Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Basic Chess Endings

Clearly the greatest chess book of all time.

Clearly the greatest chess book of all time.

It has been found to contain some mistakes.
"Dvoretzky's Endgame Manual" is the new standard

It has been found to contain some mistakes. "Dvoretzky's Endgame Manual" is the new standard

A very Fine work indeed.

A very Fine work indeed.

@achja Nunn's reviews are so predictable. He made the same complaint about Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move".

Well, how about that... there are imperfect variations in books published before chess engines existed.

Who ever could have guessed ?

@achja Nunn's reviews are so predictable. He made the same complaint about Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move". Well, how about that... there are imperfect variations in books published before chess engines existed. Who ever could have guessed ?

I have owned this book for many years despite the fact that I was not a serious student of the game when I purchased it and have never worked with it at all. It was purchased impulsively and has gathered dust on one of my bookshelves ever since.

When I did return to the game a couple of years ago intent on studying it seriously, beginning with endgames, I did a bit of reading to determine with what book I should start and came upon some rather serious reservations about the book, notably from G.M. John Nunn to the effect that, notwithstanding the book's value, the original contained many errors which Benko's revised edition had not corrected, most notably on the subject of Queen endgames. Needless to say, these reservations strike me as somewhat moot for all but the most elite-players, but since the discussion is about the place this book deserves in the pantheon of great chess literature, it seemed incumbent upon me to mention them in this discussion.

I also came to understand that whereas Fine's book had been somewhat unique in its genre when first published, there now existed a least a few superb modern endgame works by great authorities, notably Dvoretsky and Mueller to name only those two, which are purportedly both more accurate and more up-to-date as far as endgame theory goes.

So, while I am not qualified to either agree or disagree with your statement myself, I think others more qualified than I have made a good argument against it being considered the "greatest chess book of all time", though it remains a monumental achievement and a recognized - and I gather, deservedly so - classic in the chess literature compendium. ;D

P.S.: If any reader is interested in what I finally purchased, I got de la Villa's "100 Endgames You Must Know" because it seemed more suited to my modest ambitions that either Dvoretsky's or Mueller's books.

I have owned this book for many years despite the fact that I was not a serious student of the game when I purchased it and have never worked with it at all. It was purchased impulsively and has gathered dust on one of my bookshelves ever since. When I did return to the game a couple of years ago intent on studying it seriously, beginning with endgames, I did a bit of reading to determine with what book I should start and came upon some rather serious reservations about the book, notably from G.M. John Nunn to the effect that, notwithstanding the book's value, the original contained many errors which Benko's revised edition had not corrected, most notably on the subject of Queen endgames. Needless to say, these reservations strike me as somewhat moot for all but the most elite-players, but since the discussion is about the place this book deserves in the pantheon of great chess literature, it seemed incumbent upon me to mention them in this discussion. I also came to understand that whereas Fine's book had been somewhat unique in its genre when first published, there now existed a least a few superb modern endgame works by great authorities, notably Dvoretsky and Mueller to name only those two, which are purportedly both more accurate and more up-to-date as far as endgame theory goes. So, while I am not qualified to either agree or disagree with your statement myself, I think others more qualified than I have made a good argument against it being considered the "greatest chess book of all time", though it remains a monumental achievement and a recognized - and I gather, deservedly so - classic in the chess literature compendium. ;D P.S.: If any reader is interested in what I finally purchased, I got de la Villa's "100 Endgames You Must Know" because it seemed more suited to my modest ambitions that either Dvoretsky's or Mueller's books.

@PixelatedParcel
Nice read, cheers !
I have owned the "100 endgames you must know" as paper book years ago, and currently still have it on chessable.com
It is quite a lot of material to go through but I do like that book !

@PixelatedParcel Nice read, cheers ! I have owned the "100 endgames you must know" as paper book years ago, and currently still have it on chessable.com It is quite a lot of material to go through but I do like that book !

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