Louis Blair wrote:
Mike Murray wrote (Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:40:42 -0700):

7 Good post. An editorial summary and citing sources
7 as well as dates for the quotes might have been useful.

_
Dates WERE included. I would imagine that there
would not be much trouble finding source information
by using Google. If Mike Murray wants to write a
summary, I may include it on the next occasion that
I post the information.

FWIW: I have seen Sierawan's series and it is quite good.
In addition, it lacks the problems which often plague older
works, several of which were highly recommended above.

One such problem is being seriously out-of-date with
regard to things like opening theory and practice. Another
issue for many readers would be that say, Chernev's books
are written in archaic notation, as they were typed up on
what was once known as a "typewriter" -- a crude
mechanical device for smacking the paper with metal
thingies, shaped in the form of letters of the alphabet.
If the "typist", as they were once called, had to relieve
himself while pounding away at this crude device, he
simply walked outside to a small building called an
"outhouse", where there were stored up a plentiful
supply of corncobs (sans edible corn). Beneath this
small, foul-smelling building there was a deep pit, into
which bodily wastes were expelled. Which reminds
me, Keene must surely have something for the novice
player? Anyway, back to the better chess books.

Today, most chess books are written in algebraic
notation, which is more suitable for computers and which
is the de facto standard all over the world. It is no longer
absolutely necessary to learn both systems of notation,
algebraic sufficing in most cases. A singular exception
here would be Bobby Fischer's "My Sixty Memorable
Games", which is a mere vestige of its former self, as
"translated" by the Brits. Perhaps there are a few others,
but in the main, algebraic should suffice.

-- help bot