My coach does not like Jeremy Silman...

Here you go:

‘I obtained from Havana a much better offer than I had been tendered anywhere else, and just as I was on the point of communicating with Dr Lasker about it, the cable brought the news that Dr Lasker had resigned the championship, which, according to one of the clauses of our agreement, made me the world’s champion. This same clause existed in the agreement entered into in 1913 between Dr Lasker and Rubinstein for a match for the world’s championship. There is no other fair way to arrange this matter; if the champion accepts a challenge and afterwards does not play, although his challenger has meanwhile stood by the letter of the agreement, the title of champion must go to the challenger. Any other arrangement would be most unfair to the challenger. Nevertheless, I preferred to play rather than to come to championship honours without actually winning them over the board. To that effect I made a second journey to Holland (this time all the way from Cuba) to put the matter before Dr Lasker, to whom, meanwhile, I had written about Havana’s offer, and asked him at the same time to meet me at The Hague. There, in August, a second agreement was reached …’[emphasis added]

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablancalasker.html

As Edward Winter points out, there was a dispute over whether Lasker's abdication was acceptable. The parties involved often acted as it was, but the larger chess world "took scant notice" of it and considered Lasker the World Champion until he was defeated in match play. 

The whole build up to the Lasker-Capa match was fascinating and has been well covered by Edward Winter and others. There were times when Capa accepted that he was World Champion by default and times when he publicly refused to acknowledge it. Lasker abdicated the title and indicated he did not want to play the match with Capa. Capa went out of his way to make sure the match happened, but for the purposes of the match accepted that he would defend the title. 

The contract negotiations show one aspect of his thinking, but he also played to the public and acted the hero who refused the title without playing for it. I hope you don't derail this discussion further. If you wish to discuss the matter again, why not post in the appropriate forum. 

In the mean time, I still don't have access to Nunn's second edition of Secrets of Practical Play. Please post the complete paragraph that you quoted from so that we may all see the context of the quote you have repeated more than a dozen times. It really does go against most of what I have read of Nunn's work. He is usually quite complimentary of an author before he points out the flaws of the author's book. And he has been a strong advocate of rule independence and concrete analysis in all of his works, including the first edition of the same book. 

Was the February 19, 2018 statement about what Capablanca "preferred" or about what "the players agreed to"?

Don't feel like producing a quote about the nature of the second agreement?

Often? Do you have a "precise as possible" quote about Lasker and Capablanca ever acting as though Lasker's abdication was not acceptable? Anyway, was the February 19, 2018 statement about how Capablanca and Lasker, sometimes, "acted" or about what "the players agreed to"?

Was the February 19, 2018 statement about "the larger chess world" or about what "the players agreed to"?

Do you have a "precise as possible" quote about Capablanca ever publicly refusing to acknowledge that he was World Champion by default? Anyway, was the February 19, 2018 statement about what Capablanca sometimes publicly refused to acknowledge or about what "the players agreed to"?

Did the February 19, 2018 statement indicate that, for the purposes of the 1921 match, Capablanca accepted that he would be defending his title?

Do you have a "precise as possible" quote about Capablanca ever acting the hero who refused the title without playing for it? From your Capablanca quote:

"... the cable brought the news that Dr Lasker had resigned the championship, which, according to one of the clauses of our agreement, made me the world’s champion. ... There is no other fair way to arrange this matter; if the champion accepts a challenge and afterwards does not play, although his challenger has meanwhile stood by the letter of the agreement, the title of champion must go to the challenger. Any other arrangement would be most unfair to the challenger. …"

Anyway, was the February 19, 2018 statement about how Capablanca sometimes acted or about what "the players agreed to"?

Who was it who, in this forum, brought up the issue of sources? Who was it who, in this forum, brought up the issue of being "as precise as possible"?

I do not have the book handy at the moment, but I should be able to give you more, later today. May we look forward to you addressing the issue of how you feel about the idea of an obligation to be willing to provide "as precise as possible" sources for your claims?

Do you have an "as precise as possible" quote of John Nunn indicating that "flaws" "go against" the possibility of an overall evaluation such as: "a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms." A number of pages after 230, John Nunn did discuss flaws in the Silman book, but, as far as I can tell, he continued to believe his overall evaluation.

Do you have an "as precise as possible" Nunn quote that goes against the existence of "many important ideas" and the potential value of explaining them "in clear terms"?

I'm just pointing out that at the moment, @kindaspongey has posted no less than 12 responses to my last comment.

"As precise as possible", how many post numbers are there that would fall strictly between #703 and #715? In the Capablanca quote, was there any sentence that established the correctness of the February 19, 2018 statement about what "the players agreed to"? After the Capablanca quote, about how many nonquote sentences did you write?

"I am not saying that non-GMs should not write chess books. On the contrary, many fine books are written by players who are not grandmasters. The point is that the author's skills have to match what he is trying to achieve. You don't have to be a grandmaster to collect together some simple tactics positions which can be used for training purposes by club players. Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess is an example of a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms. Since Silman (who is an IM, but not a GM) sticks to established ideas and is not creating new principles of his own, there is no problem with the result. Difficulties start to arise when an author tackles something beyond his ability. Examples of this are so numerous that it hardly seems fair to single one out, but The Batsford Chess Encyclopaedia by Nathan Divinsky (Batsford, 1990) does stand out in my mind. To write a good general chess encyclopaedia requires both technical and historical knowledge. Despite the fact that much of the material in this book is duplicated from an earlier encyclopaedia by Harry Golombek, it is still riddled with technical errors. I am less of an expert on the historical side, so I shall refer readers to http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/divinsky.html for further details."

Thank you for putting the quote in context.

can any one put the titles of Silman's books?

https://www.silmanjamespress.com/product-category/chess/

Thank you very much

I bagged on Silman in the late 1990s at a chess tournament in Los Angeles. There were tons of GMs at the tournament and Silman was going over games of people in one of the side rooms (he wasn't playing). He had quite the crowd and was mocking some of the player's poor games. When he was done analyzing games he chatted for a bit and he started talking about "chess groupies" who kept hanging around him. I blurted out "Are any women?". He wasn't amused.