Yeah, it sucks.
Another is the otherwise excellent Tal's winning chess combinations, where the preceding text sometimes gives a clue, but often not. What is especially infuriating, is that the diagram somtimes starts with a Black mistake and then shows how White takes advantage.
You make a valid point and should probably contact the publishers, but it shouldn't drive you crazy. It is often useful not to think whose turn it is and just evaluate the position. Come up with ideas for both sides.
In the puzzle book, the earlier chapters are mostly instructional anyway, so evaluate the position and read the text. In the exercises section you just need to read a little to see whose turn it is.
In the endgame book, it's a good idea to come up with moves and plans for both sides, and then see what the text says.
You make a valid point and should probably contact the publishers, but it shouldn't drive you crazy. It is often useful not to think whose turn it is and just evaluate the position. Come up with ideas for both sides.
In the puzzle book, the earlier chapters are mostly instructional anyway, so evaluate the position and read the text. In the exercises section you just need to read a little to see whose turn it is.
In the endgame book, it's a good idea to come up with moves and plans for both sides, and then see what the text says.
I did sent an email to Russell yesterday - will keep you updated when they reply.
I agree with your idea only partially - we can evaluate static features of position without knowing the side to move. However in highly dynamic and sharp positions changing side to move can change evaluation completely.
Knowing side to move still doesn't prevent me from asking a question - what if it was other side's move. I do it sometimes in tactical exercises to find proper defense against the tactical blow.
Yes let me know.
Re evaluating, I meant also coming up with the best continuations... of course that might require spending almost twice as long on a given position but then you could think of it as doubling your puzzles for free :)
Diagrams in some of chess books drive me crazy because they don't indicate which side is to move. My method of working through book examples is to try to understand the position by myself and only then to see the book analysis. If the side to move is not indicated I am forced to read the text first.
Some publishers are very consistent in this sense. Gambit Publications, Quality Chess – each diagram in every book has W or B or white/black triangle or square next to it. But many other publishers put it in one book, but not in the next one. I don't get this – shouldn't it be a standard in XXI century chess publishing.
Here is my Hall of Shame:
The ChessCafe Puzzle Book, Muller (published by Russell)
100 Endgames You Must Know, de la Villa (published by New in Chess)
Back to Basics – Strategy, Beim (published by Russell)
The worst thing is that those are excellent books probably belonging to chess classics. Why can't the editors do their work properly?
Does anybody else have such a problem? Am I demanding too much?