I do own the book and it never gave me the sense the games, while entertaining, provided key insights to chess. Chernev's books have always a bit problematic. My understanding was that he was a USCF Expert at best. However, his very readable books had a lot of entertaining games to expose his readers to not only well known, even forgotten players. They also captured his love of the game and were a good attempt to pass that on to casual players.
At least he did not provide analysis that was deliberately wrong or games that were more fiction than fact. Before chess engines, the amount of incorrect analysis found in books, written by Grand Masters, was not insignificant.
I wonder if fitting the narrative to the result is a form of confirmation bias. Which may be inevitable when trying to understand the thought process of others, butt is good to be cognizant of.
Even if the analysis doesn't hold up to computer era standards, I still think the lessons can still be learned. Of course, the objective evaluation matters, but the ideas are still interesting.
I do own the book and it never gave me the sense the games, while entertaining, provided key insights to chess. Chernev's books have always a bit problematic. My understanding was that he was a USCF Expert at best. However, his very readable books had a lot of entertaining games to expose his readers to not only well known, even forgotten players. They also captured his love of the game and were a good attempt to pass that on to casual players.
At least he did not provide analysis that was deliberately wrong or games that were more fiction than fact. Before chess engines, the amount of incorrect analysis found in books, written by Grand Masters, was not insignificant.
I wonder if fitting the narrative to the result is a form of confirmation bias. Which may be inevitable when trying to understand the thought process of others, butt is good to be cognizant of.
Even if the analysis doesn't hold up to computer era standards, I still think the lessons can still be learned. Of course, the objective evaluation matters, but the ideas are still interesting.