what is the best order to study chess theory ？

Considering the age of the book, it is understandable if one is surprised at the respect that is still given to My System. One can get some idea of the lasting scope of that respect by looking at:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever

Still, it might be noted that My System apparently did not occur to GM Yasser Seirawan as something to include in his list of personal favorites, and Aaron Nimzowitsch was not identified by the GM as a very worthy author.

Also, My System has accumulated some direct negative commentary over the years.

"... I found [the books of Aaron Nimzowitsch to be] very difficult to read or understand. ... [Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal by Raymond Keene explains his] thinking and influence on the modern game in a far more lucid and accessible way. ... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable; ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

Even fans of My System have acknowledged that:

"... Not everything in it has stood the test of time, ..." - IM John Watson (2013)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-108-of-eplus-books-part-2-nimzowitsch-classics

Also, I don't remember a general belief among the authorities that an amateur's rating would zoom past 1500 after reading and understanding half of My System. One last point to keep in mind is that, even if My System would eventually help a player, it might not necessarily be helpful to a player now.

"... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf

What's up you read it.  Otherwise how does "prophylaxis" come up in your posts.   Every strong player  that is honest will admit they read the book.

What honesty detection method are you using?

You got it 3rd and 4th hand.  A testament to the power of the ideas in the book.

It is hilarious that you use the ideas that originated in Nimzowitsch's  My  System, and now you say they can be completely ignored.

I have a physics degree, and the answer is no, to your probably rhetorical question. The Principia is only read by those with a joint interest in physics, history, and masochism . I was a serious student (once) and did have a crack at the Principia during my mechanics course, but moved quickly back to Feynman's Lectures on Physics. (This is also a flawed text that no one uses as the key text for beginning UG physics courses... it's too hard, requiring the student to make intuitive leaps at the Feynman's level of ability in many places. But some of his explanations & observations are "not to be missed". )

I think certain texts, like Feynman, were great in their day for breaking new ground in the teaching of the advanced fundamentals of the subject. But things move on, things get better. If it's a once in a century text like Feynman it might retain "must read in part" status, but it's too problematic to use as a standard text.

Urk - who did you read? I wouldn't be surprised if Nimzovitch, Jeremy Silman, Dan Heisman, Chernev, Lilov, Kingscrusher, and Mike Kummer could be all be ignored. I mean, they are all just laying out the basics of chess. In physics you can ignore the basic textbooks of Feynman, Halliday, & Resnick. But you better have a similar textbook from another author! (Hopefully equally good, or better...)

Too complicated. The main thing determining 2000+ or not is your calculation and tactical skills, alongside a very solid knowledge of basic positional ideas, with an opening repertoire that takes a few weeks at most to develop. The first element is the really hard part, and the second takes some experience as well.

Honestly, I realized now that 2000, while OK, isn't that impressive - players at this level and above make mistakes left and right, and all you have to do to win is take advantage of one of them, which is the most common thing you see in games of 2500 vs. 2100.

You really don't need a ton of *knowledge* to be 2000, which is why you have a lot of little kids who haven't been playing too long be 2000. OTB chess is mainly about practical skills, and managing tactics in complicated positions, given limited time, is the main thing.

So you just need knowledge from:

Back to Baskcs: Tactics

A guide to chess improvement

Forcing chess moves

If you thoroughly read these books and apply and practice exactly what they say - a guide to chess improvement will give you a solid positional background, and the other two will make you tactically stronger.

Of course, it takes lots of practice and experience, but you'll be going in the right direction with these books.

Your goal to become a strong chess player is to build a visualization pattern memory bank  in your brain.  The more patterns are in your memory bank, the stronger plyer you are.

Memory banks:

1.Tactical  visualization  pattern memory bank

2. Opening visualization pattern memory bank

3. Middle game visualization pattern memory bank

4. End game visualization pattern memory bank

"... The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game – tactics, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov (2008)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093123/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review756.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233537/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review585.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105628/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review781.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708111520/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review637.pdf