https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-it-true-that-nakamura-never-read-a-chess-book
Is it true that Nakamura never read a chess book?
Nakamura, especially when he was younger, made many outrageous claims [full quote in link]
Nakamura says he "looked at" Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games, a Tarrasch book and "some other ones." [full quote in link]
I didnt mention Naka. I simply said that i like Silmans books, but as far as i know, no top level player has given them credit for getting them where they are.
Yeah, I posted too much.
Ok, I think we agree 
As for the kindaspongey school of posting, I gave it my best shot in this one
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/anybody-ever-heard-of-lyudmila
Yeah, I posted too much.
Ok, I think we agree
As for the kindaspongey school of posting, I gave it my best shot in this one
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/anybody-ever-heard-of-lyudmila
lol...That was classic! As long as you start your post with:
"Possibly of interest"
Or...answer a question with a question.
Aron Nimzowitsch covered absolutely everything there is to know about chess in his book "mein strudendingle" (my system). I have read it at least a hundred times cover to cover. Any other book is a complete waste of time. This Silman chap sounds like a bit of a snake oil salesman if you ask me.
If you think Nimzowitsch covered everything, you are in for a rude awakening.
" I have read it at least a hundred times cover to cover."
He never said he studied the book :-)
Aron Nimzowitsch covered absolutely everything there is to know about chess in his book "mein strudendingle" (my system). I have read it at least a hundred times cover to cover. Any other book is a complete waste of time. This Silman chap sounds like a bit of a snake oil salesman if you ask me.
Ah yes, the classic mein struden-dingle, I know it well.
Co-authored by "the Swedish Morphy" the distinguished Dr Whoreora Borealis
You are the one who brought up "Naka" in #40 in response to my #39. ...
Incorrect.
Bacon and BobbyT brought up "top level" players and alluded to Naka's claim that he had never read a chess book. (#29 and #30). ...
Please look again at what I wrote. I did not write that you brought up Naka in this discussion. I wrote that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39. #39 was not about Naka.
You are the one who brought up "Naka" in #40 in response to my #39. ...
Incorrect.
Bacon and BobbyT brought up "top level" players and alluded to Naka's claim that he had never read a chess book. (#29 and #30). ...
Please look again at what I wrote. I did not write that you brought up Naka in this discussion. I wrote that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39. #39 was not about Naka.
As I painstakingly explained to you, it was part of a larger conversation where top players and Naka were already part of the discussion.
Anyway, I'm not sure you know how much I suffer trying to find posts 39 and 40.
"Journal Entry
Day 4 of the expedition to find post 40.
I've been scrolling across post #34 for what seems like hours. My middle finger, which operates the mouse wheel, has lost all feeling. For the first time in my quest I've started to seriously contemplate the fact that I may never make it to post number 40. Even when I shut my eyes it torments me, an endless sea of text, stretching out like an ocean. Burned into my retinas and past the horizon. Timeless and cold. A soulless abyss."
[actual picture of your post you goofball]
… (#29 and #30). My response to them was that is misleading to players who wish to improve. Your #39 was mostly agreeing with me, and my #40 was playing devil's advocate for Bacon and Bobby. ...
Just as a suggestion, if you mostly agree with a post, you might want to say so instead of devil's advocating for posts that you feel to be misleading. Had IMBacon and/or DeirdreSkye written of determining anything about what was necessary for all players? If you are producing ideas for others, you might want to say that that is what you are doing.
Had IMBacon and/or DeirdreSkye written of determining anything about what was necessary for all players? If you are producing ideas for others . . .
That's not how conversations work you goofball. Go outside and talk to someone sometime. The sunlight will help you vitamin D deficiency. Sheesh.
The OP, in a general sense, brings up improvement. After that posts will riff on that theme in general. Improvement for all, for some, theory and practice, top players and beginners, personal experience and imagination, books and videos, and anything else. The elements are not restricted except to orbit the OP's theme.
And I'm sorry my devil's advocating caused you to think I held different ideas.. but I think if you'd taken the time to read the posts you'd have known.
You are the one who brought up "Naka" in #40 in response to my #39. ...
Incorrect.
Bacon and BobbyT brought up "top level" players and alluded to Naka's claim that he had never read a chess book. (#29 and #30). ...
Please look again at what I wrote. I did not write that you brought up Naka in this discussion. I wrote that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39. #39 was not about Naka.
As I painstakingly explained to you, it was part of a larger conversation where top players and Naka were already part of the discussion. ...
You also wrote, "Incorrect." It is correct that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39. #39 was not about Naka.
Your 39 was not a post made in isolation. Neither was my reply to it.
But ok if you so desperately want your silly question answered, let me take a shot.
does it make much sense to be concerned about what was necessary for Naka?
No one was discussing what was necessary for Naka, only what Naka himself had famously claimed was unnecessary.
Now you'll have to excuse me. As much "fun" (and I use the term incorrectly) as this has been, my mouse wheel finger is cramping up, so it's too difficult to continue typing responses for now.
You are the one who brought up "Naka" in #40 in response to my #39. ...
Incorrect.
Bacon and BobbyT brought up "top level" players and alluded to Naka's claim that he had never read a chess book. (#29 and #30). ...
Please look again at what I wrote. I did not write that you brought up Naka in this discussion. I wrote that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39. #39 was not about Naka.
As I painstakingly explained to you, it was part of a larger conversation where top players and Naka were already part of the discussion. ...
You also wrote, "Incorrect." It is correct that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39. #39 was not about Naka.
Farm_Hand wrote: "Your 39 was not a post made in isolation. …"
Nevertheless, it was not about Naka. It is correct that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39.
Farm_Hand wrote: "Your 39 was not a post made in isolation. …"
Nevertheless, it was not about Naka. It is correct that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39.
I mentioned Naka in my post which responded to your post.
However the phrasing "brought up" implies the first to broach the subject. I contend that honor goes to BobbyT who alluded to Naka's famous claim of having never read a chess book.
And this semantic crap makes us both look bad.
And this semantic crap makes us both look bad.
Only if you write it down and push the post bottom, my young padawan.
Yes, God, please, lets talk about anything else 
Farm_Hand wrote: "Your 39 was not a post made in isolation. …"
Nevertheless, it was not about Naka. It is correct that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39.
I mentioned Naka in my post which responded to your post.
However the phrasing "brought up" implies the first to broach the subject. I contend that honor goes to BobbyT who alluded to Naka's famous claim of having never read a chess book.
And this semantic crap makes us both look bad.
You are the one who decided to declare something to be incorrect. Again, my post #39 was not about Naka. You brought up Naka in your response to #39. I never wrote anything about you being the first to bring up Naka in this thread.
Farm_Hand wrote: "Your 39 was not a post made in isolation. …"
Nevertheless, it was not about Naka. It is correct that you brought up Naka in response to my post #39.
I mentioned Naka in my post which responded to your post.
However the phrasing "brought up" implies the first to broach the subject. I contend that honor goes to BobbyT who alluded to Naka's famous claim of having never read a chess book.
And this semantic crap makes us both look bad.
You are the one who decided to declare something to be incorrect. Again, my post #39 was not about Naka. You brought up Naka in your response to #39. I never wrote anything about you being the first to bring up Naka in this thread.
Ok, look.
In your opinion what is a fair fee?
Bacon and BobbyT brought up "top level" players and alluded to Naka's claim that he had never read a chess book. (#29 and #30). My response to them was that is misleading to players who wish to improve. (#38).
Incorrect. We were responding to the assertion from DeirdreSkye.
You were responding, but nonetheless you did bring up what I said you did.
The most DS brought up was the FIDE reading list.