I've expanded my library - advice sought on read order

[Jonathan Bryant]

Which book would that be?

This one perhaps

http://www.newinchess.com/Grandmaster_T ... -1818.html

Becoming a Grandmaster isn't really a Best Games collection - but this one sounds more promising. To be honest, I'd never heard of it before. I'm can't deny I'm curious, but at 30+Euros a copy, curious I shall stay. Especially since, as you say, RDK has been rather generous with his annotations on chessgames.com

[Nick Ivell]

In fact I was referring not to Grandmaster Tactics, but to Grandmaster Strategy! I would rather read Keene on strategy than tactics any day. My copy of 'Grandmaster Strategy' is a very nice hardback from 1999. It contains 100 annotated games.

In any case these titles are misleading. For example, my copy contains the brilliant win against Miles at Hastings in 1975/6 - brilliant, but not much strategy there.

A quick browse through this book for the first time in a decade has reminded me what a good player Keene was.

[Roger de Coverly]

In fact I was referring not to Grandmaster Tactics, but to Grandmaster Strategy! I would rather read Keene on strategy than tactics any day. My copy of 'Grandmaster Strategy' is a very nice hardback from 1999. It contains 100 annotated games.

That's the one I was thinking of. The annotations though are, shall we say, contemporary with the games.

But that's a dilemma. If you have a back collection of games annotated in reports and articles stretching back over many years, do you re-publish them as first written or re-write in the light of later investigations?

The book advertised by New in Chess is something different presumably. It's first published 2008 for one thing.

Perhaps it's an expanded version of the earlier book.

This book gives over 190 of his games, with special emphasis on the opening phase.

[Nick Ivell]

In fact I was referring not to Grandmaster Tactics, but to Grandmaster Strategy! I would rather read Keene on strategy than tactics any day. My copy of 'Grandmaster Strategy' is a very nice hardback from 1999. It contains 100 annotated games.

That's the one I was thinking of. The annotations though are, shall we say, contemporary with the games.

But that's a dilemma. If you have a back collection of games annotated in reports and articles stretching back over many years, do you re-publish them as first written or re-write in the light of later investigations?

The book advertised by New in Chess is something different presumably. It's first published 2008 for one thing.

(END OF QUOTE - N IVELL SPEAKING FROM NOW ON!)

Ideally, you rewrite in the light of later investigations. There is little evidence that Keene has done this. So yes, the annotations are not great. What surprised me, though, was the quality of the games; possibly influenced by Keene's patchy reputation as a writer, I had not expected to enjoy playing through his games.

Those were the days, when I had time to play through 100 of RDK's games!

I know nothing about the 2008 book. I imagine it is more of the same. Perhaps it's an expanded version of the earlier book.

[Ian Kingston]

Ideally, you rewrite in the light of later investigations. There is little evidence that Keene has done this.

John Nunn had something to say about this in the introduction to John Nunn's Best Games, published in 1995. To summarise: although he had analysed and published many of the games previously, he re-analysed them for the book. He used an early version of Fritz 3, which resulted in 'an embarrassing number of analytical oversights [being] revealed and corrected'. The re-analysis in many cases 'led to a fundamental reassessment of the whole game'.

In other words, revising one's previous analysis involves a lot of work for very little financial reward.

[Nick Ivell]

Ideally, you rewrite in the light of later investigations. There is little evidence that Keene has done this.

John Nunn had something to say about this in the introduction to John Nunn's Best Games, published in 1995. To summarise: although he had analysed and published many of the games previously, he re-analysed them for the book. He used an early version of Fritz 3, which resulted in 'an embarrassing number of analytical oversights [being] revealed and corrected'. The re-analysis in many cases 'led to a fundamental reassessment of the whole game'.

In other words, revising one's previous analysis involves a lot of work for very little financial reward.

I have the Nunn book too. His introduction is excellent, and shows the early stages of how computer analysis has changed the approach to annotating games. So many games were annotated 'from the final result' - even Fischer falls into this trap occasionally.

What I like about Keene's book on Nimzo is how much hard graft has gone into it. It was obviously a labour of love.

[Nick Ivell]

To get back on topic, rather than on RDK, I want to reiterate how important it is to READ chess books rather than keep them as part of the furniture. One feels very virtuous spending money on study aids, but spending money is the easy bit. Actually studying is something else.

The same applies to paying for a coach (I have done some coaching in my time). In my view, the real work is not done in the hour or two spent with the coach. The hard graft is done privately.

I have had pupils who thought that 'study' was writing up their games. Albeit helpful, that is not study; it is housekeeping!

[guyhayton]

I am so glad I started this topic thread. Just placed an order for "Simple Chess" by Stean, as it seems highly recommended for my ever growing library.

Now the summer holidays are coming to the end, hopefully I can get into studying and join a local club.

[Nick Ivell]

The Stean book is excellent.

Of course, no amount of study can make up for over the board experience. You have to play a lot to improve.