I would like to hear about books that where controversial /unique for you.
Does not matter if you do not agree with what the writer is saying.
I am also searching for a good book for a beginner. I do not have a lot of time so I would like to focus only on one book.
These books where suggested:
1.Aron Nimzowitsch - My System
2.How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Ed. (Jeremy Silman)
3. Logical Chess_ Move By Move (Irving Chernev)
4. Move First, Think Later (Willy Hendricks)
5. Understanding Chess Move by Move
6. The-Amateur-s-Mind-Jeremy-Silman
From those books which one would you recommend as a first one? OR would you suggest some other book?
p.s. I am primarily interested in my first question about unique,controversial chess books. It could be some new way to think about the game, or anything that is not so common in chess.
It is ok if you completely disagree with the autor.
So you want a controversial book from your list? Choose #4.
MFTL is best. Lots of different chapters on various really important issues which open your eyes why chess training often fails. And why the other books suck, esp. the high-priest of way too much words, Silman. Designed for beginners, not more.
The only thing what is wrong: it is often reduced on its title and thats about 10% of the content.
Easily My System-by Aron Nimzowitsch. If you ask 100 GM's if they read that book, 99 out of those 100 will say yes.
Jan-Hein Donner's book "The King" is extremely controversial and unique like he was.
I like Subas "Dynamic Chess Strategy" as well. And don't forget Rowsons masterpieces "7 Sins" and the "Zebras"
Move First, Think Later is an excellent book IMO.
1. It's very instructional,
2. it's very enjoyable to read.
My System is a classic obviously, but I don't think it's the goto book if you only want to read one.
EDIT: I agree with Sarg0n's post right before me.
I happen to have the book My System, and it is very useful on positional play.
Ok. "Move First, Think Later" does seem to be interesting.
@Sarg0n could you elaborate your opinion on silman books?
To me " The-Amateur-s-Mind" seems interesting also. You do not agree with his concepts?
Also to make it more clear. I do not mean books like "The King". I mean controversial / unique books when it comes to the chess it self.
Also the list I provided are just some books I have seen people recommend.
My question about controversial/unique books are about any other books also.
On Silman, I fall somewhere in the middle between "Silman is a god who makes plain all that happens on the chess board" (heard basically this from a few people) and "Silman is worthless garbage" (also heard from several people, made especially popular by de la Maza's criticism in Rapid Chess Improvement).
On a quick side note, purely in terms of inciting strong disagreement among chess players (i.e., controversial), Rapid Chess Improvement probably merits a place on that list.
Anyway, back to Silman.
On the one hand, it is true that Silman often glosses over difficult details in positions and/or shows suboptimal defense by one side in order to illustrate his point.
Less charitably, sometimes he's just plain wrong when assessing a position.
On the other hand, I'm not sure those are such damning criticisms.
It is often easier to illustrate an idea or concept by showing a line of play where that is brought to the fore, even if that means suboptimal play by one or both sides.
It would be difficult to illustrate mates, for example, without showing a position where one side has clearly erred :)
As to outright mistakes, everyone makes them; it's to be expected occasionally.
Now, I do think Silman lets mistakes slip through more than he probably should, and I think he's appealed to the "Hey, I'm teaching here, illustrating a concept!" idea a bit liberally when defending himself.
Still, I don't think it's quite fair to point out, as de la Maza and others have, that if you try to play some of his plans from positions in his books against an engine, you'll soon be flummoxed by things he didn't cover.
Of course you will. Engines flummox us all, and would gleefully crush us even if Silman produced reams of variations instead of his wordy plans.
So, as I said, I fall somewhere in the middle on Silman.
Going back to the original question, since it explicitly mentioned "a good book for a beginner", I would probably shy away from Move First, Think Later.
While it claims it's for players of all levels (and players of most levels will definitely benefit to some degree), some of the examples require a decent proficiency to work through, on which point I agree with Watson's review of the book.
It is highly entertaining, as others have pointed out, so still worth reading.
I absolutely wouldn't recommend Nimzovich for a beginner; he is simultaneously very advanced and often just wrong, almost like a more confusing, more self-congratulating (count the exclams he gives himself!) Silman.
For a book for a beginner, of that list, I'd probably go with either Chernev or Silman, with a strong lean towards Chernev.
You get complete games, with explanations of tactics both simple and somewhat complex, some endings, some openings, etc., all at a beginner-friendly level.
Off my soapbox now :)
