… Please post the complete paragraph that you quoted from so that we may all see the context of the quote you have repeated more than a dozen times. ...
I do not have the book handy at the moment, but I should be able to give you more, later today. May we look forward to you addressing the issue of how you feel about the idea of an obligation to be willing to provide "as precise as possible" sources for your claims?
… the quote ... It really does go against most of what I have read of Nunn's work. He is usually quite complimentary of an author before he points out the flaws of the author's book. ...
Do you have an "as precise as possible" quote of John Nunn indicating that "flaws" "go against" the possibility of an overall evaluation such as: "a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms." A number of pages after 230, John Nunn did discuss flaws in the Silman book, but, as far as I can tell, he continued to believe his overall evaluation.
… Nunn ... he has been a strong advocate of rule independence and concrete analysis in all of his works, including the first edition of the same book.
Do you have an "as precise as possible" Nunn quote that goes against the existence of "many important ideas" and the potential value of explaining them "in clear terms"?
I'm just pointing out that at the moment, @kindaspongey has posted no less than 12 responses to my last comment.
I'm just pointing out that at the moment, @kindaspongey has posted no less than 12 responses to my last comment.
"As precise as possible", how many post numbers are there that would fall strictly between #703 and #715? In the Capablanca quote, was there any sentence that established the correctness of the February 19, 2018 statement about what "the players agreed to"? After the Capablanca quote, about how many nonquote sentences did you write?
… Please post the complete paragraph that you quoted from so that we may all see the context of the quote you have repeated more than a dozen times. ...
I do not have the book handy at the moment, but I should be able to give you more, later today. May we look forward to you addressing the issue of how you feel about the idea of an obligation to be willing to provide "as precise as possible" sources for your claims?
"I am not saying that non-GMs should not write chess books. On the contrary, many fine books are written by players who are not grandmasters. The point is that the author's skills have to match what he is trying to achieve. You don't have to be a grandmaster to collect together some simple tactics positions which can be used for training purposes by club players. Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is an example of a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms. Since Silman (who is an IM, but not a GM) sticks to established ideas and is not creating new principles of his own, there is no problem with the result. Difficulties start to arise when an author tackles something beyond his ability. Examples of this are so numerous that it hardly seems fair to single one out, but The Batsford Chess Encyclopaedia by Nathan Divinsky (Batsford, 1990) does stand out in my mind. To write a good general chess encyclopaedia requires both technical and historical knowledge. Despite the fact that much of the material in this book is duplicated from an earlier encyclopaedia by Harry Golombek, it is still riddled with technical errors. I am less of an expert on the historical side, so I shall refer readers to http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/divinsky.html for further details."
can any one put the titles of Silman's books?
Thank you very much
I bagged on Silman in the late 1990s at a chess tournament in Los Angeles. There were tons of GMs at the tournament and Silman was going over games of people in one of the side rooms (he wasn't playing). He had quite the crowd and was mocking some of the player's poor games. When he was done analyzing games he chatted for a bit and he started talking about "chess groupies" who kept hanging around him. I blurted out "Are any women?". He wasn't amused.
If you want to gain rating at a good pace then you should obviously learn important stuff. I have never heard anyone say that a book is bad because it spoon-feeds you knowledge because that is the purpose of a good book. In a respectful way I would recommend you get a new coach because your current one doesn't sound particularly nice. Also, Jeremy Silman isn't just a random author he is one of the best chess books author the best chess book authors that exists and his books are always one of the first recommendations I hear from people. Well I wish you luck on finding a new coach or dealing with your current one. 😀
The part about there is no bad book is true. The teacher sounds very opinionated. That is not necessarily a bad quality. Of the 5 books he recommended. I own 3 of them! Jeremy Silman has produced some wonderful books I am sure. I have NEVER read one. I guess I am with the teacher as far as study material!
I like Silman. His explanations discus plans/ideas as opposed to just calling out the moves. I wish he made instructional videos.
I like Silman. His explanations discus plans/ideas as opposed to just calling out the moves. I wish he made instructional videos.
Actually, Silman has an introductory video course from 2015 called "How to Play Chess:
Lessons from an International Master." I watched it on Kanopy!
Yes!
may he rest in peace…
If you want to gain rating at a good pace then you should obviously learn important stuff. I have never heard anyone say that a book is bad because it spoon-feeds you knowledge because that is the purpose of a good book. In a respectful way I would recommend you get a new coach because your current one doesn't sound particularly nice. Also, Jeremy Silman isn't just a random author he is one of the best chess books author the best chess book authors that exists and his books are always one of the first recommendations I hear from people. Well I wish you luck on finding a new coach or dealing with your current one. 😀
This is wrong.
… I hope you don't derail this discussion further. If you wish to discuss the matter again, why not post in the appropriate forum. ...
Who was it who, in this forum, brought up the issue of sources? Who was it who, in this forum, brought up the issue of being "as precise as possible"?