Chronology of chess books

Depends on what the book is offering:

For opening theory : ditch anything too old!

For books on strategy/positional play:  Their age would not matter ... the "recommended" ones will always have instructional value for club players.

For Tactical puzzles: Be a little suspect as the older books had no computer analysis to verify the combinations so you will see mistakes in some of the more complicated problems.

For annotated + instructional games:  the OLDER the better! You don't want to mess with anything too modern (especially if you're not a strong player already) until you've gone through the classics. 

 I've read a few of those listed by you and I've never felt any weirdness in going back in time and switching back to the present ... logical thinking/deductive reasoning hasn't changed much through the years :)

Truth to be told, much of the modern talk about how stiff and rigid the classics are is greatly exxagerated, read for example Karlsbad 1905 and you'll quickly see that it's not as black and white as you are lead to believe.

I think you're selling the old books short a bit - there's still plenty of stuff in them that you won't find anywhere else. Or maybe you will find it, but it's scattered across many different 'modern' chess books. You might as well just go to the source - they're called classics for a reason.

As an example, I read Silman's How To Reassess Your Chess and thought it was great. But then I started reading Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy and thought that perhaps HTRYC had a hint of superficiality in comparison (probably not a fault of the book because it's targeted at the beginner, covers a lot, and strives not to overwhelm).

By all means, if you find a book that improves and supercedes the original, go with that, but I don't think that's a common occurance.

 Karlsbad 1905?  Was there such a tournament. What is your point?

I don't think the order particularly matters. Reading the right book at the right time is the key. 

For example, I was getting outplayed in endings until I stumbled across Shereshevsky's book, "Endgame Strategy" and continued to improve those skills with Gelfer's "Positional Chess Handbook." Reading those books five years earlier or later would not have helped me with my most pressing issues.

When I was a beginner, Fred Reinfeld's books were great. Reading one of them today would not help me at all.

When I was stalled out at a 2200 rating Lars Bo Hansen's book, "How Chess Games are Won and Lost" was quite helpful. 

I would strongly recommend including Reti's book, "Masters of the Chessboard" in your study of the classics. He discusses the evolution of chess ideas as seen through the games of the best players, and throws in quite a number of useful comments about the ideas behind chess openings.

I'd start with Kitab ash-shatranj by As-Suli, follow it up with the Codexes by Polerio, and then Trattato dell'Inventione et Arte Liberale del Gioco Degli Scacchi by Salvio. All the modern stuff you mention is too fresh to be trusted.

Yeah, I already those titles, Crazychessplaya.

Just the titles. In your post.

"I already read those titles" I meant to say...my mind eliminated the word "read" as redundant given the immediately preceding word "already" = simplification = technique not perfect yet.

But seriously thanks for the suggestions.  It'd be nice to have a list of hundreds/thousands of chess books ordered by level of difficulty of each chapter and then one can just read those book chapters in progressive order.  I think I am obsessive-compulsive enough that I could have been decent noncompetitive chess player had I started playing several decades earlier.

1907, my bad. If you'r having trouble understanding the post, that's your bad, not mine.

 My problem is your English! I dont have Carlsbad 1907 and I doubt if anyone else does either. so whats your point?

It would be so very helpful to the readers if your post actually had a point.

What he's doing there, Raul, is making an assertion, then providing evidence to support his assertion.

What evidence? He says read Karlsbad 1907---did you read Karlsbad 1907---did anybody?

"Read" is in the imperative verb form. i.e. if you read karlsbad 1907 you will see that his opinion is valid. Sheesh, and you are complaining about his English.

I always wanted to read Soltis' book, but then again I don't think I know more than 2 openings beyond move 4, so I thought Kmoch would be more suitable for "general" pawn play knowledge...but much later in my chess life (mates, basic endgames, tactics, positional play, then pawn structure, then openings is my current plan). 

How you feel about Kant is how I feel about most chess books.  Maybe I will buy an axe to supplement my chess study.

Karlsbad 1907 is a very famous tournament, it's one of the earliest tournaments where Rubinstein really started shining. If you are unfamiliar with the tournament, and the tournament book you can always read up on it, instead of staying ignorant and spouting nonsense.

Here is a review of the book by Jeremy Silman: http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Karlsbad_1907.html

And look what Silman wrotes;

"I have to admit that Marco's annotations were ahead of his time."

"KARLSBAD 1907 is one of the best (if not THE best) tournament books ever written. The games and notes (especially Marco's, which are simply brilliant) are so rich and entertaining that they will keep you smiling for many, many years."

While I realise that being ignorant is an active choice you have taken, there's no need to spread it around. 

Marco... Marco... Isn't that the guy who resigned in the position below instead of playing ...Bg1! and wins?

Anyways, Tricklev has a point about Marco being a great annotator. I don't own the Karlsbad tournament book, but in a 1976 Polish book Walka o Tron Szachowy (The Battle for the Chess Throne), there is a comment that in the 1950s, the tournament books written by Alekhine, Marco and Schlechter were considered classics. Need to check out Marco and Schlechter, it seems.

Yeah, its one of the best tournament books nobody has ever read---you idiot!

And if Silman was pushing it he was probably getting a kickback. I understand it was only recently published in English you jerk.

I realise know that you are mentally challenged Raul, I made a valid point, and I gave reasons for thinking that it was a valid point, this made you angry, and you caps locked that no one has read the book, and that I have no point. I realise now that arguing with you, is the same thing as kicking a small child in a wheel chair, so I cincerely apologise. 

I really hope that the rest of life will be good to you.

Yours truly, Tricklev.