Which chess books did you intensively study and gave you clear chess improvement in the long run ?

I'm seeing some improvement from studying the steps method. Don't think I'm good enough to do Yusupov yet, but I hope that after I complete Step 4, I can really give it a try. Looking forward to Yusupov.

@kindaspongey said in #22:
> "... about the level of the difficulty. This was quite hard to evaluate and some of the material shoots over the target of 1500 etc. ... I probably got the estimate a bit wrong, but at least I tried. ..." - GM Yusupov
...

Am I the only one who finds the titles of the Yusupov series confusing? Every time I come across them, I have to think what is the intended order of the books. Is it Build 1, Boost 1, Evolution 1, then Build 2, Boost 2, Evolution 2, ... or Build 1,2,3, then Boost 1,2,3, then Evolution 1,2,3? Of course, I can decide it by carefully looking at the descriptions, colours of books, searching on the internet, etc. He could have simply called them Volumes 1 to 9. One aspect of these books I like (I have not worked through them, but looking at the excerpts) is learning through problem solving. I had seen another book by Yusupov in the same style, that looked interesting. 10 lectures or something. In each chapter he introduces a theme, then gives a set of problems to solve. At any time if I decided to collect some books, I would go for the Yusupov series or some books by John Nunn.

kindaspongey edited

#24

@kajalmaya said in #23:
> ... Is it Build 1, Boost 1, Evolution 1, then Build 2, Boost 2, Evolution 2, ...
That seems to be correct except that there is this book, Revision and Exam 1, that should be between Evolution 1 and Build 2.
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Revision&Exam1-excerpt.pdf
@kajalmaya said in #23:
> ... He could have simply called them Volumes 1 to 9. ...
Apparently, 1 to 10 would be appropriate.

RTD1109

#25

I had read the "Pick of the best chess problems" This was my very first book full of mate in 2 or mate in 3 puzzles
I also studied "Winning Chess Tactics" and "Winning Chess Strategies" by Yasser Seriawan as a Beginner once I got to like 1650 rating I studied the "Endgame Strategy" Book by Mikhail Shereshevsky That helped me a lot to improve my endgame actually I didn't even finish the whole book till now as it was really boring for me. Later when I crossed the 1800 Mark I bought the "Complete Book of chess strategy" by Jeremy Silman and finished it within a week. And recently I have been studying "Garry Kasparov's Greatest Games" By Eric Schiller (almost finished the book) and Currently, I am also doing some other books like "How to Reassess your chess by Silman", "100 Endgames you must know" and Woodpecker Method.

BobbyFischerFan12

#26

I am going over the Amateur to IM by Jonathan Hawkins. It is really amazing book for basic fundamentals of chess

bloogrox

#27

> „Move First Think Later“ explains why books don’t work the way they promise.

That is very interesting, thank you @Sarg0n

pauliewoll

#28

Ludek Pachman's "Point Count Chess" is very instructive. If you don't obsess on the numerical aspects of it, it's a very good primer on the positional aspects of the game - what to look for in pawn structures, piece activity etc. I can also recommend Andrew Soltis's "The Art of Defense in Chess", because we all get into bad positions from time to time. But for general entertainment with a board and pieces, nothing beats "The Chess Struggle in Practice", Bronstein's classic record of the 1953 Candidates' tournament.

kindaspongey edited

#29

@pauliewoll said in #28:
> Ludek Pachman's "Point Count Chess" ...
Point Count Chess was written by Horowitz. About a year ago, there was a discussion of the Horowitz book, beginning with #16 at lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-to-strategize?page=2 . Pachman wrote Modern Chess Strategy. A sample of the Pachman book can be seen at store.doverpublications.com/0486202909.html .

pauliewoll

#30

@kindaspongey said in #29:
> Point Count Chess was written by Horowitz.
My memory let me down after all those years, thanks for the correction :-)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.