My coach does not like Jeremy Silman...

IM John Watson?

"It is a unique and thought-provoking work which deserves close examination"

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/what-should-the-average-player-study

he also says

 " Like most chess instructors that I know, I find many of the leading instructional books superficial, poorly written, and thoughtlessly imitative. The books that best fit this description tend to be the most advertised ones; these are aimed primarily at the large beginners market (while making some silly ‘beginner to master’ claim), with the author(s)’ idea of productive communication apparently limited to the back cover hype. So you won’t be surprised that I generally forego discussion of works of this type. Of course, there are certainly worthwhile exceptions out there (many published by small presses). Unfortunately, I don’t read much in this area and would rather utilize my limited reading time elsewhere. "

so I think he's trying (in pfrens lingo) to be a discriminating reviewer of the book

Note that thegreat_patzer @298 is quoting Watson's positive review of Silman's "The Reassess Your Chess Workbook."

Watson recognizes it as a valuable book for the average player who may have been stalled at his rating for a while.

What Silman critics ignore is that Silman is not writing for ambitious advanced players. His books are not the latest cutting-edge tools for players on sharp arcs to break into Expert or better.

It's not a crime or a character failing for a player not be ready for the Yusupov course or Zurich 1953 or the Dvoretsky Endgame Manual. Such players may still want to improve and there is a place for instructional books written for them.

And this proves my point that...he's for weak players. It's not 'bad' stuff...not by any means, just that it's only going to take you so far...95% of getting better (beyond that) is 'personal dedication/hard work' and to some degree 'unlearning' what got you there....but will get you no farther.

To clarify...we don't really know what the OP's coach had in mind, but by 'unlearn', I mean you have to think differently, keeping in the recesses of your mind what you have relied on before. One cannot progress very far if one relies on a 'one trick pony'...which is what Silman's method is. It's fine...but it's like training wheels. Think of it that way. It 'helps' you to walk...then to become proficient at walking, you have to learn not to fall over...then by practice you get better...and to run, you have to do it all differently...and keep refining. Poor analogy I guess, but I think you can get my point.

What exactly do you have in mind when you say "weak players"?

Below 1200? Below 1600? Below 2200? . . .

I ask because, in the preface, Silman says, "I wanted to give the serious chess student (from class D to Expert) a way to really improve his or her play . . ."

I'm thinking of getting the book—though I'm still on the fence about it. Opinions seem to be very divided.

What exactly is a "weak" player?

To clarify...we don't really know what the OP's coach had in mind...

Actually we do know what OP's coach had in mind:

He claims that Silman is "spoon-feeding" amateur players and not making them work hard enough to get better at chess.  It may not sound like much but this is a BIG CONFLICT between my enjoyment of Silman's books and my coach's philosophy of chess improvement.

So the OP was enjoying Silman's books and learning from them, but it didn't fit the coach's "No pain, no gain" philosophy.

Sounds like an ego trip on the coach's part to me.  Likewise most of the Silman critics.

"Jeremy Silman's HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS is an example of a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms." - GM John Nunn (2006)

Those books require work, that's why. So yeah i agree with those statements, stay away from Silman, Watson and all this modern authors who's only care is make easy money

There's books written more than 50 years ago that surpass and are even more updated for modern chess, like for example Isaac Lipnitsky "questions of modern chess theory". Don't be fooled

Blunderlots asked what I meant by 'weak players'.

 To some degree 'weak' is relative. But note that my first comment on this thread was, "Seriously though...has any player who ever 'made it' had Silman to claim for his success?"

So, I by 'weak', I essentially mean people who have not achieved...oh, lets say a title, like maybe IM or GM. That applies to most people of course. Therefore most people 'will' benefit from Silman's books...but they can only take you so far.   

I have several Silman books. By the 'one trick pony' allusion, I am of course referring to his essentially copywriting the term 'imbalances as in they are somehow the secret to chess success. It is not. Success is of course a relative term as well...use the previous definition if you need one.

As someone else pointed out, by using that or similar terms, other writers have touted the idea as well. The difference...for Silman, the alpha and omega of chess seems essetially to be imbalances.

In short, books - I don't care if it is a Silman book or any other - will ONLY GET YOU SO FAR. Without hard work on the part of the 'student', he will never go very far beyond what. Look at the trainers/coaches of those students who have 'made it'...they emphasize the nuts and bolts of perfecting what you do during  battle - getting you to calculate short branches (shrubs I call them...as opposed to Kotov's 'trees') 5ply accurately and quickly to name one example.  No 'reading and nodding'...stuff that is really 'hard' and requiring elbow grease. 

If one thinks they can ride 'knowledge' (as in imbalances...but simply knowledge in general...as in thinking 'more, more, more') to considerable success in their chess career...they are deluding themselves.

Thank you, really the ONLY point that I have been (fervently) trying to make.

For those interested in maybe looking into Silman, at least with the Amateur's Mind and Endgame, he pretty much lays out the basics of what you need to know to play master level beyond the opening. Of course realizing that in play will be dependent on really understanding the principles and then experiencing the many subtleties OTB over many games. And of course taking the time and having the make up to learn from mistakes.

That being said, Silman's certainly not the only or even best resource to get that info. I got the same general middle game stuff from, what I thought was the better delivered, New Ideas In Chess by Larry Evans. Endgame stuff from Reuben Fine's old classic and Pal Benko's very interesting Endgame Laboratory.

Regardless of who you read, a good test to see if you are getting it is to see if you can recognize why GMs like Carlsen, Kramnik etc. are making their middle and endgame moves.

So unless Silman books take readers all the way to IM or GM, the books are worthless or you will remain on your moral crusade to warn people Silman books won't make anyone an IM or a GM?

Chess improvement is a game of inches -- getting better a handful of points at a time. If Silman books guide some readers up anothe 25-50 points they've done a good job. If more, even more so.

All this talk about books...whos good...who isnt...whos qualified to judge...who isnt qualified to judge...who will get you to Gm...who wont get you to GM...who will get you to IM...who wont get you to IM...blah...blah...blah...Let me blow all your minds.  You know who helpd my game the most?  Igor Smirnov and those crazy courses he offers.  Followed by tactics trainer, and chess mentor.  

You know who helpd my game the most?  Igor Smirnov and those crazy courses he offers. 

Case in point. People learn from whom they learn from. I found some of Lev Alburt's books useful and I don't mind saying so.

Heck. My first chess enlightenment was reading Fred Reinfeld's "Complete Chess Course" when I was fourteen. It wasn't perfect but it got me solidly into the game.

Sheeesh...all this arguing over who is a good teacher, who writes good books, who is the most worthy to teach.  Use what works for you.  And for the love of God...Please quit with the arm chair book reviewing/coaching.  Its embarassing seeing untitled players trying to act like they are the be all end all.

I think I'll give Silman's "Reassess . . ." a try. I'm hoping it'll give me just that little bit of a nudge in positional insight to get me past my current hump.

And if it doesn't, that's okay, too. The world won't end if it doesn't. :D

I thought Silman's laying out his endgame book according to chess rating was brilliant. I'd like to see more chess books similarly structured.

Isnt that stating the obvious, that imbalances will only take you so far?  Just like openings will only take you so far, just like K+P endings will only take you so far, just like weak pawns/weak squares will only take  you so far.