What are everyone’s favorite chess books? Are there certain types of books you like more than others (problems vs opening vs game collection)?
I have collected a lot of books over the last couple of years, but haven’t been able to read many of them yet (saving for a rainy day, I guess 
. I have particularly enjoyed Chernev’s Logical Chess and 62 Most Instructive Games of Chess.
I think it depends a lot on your level of chess, and what you hope to get out of a book. I know a lot of strong players talk about game collections from their favorite annotator or collecting their favorite player’s games. Personally, I’m not good enough to appreciate those yet. I enjoy just going through lots and lots of tactical and endgame puzzles, partially because I know it’ll help my game, and partially because I just enjoy doing the puzzles.
–Fromper
My favorite chess books are those I can read in bed, without a chessboard (or computer). A great example is How to Cheat at Chess. The author suggests playing deep into the opponent’s territory if he has long arms, close to home if he has short arms. At one point he advocates the move Pawn to Kings Rook Three and Three Fourths, so the pawn can later be j’adoubed back to R3 if it proves overextended on R4. He points out the inferiority of Pawn to Kings Rook Three and a Half, which would surely elicit a demand for clarification.
He also has advice for chess journalists, annotating a 12-move stalemate using “serious” annotations taken from real games, such as “Notice how white’s moves flow logically from the characteristics of the position”. If you play chess for fun and have half a sense of humor, this is a great book.
Bill Smythe
All chess books can be read in bed, without a board or computer.
However, chess books are presented in different ways for different readers.
If you can’t read the book, in bed, without a board or computer, then you may not be a strong enough player to benefit from the material presented in that book.
I disagree.
.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some players (both low- and high-rated) can visualize better than others (both low- and high-rated). So it might be more accurate to say that, if you can’t read the book without a board or computer, you may not be a good enough visualizer to benefit from the book the way it is written.
Bill Smythe
I have spent a lot of time with Imagination in Chess, by Paata Gaprindashvili. Besides brief remarks at the start of each section, the book is just a collection of positions (with solutions in the back). But unlike other books I’ve seen in this category, the positions are not “mate in X” or of obvious tactical themes. The vast majority of positions are from master play, and require the kind of thinking you implement in your over-the-board play. You (or at least I) can spend a solid 30 minutes looking over one position, and there is a feeling of accomplishment if you actually figure it out.
I’ve gone through the book once already, and have started it again. And while the positions are meant to be solved without moving pieces (and thus without a board), I do set up the position at a board so that I can better visualize the variations (and at the end, play the moves in the solution).
Here is the position from the last problem I worked on (which I’ll admit I didn’t get right):
White to play
FYI, I used this online image creation tool.
.
Interesting. But then how is going thru this book any different from analyzing good master games, which are full of important positions to analyze?
.
Besides that, as a relatively low level player (1400ish), I’ve found that going through chess books that are slightly beyond my level of visualization is a good way to improve those visualization skills. So with a book where I can’t visualize the solutions the first time I read it, I might be able to do so on the second or third reading.
–Fromper
I’d consider the book a collection of “best of” from master games. Difficult positions that require a “!” move to solve, rather than having to go through entire games which might be filled with fairly obvious and/or uninspiring moves (although not to say there isn’t benefit from going through entire games). It’s just that my time for chess study is limited, and I believe I see a good return on investment from these practical and complex tactical problems.
Bill Smythe
1…Rxf6 2. Re7 Qxe7 3. Qxe7 Nf3+ 4. K? Nxh4.
How about 1. Bf6 with similar play but avoiding the fork.
After this sequence, white is still roughly the exchange up (remember white is a piece up in the original position), and black is in danger of getting his knight trapped after 5. Kg3. Not to mention that black has a lot of loose pawns on the queenside.
I thought of that, but couldn’t refute 1…Nc6 (after which white is still a piece up, but less convincingly).
Bill Smythe
?
We seem to be seeing different diagrams. I have the material even in the original position and Q vs R+N+B in the final. White will pick up at least one pawn, but even if he gets two for material equality, the pieces are normally better. The knight can be defended by g5 - and if White plays g5 then the knight has an escape square on f5.
After 1.Bf6, the bishop cannot be taken due to play like you gave. The only safe square for the knight appears to be 1…Nc6, but then 2.Bxg7 Kxg7 3.Re6 and the queen invasion on g6 looks deadly. The best for Black is probably 3…Ne5 where White can at least enter a pawn up queen ending following Rxe5 and a knight check on f6.
Oops, you’re right. 
If you mean 3…Ne5 4.Rxe5 dxe5 5.Qxe5+, then (at the risk of committing an again) you’re right, in spades. On the next move you’ll win his queen, unless he walks into mate.
Bill Smythe
FYI,
The solution in the book to the posted diagram is:
Hort-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 1978
1 Bf6! Nf3+ 1…Rxf6 2 Re7 Re6 3 Rxd7 Rxe4 4 Nf6+; 1…c6 2 Bxg7 cxd5 3 Bxd4!; 1…Nc6 2 Re6 Ne5 3 fxe5 Qxe6 4 Nf4 2 Kg2 c6 3 Re7! Ne1+ 4 Qxe1 Rxe7 5 Qxe7 Qxe7 6 Bxe7 cxd5 7 cxd5 1-0
A nice example of how the problems go beyond those normally found in tactics books, where the answer is more subtle than mate or even major loss of material.
However, watch out for an immediate 5 Qxe5+ Kh2, 6 Nf6+ RxN, 7 QxR. The black Q now has an open d-file for a perpetual.
I have quite a few chess books scattered about my room, but I don’t think I’ve ever read any of them (except for one on the Marshall. Needless to mention, no one’s ever gone into any of the lines in tournament play for me!). I have Imagination in Chess, I thought it was really good. I actually think I vaguely remember the problem posted earlier…
Reasses Your Chess also seemed like a good one, though I’m not good enough to read any sort of book in bed. How To Cheat in Chess sounds pretty funny, I know I’ve “hesitated” to play moves that are “far away” from me hehe
Actually “Reasses Your Chess” can be a good read in bed. The discussion on the theories are quite interesting even without having a chess board set up.
The book starts off by scolding me for not knowing any rook pawn endgames, and unfortunately I can’t do the examples in my head hehe