The worst chess book I've ever read, and why...
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
I know someone is going to disagree (its happened on other sites) but I was never impressed with Rey Chengs Practical Chess Exercises. My problem with it was that it is that I really have never been able to learn much from diagrams. Well, I do learn from diagrams but I learn more from words, and all this book was, was little thumb nail sized puzzles with tiny little text boxes explaining the diagram with hard to understand words and English.
notlesu wrote:
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is still a best seller after all these years! Over a million buyers of the book think Fischer wrote it and I know one (you) who thinks he didnt---I'm going with the million---bye bye Philadore!!!
Ummm... if you think Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess was written by Fischer -- gosh I don't know what to say. I think it's pretty obvious that it's not.
I've worked in publishing -- it's hardly a criticism to say it wasn't written by Fischer -- most books written by "famous name who isn't primarily a writer" were not in fact written by "famous name who isn't primarily a writer" -- that's a fact.
Bobby Fischer teaches Chess looks and reads like a book written by someone else. It's really rather bizarre as a chess book.
Apr 23, 2010
0
#105
tonydal wrote:
goldendog wrote:
You mean the annotations?
Yep. I'm talking about the whole thing. Not the actual moves and vars of course...but shaping it all up into a proper presentable format.
As far as I know, one edition was written by fischer himself, and the other one either is completely re-written or edited to death, fischer accused the editors of the latter by "making him look like a patzer". A google search might bring more precise information.
I have one book named shakki, in finnish by some russian whose name started with z... what was it now? Anyway, it was a good book as such, but the print was such a poor quality that you couldn't figure out anything from the diagrams. It was hard telling which colour the pieces were and even which pieces they were. No. Not hard. Damned near impossible.
is u on acid ? or just drunk ? 
notlesu wrote:
You say its pretty obvious he did not---whats so obvious about it. Were you an intimate friend of Fischer's? Do you really think you can tell what he sounds like.
Funny you should say that, Random House published a book of mine with a lot of material about recognizing writers by their style, but no, I'm not an expert on Bobby Fischer's prose.
His mom would probably know. His close friends would probably know---his sister would know. But I have the distinct feeling---You wouldnt know.
Yes, they'd all know, so would Stuart Margulies and Donn Mosenfelder who are the actual authors of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess (they're both education writers -- with bestselling books like: Mastering Reading Comprehension Level 3... exactly the kind of (horrifyingly dull) writing I did for a living, as a matter of fact.) The German Edition of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess doesn't even credit Fischer or Mosenfelder, it's just +by+ Stuart Marguilies.
You say it pretty obvious---the only thing obvious in your post is---Obviously, you dont know squat about Fischer!!!!
Good lord. You should put off chess study and work instead on acquiring basic civility. Anyway, I never claimed to know Fischer -- I claimed to know a bit about publishing and book creation.
Here's what makes Fischer's book pretty obviously not his work:
1. The title: Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess... Who the hell puts their name in the title like that? It's a marketting editor created title.
2. The material. Fischer had never shown any interest in teaching or writing for beginners before this book, and never showed a damn bit of interest in beginners after the book. It's completely out of character for him.
3. The structure of the book. It's programmed learning. When did Bobby Fischer get into that? (He didn't) It was all the rage in 60s educational publishing though.
4. The writing. It doesn't read like a non-professional-writer Brooklyn chess genius wrote it. It reads like it was written by 60s education writers pretending to be Bobby Fischer. Which as it turns out, is exactly how it was written.
5. The timing. The last thing Fischer was doing in 1966 was sitting around writing an absolute beginner's chess book.
Did he contribute to it? He allowed his name to be used, that's something. God knows what hand he had in it. Maybe he had a meeting with the authors at some point. I wouldn't be surprised if the first time he saw it was when he was sent a courtesy copy.
Oh yeah, name a few chess books written by famous chess players who, in fact, didnt write the books. I'm sure there are a few such books but I doubt if you can name any!!!
I have serious doubts about Kasparov's On My Great Predecessors, actually. I think it's probably mostly by Igor Stohl and some Everyman editors, but I could be wrong. I very seriously doubt many chess books are ghost-written though. There's no reason to; there's no money in chess books. Ghost-writers are for busy important people who could cash-in if they could just write a book but they have neither the time, talent, nor inclination. If you want examples I could tell you that the (rather famous) memoirs of a legitimate Islamic World Leader were actually written by a nice 27 year old jewish boy from Brooklyn. He was a friend of mine. But I'll bet you're far too clever to fall for such a phony story.
chessoholicalien wrote:
nimzovich wrote:
His best works included "Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal"
How does Keene's work compare with Watson's more recent reappraisal of Nimzowitsch?
Btw, I don't agree that Reinfeld is the worst author. He wrote some really good stuff like "The Immortal Games of Capablanca", "Winning Chess" (with Chernev; such a classic that I have bought a used copy, even though it's DN and there are newer books on tactics) and "1001 Chess Sacrifices".
I've never liked most of what I've read of Pandolfini.
Pandolfini is an excellent writer.
tonydal wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
jerry2468 wrote:
tonydal wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
The worst chess book I've read was "My 60 most memorable games" by Fischer. Sorry fischer
Apr 25, 2010
0
#113
David-Neff wrote:
The worst chess book I've read was "My 60 most memorable games" by Fischer. Sorry fischer
Wow, that's absolutely shocking to me. Upon what are you basing your criticism? I read that book cover to cover, probably 30 times over a ten year period in the 80's and I still go back to it now and then. To me that book is truly one of the gems of that era of chess literature (late 60's).
Apr 25, 2010
0
#114
tonydal wrote:
Uh-oh...looks like cunctatorg is making a mint off his felt-tip concession again...
That's funny...cunctatorg is so classic in his hard to understand but visually stunning writing style and yes that other guy really has taken a page from his work, hasn't he?
David-Neff wrote:
The worst chess book I've read was "My 60 most memorable games" by Fischer. Sorry fischer
Your USCF rating is below 600. Fischer's book is too advanced for you.
@notlesu -- "Fischer was writing a chess column for beginners in Boy's Life (Boy Scouts) before the book came out and was writing the column after the book came out. In fact he wrote the column for four years."
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know about that column. I'd love to see it -- I'm surprised it hasn't been collected and republished (surely it has been somewhere).
I see it now mentioned in the wiki for Fischer. And I noticed something else in that wiki: it specifically points out that Fischer didn't write Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and had "little involvement" with the book? For a guy who knows so little about publishing it looks like I made a lucky guess, huh? 
tonydal wrote:
Honestly (and frankly) I was kinda disappointed the last time I read 60 Memorables. Sure, he's a genius and all, but it's only about chess...and shouldn't there be something more in your life? Well technically, I guess not (if you're writing a chess book)...but seriously, shouldn't there be?
I don't think Fischer's "60 Memorable Games" is a fun read. Nor is it terribly instructive for a patzer like me when just reading through it. However it is one of the better books I have seen for analyis help. Fischer's notes are rather clear and extremely helpful when looking at similar opening themes or even when trying to analyze one of his games.
So it is an overrated book and an underrated book all at the same time.
Does anyone have (or remember's seeing) Fischer's Boys' Life chess columns... Can you tell me what they're like? Because there's something wrong here... if Fischer had written 4 years worth of good, or even merely passable, instructional columns for beginners, they'd be collected and reprinted in book form, wouldn't they? Fischer's name still sells... it's odd as hell to me that I've never seen the columns nor heard them referred to as something beginners should look at.
At some point I'll go to the public library here in NYC and see what I can dig up, but it's not a high priority. Can any body spare me the trip?
Apr 26, 2010
0
#119
I've seen a couple of those articles over the years. I was a cubscout in the 60's but that was a few year before I got into chess. I think they were still floating around in my bedroom in the early 70's until they were cleaned up and tossed by my parents. I did read something by, I think, Andy Soltis who said something to the effect that Fischer was being paid something around $200.00 per month, which was a lot of money back then, and that there was no editorial control over what he could write. So, sometimes it was analysis and somtimes it was diatribe....
polydiatonic wrote:
I've seen a couple of those articles over the years. I was a cubscout in the 60's but that was a few year before I got into chess. I think they were still floating around in my bedroom in the early 70's until they were cleaned up and tossed by my parents. I did read something by, I think, Andy Soltis who said something to the effect that Fischer was being paid something around $200.00 per month, which was a lot of money back then, and that there was no editorial control over what he could write. So, sometimes it was analysis and somtimes it was diatribe....
I've actually managed to look at one of the columns (they ran every other month and Bobby didn't write them all, Evans and others covered for him from time to time) and saw an overview of others and I got a good feel for what they were like, and while I doubt they're a forgotten gem of great chess literature, or even great beginner's chess lessons... I have to apologize to Fischer's ghost for my "Fischer didn't give a damn about teaching beginner's" remark. He really seems to have given the Boy Scouts a genuine piece of himself in the columns. I know as a young scout that column would have thrilled me. (And a curiosity -- he used algebraic notation -- I think that was unusual in the US in the mid sixties.) I remain surprised they haven't been collected and reprinted -- they seem worthy to me.
It's also nice to see and read the non-angry Fischer. The latter part of his life becomes so dark -- I forget what a very appealling young man he was once. I didn't see any evidence of diatribe. But I didn't look directly at all the columns.
You mean the annotations?
The intros have always been credited to Evans, at least informally <ugh too lazy to reach over to my shelf to check to see how or if he is credited>.