My coach does not like Jeremy Silman...

All that means is Silman is quickly on his way out and now who gets the market for win now and win quick chessers? Who wants a lot of vocal 1400-1600s to boast about them as an author, yet these players are maxed out? Look at the thread and see how many vowing to buy all your books no matter the quality. So now who will take over the market for the egosticial? Bartholomew? ChessNetwork? BackyardProfessor?

Dont be surprised to see more butt-kissing as the endorsement of Silman will be a key moment in the sphere of every self-important center of the universe kid chesser out there.

Who's "BackyardProfessor"?

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-backyard-professor

"... [Silman] would go on to write a series of excellent books on chess strategy. …" - GM Joel Benjamin (2018), writing about a 1979 encounter with Silman

@kindaspongey - thanks!

There is no help like self help.

What I don’t understand after reading all these comments here is whether Silman’s books contain a wrong approach to chess or a very elementary one. If it is the first case could you please give an example? If it is the second why can’t one after finishing Silman’s books move on to other writers? Why does everyone seem to think they are mutually exclusive?

Silman's earlier editions of HTRYC were rightly criticized for being too rule dependent.  He completely rewrote it in the 4th edition to address that main complaint. His book is still heavily dependent on rules, some of which are only discussed in detail in his book.

I have known many titled players, but very very few credit Silman's books for their improvement. I've known many Class players (U2000 over the board) who love Silman's work.

"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)

You have used this quote many times. I have read much of Nunn's works. I'm guessing this is either in a book review or in Grandmaster Chess Move by Move, which was published in 2006. Do you have an exact source of the quote? 

Btw, I did a web search of the Nunn quote above. It showed that @kindaspongey has trotted this quote out about a dozen times on this site, and several times on this thread alone.

Secrets of Practical Chess (2nd Ed.)

By the way, do you feel an obligation to be willing to provide sources for your claims?

Another question to answer a question. Sadly I don't have the second edition, only the first. I will dig up the quote tho and find out whether it really was taken in context.  I'm guessing you don't have the page number. 

Added: as far as I can tell, Secrets of Practical Chess (2nd Ed.) was copyrighted in 2007. It's interesting that you've repeated the same error ~a dozen times or more. 

To answer the question about whether I cite my source. Yes, quite often I do. And when I do give a source, I try to be as precise as possible. There are times when I seek to protect my sources if they have told me something in an expectation that their name won't be tossed around on the internet. 

Does "Secrets of Practical Chess (2nd Ed.)"

look like a question to you?

What can be presumed if you go silent on this subject without giving details of what you found?

Of course, I didn't have it memorized. After a little searching, I found the book. See page 230.

I went by the year given by the introduction. John Nunn seemed to me to have referred to his revisions as if they had been completed. This sort of thing:

"... My treatment of this subject is strictly focused on how computers can help the over-the-board player, … I have ignored the use of computers in correspondence play … Two concrete examples of computer-assisted opening preparation show how … A second new chapter … gives advice on what to look for in a chess book and how to … Two sample book reviews give examples of …"

I imagine that there can be some delay between the completion of the writing of a book and the processing of the copyright.

I did not ask whether you quite often site your source. I asked if you feel an "obligation" to be willing to provide sources for your claims. I guess we can go by the degree to which you address the issue of obligation. Perhaps, the past can also give some indication.

"... Capa didn't recognize Lasker's resignation, and the players agreed to play for the title that Lasker held. ..." (February 19, 2018)

Ever give a "precise as possible" source for that?

Here you go:

‘I obtained from Havana a much better offer than I had been tendered anywhere else, and just as I was on the point of communicating with Dr Lasker about it, the cable brought the news that Dr Lasker had resigned the championship, which, according to one of the clauses of our agreement, made me the world’s champion. This same clause existed in the agreement entered into in 1913 between Dr Lasker and Rubinstein for a match for the world’s championship. There is no other fair way to arrange this matter; if the champion accepts a challenge and afterwards does not play, although his challenger has meanwhile stood by the letter of the agreement, the title of champion must go to the challenger. Any other arrangement would be most unfair to the challenger. Nevertheless, I preferred to play rather than to come to championship honours without actually winning them over the board. To that effect I made a second journey to Holland (this time all the way from Cuba) to put the matter before Dr Lasker, to whom, meanwhile, I had written about Havana’s offer, and asked him at the same time to meet me at The Hague. There, in August, a second agreement was reached …’[emphasis added]

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablancalasker.html

As Edward Winter points out, there was a dispute over whether Lasker's abdication was acceptable. The parties involved often acted as it was, but the larger chess world "took scant notice" of it and considered Lasker the World Champion until he was defeated in match play. 

The whole build up to the Lasker-Capa match was fascinating and has been well covered by Edward Winter and others. There were times when Capa accepted that he was World Champion by default and times when he publicly refused to acknowledge it. Lasker abdicated the title and indicated he did not want to play the match with Capa. Capa went out of his way to make sure the match happened, but for the purposes of the match accepted that he would defend the title. 

The contract negotiations show one aspect of his thinking, but he also played to the public and acted the hero who refused the title without playing for it. I hope you don't derail this discussion further. If you wish to discuss the matter again, why not post in the appropriate forum. 

In the mean time, I still don't have access to Nunn's second edition of Secrets of Practical Play. 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. 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. And 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. 

Was the February 19, 2018 statement about what Capablanca "preferred" or about what "the players agreed to"?