Given how many chess players there are on the planet, it goes without saying that reading habits vary greatly. So greatly that generalisations are best avoided. A notable factor is that we are going digital and the necessity for chess theory passed many years ago already. There’s so much content on youtube alone it’s ridiculous not to mention all the apps springing up. A pleasure of reading supersedes the direction chess theory is moving in but if you do enjoy reading, what do you read?
It’s always been the case that as a literary genre, chess is decadent for a number of reasons. This doesn’t mean there’s nothing worth reading but it does mean you need to be circumspect when buying new material. It’s always been like that and unlikely to improve much. But what do you do with the classics on your bookshelf? How often do we re-read? I can’t answer that because its down to you. How much effort you put into reading is dependant on what you get out of it, generalisations aren’t worth it.
You should return to those publications you cherish most and you shouldn’t just allow your books to gather dust. How much more than that I can say I don’t know. I just assumed it goes without saying that you should have a take on the genre as a whole before making decisions.
For me, I still love Chess for Tigers by Simon Webb and Rowson is still my favourite author. Not much more to add really.
I think we can safely say there are far better things to read than chess, so to end I suggest you read other stuff.
Lastly, I don’t think it remains an open question as to why most chess literature is centred around improvement and not contentment. If you haven’t worked out the sales pitch by now, you’ve got some catching up to do…no time like the present.
Mark, 0859, October 30th
A lit room where I belong most. Laksi, Bangkok
McCreadyandChess 
Leave a Reply