For me the most overrated book is My 60 memorable games by Fischer.
Many experts consider one of the best chess books of all time.
Honestly, I read the first 4 or 5 games, I recognize that it is a good book, but Fischer puts few comments, it seems a little didactic book.
I think the books of games Alekhine, Botvinnik, Keres, Kasparov, Tal Bronstein are better for me. His comments are more extensive and didactical.
My 60 Memorable games by Fischer
"Loopholes in the Three Laws of Robotics" by Deep Blue
Zuruck 1953. Andy will back me up.
Zuruck 1953. Andy will back me up.
Me also. I tried it for a bit, and it was okay, but not astounding.
Fundemental Chess Openings(FOC). Silman says it's great to understand all the openings and the ideas behind them, but I found it dry and too choked with analysis.
I like a book that says something like "And now Black's idea in the King's Indian is to play Nh5 and then f5 and start a kingside attack", not Nh5 Be3 f5!(g5 d3 0-0?! f3!)h6 g3(=) and then rambles on with more strange symbols with no explanation.
To quote some guy(Lasker, I think):"Long analysis wrong analysis".
Fundemental Chess Openings(FOC). Silman says it's great to understand all the openings and the ideas behind them, but I found it dry and too choked with analysis.
I like a book that says something like "And now Black's idea in the King's Indian is to play Nh5 and then f5 and start a kingside attack", not Nh5 Be3 f5!(g5 d3 0-0?! f3!)h6 g3(=) and then rambles on with more strange symbols with no explanation.
To quote some guy(Lasker, I think):"Long analysis wrong analysis".
Yep, IM Silman did said that FCO should be the only opening manual for players <1400.
Even now I still use FCO exclusively since it explains the lines in a straightforward manner. I agree, it lacks explanatory analysis (only assessments of variations ) which lower rated players need most in an opening book.
Zuruck 1953. Andy will back me up.
Me also. I tried it for a bit, and it was okay, but not astounding.
My feeling too.
the bronstein one or the najdorf one?
The Road to Chess Improvement by Yermolinsky won awards. But reading it is torturous. He often says exactly the opposite of what he seems to mean to say, and many of his examples are either poorly chosen or over-used.
Capablanca's 100 Best Games by Golombek was, for many years, the only greatest games collection on Capa available in English. Golombek's book worships Capa to the point of touting even his mistakes as great moves.
I still think both Bronstein's book on Zurich and Tal's books are among the all-time great books. But I won't derail the conversation by defending them in this thread.
my system, i was young when i read it but i didnt learn a thing. if only someone had pointed me towards cjs purdys books then. amongst many other things he articulated "improve your worst piece" 40 years before current authors argue amongst themselves who originated it. i also liked the zurich 1953 bronstein book (see above)and find dvorsetsky opaque (seems to be trying to prove how hard chess is and how clever he is rather than helping you understand it)
De La Mazas book
Anything by Eric Schiller
Any book that tries to make the game some incredibly complicated thing that requires a phD to understand.
Bobby Fischer teaches chess.
Most of Silman’s books are over-rated.
I haven't read the entire book but the latest edition of "How to Reassess your Chess" by Silman is really good. Again haven't read the entire book, but just a part of it. I think there is another book on endgame by Silman which is very good. I don't know about any other good books by Silman. These two books are the best chess books by Silman (according to me).
I think just about EVERY chess book is wrong for people at some point in their development. There are some real duds out there. But many of the greats talked about above are simply a matter of a good/great book for the wrong person.
I think most chess players would agree that there are some definite "classics" when it comes to chess literature which are held in extremely high regard by most of the chess comunity. Books like "Art of Attack in Chess", "My System" and even more modern ones like "How to Reassess your Chess." I'm interested in hearing about books - not necessarily classics - that didn't at all meet your expectations, particularly if they are in general very highly rated by most other chess players.
I'll start off with what I imagine will be a controversial example: "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal". I seem to be the only person on the internet who thinks this. It has some good games - particularly extracts or games that aren't fully annotated - but not enough to convince me that the book or the player is deserving of the near universal praise that they both receive.