I don't agree with Diakonia. I believe it strictly depends on the person. For me, comparing sources reinforces what you're learning. Also, totally different aspects of the game are always interrelated.
One good example would be the middlegame and endgame. What is the point in a minority attack? You can't understand this without getting into the endgame. You must know about queen side vs king side majorities and outside passed pawns.
Ok so that even connects to certain openings, such as the Sveshnikov and QGD.
You're probably not going to find all this information in the same source, so it wouldn't hurt to read these books simultaneously: some opening book about QGD, some opening book about the Sveshnikov, a strategy book, an endgame book.
You wouldn't have to read the whole book, but you could pick out specific chapters that correlate between the group of books. It would probably even be better to do that first and then go over each book one at a time.
And i have no problem with your opinion, we just dont agree. I understand that in todays world we are supposed to attack each other for not agreeing, but im not into that.
No body attacked you. I told you I disagree and then I explained why with examples.
To an extent, you're simply disagreeing with facts. It's not my opinion that different people learn differently. That's a fact. Some people need more structure and for others, structure is detrimental. That isn't my opinion. That's an irrefutable fact.
Agreed some learn faster than others, and that some need more structure than others. None of those were my point. When youre in school, you go to 1 class at a time. Less than 2% of the worlds population can truley multi-task. Bouncing back and forth between different books is not the best way to learn. Just my opinion.
I guess you ddidnt catch my light hearted humor when i said "I understand that in todays world we are supposed to attack each other for not agreeing, but im not into that."
Reading one book, putting it down, and then reading another without finishing both is NOT multi tasking by any stretch of the imagination; especially if you're reading select chapters that pertain to the exact same subject. If you have two or more books on the exact same subject, it's hardly multi tasking if you're reading all three, comparing as you go along.
That's off point, anyway.
I rarely read chess books start to finish. Most chess books operate like reference material.
When you're at school you can have 4-5 different classes in one day. Same here. I think the word "simultaneously" from original message should not be taken too literally. But I don't see any problem to read 1 book for 1 hour, then read another book for another hour, then switch to a third one.
And if that works for you, then go for it.