Jeremy Silman's books

As with many things, I imagine that it is a matter of degree. I would guess that he was thinking of habits that would be thought of as sloppy by an IM. My guess is that he was taking it as understood that some degree of improvement would be required, and trying to indicate that one could get to master while still having a long way to go with regard to eliminating sloppiness from one's calculation habits. Ever see Yermolinsky's book? He found it appropriate to discuss blundering.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233827/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/road.txt

A master can have sloppy calculation.  A class player cannot afford sloppy habits of any degree.

By the way, notice that the original quote did not contain the words, "that form". The quote did refer to the idea of giving up sloppy computation habits, leading me to think that he thought some degree of computation habit sloppiness was present in those below master.

That is to say, no master can survive who has sloppy calculation  habits.  He can have sloppy calculation but not sloppy calculation habits.  

I suspect that there is no real disagreement here apart from what one is willing to call sloppy. I have not seen it claimed that NM calculation habits are perfect. If an NM's calculation habits are not perfect, it seems plausible to me that an IM (or someone with experience against an IM opponent) might consider the imperfection to be great enough to justify saying that the NM has not given up sloppy computation habits.

I don't really notice whether Averbakh's book has problems. My own games supply me with more than enough.

For a quick look at the core ideas, I prefer Averbakh. As I've said, however, I use several things from Silman in my teaching. Most kids don't quickly grasp the metaphor "fox in the chicken coop", but they remember the terminology.

For more depth, I turn to Dvoretsky.

Spongy.Masters can be sloppy in a calculation but not in their habits of calculation.

The original quote did not say "habits of calculation". I suspect that there is no real disagreement here apart from what one is willing to call sloppy. I have not seen it claimed that NM calculation habits are perfect. If an NM's calculation habits are not perfect, it seems plausible to me that an IM (or someone with experience against an IM opponent) might consider the NM imperfection to be great enough to justify saying that the NM has not given up sloppy computation habits. It occurs to me that there may also be a problem here with the word, "habits". I don't think that "habits" necessarily refers to what one does all the time. Of course, if one alters the original quote so that it refers to "habits of computation", that makes it sound a little bit more like a reference to the NM's general computation behavior, but what reason is there to think in terms of such an alteration of the original language?

"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.

[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)

Do you see a specific sentence by me claiming to know the point at which "benefits" become "illusory"? Here is a more complete version of what I did write:

Is "work" either "light" or not-"light", or is it a matter of degree? What makes either of you think that you know the point at which "benefits" become "illusory"? For every reader of the book? GM John Nunn did not seem to think the "benefits" of the book are "illusory".

"... Some recent books that I enjoyed and can recommend include: … Silman's Complete Endgame Course …" - GM John Nunn (2010)

Let me know if you ever feel that you can produce a quote of me claiming "superiority to others."

I quote"...-sloppy calculation habits."  

^^^^^^^^^^^^ referring to something other than the original language.

I am quoting his words.  How is that not his original language, Spongy?

Sloppy calculation are his words, not mine.

He also uses the word habits. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^ referring to something other than the original language.

So you want to claim to be able to discern something in my "attitude", that you can not find in my words?

• You are entitled to your interpretation of his words. My interpretation of his words,"sloppy calculation habits"    is that it is ok to have sloppy calculation habits.  I do not know what he intends, just what those words mean.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not in the original language.

I suspect that there is no real disagreement here apart from what one is willing to call sloppy. (Also, alterations of the original language that appear in your "interpretation of his words".) I have not seen it claimed that NM calculation habits are perfect. If an NM's calculation habits are not perfect, it seems plausible to me that an IM (or someone with experience against an IM opponent) might consider the NM imperfection to be great enough to justify saying that the NM has not given up sloppy computation habits. It occurs to me that there may also be a problem here with the word, "habits". I don't think that "habits" necessarily refers to what one does all the time.

First of all saying I said something by chopping my statement to fit your "argument"  is irresponsible.  And repeating yourself over and over in print also does nothing to logically pursue your opinion.  I leave it  to the readers of this thread to read the quotes you provided of the NM and decide for themselves whether it is good to allow bad habits of calculation, or as I quote the NM," Sloppy habits of calculation. "   Have a good day, Spongy.