Though your books are okay, I don't understand where any non-grandmaster gets off on writing a chess book. In my view, if you don't have the highest title, you shouldn't be writing about a game that you clearly haven't mastered. To make matters worse, you use a lot of your own games. Sorry, but in my mind this makes you something of an egomaniac.

Silman replies:

Chess books address different areas of the game and different needs. If I want to read about chess history, I tend to seek out material by those that have made a serious study of the subject – Winter, Hilbert, Donaldson, and Fiala are just a few of the names of well-respected chess historians. Though it's fun to discuss chess history with anyone – grandmasters or duffers – the simple fact is that titles and chess strength have nothing to do with the successful writing of this subject.

If I'm looking for a book that addresses children, I would again avoid writings by Kasparov or any other top guy. Being able to teach children and hold their attention is a very rare skill (One that I personally don't possess!), and being a titled player has absolutely nothing to do with one's expertise in this area.

General instruction is, once again, something that transcends chess strength. I knew a gentleman in San Francisco who had a 1582 rating. He taught chess at the college level and was superb. Of course, you need a stronger teacher when a stronger student is involved, but the key to a successful teacher is communication. Very few people are good at sharing ideas and making them accessible.

Ideally, opening books would only be written by the top thirty players in the world. They would do detailed jobs, and give away all their personal analysis and share their new ideas just because they love us all. However, since this isn't going to happen, we have to depend on hard working grandmasters and international masters who take pride in their work and try as hard as they can to deliver a quality product. A good example of this is Graham Burgess. Though he isn't an IM or GM, he is a strong master, works his ass off, and always does an outstanding job.

So I must disagree with you – there are quite a few wonderful chess writers who don't hold grandmaster titles. Instead they possess a solid understanding of the game, writing skills, and a strong work ethic.

Moving on, let's tackle my presumed rampant egomania. You have based this character trait on my use of some of my own games. Though I was never a world-beater, at one time I was in the top 200 - 300 or so on earth. Also, it's common practice for a chess writer to use one's own games if he feels they illustrate whatever concept he's trying to teach or share. Indeed, in my book THE AMATEUR'S MIND, most of the games were played by non-masters because they served my instructive purpose far better than grandmaster games ever could!

At a higher level, the new book by IM James Rizzitano, UNDERSTANDING YOUR CHESS, is yet another example of a non-grandmaster penning a really excellent book by using his own games as templates of instruction.

I certainly don't wish to destroy your illusions about my ego and what constitutes a good book. In the case of the latter, though, you would probably do well to grade a book not by the writer's title, but by how much it teaches you – how well the author takes seemingly difficult concepts and makes them digestible.