Irving Chernev is one of the best chess writers ever. His ‘Logical Chess Move by Move’ followed by ‘The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played’ have raised many ratings.
Alas, they were were written in English Descriptive (the default notation of the time) and are hard to recommend to current beginners for that reason.
Have they been re-issued in straight algebraic notations?
(Not figurine algebraic. I just can’t do figurine algebraic. My loss.)
I have a copy of “Logical Chess: Move by Move” that is in figurine algebraic notation. Many new books, and books converted from English descriptive to algebraic, are in figurine notation making them easier to read universally. As far as I know, I do not believe that “The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played” was converted to algebraic notation. I have looked and asked about it, but no luck. I have worn several copies of these books out in using them to help players learn chess.
Another favorite Chernev book is “Twelve Great Chess Players and Their Best Games.” It is in descriptive notation. It provides a list of players in ascending order from Nimzovich to Capabalanca with examples of what Chernev considers their best games. He lists Fischer in 4th place. This book was published in 1976 before the Karpov and Kasparov eras.
The Chernev book I found most useful personally was “Capablanca’s Best Chess Endings.” That book alone helped me to move from low expert to over 2300. The rook endings and bishop endgames are magnifique. The copy I have is in regular algebraic notation.
I would agree that Chernev’s books are excellent (I have read Logical Chess Move by Move in its entirety twice), but would humbly suggest that people who want to read these old books just learn to read descriptive notation – it’s really not that hard. I have used algebraic notation for my own games right from the beginning (1985), but had no trouble reading Chernev (and others) in descriptive. I can’t imagine playing through a “descriptive” game in my head without using a chessboard, but I couldn’t do that with algebraic either.
The one time I tried using an “algebraic update” of an old book was with Reuben Fine’s Ideas Behind he Chess Openings, but it had so many typos as to be unreadable. I ended up searching out a copy with the original descriptive notation so I could read it. I still have both copies, but have never looked at the algebraic one since I got the descriptive.
I’m glad to hear that someone “raised on algebraic” has little problem with descriptive. I learned from descriptive and then had to make the conversion to algebraic in the early-mid 70’s. (The publication of Encycolpaedia of Chess Openings was the impetus.) I had no difficulty, but that had a lot to do with Algebraic being the superior and far less confusing that Descriptive.
But, I find that newer players just can’t deal with Descriptive. Many have picked up Algebraic from playing on line. It poses a problem, because when I offer to lend/give them old copies of the “classics” (the Chernev books cited here, included), they act as if they’re written in Sanskrit. It leaves me wondering what I’m going to do when I choose to divest myself of my chess library. (I’m not affluent enough to be buried in a tomb comparable to an Egyptian Pharaoh, so I can only take a few of my favorites to the grave.)
Old Guy here. I was raised on descriptive, decades learned algebraic, and I can take notation in it. Alas, it is still a ‘second language’ to me and I find myself translating in my head from algebraic to my native tongue.
I have no problems admitting the superiority of algebraic, I’m just not much of a linguist.
I have taught both algebraic notation and descriptive notation to kids. When the kids learn algebraic, their usual reaction is, “Oh, this is just like playing ‘Battleship’!” As long as there are numbers and letters on the side of the board, they are okay in writing moves. Some of the kids think descriptive notation is easier and more logical. When they learn about files and ranks, they see the connections between the moves in descriptive notation better. They like that you have to write a “P” for pawn. Many of them write the “P” when doing algebraic notation anyway.
When you have learned both notations, there is a tendency to mix them when writing the moves, especially for older players who learned descriptive with the other dinosaurs. If you want to see real problems and confusion, watch kids try to write anything in cursive. They are used to block letters, contracted spellings, and emoticons.
Reminds me of when I was legally adopted ten years after I changed my name. Having to sign my old name in cursive made me pause.
Speaking of cursive: A few years ago, toward the end of a tournament I was directing, the organizer asked me for a list of prizewinners. After I made the list (in cursive) and handed it to him, he complained that he couldn’t read it. There’s nothing wrong with my handwriting (I often get compliments on it), but he was from “the younger generation”, and was never taught to read or write cursive. I had to redo the list in block letters.
An e-book in figurine algebraic of Chernev’s The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played is readily available for under $10 (to find, see your favorite search engine). An algebraic Logical Chess is available in both this format for cheap and paperback for not much more.
There are many many analytical errors (some very basic) in both this book and Logical Chess: Move by Move. But these errors take little away from the instructional value.
Quiz for the quarantined: in Game 1 of the latter book, von Scheve vs. Teichmann, White resigned in an unclear position. Find the variation that keeps the game alive. (I showed this to two masters, both excellent tacticians, some years ago. One was stumped, the other found the solution in 90 seconds.) The answer is readily available online.