Finding my chess style

"... I have already stated that I have not made any claims regarding the number of pages that De La Maza devotes to specific patterns contrary to you harbouring delusions that I have." - robbie_1969

I have no such delusion.

Would it make sense to rely on robbie_1969?

Again, by the way, the knight move stuff was taken directly from the de la Maza book.

I have read the De La Maza book spongey, I know what it contains.  You on the other hand have not.  Would it make any sense to rely on someone who has not read a publication, I doubt it. 

"... I have read the De La Maza book spongey, I know what it contains. ..." - robbie_1969

Do you see any reason to doubt that IM Silman and GM Nunn have read it?

Do you wish to dispute any specific claim by me about the book?

De la Maza's book is junk.

you haven’t read the book, what are you talking about?

Whether or not you wish to dispute any claim by me about the book.

I disagree, its only junk for those who do not put it into practice.  Infact for adult players wanting to make rapid improvement its excellent.  De La Maza himself proved the fact with his tournament win.  Infact how are you going to explain away the empirical evidence that his method took him from a relatively weak player to victory in a 2000 rated national tournament and a prize of 10,000 dollars? So out with it i wanna here you say it?

I wish to discuss the book with those that have read it not battle against a projection of ignorance and second hand regurgitated opinions gleaned from the internet.  That self evidently excludes you.  How can you make any claims about a publication you have not read?  Please explain.

"... Infact for adult players wanting to make rapid improvement its excellent.  De La Maza himself proved the fact with his tournament win. ..." - Robbie_1969

If something works for one person, does it necessarily work for another?

That does not explain how or why De la Mazas method worked for him, does it.  Infact how are you going to explain those players whom he cites in his book who also benefited, by sophistry? So lets ask you again, how are you going to explain away his rating rise?

difficult t argue against empirical evidence, isn’t it.

"... The level at which one plays is governed by a number of vague and poorly understood factors. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

Who chose which players to quote? Do we have their rating records?

"... How can you make any claims about a publication you have not read?  Please explain." - Robbie_1969

Again, I have browsed through it. The knight move stuff was taken directly from the de la Maza book.

Chess style huh? Well, I be like putting my king on the long diagonal, and you have no bishop, that's where it is at. I gots my fortress in motion, I gots my knights circling your king like sharks, ready to pounce. No wait, they are like tigers, ready to pounce. Then before you know it the rooks swoop in like vultures ready to eat you alive like a dinosaur. No wait, my rooks are like dinosaurs ready to eat you alive and stomp all over the board. Before you know it, them game's up and you looking for an ice pack to heal your wounds.

Is anyone forcing you to direct questions to me?

If you show a drill, it is better to explain it well, or not? But tactics will take much more space. Of course an author can chose something like 20 tactics pro forma, but this is not enough, you need several hundred of exercises, better 2 or 3 thousand to begin to grasp the main ideas in combinations. A book should advice students which apps are good, and not replace them, specially if they are dealing with a broad spectrum of topics. These kind of drills are often ignored in chess books.

Is there reason to believe that the de la Maza book has up-to-date information about that? How long ago was it written?