Answers.Body: <p>Chernev is one of the best chess writers out there. I started learning chess very late in life in my 30's. If am even still trying to learn and play this game, it is because of Chernev's writings. I own about 200 chess books. Some of the grandmaster writings soon become esoteric for a beginner trying to get enough of the basics to continue developing and learning. Anyone who has read Chernev's work can't fail to see the joyful enthusiasm with which he brings out his ideas. While they may not be for all those who end up being grandmasters like Nunn, I think they are worthwhile to thousands like me who have continued learning this game because of their influence. Besides, I will not take Nunn's ideas at face value because he has a similar book published and I have never heard a competitor review the competitive product amicably. His ideas may be right but I think they should be delivered with respect for a man who is a very great writer and teacher of chess. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-08-18T08:25:43.687Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-08-18T08:25:43.687Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chenue Abongwa
Answers.Body: <p>Chill out about Chernev? Not at all. Dad beat me every game we played from 6 years old to the ninth grade.  I read Chernev, discovered the queenside openings - he never beat me again.  When I ended up on the Czech border with the Cav in the early 70's, the king's pawn was the universal opening. When I left 2 years later, Queen's pawn was all anybody played. Blame it on Chernev, Dad, and I was no slouch. But I've read games between grandmasters like Fischer - I had no idea what was going on. And I had no desire to spend thousands of hours learning to play at that level. Chess can be a pleasant diversion, a powerful device for education, or an impressive display of mental ability. I have bought copies of Chernev's book for friends and family, but I'm certain Nunn is correct. Learn arithmetic before you tackle algebra. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-06-12T11:46:25.140Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-03T19:38:12.950Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-03T19:38:12.950Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Roger Gephart
Answers.Body: <p>At the time Chernev wrote his book there was no powerful chess engines and computer analysis, unlike Nunn which likely uses a lot of these tools to support the accuracy of his analysis.
  It's generally easy now to find mistakes in old books, but they still have valuable lessons and insights.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-09-17T06:43:32.487Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-09-17T06:43:32.487Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: deepkimo
Answers.Body: <p>I learned how to play chess by reading Chernev's books; some of his books were meant for beginner-casual players anyway. I think people like Nunn take things too seriously at times, he should chill out! Chernev's books have great instruction, and are very easy to read, while Nunn's books can be too difficult for the average player.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-24T21:15:21.697Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-02-25T19:10:49.410Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2013-02-25T19:10:49.410Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Melvyn Gingell
Answers.Body: <p>I went from being a 1400 player to 2100 using Logical Chess Move by Move by Irving Chernev!  Great book, it is simply not in the same league as Nunn's book, it's like comparing the books "Old Yeller" and "A tale of Two Cities" The prose of the first is considered inferior to that in the latter, but few who have read both books would disagree that they both have something to offer the reader. You would benefit from reading them both, simply start with Chernev then finish with Nunn in that way any corrections that are required to the way you reason about chess theory can be correct by the modern theory in Nunn's book. Why not just read Nunn, because Chernev is a good read and easy to understand and implement it's a good place to start as either a chess student, or as a primer used by a chess teacher.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-06-25T13:06:58.753Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-06-25T13:06:58.753Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dwayne
Answers.Body: <p>I cannot find Nunn's criticism, but if it were about calculation errors, then fine; but I suspect it was not.</p>
  
  <p>I think that Nunn has been a GM so long, and was probably weak enough to enjoy that book for about one day when he was 6 years old he went by that level so quickly, that he could not appreciate it.</p>
  
  <p>I think it was a great book. Sure, it is light and fluffy, but it was not meant for anyone at the serious-student level yet. It is a nice first introduction into positional play: WHY we play certain moves. I feel that any harsh criticism of this classic work in unwarranted based on what it is trying to accomplish.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-25T22:54:27.043Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-25T22:54:27.043Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.Body: <p>My experience with Chernev's “Logical Chess Move by Move” was kind of mixed. It is good but before starting it one would really benefit from knowing the style it is written in.</p>
  
  <p>Initiated to chess in early childhood I have been playing it now and then for 20 years but remained somewhere between beginner and intermediate level. So, I found this book to finally start playing normally.</p>
  
  <p>As for the content, the book is indeed well-detailed and very analytical. Chernev follows every move with <strong>super clear descriptions</strong> and in general it is simply a pleasant read because of its succinct and sometimes passionate language. This nice part accounts for two thirds of the book.</p>
  
  <p>The rest of the book, however, is made of author's enumerations of all forced moved possible in those games. These are places where <strong>Chernev</strong> just <strong>re-writes</strong> in advance 7-10 or more hypothetical forced <strong>moves without giving context</strong> or something else for your brain to catch onto. Often for one real move there are multiple these 'think far in advance' things. At moments, it really blows your mind and honestly may become boring. </p>
  
  <p>So, this smaller part of the book is clearly not for beginners and, in my opinion, at all is not well done. I spent half of reading time on it and did not get much use from it.</p>
  
  <p>Conclusion: Beginners could easily use this great book but would better drop the parts with forced moves</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-02-04T22:03:27.243Z
Answers.Text: Dear moderators, there were typos in my reply, I admit. But with your corrections you also distorted an important part of it, which is neither useful, nor polite. 
  When I wrote about my level I meant I always staid at a level between beginner and intermediate, not that I progressed from beginner to intermediate. If you are in doubt, simply ask for clarifications.
  If you believe this Chess community is a friendly place, then please revert the changes
Answers.UserDisplayName: TomateFraiche
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-02-04T22:29:10.000Z
Answers.Text: You seem new here, so you're probably learning how the site works: It appears the person who edited your answer is not a moderator - anyone with a high enough reputation can edit a question or answer. Generally one does not "ask permission" to do this - they either make an edit themselves, or leave a comment. In this case, I think the edit was intended to eliminate confusion. You can always edit the question yourself (as you did earlier) to return it to the original meaning; perhaps a different phrase, such as "advanced beginner" instead of "beginner to intermediate" would avoid confusion.
Answers.UserDisplayName: GreenMatt
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-02-05T14:41:51.340Z
Answers.Text: Actually no, I am not new to this site because I come from another Stack Exchange community and, whoever changed my message, may have spoken to me before doing that. People should not be obligated to constantly track their messages to make sure that they are not mutilated by some other 'super active' contributor. Luckily, in other Stack Exchange communities things like this do not happen and I doubt if I will ever write anything else here
Answers.UserDisplayName: TomateFraiche
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-02-05T22:58:51.747Z
Answers.Text: In truth, looking at your history, I don't see a lot of posts on those other sites you've visited. I see you've been on StackOverflow, where it seems to me that editing questions and answers is done even more than on here. While I understand that it can be upsetting to have someone edit your post (I've had it done many times and it was upsetting the first time for me too), I think you're reacting poorly.  Allowing site members with high enough reputation to make edits is intended to make the site better. (continued)
Answers.UserDisplayName: GreenMatt
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-02-05T23:02:37.283Z
Answers.Text: You write well, but there are many people on these sites who make nearly incomprehensible posts. Such questions wouldn't be answered and such answers wouldn't be understood if someone didn't clean up those posts. Then there are typos for which asking permission to make a fix would be a burden on both editor and original poster. I'm sure @brian-towers was trying to clear up an ambiguity; unfortunately, he seems to have guessed the wrong meaning. It only takes a couple clicks to "rollback" an edit, so this doesn't seem so onerous to me. Hopefully you'll continue to contribute to this site.
Answers.UserDisplayName: GreenMatt
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-02-03T18:32:01.153Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-02-05T23:32:56.317Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-02-05T23:32:56.317Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: TomateFraiche
Answers.Body: <p>It seems that Nunn (who is undoubtedly a stronger player than Chernev was) is correct in his criticisms of certain instances of analysis in Chernev's book, and also correct in pointing out that Chernev is sometimes too quick to dogmatically conclude an overarching general principle that doesn't properly allow for exceptions. But I don't believe this should cause you to read Chernev's book with caution (at least no more caution or skepticism than one should have when reading <em>anything</em>), and certainly not with paranoia.</p>
  
  <p>The criticisms Nunn directs Chernev's way in <em>Grandmaster Chess Move by Move</em> are worthwhile things to hear <strong>for a player who is at an appropriate level to be reading Nunn's book</strong>, but the intended audience for that book is quite a bit more advanced than is Chernev's. The fact that Chernev makes certain oversimplifications (and yes, out-and-out mistakes in some places) is a good thing to be discovered at some point in a player's chess development, but this doesn't necessarily mean that Chernev's book, warts and all, cannot be (very!) useful to a beginner. [Consider: an absolute beginner reading Nunn's criticisms of Chernev that you cited wouldn't be able to appreciate the points being made at all: they would sail right over his or her head.]</p>
  
  <p>The saying "One has to know the rules to break them" is applicable here. If you were to try and take every word in Chernev's book as gospel for the rest of your chess career, you would indeed be leading yourself astray. The same would be true if you tried to dogmatically follow, say, "knights should be developed before bishops" or similar overly general advice which is routinely thrown at novices. That doesn't mean that that kind of advice doesn't serve a useful purpose by giving newcomers to the game some first, rough guidelines to start learning from. I think the same can be said for Chernev's work; after all, it's not for nothing that this instructional book from 1957 is still topical today.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-25T06:36:55.513Z
Answers.Text: +1 for pointing at "One has to know the rules to break them"
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ray
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-24T18:26:36.277Z
Answers.Text: @xaisoft Thanks for the vote of confidence; I must say, you're doing a great job helping the site grow with your questions. (I haven't thought of a single good one yet myself, not for lack of trying.) I have an idea for you and others who are asking a lot of questions to consider, for which see this post on chess.meta: http://meta.chess.stackexchange.com/questions/67/a-thought-accepting-answers-too-quickly
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-24T18:34:23.833Z
Answers.Text: +2 @Ed Dean: I agree, it's very hard to post "great" questions, and xaisoft really is doing a super job posting questions. Your responses are great too. Cheers!
Answers.UserDisplayName: blunders
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-24T16:34:33.767Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-05-24T16:48:25.497Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-05-24T16:48:25.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Body: <p>I have the book "Logical Chess Move by Move" by Irving Chernev and personally I find it to be a great book especially for beginners, but I heard that GM John Nunn has really criticized the book.  This makes me read the book with caution and slight paranoia.  Does Nunn have valid points?</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman118.pdf">Here</a> is a link from one of Dan Heisman's Novice Nook articles discussing Nunn's criticisms of Chernev's book.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-25T22:51:33.270Z
Comments.Text: The link is now protected by a paid subscription. :(
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-24T15:50:30.127Z
Comments.Text: Do you have a source for Nunn's criticism, so that we can know exactly what his points are? (My guess is that Nunn might reference Chernev in his book *Understanding Chess Move by Move*, given the obvious parallel between the titles, but I've never looked at the book.)
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-24T15:52:47.220Z
Comments.Text: I will update my post with a link.  Nunn's book "Grandmaster Chess move by move" harshly critizes chernev's.
Comments.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Tags: <learning><books>
Title: Dr. John Nunn vs Irving Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move"
ThreadText: # Dr. John Nunn vs Irving Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move"
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-24)
  
  I have the book "Logical Chess Move by Move" by Irving Chernev and personally I find it to be a great book especially for beginners, but I heard that GM John Nunn has really criticized the book. This makes me read the book with caution and slight paranoia. Does Nunn have valid points?
  
  [Here](http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman118.pdf) is a link from one of Dan Heisman's Novice Nook articles discussing Nunn's criticisms of Chernev's book.
  
  **Tags:** learning, books
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Do you have a source for Nunn's criticism, so that we can know exactly what his points are? (My guess is that Nunn might reference Chernev in his book *Understanding Chess Move by Move*, given the obvious parallel between the titles, but I've never looked at the book.)  
  > **username_0**: I will update my post with a link.  Nunn's book "Grandmaster Chess move by move" harshly critizes chernev's.  
  > **username_1**: The link is now protected by a paid subscription. :(  
  
  ---
  
  ## 8 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2012-05-24. Score: 32 | Accepted answer
  
  It seems that Nunn (who is undoubtedly a stronger player than Chernev was) is correct in his criticisms of certain instances of analysis in Chernev's book, and also correct in pointing out that Chernev is sometimes too quick to dogmatically conclude an overarching general principle that doesn't properly allow for exceptions. But I don't believe this should cause you to read Chernev's book with caution (at least no more caution or skepticism than one should have when reading *anything*), and certainly not with paranoia.
  
  The criticisms Nunn directs Chernev's way in *Grandmaster Chess Move by Move* are worthwhile things to hear **for a player who is at an appropriate level to be reading Nunn's book**, but the intended audience for that book is quite a bit more advanced than is Chernev's. The fact that Chernev makes certain oversimplifications (and yes, out-and-out mistakes in some places) is a good thing to be discovered at some point in a player's chess development, but this doesn't necessarily mean that Chernev's book, warts and all, cannot be (very!) useful to a beginner. [Consider: an absolute beginner reading Nunn's criticisms of Chernev that you cited wouldn't be able to appreciate the points being made at all: they would sail right over his or her head.]
  
  The saying "One has to know the rules to break them" is applicable here. If you were to try and take every word in Chernev's book as gospel for the rest of your chess career, you would indeed be leading yourself astray. The same would be true if you tried to dogmatically follow, say, "knights should be developed before bishops" or similar overly general advice which is routinely thrown at novices. That doesn't mean that that kind of advice doesn't serve a useful purpose by giving newcomers to the game some first, rough guidelines to start learning from. I think the same can be said for Chernev's work; after all, it's not for nothing that this instructional book from 1957 is still topical today.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: @username_0 Thanks for the vote of confidence; I must say, you're doing a great job helping the site grow with your questions. (I haven't thought of a single good one yet myself, not for lack of trying.) I have an idea for you and others who are asking a lot of questions to consider, for which see this post on chess.meta: http://meta.chess.stackexchange.com/questions/67/a-thought-accepting-answers-too-quickly  
  > **username_11**: +2 @Ed Dean: I agree, it's very hard to post "great" questions, and username_0 really is doing a super job posting questions. Your responses are great too. Cheers!  
  > **username_10**: +1 for pointing at "One has to know the rules to break them"  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2012-08-18. Score: 7
  
  Chernev is one of the best chess writers out there. I started learning chess very late in life in my 30's. If am even still trying to learn and play this game, it is because of Chernev's writings. I own about 200 chess books. Some of the grandmaster writings soon become esoteric for a beginner trying to get enough of the basics to continue developing and learning. Anyone who has read Chernev's work can't fail to see the joyful enthusiasm with which he brings out his ideas. While they may not be for all those who end up being grandmasters like Nunn, I think they are worthwhile to thousands like me who have continued learning this game because of their influence. Besides, I will not take Nunn's ideas at face value because he has a similar book published and I have never heard a competitor review the competitive product amicably. His ideas may be right but I think they should be delivered with respect for a man who is a very great writer and teacher of chess.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2013-06-12. Score: 5
  
  Chill out about Chernev? Not at all. Dad beat me every game we played from 6 years old to the ninth grade. I read Chernev, discovered the queenside openings - he never beat me again. When I ended up on the Czech border with the Cav in the early 70's, the king's pawn was the universal opening. When I left 2 years later, Queen's pawn was all anybody played. Blame it on Chernev, Dad, and I was no slouch. But I've read games between grandmasters like Fischer - I had no idea what was going on. And I had no desire to spend thousands of hours learning to play at that level. Chess can be a pleasant diversion, a powerful device for education, or an impressive display of mental ability. I have bought copies of Chernev's book for friends and family, but I'm certain Nunn is correct. Learn arithmetic before you tackle algebra.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2013-09-17. Score: 4
  
  At the time Chernev wrote his book there was no powerful chess engines and computer analysis, unlike Nunn which likely uses a lot of these tools to support the accuracy of his analysis.
  It's generally easy now to find mistakes in old books, but they still have valuable lessons and insights.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2013-02-24. Score: 4
  
  I learned how to play chess by reading Chernev's books; some of his books were meant for beginner-casual players anyway. I think people like Nunn take things too seriously at times, he should chill out! Chernev's books have great instruction, and are very easy to read, while Nunn's books can be too difficult for the average player.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2016-06-25. Score: 1
  
  I went from being a 1400 player to 2100 using Logical Chess Move by Move by Irving Chernev! Great book, it is simply not in the same league as Nunn's book, it's like comparing the books "Old Yeller" and "A tale of Two Cities" The prose of the first is considered inferior to that in the latter, but few who have read both books would disagree that they both have something to offer the reader. You would benefit from reading them both, simply start with Chernev then finish with Nunn in that way any corrections that are required to the way you reason about chess theory can be correct by the modern theory in Nunn's book. Why not just read Nunn, because Chernev is a good read and easy to understand and implement it's a good place to start as either a chess student, or as a primer used by a chess teacher.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-12-25. Score: 1
  
  I cannot find Nunn's criticism, but if it were about calculation errors, then fine; but I suspect it was not.
  
  I think that Nunn has been a GM so long, and was probably weak enough to enjoy that book for about one day when he was 6 years old he went by that level so quickly, that he could not appreciate it.
  
  I think it was a great book. Sure, it is light and fluffy, but it was not meant for anyone at the serious-student level yet. It is a nice first introduction into positional play: WHY we play certain moves. I feel that any harsh criticism of this classic work in unwarranted based on what it is trying to accomplish.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2019-02-03. Score: -1
  
  My experience with Chernev's “Logical Chess Move by Move” was kind of mixed. It is good but before starting it one would really benefit from knowing the style it is written in.
  
  Initiated to chess in early childhood I have been playing it now and then for 20 years but remained somewhere between beginner and intermediate level. So, I found this book to finally start playing normally.
  
  As for the content, the book is indeed well-detailed and very analytical. Chernev follows every move with **super clear descriptions** and in general it is simply a pleasant read because of its succinct and sometimes passionate language. This nice part accounts for two thirds of the book.
  
  The rest of the book, however, is made of author's enumerations of all forced moved possible in those games. These are places where **Chernev** just **re-writes** in advance 7-10 or more hypothetical forced **moves without giving context** or something else for your brain to catch onto. Often for one real move there are multiple these 'think far in advance' things. At moments, it really blows your mind and honestly may become boring.
  
  So, this smaller part of the book is clearly not for beginners and, in my opinion, at all is not well done. I spent half of reading time on it and did not get much use from it.
  
  Conclusion: Beginners could easily use this great book but would better drop the parts with forced moves
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: Dear moderators, there were typos in my reply, I admit. But with your corrections you also distorted an important part of it, which is neither useful, nor polite.  When I wrote about my level I meant I always staid at a level between beginner and intermediate, not that I progressed from beginner to intermediate. If you are in doubt, simply ask for clarifications. If you believe this Chess community is a friendly place, then please revert the changes  
  > **username_9**: You seem new here, so you're probably learning how the site works: It appears the person who edited your answer is not a moderator - anyone with a high enough reputation can edit a question or answer. Generally one does not "ask permission" to do this - they either make an edit themselves, or leave a comment. In this case, I think the edit was intended to eliminate confusion. You can always edit the question yourself (as you did earlier) to return it to the original meaning; perhaps a different phrase, such as "advanced beginner" instead of "beginner to intermediate" would avoid confusion.  
  > **username_8**: Actually no, I am not new to this site because I come from another Stack Exchange community and, whoever changed my message, may have spoken to me before doing that. People should not be obligated to constantly track their messages to make sure that they are not mutilated by some other 'super active' contributor. Luckily, in other Stack Exchange communities things like this do not happen and I doubt if I will ever write anything else here  
  > **username_9**: In truth, looking at your history, I don't see a lot of posts on those other sites you've visited. I see you've been on StackOverflow, where it seems to me that editing questions and answers is done even more than on here. While I understand that it can be upsetting to have someone edit your post (I've had it done many times and it was upsetting the first time for me too), I think you're reacting poorly.  Allowing site members with high enough reputation to make edits is intended to make the site better. (continued)  
  > **username_9**: You write well, but there are many people on these sites who make nearly incomprehensible posts. Such questions wouldn't be answered and such answers wouldn't be understood if someone didn't clean up those posts. Then there are typos for which asking permission to make a fix would be a burden on both editor and original poster. I'm sure @brian-towers was trying to clear up an ambiguity; unfortunately, he seems to have guessed the wrong meaning. It only takes a couple clicks to "rollback" an edit, so this doesn't seem so onerous to me. Hopefully you'll continue to contribute to this site.  
  
  ---
  
  