Jeremy Silman

Are his books as good as their reputation?

As good as their good reputation?

If his books are as good as his Chess Mentor content, then yes.

I think so too, but I want more opinions from people who have actually read his books.

You will find 2 schools of thought with Silman.  You either like his books or you dont.  I personally like his books, and think they are very well done.

What are the reasons that some people think his books are bad?

The ideas aren't new, but they're worthwhile and presented in an easy to understand fashion.

I'd say not as good as their reputation only because they seem to have such a high reputation :)  They're good books.

I've read snippets of his books, and it seems that he repeats certain themes all the time.

Its not so much that his books are bad, but the reason i hear people say dont use his books is because he has never produced a world class player.

Interesting. I still think his books are excellent, though.

I agree.  Its not liek he reinvented the wheel.  I think what Silman does so well is how he presents the material.  Obviously we all learn at a different rate, and different ways of learning appeal to us, but someone else you may want to check out is Igor Smirnov's course.  His advertising is really cheesey, but how he presents things made a big difference for me. 

Again...none of what Silman, Smirnov, or anyone else presents is a magic pill, its just finding an author, coach, video, etc. that appeals to you.

I find Sillyman just downright painful to digest, unfunny, and writings filled with deplorable analogies:  "Imagine you are a spider, wrapping up it's prey." That is just so corny it's crap.

His disciple, Backyard Professor on youtube, shows just how cockamamie these ideas can be in motion.  

More critically, he's just so plain wrong about so much that I must speak.

1. Could not be more wrong about the Grob.  Doesn't even know that it's a gambit (2. h3 what a wuss).  

2.  "Silman's pawn pointing" theory is so contrived it's laughable

3.  well, his stance of knights over bishops is just dead wrong.  

4.  Chess mentor is a boring chatty Cathy that tells instead of shows, on the one hand wasting time on simple mates, and then on the end of spectrum demand you to match grandmaster moves (which you can just research and match lol), as though you have no style of your own.  

I prefer three dozen writers over his fluff, (Nunn is hardcore) he is right about engines, and I do like reading his weekly piece for free instead of for the last two decades paying buku bucks to feed his cats in return for regurgitated reruns.

There is much better chess writing in the world, don't waste energy on "Reassess Your Chess"

It's a retread.  

Assess in the first place.      

So according to you, to be a good author you have to be funny (which silman is). According to you, his analogies are corny (not true). He's wrong about the grob (he doesn't even know it's a gambit!). Actually, he  just because he went with the alternative 2.h3, and said that the opening goes against opening principles, which is correct. I find his writing to be witty,lively, instructive, and at a high level.

Silman doesn't say knights are worth more than bishops.

The pawn pointing idea isn't his, it's very old, and is based on logic fundamental to chess.  I.e. that space can be an advantage.

Lol, keep playing boring chess then, lackeys! 

I haven't opened a Silman book in 10 years...

I feel like I'm getting old

More critically, he's just so plain wrong about so much that I must speak.

1. Could not be more wrong about the Grob.  Doesn't even know that it's a gambit (2. h3 what a wuss).  The Grob is an opening, and all opeings there is personal prefernce. 

2.  "Silman's pawn pointing" theory is so contrived it's laughable - Silman did not invent "pawn pointing"

3.  well, his stance of knights over bishops is just dead wrong. - Please post the blanket statement where Silman says he prefers knights over bishops?  His books constantly stress piece activity, and if the position is close, he will stress knights over bishops, but in an open position, he will stress bishops over knights.

4.  Chess mentor is a boring chatty Cathy that tells instead of shows, on the one hand wasting time on simple mates, and then on the end of spectrum demand you to match grandmaster moves (which you can just research and match lol), as though you have no style of your own. - Chess Mentor tells and shows, because you get an answer to EVERY single move made, whether the move is correct or not.  So yes, it does show you why a move is corrrect or not.

I prefer three dozen writers over his fluff, (Nunn is hardcore) he is right about engines, and I do like reading his weekly piece for free instead of for the last two decades paying buku bucks to feed his cats in return for regurgitated reruns. - OK...you have named 1, now name the other 35.

There is much better chess writing in the world, don't waste energy on "Reassess Your Chess" - Please list books like Reasess Your Chess, that are better.

l prefer bruce pandolfini.and less expensive also.

Pandolfini put out excellnt books for beginners.

Lol, sorry, not wasting time looking for something that's wrong anyway (N over B) especially for a wuss hiding behind anonymity.  You wanna find it, you search for it, it's in his columns weekly).  

He says it over and over (with so much qualification, backpeddling, couching, and counterexamples that you are bound to miss it)  He must be a libra he is so wishy washy.

And you?  You've proven you're Silman's litigator and main defender as though he needs you ! Lol!  Quick rush to his defense!   Ha ha.

Seirawan for one; Kotov's better, Naroditsky, Tal, Bronstein, Kasparov, Nimzovitch, you know, real chessplayers, not excuse makers as to why "I'm still just stuck at IM."