Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

I don't think either are "cons". The authors don't put a gun to your head or charm you to buy books; you make that decision when you're reading an online sample chapter, review, or looking at in a book store.

FWIW, I have a few mediocre at best poker books that I've bought and read. I follow the Greenstein credo of reading plenty of material and seeing how others view how to play the game. This way, you learn how to play against people that play a certain strategy, take the good parts, and discard the bad.

More importantly, you spend some time thinking about the game. I suppose the problem is that it's hard to determine bad from good advice. That's also the beauty of all the material out there. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If you're smart enough, you'll figure it out.

[SNOWBALL138]

A lot of these books are a con. For example, the book of bluffs by Matt Lessinger is a deeply flawed book that promised to make a unique contribution to a general theory of reading hands, adjusting to players style, playing draws, and making stone bluffs in games of all types and sizes.

In fact, the book shared some very well known bluff moves with the reader, and then goes on to teach indiscriminate and preposterous levels of aggression that are clearly derived from either tournament situations of hands against weak/tight players that have no clue what you are up to.

[MicroBob]

there have been far more than 10 quality chess books that are worth owning.

some chess books suck obviously. others do not.


if morphy were playing today he would own a ton of books.
game is different than it was then (as far as deeper analsis of the opening, more openings in general, etc).

calling the chess-book sceme a 'con-game' is not correct imo.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of years ago, I took up chess playing. You would not believe how many chess books are on the market. There are more books on chess than all other games combined! So, I started collecting chess books. However, you only actually need perhaps 10 of the very best books. Paul Morphy, the greatest player of the 19th century, only had 4 or 5 books in his collection. Basically, it is all a giant CON GAME put on by the chess authors and publisher. Now, I am starting to wonder if all these poker books are not a giant con game as WELL!

[/ QUOTE ]

I have studied chess for over 20 years and I have also written many reviews on books for chess magazines. It is pretty safe to say that you are totally wrong with your assumption about chess books.

There are many books with historical value, how people saw the game like 50 years ago. Some books cover the career of a certain player or cover important tournaments. Some books cover strategy and the rest is all about openings and the latest developments in that sector.

The only con books you can find in chess are those who promise something like "Winning with the XY Gambit" or "Winning with black". That's 100% worthless.

Besides that, there are also tons of books about poker. While my own chess library contains only something like 500 titles, that's much less than what is available on Poker:
http://www.holdemsecrets.com/books.htm

[Crispy86]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of years ago, I took up chess playing. You would not believe how many chess books are on the market. There are more books on chess than all other games combined! So, I started collecting chess books. However, you only actually need perhaps 10 of the very best books. Paul Morphy, the greatest player of the 19th century, only had 4 or 5 books in his collection. Basically, it is all a giant CON GAME put on by the chess authors and publisher. Now, I am starting to wonder if all these poker books are not a giant con game as WELL!

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, calling chess books a 'con' because you don't know which ones are worthwhile is pretty absurd. Claiming there are only ten is more so, and using a player from the mid 19th century as an example of the lack of need of chess literature is just plain stupid. I mean, think of what you are saying: some genius in the mid 19th century proves you don't need to study a particular field? Might as well apply that logic to math, sciences, you name it.

As to the 10 books, well, I'm curious to know what those 10 books would be. Unless you mean 10 books for a sub-1900 player, and then another 10 for the sub-Master, and then another 10 for the Master. Of course, you can also go the way of software, but again, you'd have to know where to shop. If you went with the Chess Mentor series, you'll be paying a fortune for some OK instruction. There are some superb programs though by Convekta, but as in anything, the real key is what you do with the material. Just owning it won't do the job. Still, that's another discussion.

If you give a rough estimate of your playing level, tournament results and the like, I'll make a few recommendations. If youy're still interested in playing chess that is.

As to my qualifications, I am a Master level player, taught chess in the past for several years, and worked as a chess software developer.

Albert

[OrangeKing]

I have to jump on this as well - there are so many interesting and/or informative chess books out there that saying you only know of 10 good ones is ridiculous. Hell, there are probably more than 10 good ones written (either entirely or in part) by Jeremy Silman alone. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A couple of years ago, I took up chess playing. You would not believe how many chess books are on the market. There are more books on chess than all other games combined! So, I started collecting chess books. However, you only actually need perhaps 10 of the very best books. Paul Morphy, the greatest player of the 19th century, only had 4 or 5 books in his collection. Basically, it is all a giant CON GAME put on by the chess authors and publisher. Now, I am starting to wonder if all these poker books are not a giant con game as WELL!

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, calling chess books a 'con' because you don't know which ones are worthwhile is pretty absurd. Claiming there are only ten is more so, and using a player from the mid 19th century as an example of the lack of need of chess literature is just plain stupid. I mean, think of what you are saying: some genius in the mid 19th century proves you don't need to study a particular field? Might as well apply that logic to math, sciences, you name it.

As to the 10 books, well, I'm curious to know what those 10 books would be. Unless you mean 10 books for a sub-1900 player, and then another 10 for the sub-Master, and then another 10 for the Master. Of course, you can also go the way of software, but again, you'd have to know where to shop. If you went with the Chess Mentor series, you'll be paying a fortune for some OK instruction. There are some superb programs though by Convekta, but as in anything, the real key is what you do with the material. Just owning it won't do the job. Still, that's another discussion.

If you give a rough estimate of your playing level, tournament results and the like, I'll make a few recommendations. If youy're still interested in playing chess that is.

As to my qualifications, I am a Master level player, taught chess in the past for several years, and worked as a chess software developer.

Albert

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I'm not quite a master, only made it to about 2180 before I stopped playing, but IMO you really don't need any books at all to get as far as I got, anyway. I certainly never finished any.

I have looked at many of the American books and they are all utter garbage except for Fisher's book.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

I have looked at many of the American books and they are all utter garbage except for Fisher's book.

[/ QUOTE ]



??????

are you serious??

[TimM]

Hey, what are you doing here? Get back to the CCC!





<font color="white">CCC = Computer Chess Club - a message board for chess programmers I created for a former employer and still administer.</font>