Below 1600 you would do better working on gereral opening theory and honing your tactics.
It's difficult to disagree with this statement as such but I wouldn't wish to deter a lower than 1600 player from getting one of these books in a chosen line. Working through a starting out book could well provide an important part of studying general opening theory as well as making a good start on the long term study of an opening. So long as you make opening study no more than around 20 or 30 percent of your study time and concentrate more on tactics and endgame you should do well.
BTW I learned this the hard way...by spending to much time on openings when I would have benefited more from tactics. I was told but I didn't listen and there are so many tempting opening books around and studying endings is that much harder. But I don't mind. I enjoyed it and now I'm moving over to study other areas of the game more.
If it's rapid improvement you're after then openings are a bottomless pit it's easy to fall into and get lost in. Even if you come out of an opening slightly down, if you have better tactics and good endgame knowledge you're most likely to win.
New to the site and new to the forums.
I have a few of the starting out series. I would recommend something different though. Watson has a pair of books called mastering the chess openings. Vol I is e4, Vol II is d4. You get some of the same effect as having the starting out series, and in some ways his books are better. With them you can look a little bit at a lot of openings rather than a lot at a single opening (or opening group). And the conceptual stuff he gives in the first part of Vol I is pretty valuable.
I have to second what DF said, with the caveat that once you've done what he recommended and found an opening you really like and plan to stick with, then go ahead and get a good intro book that specializes in that opening. Just don't spend too much time on it such that you neglect the other areas.
Also, under 1600 (and maybe over 1600 too, at least to a point) tactics study will pay off the fastest but if you're doing that and beginning to see some results (finding the 1 move shots, not dropping your pieces very often) its ok to supplement the tactics study with a basic positional primer such as "Weapons of Chess" by Pandolfini, which can be read quickly and without a board, and then Simple Chess by Stean which is another quick primer that's more focused with a bit more meat to it.
My Impression of the Starting Out series from reviews is that they're a bit hit or miss. Many are quite good for what they're intended to be, while a few have gotten some pretty bad reviews. If you go with one check the reviews before you buy just to make sure it isn't one of the lemons.
Originally posted by scandiumI agree with these caveats.
I have to second what DF said, with the caveat that once you've done what he recommended and found an opening you really like and plan to stick with, then go ahead and get a good intro book that specializes in that opening. Just don't spend too much time on it such that you neglect the other areas.
Also, under 1600 (and maybe over 1600 too, at least to with one check the reviews before you buy just to make sure it isn't one of the lemons.
Scandium is correct in that in any series of books there will be good ones and bad ones as, although they follow a similiar format, the authors differ.
Also never ever neglect Tactics and Strategy. My more general books are very old. Judgment and Planning in Chess by Max Euwe, Modern (circa 1970) Chess Tactics by Ludek Packman and Batsfords Complete Chess Strategy series (3 books) by Ludek Packam. It may be time to upgrade these 5 books also but the principles do still apply and even after 30 years haven't changed much. I flipped through them last night and surprised myself how much in them I still don't know (or certainly don't implement) even after all these years. These sort of books are very useful for the 1600 player seeking to improve but as I have said so many times just spending a little longer on each move and blunder checking things can reap enormous results
Originally posted by Dragon FireI have some of these as well (Judgement and Planning and Modern Chess Strategy) though I haven't read them. Euwe is probably one of my favourite authors and over the years I've read both his "Logical Chess" and "Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur". His manner of hammering on the three elements in a game (force, space, time) were probably the first basic strategic principles I really internalized and still often focus mainly on those 3 elements when evaluating a position or trying to come up with a plan.
Also never ever neglect Tactics and Strategy. My more general books are very old. Judgment and Planning in Chess by Max Euwe, Modern (circa 1970) Chess Tactics by Ludek Packman and Batsfords Complete Chess Strategy series (3 books) by Ludek Packam. It may be time to upgrade these 5 books also but the principles do still apply and even after 30 yea ...[text shortened]... t spending a little longer on each move and blunder checking things can reap enormous results
The Art of Checkmate and the The Art of Combinations are 2 ancient classics as well, though I think the 2nd best read either after a first tactics primer or by a player who has already a decent grasp of the various tactical motifs.
Actually most of my chess library of about 25 books is composed of the older classics (many of them Dover reprints) that seem to have stood up well to the test of time.
Originally posted by scandiumNo doubt, thinking in terms of space, time and force is useful. However, I think Kasparov's Material-Time-Quality is an even more general concept than Euwe's. After all, it's not space itself that is so advantageous, it is the fact that it allows one more maneuverability, coordination and better squares. The quality of the army increases. On the other hand, space can be a disadvantage if the more cramped opponent is better developed and can exert strong pressure on his opponent's advanced pawns or if the development that gave the space advantage wasn't very good. Kasparov explains it better than I can in his interesting book, How Life Imitates Chess.
I have some of these as well (Judgement and Planning and Modern Chess Strategy) though I haven't read them. Euwe is probably one of my favourite authors and over the years I've read both his "Logical Chess" and "Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur". His manner of hammering on the three elements in a game (force, space, time) were probably the first basic strateg ...[text shortened]... lassics (many of them Dover reprints) that seem to have stood up well to the test of time.
Originally posted by exigentskyNot familiar with that one, Euwe was to me I suppose what Chernev was for so many others. I read, and later re-read his Logical Approach to Chess, and then much later his (more advanced) Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur (twice).
No doubt, thinking in terms of space, time and force is useful. However, I think Kasparov's Material-Time-Quality is an even more general concept than Euwe's. After all, it's not space itself that is so advantageous, it is the fact that it allows one more maneuverability, coordination and better squares. The quality of the army increases. On the other han ...[text shortened]... d. Kasparov explains it better than I can in his interesting book, How Life Imitates Chess.
The latter is kind of a cross between Chernev's Logical Chess and The Amateur's Mind. Like Logical Chess he explains the reasoning behind each move (though only ever once) and why it was objectively good or bad. Even though his explanations are grounded in strategic terms, he often demonstrates why the move also makes sense tactically (and there are many tactical games and variations in the book) and does a good job of showing the interplay between strategy and tactics.
Most of my chess books are pretty old, in fact I even have Howard Staunton's "Chess Player's Handbook", from the later part of the 19th century, I think, though I've only ever flipped through it. The language is really quaint and its entertaining to read parts of (if only because his writing style is so wordy and convoluted).