It seems the more I speak to people about De La Maza'a Rapid Chess Improvement or the Seven Circles Method all I seem to get is scorn.

"Silman hated it...so I hate it." Is very common. Don't get my wrong Silman is an excellent author and a more than capable teacher. Who can say they haven't benefited from something he's written? However...

De La Maza has a point as well in his book. You have to go through the nitty gritty of tactics to get anywhere far in chess. After just finishing the Seven Circles for the first time I can honestly say that my tactics have drastically improved. I am seeing possibilities on the board that I didn't before and I can honestly say my "chess vision" is far sharper. I'm able to plan ahead farther and can see more possibilities on the board.

IMO he was also right when he said "tactics teach you many things for free." He was contrasting peole who know the chess "rules" and people who concretely know tactics. His example (I believe) was that an opponent of his example player didn't castle early enough "Oh he doesn't know chess he hasn't castled yet." However if you are stronger in tactics you can know real ways to punish your opponent for that mistake.

Anyway sorry to preach I just found this book helpful and would like to hear the Chess.com community's input....

My former coach endorsed De La Maza for putting to simple words what many a author never really did before him => Getting better at tactics takes blood, tears and sweat ... not a one-night stand with a puzzle book when you feel bored!!!!

His technique is pretty much navy seal training for tactics. 

I can understand why his work has polarized the chess community. Let me take a stab at figuring out the criterion for "hating or loving him"

If you belong to category A, a naturally talented player who never found tactics all that difficult right from the beginning, and shot up the tournament rating ladder till the high 1800-1900s before even bothering to pick up a chess book ... and then actually "began" studying chess from a strategic standpoint to break into the 2000s and above : Yes, you'll think La Maza is delusional into thinking tactics is "everything". Yes, you'll think he's nothing but a hack who made expert, quit playing to save his rating and is now selling snake-oil like a late night infomercial.

Yes, I'm sure we've seen these wunderkind players at clubs. They're 1300 one day, 1700 one month later and you don't even see them anymore because they're seeking stronger competition. Though the point to note is, these people are a minority!!!

Now If you belong to category B, a player who loves the game oh-so-dearly but does not possess natural gifts and stagnates in the lower 1100-1500 rung of the ELO/USCF ladder because the  "1001 Ways to sacrifice / mate" book really did not come through for you, De La Maza's writing will be a blessing, if you are willing to put in the work.

I think the vast majority of us belong in this bin. The strugglers, the "I've got a mortgage and bills to pay so please let me win 3 games out of 5 this weekend, oh please" warriors. The "I wish I could study tactics more efficiently but all I've got are these insipid puzzle books" people we know so well.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you, like me, have to struggle to get better without the prodigy-like rating boost ( no different from a mushroom grab in Super Mario Bros!) you'll respect and appreciate what De Le Maza is doing for the "weaker" player.

Isn't it obvious in other walks of life (like weight loss, marathon training) to have a rigid program setting goals for you to get to where you want to be? His book merely does that - helps the improving player set a course to build his tactical strength to that of an expert player. Nothing more!

If you are still an idiot when it comes to positional knowledge, well, don't expect to go into a hardware store and ask for milk. :)

I think his book runs the risk of killing the love for the game that many amateurs have if they try his methods.

Besides, who really has the time and energy to do exactly what he says? I certainly don't.

Maybe so...but if you truly want to become great I think its invaluable to get a good grasp on tactics. I guess I'm one of those people who wants to get better not just play on the weekends. De La Maza didn't kill my love for chess but actually made it more enjoyable for me. BTW I'm currently in the military and married and I found time...so anyone else certainly should be able to. Sure I had to miss a few days here and there but I finished and was determined to do so.

Well you've hit the nail right there ... how much investment (reading, studying or worse yet, attempting the Maza 7 circles of hell program) in chess can be made before you cross the fun-barrier into the "this feels like work"? I'm guessing we're all pretty different in terms of our "fun coefficient".

Perhaps this is another reason many of us feel it might be an excess to follow his methods.