Oh man, it's Silman!!

I just wanted to toss out a question to the chess public, due to some voices that have been stirring on chess.com. I have noticed that for unexplained reasons, Internation Master Silman seems to be quite a nice target for people to aim their chess angst at. In my experience, Silman is a personable writer, who tries to infuse some light hearted joking in his books and show some personality in his books. It seems to me that there is a growing crowd of people who seem to take him far too literally and really like to pull text clips out to discredit his ability to play chess and his ability to help any of us get better. So my question to the chess.com masses is, do you prefer scholarly tomes that polish everything to spotless dry perfection, or do you prefer to see more of the authors presence come through in the book, such as Tal in 'Life and Games of Mikhail Tal' ?

I wonder if you're putting me in the "discredit his ability to play chess and his ability to help any of us get better" crowd... I recently posted a criticism of one of J.S's chess mentor courses. 

I think Silman has helped my chess more than any other single author and I recommend his books regularly. IMO, Reassess your Chess and the Amateur's Mind are the best thing that ever happened to players (like me) who hit a big bad stall out in their progress around the B-player level. I have a big debt of gratitude to J.S. But I really I don't think that places him above criticism or means that I have to like everything he's done. In his own writing he can be abrasive and argumentative and a "that's the truth, sorry if it bothers you" sort of guy. I admire that. I think it's a fine way to write... but you've got to take your lumps too, if that's the attitude you can't expect to be treated with kid gloves. I think some of Silman's work (like his Chess Mentor work for chess.com) has a "resting on my laurels" quality. It's not all good. And the good stuff isn't perfect. I still think he's an interesting guy with a lot to teach. My .02

But to answer your question:  So my question to the chess.com masses is, do you prefer scholarly tomes that polish everything to spotless dry perfection, or do you prefer to see more of the authors presence come through in the book, such as Tal in 'Life and Games of Mikhail Tal'

I'm all for the author's presence... but it's not the most important thing. I want books that teach, that have well selected material that focuses on some aspect of chess and leads the student toward understanding. These books are a rarity. I think Jacob Aagaard is awesome. He has tons of personality  -- his tone and 'tude are pure Silman -- but he backs it up with a real commitment to teaching.

The same author can produce good and bad books. Valeri Beim's "Dynamic Chess" is a very good book. His "Recipes from the Grandmaster's Kitchen" is bad. One book is obviously the result of real thought and study. The other one is the result of, "hey, you had a really great successful book there with Dynamic Chess, got any notes or something you can whip up quickly into something we can sell?" But both books have personality.

John Emms has no special personality to his chess writing -- he's not dull or a bad writer, but he doesn't make a big fuss about anything... but he's a wonderful chess writer, very clear.

I love SIlman's Chess Mentor stuff and I really enjoy his writing style.  I also think he is excellent at explaining the point he is trying to get across.  BUT I didn't like his endgame book.  As was stated by an earlier poster, it is hard to like every single thing that someone puts out.  It is pretty obvious that Silman does know how to write and teach very well.  But no one bats a 1000!!

And I do have to say that comparing Tal's book to Silman's books is a little offbase.  Tal's was an autobiography with games so of course his personality should be in there!!  Chess books written with a pedagogical goal should always focus on that first and foremost!  If they can then be entertaining, well that is just icing on the cake.

Another thing Silman seems to draw is a lot of completely mind-boggling criticism.

I mean, seriously?  The dude is the single best teaching author, period.  Not only have I never in any of his books run across anything that matches this description, but in fact the total opposite is true.  His endgame book is entirely about focusing what limited study time you may have, and reducing your study to only that which you need.

Nor, from what I gather of his personal life, does even he regard chess as the end-all be-all of existence.  Go to his website; you'll find plenty of non-chess discussion.

Really, where you people get these ideas?

I do find Silan's books and Mentor course helpful...but I can't stand how, degrades weaker opponents, even when it's completely unneccessary and dsitracting. Why not just teach? Why the belittling? Why be condescending.