Just yesterday, I saw someone post a message on a forum that included the statement that the three original books of D&D were incomplete and incomprehensible. It's a standard complaint, and I sort of ignore it or, in the past, occasionally accepted it as true, even though I felt I could understand the LBBs.
But now, I'm challenging the conventional wisdom, and not on the grounds of "you attacked my favorite game!" I'm seriously asking: Is it really incomplete? Is it really incomprehensible?
It references Chainmail in several places, and suggests using the Outdoor Survival map (and refers to the terrain effects of that game.) In that sense, the LBBs are incomplete, but that's not a whole lot of missing material.
True, re-reading the LBBs has revealed a lot that I thought I knew, but didn't. But you know what? Almost all of those things I thought I knew were actually from later editions, which radically changed many elements. There's even material that's not in the LBBs, but is in later editions, like initiative. But do we really need initiative?
Spell and monster descriptions are missing a lot of details that are in later editions, but I'm not a big fan of the later stat blocks for spells and monsters. Most of that information is stuff I don't use. Casting time? Frequency? Intelligence? I either skip it or make it up, as needed.
So what's really wrong with the LBBs?