of the book.
Watson
Of course. There may be some books that are too technical or esoteric for any but the hardest-working amateur, but most good chess books will appeal to a very broad range of chess strengths.
Donaldson
Yes, but they tend to buy more opening books than is good for them.
Silman
Sometimes a player can appreciate a good book, and sometimes a player falls victim to something horrible. The problem is that many low-rated players don’t know what is or isn’t good for them. It’s a sad thing because if they make a bad book gospel they will never improve and never really understand why.
Pages: [1] 
Favourite chess book (Read 17804 times)
