Indeed, Fischer is one of the best commentators ever.
Handful of lines only in My 60 memorable games, but what lines!
Straight to the point.
Get a book by 2500 GM and they mention and analyse dozens of lines, 2/3 of which are fully pointless!
Guess from which book you will learn more and more accurate chess.
You're too afraid to play some games of chess. You're no real deal
That's why GM Smerdon compares my book to Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...
https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess
I see Nimzovich and Kmoch mentioned in the email that was sent to Smerdon. Are they mentioned anywhere else?
Look here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess
Scroll down the page - "Nimzovich, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?" IS Smerdon's title.
At https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess ,
the title, "Nimzowitsch, Kmoch...Tsvetkov?", was indeed used. But was that the decision of Smerdon or Chessbase? Consider:
http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970
In any event, does the title indicate anything other than the receipt of an email with the claim that ‘The Secret of Chess’ was "written very much in the vein of Nimzovich’s and Kmoch’s works …"?
Are Nimzowitsch and Kmoch mentioned anywhere in the Smerdon text after the reproduction of the email?
... Smerdon enumerates the concepts and terms that are NEW and ORIGINAL just as with Nimzovich and Kmoch. ...
Do you see any Smerdon sentence mentioning Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email?
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote: "... No, there is not, ..."
... Frequently, the strongest statements are the ones that are JUST hinted. ...
My concern has been with trying to clarify whether or not Smerdon mentioned Nimzowitsch and Kmoch after the quote of the email. You can claim whatever you like about what you think Smerdon was hinting.
In that case you might have simply read the whole article... ...
It seems to me that it is somewhat more efficient for everyone if confirmation can be quickly seen in your own words.