I find it incredible how someone like Soltis can write such terrible opening books, but his other books be so good.

As I recall, the shredding/criticizing in question was of a "Win with the Giuoco Piano" type book, and more particularly some analysis of the Møller Attack.

I have the book and have been going through it (mirabile dictu). I am reminded of why Nunn is not my favorite author. Nunn's tin ear for language, his uncanny ability to kill all charm in his subject matter, his macho criticism of other authors, his misjudgment of what his audience can digest (there are occasional 36-ply tactical variations and even a 76-ply endgame variation in a book for intermediate players), his failure to distinguish between the computer's observations and his own--all aspects of Nunn's sour objectivity are on display here.

Yet the book is intended as a chess course, and it succeeds. It is full of useful observations and advice, as much of it delivered while criticizing Lasker's play as while explaining it. The game notes, usually relatively free (for Nunn) of long analysis, point out the shifting tactical and positional themes of each battle, and are especially good in emphasizing the intricate connections among the themes, one of the stated purposes of the book. As Nunn points out both the cases which are in conformity with positional rules and the exceptions to those rules, the reader gets a feel for the proper valuation and application of general principles.

Soltis does a far better job than Nunn of evoking the spirit of Lasker's play, making original observations and debunking the Reti myth of Lasker as primarily a psychologist. Soltis makes memorable remarks --Lasker's mistakes were usually less severe than those of his opponents; if Lasker had played bad moves deliberately against the world's best in order to win, he could not have been a 2700 player--he would have been 3000+; Tarrasch, unlike Lasker, lacked the instincts of a coffeehouse player. Nunn doesn't credit Soltis for his groundbreaking work. Instead, Nunn tries to eviscerate Soltis. "[Lasker-Tarrasch, Maehrisch-Ostrau 1923] is another game which [sic.] has been considered little more than a swindle, and it's interesting to see how Soltis and Soloviev jump through all sorts of analytical hoops in order to keep this narrative intact...it's extroardinary how many contortions Soltis goes through to 'prove' that White is not yet winning." Nunn points out that Lasker's success was based on his ability to create deceptive positions that are hard to evaluate correctly,and goes out of his way to show how grandmaster commentators have been misled, partly by Lasker and partly by the momentum of tradition. Yet for all that, Nunn apparently does not see the irony in choosing as the model for an intermediate textbook that player who, out of all those in history, created the most treacherous positions to evaluate.

Also, considering that Nunn chose another Soltis book to shred in Secrets of Practical Chess, one has to wonder whether Nunn has something personal against Soltis.

. .
ReneDescartes wrote on 05/31/14 at 14:08:54:

Three interesting observations by ReneDescartes.

Great would be FEN examples of each. Or game names-date citation at move-pair number would be just as good (assuming the games are in Mega Base).

The term 'piece coordination' is thrown around a lot in chess discussions, rarely with any specific definition beyond the obvious (tactical shots in shot puzzles; or generally lots of pieces around the opposing king's weakened castle; or none of my pawns blocking my bishops).
Anything that could make the 'piece coordination' concept a bit more specific is always welcome.

Thanks.
. .

Yeah, I want it, despite the fact that Nunn is not my favorite author. The Soltis book is really good.