Why is this book so special - "Zurich 1953"

Every single chess enthusiast suggests this book "Zurich 1953" by David Bronstein in order to improve my skills but i can not seem to understand what is so special about this book, why can't i analyze those games myself. every titled player have suggested me specially this book,they claim that it improved their abilites,but i simplly can not believe that one book can change much and i am very sceptical about it.

It was a great tournament and the commentary is excellent. Overall an excellent book, but it won't change your life.

Yes that is exactly what i mean i think it is overrated

I don't have the book, but I have another book by David Bronstein. I would conjecture that the reason is simply that it's actually enjoyable to read.

Chess is already a struggle. When a chess book is badly written, you really have to consider whether the information is actually worth your time. But if it's well written, then even if you learn nothing, you at least have a nice time reading something enjoyable.

Its OK but Let's not forget that the Russians cheated in this tournament.

i have that book, a truly beautiful book, recommended to me by a LM.... i have barely read it............i'm not losing any sleep over that fact.

i prefer other, more basic books.............. i've only read bronstein a little -------- but his style seems obscure to me - maybe it's meant for expert players, which i am not.

@ivmchess what??? in the world do you mean...cheated... you mean agreeing to draws and taking it easy on each other? i don't consider that horrible cheating.............

Lol... You realize that was done to basically stop reshevsky from winning the tournament. They didn't do those easy draws because they wanted to take it easy on each other , they did it because an American was beating them single handedly.

It is a fantastic tournament, and it is a fantastic book. I agree that it won't change your life, but Bronstein's notes and commentary on the games are very instructive for true students of the game and its history. If you are one of those computer-based 'students' that do little but memorize openings and patterns to get cheap wins, you won't like it very much....it's way too deep for you. However, if you want to really understand chess and be able to articulate real chess ideas in an intelligent way, as a teacher, historian, or even just in a chat like this..... you should read this work, along with the historical context that was mentioned above, and it will be a great help to you.

@ivmchess nope --- didn't even realize reshevsky was big in that tournament........... i don't no much about him - i know he was us champion for several years... 7 or 8??? before fischer... i also know he was a true prodigy.... at least, that's my understanding.

maybe i'll have to look at my copy of 1953...........it seems like such a dense read, though.... i read a little bronstein, and he just seems too deep for me.............too deep..... not sure he explains to the level someone like i would need, such as he might skip over the 'obvious' stuff....which is NOT obvious to me... i like fischer's writing --- that guy is clear and concise ---------------

He ended up tied for 2nd place there and he probably would have won it all and had a shot at the world title too if it wasn't for the cheating