Capablanca book

Have not seen the Chess Primer from Capa, I am looking at the moment at the Chess Fundamentals. Is the Chess Primer oriented towards total beginners, more like some stuff from Pandolfini ?

It explains how the rook moves.

A somewhat opposing view about modern authors focused on beginners, by IM John Watson. Here he is reviewing Tarrasch's book, The Game of Chess, but the conclusion is the same with regards to modern 'beginner/novice' authors (Silman, Pandolfini, Alburt, etc.)

He wrote:

"I would describe his teaching method as a 'standard positions' approach, in that he believes that exposing the student to a great number of fundamental and essentially-recurring positions will develop his or her intuition, a process, in his words, 'analogous to that a mother uses to teach her child to talk'. For me, this immediately raised the question of why so few of the novice's books we see in our super-bookstores takes this approach. Remarkably, Tarrasch gives a clearer and better description of how chess is typically played than I see in our modern books, which tend to be full of broad advice and invalid generalities. One can easily see why he was considered the preeminent teacher of his time: he was not trying to fool anyone.

(...)

Of course, chess has become far more complex and there are a lot more 'typical structures' these days, not to mention that Tarrasch's phrase 'should be able to cope with any situation' was terribly exaggerated even at the time he made it. But I have to say that you could do much worse with a novice student than to forget all those popular books and series and simply teach directly from this book. Chess has advanced a great deal, but looking through this book, I'm not convinced that chess pedagogy has done so, at least at the elementary level."

Here is the link, btw

https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/looking-back-part-1

"... I'm convinced that Silman's [Complete Endgame Course] will take its place in history as one of the most popular endgame books ever. It has already caught on with the average player in a big way, confirming Silman's status as the king of instructional writers. He writes in a clear and casual style, and time and again has shown the ability to reach those who feel intimidated by the lofty approach that a grandmaster will often take. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all

He did not mention Silman himself...I was just citing the modern authors named in the review you posted.....but I don't know whom he actually refers to.

I tend to agree with him though....that current novice/beginner authors tend to lack substance, compared to past classics like those of Capablanca, Tarrasch, Lasker, Euwe, Maizelis, etc....indeed it seems that recent books did not evolve at the elementary level, as he said....one exception that I can remember is the Steps Method, which is actually something more systematic and different....Jeff Coakley's books also seem good...but I have not tried them....as I did with the steps method.

Not in the 2000 quote, but, in the 2007 quote, there he is.

Is the same amount of "substance" appropriate for all beginners? At any rate, perhaps one should be cautious about general statements about "current novice/beginner authors".

The exact words Watson uses are:

"Tarrasch gives a clearer and better description (...) than I see in our modern books",

"you could do much worse (...) than to forget all those popular books and series" and

"chess has advanced a great deal (...) I'm not convinced that chess pedagogy has done so, at least at the elementary level."

...all the other general statements are mine

I believe that the amount of substance is different from all beginners....but I also believe that it's easier to extract substance from where it exists than from where it doesn't.

I was reading the soviet chess primer comments around this forum and an IM user here (pfren) said something that stuck to my mind:

"Uses" or used in 2000? Is it safe to assume that he inflexibly held to those views subsequently?

"... I'm convinced that Silman's [Complete Endgame Course] will take its place in history as one of the most popular endgame books ever. It has already caught on with the average player in a big way, confirming Silman's status as the king of instructional writers. He writes in a clear and casual style, and time and again has shown the ability to reach those who feel intimidated by the lofty approach that a grandmaster will often take. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all

Ever looked at pfren's page?

"Available for complete INDIVIDUAL courses to ambitious advanced young players, aiming at International titles."

Think his comments are necessarily appropriate for someone not seeking "international titles"? Another IM view of The Soviet Chess Primer:

"... The title might suggest it is for beginners, but that is not the case. [The Soviet Chess Primer] does start off with some basic positions, but quickly moves on to much more advanced material including chapters on positional play and techniques of calculation." - IM John Donaldson

Would it be safe to assume that "substance" does not exist in a book with less substance than the Soviet Primer? Anyway, here is a Soviet Primer sample so that people can get some idea for themselves:

https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Soviet_Chess_Primer-extract.pdf

And here is a review:

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/the-soviet-chess-primer/

He never mentioned Silman in his 2000 review.....he was talking about modern authors in general....

I was the one who mentioned him :-) 

Is it safe to assume that Watson inflexibly held to those 2000 views, subsequently?

I've actually read his page before you sent it....and I believe the profile of his students has nothing to do with his opinion of the book...he even says the soviet chess primer is not hard at all....he probably giver hard stuff to them... :-) Dvoretsky, Aagard, etc...

Is he necessarily the best choice for thoughts about what is appropriate for those who are not "ambitious advanced young players, aiming at International titles"?

Here is a quote from that review I mentioned:

"... The breakneck pace of the book and the complex examples preclude me from thinking it appropriate for the beginner. …"

no idea...he could have changed his view...or maybe Silman was not part of the modern authors he mentioned....or maybe he is just talking about his endgame book....I truly don't know....again, I mentioned Silman, not him.

He uses the words popular, clear, casual, suited to those who feel intimidated.....this can be understood in a number of ways

Does "no idea" mean it is not safe to assume?

it's not safe...indeed...also it's not safe to assume he changed his view....I don't know what conclusion you're trying to reach

"... Silman's Complete Endgame Course ... confirming Silman's status as the king of instructional writers. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all

does king mean good? or does it mean popular, casual?

is it safe to assume his view is still the same? 12 years later? :-D