[V-2]

He seems to be a Class A player: http://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=3012928544 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#United_States... Also have a look at: http://www.amazon.com/Chess-For-Novice-Player-Beginning/dp/0... (Eidtorial Reviews / About the Author)

That's not bad at all. I think he's perfectly entitled to give advice to beginners. They don't really need it coming from a GM, for the same reason why primary school students don't need to be taught by academic professors.

Your notion that chess teachers need "decades of experience" or else they are not the "correct authority to instruct us on the best methods to learn chess" is rather silly. How are they supposed to ever obtain this experience then, while they are not yet fit to teach anyone and according to you should shut up? :)

Also, would you recommend against going to a doctor who doesn't yet have "decades of experience"?

[EdwigePelagia]

I actually agree that a GM is not necessarily the best teacher. But there are people with decades of TEACHING experience, and they are the best teachers.

He's certainly within his rights to go around saying you should listen to him. Just like every other useless self-help blogger is.

The fact that my calling out his authority and credibility seems to rile up so many people says something about the crowd here. The crowd here is anti-intellectual, anti-credential, anti-experience, and anti-expertise. The crowd seems to be a lot of overpuffed young men who read Paul Graham essays and feel superior to others... for no reason.

[V-2]

Of course these are the BEST teachers, but

a) Not being the best doesn't mean you're not good enough

b) In his piece he actually recommends young chess players to learn from numerous books authored by accomplished and highly experienced chess teachers such as Seirawan or Silman.

Which part of his advice exactly would you call out as useless?

"The fact that my calling out his authority and credibility seems to rile up so many people says something about the crowd here. The crowd here is anti-intellectual, anti-credential, anti-experience, and anti-expertise"

You yourself did not back up your criticism with any credentials (we don't know who you are and why we should pay attention to your objections), not to mention that you didn't even point out any particular flaws in the article. Thus your comments (as of now) have no expertise value by your own standards.

[vidarh]

It's more likely to do with the extremely rude and aggressive approach you have taken, while not giving any examples of actual problems with what he has written.

That you're doing so from an entirely new account, and so either have no track record here or have chosen not to post under your usual account also doesn't exactly point in your favour, as "calling people out" for lack of authority and credibility while doing nothing to establish your own certainly does tend to rile people up.

I'm sure I am not the only one who is left questioning your motives more so than the authority of the poster.