Best chess books of all time.

Main

Date: 15 Feb 2008 22:51:12
From: Patzer D Putz
Subject: Best chess books of all time.

What are they?

I know My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch is one.

Date: 15 Feb 2008 19:40:39
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 15, 2:51 pm, "Patzer D Putz" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What are they?
>
> I know My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch is one.

"Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces" by Hans Kmoch.

Kmoch did real well, but perhaps any collection
of Rubinstein's games would have to be a very good
text.

Regards,

Wlod

Date: 15 Feb 2008 15:18:33
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 15, 5:51=A0pm, "Patzer D Putz" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What are they?
>
> I know My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch is one.

Anything by Irving Chernev.

Date: 16 Feb 2008 21:43:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 17, 12:04 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Most suggestions so far in this thread seem to
> >focus on exceedingly old materials-- materials which
> >as far as many things go, are now antiquated. This
> >may be a sad reflection on the state of chess writing
> >these days, or it might be that the "classic" works
> >are being a bit overrated.

> Not at all. It's just that the younger players are out *playing*
> chess, not posting reminiscences about books that influenced us
> geezers in our formative years.

Hmm. From what I've seen lately, a few of
these younger players will show up once or
twice, but as soon as they "luck into" a win
against one of their vast superiors (that would
be me, FYI), they head for the hills, never to
return! LOL

Truth is, if I put my mind to it, I could track
'em down, but who is the hunter, and who,
the hunted here? Odds are I could lose (or
draw) again, so I just continue the same old
same old, playing other geezers. I just find
it amusing that so many players appear to
fear me, when I am really quite harmless.

But back to books-- common now, even
the old-timers amongst us have seen newer
books than the descriptive notation stuff
talked about here? Many of those were
written over half a century ago! Back when
folks kept insisting that 1. P-K4 P-K4 was
the only respectable opening; in sum, it was
the Dark Ages of chess; the age before the
Sicilian Defense became popular; an age in
which Knights did not Tango; where the
phrase "Alekhine's defense" meant what-
ever moves that guy was playing at the
moment.

Surely, the posters here are not THAT old?

-- Rip Van Winkle bot

Date: 16 Feb 2008 22:05:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:43:24 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:

> But back to books-- common now, even
>the old-timers amongst us have seen newer
>books than the descriptive notation stuff
>talked about here? Many of those were
>written over half a century ago!

Half a century ago was 1958. Most of these books were written long
before that.

>Back when
>folks kept insisting that 1. P-K4 P-K4 was
>the only respectable opening; in sum, it was
>the Dark Ages of chess; the age before the
>Sicilian Defense became popular;

The Dragon, The Scheveningen, The Boleslavsky, The Najdorf -- all big
back in the mid-1950s..

>an age in which Knights did not Tango;

It's not well known, but you can Tango to the Kevitz-Traikovich.

>where the
>phrase "Alekhine's defense" meant what-
>ever moves that guy was playing at the
>moment.

> Surely, the posters here are not THAT old?

'fraid so. Plus, old book are often cheaper.

Date: 16 Feb 2008 18:09:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 16, 7:53 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> I once attended a lecture by Jude Acers where he highly recommended
> Horowitz's "Chess Openings, Theory and Practice", and, as I remember
> the lecture, Acers advocated much the same approach with this book.
> Play a game, look up the opening, go through the Idea Variations and
> example games, etc., with the idea of understanding rather than
> memorizing.

I used to have that book; it fell apart after years of
use-- a relatively inexpensive paperback. This book,
as I recall, was praised for including explanatory text
along with the usual columns and rows of "best"
moves.

Most suggestions so far in this thread seem to
focus on exceedingly old materials-- materials which
as far as many things go, are now antiquated. This
may be a sad reflection on the state of chess writing
these days, or it might be that the "classic" works
are being a bit overrated.

In my view, such a work as GM Fine's BCE was a
great value-- a lot of stuff for the money, and yet it
was simply riddled with errors. Does it make sense
to take something riddled with errors and re-do it
years later? Probably not. Far superior as a
learning tool was the book by GM Averbakh, though
it was much smaller and less comprehensive.

One book by GM Fine I did like was his book on
the ideas in the chess openings; again, quite a lot
of material for the price, and when one knows
almost nothing, that makes for a big help. Others
seemed to share the view that this book was of
help to them, as well.

But there is no need for any newcomers to rely
on such outdated works today simply because
"reviewers" here feel sentimental about them; a
few authors write good stuff, in modern algebraic
notation, and using more modern games right
along with the old classics of yesteryear. In
fact, because of the use of computers -- both for
database searches and for move analysis -- it is
obviously easier today to do the job than it used
to be in the old days.

-- help bot

Date: 17 Feb 2008 13:40:57
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

EVANS ON CHESS ON THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT

"I don't have a boyfriend. I'd be more interested in a non-chess
player now just because I know all the chess players." -- Jennifer
Shahade, USA women's champ in 2002 before graduating from NYU.

This cryptic rek tempted me to reread THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT
(1983) the last novel by the late Walter Tevis, who captured the world
of pool so brilliantly in THE HUSTLER. Tevis told me he liked writing
about intelligent misfits.

The author said he learned chess at seven and wasn't a strong
player (1423 rated). "You don't get the girls in high school by being
a chess or a pool player. Neither game is a team sport, both are male-
dominated, and many players are loners trying to escape from personal
problems," he said.

The queen of the title is Beth Harmon, an orphan who storms the
male bastion of chess at 19. "I think chess should be a sexless game.
It would be good if women don't play in women's tournaments at all.
Doing so only reinforces the notion of their inferiority."

His novel anticipated the three fabulous Polgar sisters in Hungary,
who battled chess bureaucrats for the right to play in mixed
events.

"People who say that chess is trivial aren't looking very hard at
their lives doing what they claim is important. You can't get by in
chess on bull," said Tevis.

Unlike the real world, no game in the book is drawn. Only her loss
to a fictional male champ (whose name ends in "ov") can be followed
on a board. The nervous heroine fails to save her knight by 13...c4!

White: "VASILY BORGOV"
Black: "BETH HARMON"
Ruy Lopez

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 8
dxe5 Be6 9 Qe2 Na5 10 Nd4 c5 11 Nxe6 fxe6 12 c3 Nxb3 13 axb3 Qb6? 14
Be3 Be7 15 Qg4 0-0 16 f3 d4 17 Bh6 Black Resigns

(C) Chesstours. All rights reserved.

Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:00:23 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>On Feb 17, 11:54 am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Changing the subject slightly to a different kind of chess book, I
> >>> just finished reading "The Queen's Gambit" by Walter Tevis and will be
> >>> posting a review of it next week on my blog
> >>> athttp://www.rookhouse.com/blog/
> >>>
> >>> Anyone else read it and have some thoughts??
> >>
> >> Read it about 20-25 years ago. Didn't care for it much. The
> >>characters and plot were not very interesting, and the errors about
> >>how chess tournaments are organized and such detracted from its
> >>verisimilitude and plausibility.
> >
> > Agreed. It seemed to me Tevis was trying to formularize his success
> > with "The Hustler" and it didn't map all that well.
>
> Those are opinions, sure.
>
> tin Cruz Smith has recently written a novel with a strong chess theme -
> at the time and of the Tevis book he wrote, "More exciting than any thriller
> I've seen lately; more than that, beautifully written."
>
> For myself, I think this was the first attempt to look at chess from a
> player's point of view, and what worked about it, as in other Tevis
> screenplays and novels, was it caught some sense of the drama of the game,
> which he could successfully convey to non-chess players.
>
> Phil Innes

Date: 16 Feb 2008 21:04:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:09:43 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:

> Most suggestions so far in this thread seem to
>focus on exceedingly old materials-- materials which
>as far as many things go, are now antiquated. This
>may be a sad reflection on the state of chess writing
>these days, or it might be that the "classic" works
>are being a bit overrated.

Not at all. It's just that the younger players are out *playing*
chess, not posting reminiscences about books that influenced us
geezers in our formative years.

Date: 16 Feb 2008 15:40:50
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 16, 12:44=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> If you get "500 Master Games of Chess", you might want to add "100
> Master Games of Modern Chess", also by Tartakower and du Mont.

I did forget to mention that one. I am actually going through that
book presently.

> I would add Renaud & Kahn's "The Art of the Checkmate",

I own "The Art of Checkmate", but have not had the chance to read it
yet.

> Fischer's "My Sixty Memorable Games",

Great book, but definitely not for beginners or intermediates.

> and Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" as revised by Benko.

HUGE book that I first cracked two years ago and still have never been
through half of it.

Date: 16 Feb 2008 16:53:08
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:40:50 -0800 (PST), RookHouse
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Feb 16, 12:44�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If you get "500 Master Games of Chess", you might want to add "100
>> Master Games of Modern Chess", also by Tartakower and du Mont.

>I did forget to mention that one. I am actually going through that
>book presently.

>> I would add Renaud & Kahn's "The Art of the Checkmate",

>I own "The Art of Checkmate", but have not had the chance to read it
>yet.

I think this book and Nimzovich's "My System" improved my game
enormously.

>> Fischer's "My Sixty Memorable Games",

>Great book, but definitely not for beginners or intermediates.

>> and Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" as revised by Benko.

>HUGE book that I first cracked two years ago and still have never been
>through half of it.

I would think of it as a desk encyclopedia rather than an
instructional manual. If you run into an interesting ending in one of
your games, try to find similar positions in this book and see how
the big boys would handle it.

I once attended a lecture by Jude Acers where he highly recommended
Horowitz's "Chess Openings, Theory and Practice", and, as I remember
the lecture, Acers advocated much the same approach with this book.
Play a game, look up the opening, go through the Idea Variations and
example games, etc., with the idea of understanding rather than
memorizing.

Date: 15 Feb 2008 18:47:40
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 15, 6:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 15, 6:18=A0pm, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 5:51=A0pm, "Patzer D Putz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > What are they?
>
> > > I know My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch is one.
>
> > Anything by Irving Chernev.
>
> =A0 Maybe not anything, but most definitely "Logical Chess: Move by
> Move" -- the book that lifted the blinders from my eyes, for me a
> revelation comparable to Saul's on the road to Damascus.

Aside from the Chernev books, here are a few other personal favorites:

1.) The Art of the Middle Game by Keres & Kotov

2.) 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower

3.) Endgame Strategy by Shereshevsky

Date: 16 Feb 2008 09:44:29
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:47:40 -0800 (PST), RookHouse
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Aside from the Chernev books, here are a few other personal favorites:
>
>1.) The Art of the Middle Game by Keres & Kotov
>
>2.) 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower
>
>3.) Endgame Strategy by Shereshevsky

If you get "500 Master Games of Chess", you might want to add "100
Master Games of Modern Chess", also by Tartakower and du Mont.

I would add

Renaud & Kahn's "The Art of the Checkmate",
Fischer's "My Sixty Memorable Games",
and Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" as revised by Benko.

All older classics, of course, and I'm not claiming that some of the
newer stuff might not be better. What's available when one begins to
get serious is what has the greatest influence.

Date: 15 Feb 2008 15:37:08
From:
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 15, 6:18=A0pm, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:51=A0pm, "Patzer D Putz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What are they?
>
> > I know My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch is one.
>
> Anything by Irving Chernev.

Maybe not anything, but most definitely "Logical Chess: Move by
Move" -- the book that lifted the blinders from my eyes, for me a
revelation comparable to Saul's on the road to Damascus.

Date: 17 Feb 2008 10:00:23
From:
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 17, 11:54=A0am, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> Changing the subject slightly to a different kind of chess book, I
> just finished reading "The Queen's Gambit" by Walter Tevis and will be
> posting a review of it next week on my blog athttp://www.rookhouse.com/blo=
g/
>
> Anyone else read it and have some thoughts??

Read it about 20-25 years ago. Didn't care for it much. The
characters and plot were not very interesting, and the errors about
how chess tournaments are organized and such detracted from its
verisimilitude and plausibility.

Date: 17 Feb 2008 10:32:48
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:00:23 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>On Feb 17, 11:54�am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Changing the subject slightly to a different kind of chess book, I
>> just finished reading "The Queen's Gambit" by Walter Tevis and will be
>> posting a review of it next week on my blog athttp://www.rookhouse.com/blog/
>>
>> Anyone else read it and have some thoughts??
>
> Read it about 20-25 years ago. Didn't care for it much. The
>characters and plot were not very interesting, and the errors about
>how chess tournaments are organized and such detracted from its
>verisimilitude and plausibility.

Agreed. It seemed to me Tevis was trying to formularize his success
with "The Hustler" and it didn't map all that well.

Date: 17 Feb 2008 15:38:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:00:23 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Feb 17, 11:54 am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Changing the subject slightly to a different kind of chess book, I
>>> just finished reading "The Queen's Gambit" by Walter Tevis and will be
>>> posting a review of it next week on my blog
>>> athttp://www.rookhouse.com/blog/
>>>
>>> Anyone else read it and have some thoughts??
>>
>> Read it about 20-25 years ago. Didn't care for it much. The
>>characters and plot were not very interesting, and the errors about
>>how chess tournaments are organized and such detracted from its
>>verisimilitude and plausibility.
>
> Agreed. It seemed to me Tevis was trying to formularize his success
> with "The Hustler" and it didn't map all that well.

Those are opinions, sure.

tin Cruz Smith has recently written a novel with a strong chess theme -
at the time and of the Tevis book he wrote, "More exciting than any thriller
I've seen lately; more than that, beautifully written."

For myself, I think this was the first attempt to look at chess from a
player's point of view, and what worked about it, as in other Tevis
screenplays and novels, was it caught some sense of the drama of the game,
which he could successfully convey to non-chess players.

Phil Innes

Date: 17 Feb 2008 13:36:32
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:38:41 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>For myself, I think this was the first attempt to look at chess from a
>player's point of view,

I believe "Master Prim" antedated it by some years, although I'd agree
the "Queen's Gambit" was a better book.

Date: 19 Feb 2008 10:02:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:38:41 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>For myself, I think this was the first attempt to look at chess from a
>>player's point of view,
>
> I believe "Master Prim" antedated it by some years, although I'd agree
> the "Queen's Gambit" was a better book.

I don't know that book, Mike. How does it go?

Another novel I haven't read, but is on my shelf, with a fair amount of
chess in it is, "The Yiddish Policemen's Union" by Pulitzer winner Michael
Chabon. This is not very creditable of me since of his sources he offers
Chessville as a main URL. Of course, so does Wikipedia seemingly 1 of every
3 references. I see Chabon offers a little crytogram & acrostic, which
spells out 'Caissa'. Then there is;-

"He was living in a hotel on Max Nordau Street under the name of
Emmanuel Lasker."

Perhaps fortunately, it does not attempt straight chess metaphor as plot
mechanism, as did Flander's Panel. Tim Hanke told me once that he thought
the Flander's Panel retrograde problem was bust - but he couldn't say by
whom or how. Anyone here know of a bust for it?

Phil

Date: 19 Feb 2008 07:45:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:02:08 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>>>For myself, I think this was the first attempt to look at chess from a
>>>player's point of view,

>> I believe "Master Prim" antedated it by some years, although I'd agree
>> the "Queen's Gambit" was a better book.

>I don't know that book, Mike. How does it go?

It's been many years since I've read it and I think it's in my storage
locker at present. Prim, the title character was clearly modeled on
Fischer. My foggy impressions, after some forty years, are that the
dialog was a bit wooden and the sex scenes hackneyed.

Brady's "Profile of a Prodigy" (Pp 142-142) discusses it:

"A novel, "Master Prim", by James W. Ellison was published in early
1968 and its central character, Julian Prim, was based on Bobby
Fischer. Edmondson reviewed the book himself in "Chess Life" and
panned it for the most part, especially its manner of handling sexual
scenes, but the reviews in the general press were, though not rave,
entirely favorable... .[Ellison] used Fischer quotes from interviews,
almost without changing a word... Walter Goldwater told [Brady] that
"Master Prim was in a collection of books that he bought from Bobby,
but that it didn't look as though it had been opened. 'Do you want
this book?' Bobby has asked him, 'It's about me'. But Bobby definitely
read the book, and so identified it with his own life that he took
issue with some of the fictional quotes coming out of the mouth of the
fictional Prim: 'I never said that!', he would say as he read the
lines aloud."

Date: 17 Feb 2008 08:54:35
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

Changing the subject slightly to a different kind of chess book, I
just finished reading "The Queen's Gambit" by Walter Tevis and will be
posting a review of it next week on my blog at http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/

Anyone else read it and have some thoughts??

I'm also half way through Paul Hoffmans "King's Gambit" and will be
reviewing it as well in the very near future.

Thanks,
Morphy
http://www.rookhouse.com

Date: 17 Feb 2008 15:31:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

"RookHouse" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b890dd66-dac5-4b49-aad4-ee5c7a9ebbf5@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Changing the subject slightly to a different kind of chess book, I
> just finished reading "The Queen's Gambit" by Walter Tevis and will be
> posting a review of it next week on my blog at
> http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/
>
> Anyone else read it and have some thoughts??

Did you know that the young gent who recently died in NY City, after making
some big hit movies - was making a film of 'Queen's Gambit'? Tevis wrote
scripts for movies, including Color of Money, and The Hustler.

Phil

> I'm also half way through Paul Hoffmans "King's Gambit" and will be
> reviewing it as well in the very near future.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Morphy
> http://www.rookhouse.com
>
>

Date: 16 Feb 2008 22:38:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 17, 1:05 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> >an age in which Knights did not Tango;
>
> It's not well known, but you can Tango to the Kevitz-Traikovich.

Here is a recent effort of mine, in which I
display my usual, rekably subtle finesse;
I had White:

1. Nf3 Nc6

2. d4 e6

3. e4 N/g-e7

4. d5 ed

5. ed Nb4

6. c4 d6

7. Qa4+!

(And yes, I did somehow manage to win.)

-- help bot

Date: 19 Feb 2008 12:00:59
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

On Feb 19, 10:45=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:02:08 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>>For myself, I think this was the first attempt to look at chess from a
> >>>player's point of view,
> >> I believe "Master Prim" antedated it by some years, although I'd agree
> >> the "Queen's Gambit" was a better book.
> >I don't know that book, Mike. How does it go?
>
> It's been many years since I've read it and I think it's in my storage
> locker at present. =A0Prim, the title character was clearly modeled on
> Fischer. =A0My foggy impressions, after some forty years, are that the
> dialog was a bit wooden and the sex scenes hackneyed.
>
> Brady's "Profile of a Prodigy" =A0(Pp 142-142) discusses it:
>
> "A novel, "Master Prim", by James W. Ellison was published in early
> 1968 and its central character, Julian Prim, was based on Bobby
> Fischer.

I do own "Master Prim"and it is my next read as soon as I finish
Hoffman's "King's Gambit" (excellent so far).

And yes, the whole reason I went out and bought "The Queen's Gambit"
was because I had heard that Ledger was going to make his directorial
debut on a movie based off of the Tevis novel.

I personally liked the book and will be posting a review of it on my
blog this week.

"Profile of a Prodigy" and "Bobby Fischer Goes To War" were the first
two chess books that I read. I have since read both of them over
again, as I thoroughly enjoyed both books.

Morphy,
http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/

Date: 16 Feb 2008 09:36:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Best chess books of all time.

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d5522bcc-97d7-417c-aeae-a9a382e6a00b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 6:18 pm, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:51 pm, "Patzer D Putz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What are they?
>
> > I know My System by Aaron Nimzowitsch is one.
>
> Anything by Irving Chernev.

Maybe not anything, but most definitely "Logical Chess: Move by
Move" -- the book that lifted the blinders from my eyes, for me a
revelation comparable to Saul's on the road to Damascus.

--
That title also seems to be a great favorite with grandmasters!

Another title I like for its focus is from1970, The King-Hunt in Chess. by
W. H. Cozens, which incidentally has a forward by Chernev. IC reks:

"Practically every game in the book is a delight, and some of the
selections are truly wonderful."

Then he lists his own favorites:-

Nimzo-Tarrasch, St. P 1914
Alekhine-Yates, Carlsbad 1923
shall - Bogo, NY 1923
Tartakower - Euwe, Venice 1948

and the 'new' beauties, he says are;-

Tal-Simagin, "Leningrad" 1956
Tal-Panno, Portoroz 1958
Syslow - Florian, Moscow 1949

"....and of course the sensational Byrne - Fischer, New York 1956.

returning to author Cozens, he reks of that game at 13, "Black's moves
look like over-sights, but he is seeing everything." And at the conclusion
of the game he adds, "Not many better games than this one have ever been
played -- by anyone. The only comparable production by one so young is
Capablanca's last match-game against Corzo.

Yes - this is another chess anthology, but a great one worth acquiring.
[Dover]

--

In terms of modern one-volume books which attempt to help players improve,
it is hard to beat something like "The Tarrasch Formula" by Sam Palatnik and
k Ishee. The subtitle is, "One badly placed piece makes your whole
position bad."

This title is something of a compression of Palatnik's 3 volume work with
Lev Alburt, "Comprehensive Chess Course."

Phil Innes.