Great Chess Books

[Peter McKillop]

Here's a link to a post from Kevin Spraggett on great pre-1985 chess books. How many of these do you have in your library?

http://canchess.tripod.com/favorite.htm

[Dan Scoones]

Re: Great Chess Books

I have 22 of them.

[Garland Best]

Re: Great Chess Books

I only have 4.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Great Chess Books

GM Rafael Leitao's list - more contemporary.

http://rafaelleitao.com/best-chess-books-ever-written/

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Great Chess Books

Thanks for that link, Hugh. I find it fascinating to read about the books that strong players like and the reasons why.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Great Chess Books

I have 29 (not that they did me much good :) ). Dan, a few years ago when you started your Dadian Chess blog, you wrote reviews of a few of your favourite books. I really enjoyed those reviews. I find reading reviews by strong players very helpful because they frequently point people on the learning curve towards the things they should be looking for in a good book. I was disappointed when you stopped your blog. Have you considered starting up the blog again?

[Garland Best]

Re: Great Chess Books

So yesterday, I went down to Strategy Games, and exchanged the chess piece box I got (too small) for something else. I spied "Zurich 1953" on the shelf, and thought "Ok, let's start adding to my library, and happily purchased the book. (Shout-out to Dave Gordon btw, who found me in front of the store at 9:55AM).

So I got home and started reading. It is only at this point that I realize that the book I have is not written by Bronstein, but by Najdorf! This is NOT the classic tournament book that everyone raves about. Oh well. Rather than groaning about it, let's just enjoy the book for what it is.

So has anyone read BOTH books? If so, how do you think they compare? I'm now curious.

[John Upper]

Re: Great Chess Books

the book I have is not written by Bronstein, but by Najdorf! This is NOT the classic tournament book that everyone raves about. Oh well. Rather than groaning about it, let's just enjoy the book for what it is.

So has anyone read BOTH books? If so, how do you think they compare? I'm now curious.

I bought it from SG the week before, and have been playing through it since and think it's very good (though the typos are annoying -- if only there were some competent editor somewhere who could catch that kind of thing).

I won't try to compare it with Bronstein's Z'53 since I played through it so long ago that I can't trust my memory or judgement about it: I thought I learned a lot from it, but but that would have been true of any book I read when I was 1700. [FWIW, I think this is an important consideration when reading lists of "best books" by top players -- I'd bet they disproportionally select the books they were reading just before they made their last big rating gain, with the result that better but more recent books are underrepresented.]

You might like to know that many very strong players say the Najdorf Z53 is better than the Bronstein book; e.g. John Watson's review here:

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watso...953-by-najdorf

[Dan Scoones]

Re: Great Chess Books

So yesterday, I went down to Strategy Games, and exchanged the chess piece box I got (too small) for something else. I spied "Zurich 1953" on the shelf, and thought "Ok, let's start adding to my library, and happily purchased the book. (Shout-out to Dave Gordon btw, who found me in front of the store at 9:55AM).

So I got home and started reading. It is only at this point that I realize that the book I have is not written by Bronstein, but by Najdorf! This is NOT the classic tournament book that everyone raves about. Oh well. Rather than groaning about it, let's just enjoy the book for what it is.

So has anyone read BOTH books? If so, how do you think they compare? I'm now curious.

You lucked in big-time. The Najdorf book is much better than the Bronstein book.

[Denis Gauthier]

Re: Great Chess Books

My first book was Rubinstein's masterpieces. Very unstructive and learned a lot about strategy, tactics and endgames.
Note that Bronstein never wrote a book.

[Dan Scoones]

Re: Great Chess Books

My first book was Rubinstein's masterpieces. Very unstructive and learned a lot about strategy, tactics and endgames.
Note that Bronstein never wrote a book.

If you are claiming that all of the books published under David Bronstein's name were ghostwritten, then you will have to supply the evidence. Otherwise you are just stating an unfounded opinion.

[Gordon Ritchie]

Re: Great Chess Books

Interesting that I believe n one has mentioned any of Silman's excellent books.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Great Chess Books

Interesting that I believe n one has mentioned any of Silman's excellent books.

The first list (Spraggett's) is quite old pre-1985. A Silman's book was just published or in preparation. The second list is the BEST 13, and has no Nimzowitsch. Thus, Silman is still waiting in a line :)

There are a lot of lists though you should look for ones targeting special chess levels. Then Silman will be better than Dvoretsky, and vice versa :)

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Great Chess Books

Great Chess Books

January 5, 2016

I remember reading an article in New in Chess, which credited Boris Vainstein with some of the literary work in Bronstein’s Zurich 1953. His collaboration was not noted in the book.

This from Chess Notes 6592:

Some remarks made by Bronstein regarding the 1953 tournament book in an interview with Antonio Gude on pages 38-42 of the March 1993 issue of the Revista Internacional de Ajedrez:

‘Most of the nice words and elegant expressions in the book overall are the work of Vainstein, who writes very well ... Of course, the analysis and technical concepts are mine, as are the views on my rivals, but it may be said that a large part of the text is by Vainstein. Also, it is a book for which I do not have particular affection because it reminds me of a tournament that was very special in a negative sense. Things happened there that I should like to forget ... We shall discuss that another time. I do not wish to be more specific for the moment.’

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/w..._Chess_authors
__________

John Watson reviews the new English translation of Najdorf’s Zurich 1953, with comments about Bronstein’s treatment:

I should also mention that Bronstein's famous book has no introduction to, or descriptions of, the players. Nor are there round overviews, or a tournament summary. His is a mechanical narrative in which we find little drama. By contrast, Najdorf's book reflects the dynamic and competitive nature of the event. Along with an account of the games, the standings are given before every round, and Najdorf is clearly swept up in the excitement of the race. Even at the end, when Smyslov becomes out of reach, he makes us aware of the contest for second place, since that result qualified the winner for the next Candidates Tournament (no small matter). He provides context for the games, including their significance for the standings, and the reasons that players made certain moves and errors (for example, tiredness, the role played by the clock, etc.), as well as which player has expertise in various types of position that arise. Najdorf gives his book a human touch, with numerous anecdotes as well as observations about the players themselves. As an indication of its broader scope, Zurich 1953: 15 Contenders contains photos of the players, crosstables, and an opening theory section.

It begins with substantial and sympathetic biographical portraits of all the players, summarizing their careers and styles, and ends with a review of the tournament and the players' performances. It praises the top finishers but also graciously provides reasons for the tailenders' poor results, e.g., Szabo's nervous condition, Taimanov's second occupation (as a musician), Stahlberg being " perhaps not in the best physical condition"; or, referring to Euwe: "If we take into account the point difference between the Dutch veteran's first and second cycles, we can deduce the effect the length of the tournament had on his play. However, his performance is very meritorious, and especially at the start we saw him show his best fighting spirit against the vigorous youth of today."

I'm not sure who wrote these sections; perhaps some of the material was contributed by his second GM Julio Bolbochan, who apparently wrote a fair amount of the book, but whose contribution Najdorf doesn't acknowledge. Speaking of giving credit, Bronstein himself doesn't mention Boris Veinstein. Andy Soltis' work Soviet Chess 1917-1991 features Veinstein a good deal; in this book, he describes him as "un-credited co-author, spymaster Boris Veinstein". I don't know if this is the same person as 'Vainstein', a player whose name you run into in 1930s chess literature. At any rate, by most accounts, Veinstein wrote a great deal (some say nearly all) of Bronstein's book! In fact, someone who many years later was hosting Bronstein at his house told me that Bronstein admitted that he hadn't written a lot of Zurich 1953. My best guess is that both Najdorf and Bronstein wrote the general observations and descriptions in the game notes, but that their two sadly-forgotten assistants did much of the analytical work, probably in collaboration with the main authors. But it's merely a guess, and we may never know. Bolbochan, by the way, was a prominent Argentine GM and strong theoretician with a career spanning 6 decades (his elder brother Jacobo was an IM).

http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/...1953-p3762.htm

________

Zurich 1953 is my shorthand for:

Bronstein, David - Meždunarodnyj turnir grossmejsterov : kommentarii k partijam turnira pretendentov na matč s čempionom mira : Nejgauzen-Cjurich, 29 avgusta-24 oktjabrja 1953 g./ Fizkulʹtura i sport / 1956

and

Najdorf, Miguel - 15 aspirantes al campeonato mundial : torneo de los candidatos, Suiza, 1953/ "El Ateneo" / 1954

[Gordon Ritchie]

Re: Great Chess Books---Now for something completely different

Just finished reading the latest offering from Jovanka Houska, IM/WGM, the British Ladies champion and author of some outstanding books on the Caro-Kann and the Scandinavian. In "The Mating Games", Houska writes a "raunchy" fiction offering (her words) based loosely on her own life. The heroine is a top British Women's player, with her IM in hand on her way to earning her (W?)GM. A lot of familiar names figure in her book, including Hebden, Howell, etc. The core of the book is, however, our heroine's very active love life. She initially seems to sleep with any man who can beat her over the chess board and her tastes include spanking, bondage, etc. She then broadens out to fall in love with a non-chess-playing woman for whom she is prepared to ditch the guys. Except when she gets into threesomes with her FWB boyfriend and her true love girlfriend. Eventually, she hooks up with a Russian oligarch, who gives her a million dollars and a good deal of excitement, but who, despite a high tech device to dramatically improve his cognitive function, loses to her thus earning her the GM title. I assume all live happily ever after.
A fun romp and an entertaining read but not quite up to the standard of her opening tomes.