Shereshevsky has a point, but "sly" and "immoral" are strong words. And chess teaching is not the same thing as a philosopher's search, however futile, for ultimate truths.

LeeRoth wrote on 02/07/18 at 14:08:31:

A tangent: A few years ago I tried using classical Morphy games to teach a group of children the basics of opening play, strategy and attacking play. The youngsters were not smitten with enthusiasm: "Why are we looking at such old games? Boring!"
I guess in Norway these days you just have to ride the Magnus hype and use as many of his games as at all possible to maintain interest, whether you want to or not...

It is possible to teach many of the same lessons of the classics using modern heroes instead, for instance by picking games against much weaker opponents or games where one of the players had a bad day. It just takes more work, since you can no longer reuse the same well-known (or outworn?) examples that appear again and again in the books.

The question isn't what the quote is trying to say.  The question is why Shereshevsky thinks its "sly and immoral." Shereshevsky doesn't explain in the book why he thinks that.  However, from a pedagogical perspective, its clear that Shereshevsky is not a fan of what he calls the "pure truth."  He advocates sticking to the general principles, and not bombarding the student with the exceptions.
  
As ReneDescartes points out, the quote comes up in a discussion of studying the classics.  Shereshevsky thinks that the classic games are easier than modern games  for the inexperienced player to understand.  Because of this our "first lessons in strategy and planning need to come from the classics."

At some point, Shereshevsky turns to the use of the computer in studying the classics.  His view is that, basically, for the plans to stick in the student's head, you need to stay top level.  What is needed is "vividness in presentation, not specifics."  He points to Nimzovich's comparison of doubled pawns with someone in a wheelchair as "an image which will stick in the reader's mind."  Shereshevsky goes on to explain, "It is completely unimportant whether [Nimzo] is correct about the concrete position he is discussing.  One may point out the exception to the rule, but this does not change the fact that fundamentally, [Nimzo] was right."  

The Aristotle saying immediately follows, The next sentence:  "I am not a fan of the old saying 'Plato is dear to me, but the truth is dearer.' I think it is sly and immoral."

The next paragraph continues the theme:  "Thus, when it comes to teaching strategic rules and general principles, the computer's role is only to touch up the details, whilst leaving the main direction of travel unchanged.  When we teach a beginner that within seven moves of the start of the game, he should aim to bring out all his minor pieces towards the centre and castle, we do not disorient him by showing him exceptions to the rule."

Shereshevsky circles back to this later:  "When we study the games of people like Capablanca and Rubinstein, we learn strategy, technique and harmony, and we do not try to knock our heroes off their pedestal.  This slightly sweetened version of the truth is much better for us than the pure truth, which we can only obtain with the aid of  computer variations."

LeeRoth wrote on 02/07/18 at 00:50:34:

Isn't that what the quote is trying to say? "Don't blindly follow someone, just because you think they're smart/likeable/etc"? At least I always understood it as ""Plato is dear to me, but the truth is dearer...and I hope future generations will say 'Aristotle is dear to me, but the truth is dearer'".

re:Actual topic, thanks for notifying me of this book and review/overview Descartes, it looks excellent! Shall be ordering it soon

ReneDescartes wrote on 02/06/18 at 21:23:21:

Does Shereshevsky say why he finds it sly and immoral? If I understand that Aristotle quote correctly, it seems like the right stance for a serious philosopher or scientist to take. You might even expect Plato to understand and agree.

Of course, only Shereshevsky could definitively state that the omission is conscious.

Watson is mentioned in the section on Nimzovich, during in the discussion of studying the classics. Shereshevsky is urging that the study of Nimzovich be undertaken with a certain caution. The immediate issue under discussion is why Nimzovich focuses on the French defense, where the attack on the head of the pawn chain weakens the king position, rather than equally on openings where the head of the chain lies far from the king. Marino holds that  Nimzovich's desire to destroy Tarrasch's theories led him to focus excessively on the French to the detriment of his overall theoretical work. Shereshevsky continues, 

"In his book, Marino, replying to IM John Watson's criticism of Nimzowitsch, writes the following:  'nevertheless, at the end of the 20th century, Watson's criticism of the "principles of the pawn chain" is directed to the same openings that Nimzowitsch considered, which leads one to the conclusion that Watson's real goal was to criticize the maestro of hypermodernism, just as the latter's goal was, first of all, the attack on Tarrasch.'"

After a few lines on whether the attack on the head of the pawn chain is an attacking measure (Watson) or a defensive one (Nimzovich, Marino, Shereshevsky), Watson is not mentioned further.

Now, my thinking is as follows: the theme of Shereshevsky's book as a whole might be described as understanding the relation between variations, calculations, analysis, opening preparation, computer lines, etc. on the one hand and positional principles, verbal understanding, grasp of the "essence of the position," etc. on the other.  Some version of this is also a primary concern of Watson. Shereshevsky ensures that Watson's name makes it into his book, thereby signaling to the reader that he is well aware of Watson's work, but does not include Watson in the main discussion of the role of variations and analysis. Since Shereshevsky is a thorough, even perfectionistic, thinker and a formidably literate writer, I cannot think that this is an accident; rather, it seems to me, Shereshevsky should be credited with using a subtle and diplomatic means to give us to understand his valuation of Watson's contribution to that discussion.

For those who have ears to hear, this is confirmed by the fact that the very passage where Watson is mentioned concerns the destructive effects of writing in order to tear down another writer.

That, at any rate, was my reasoning.

@pawnpusher I haven't been able to find any.

Consciously omitted? 

How do you know he consciously omitted Watson? I'm genuinely asking, not snarking.

The previous books are contracted and updated, but a new book is added at the end. We get selections on openings from The Soviet Chess Conveyor--a system against the Czech Benoni, for example--while large sections, such as that on the Petrosian System against the KID, were cut rather than updated (this decision makes sense to me given the philosophy of the book). A wonderful program for studying the classics is included in an abbreviated version. The Endgame Strategy section omits the original chapters on the two bishops and the initiative, for instance, this time no doubt purely for reasons of space; but the several endgame sections that have been included are updated with examples from recent games and a few exercises. 

In the last and entirely new large section of the book, Shereshevsky engages spectacularly with recent literature, orchestrating a brilliant conversation between himself, Kotov, Beim, Nunn, Argentinian Nimzovich disciple and updater Enrique Marino, Sakaev, Dorfman, Dvoretsky, and Kramnik about techniques of calculation and decision-making, the role of concrete variations in annotation, and related topics. (Watson is consciously omitted; merely his motivations are discussed by proxy in a quote from Marino--just enough to let us know Shereshevsky is well aware of Watson's work and does not wish to include it, the clear implication being that Shereshevsky disagrees with it but would rather outline his own positive vision than tear anyone down).

Shereshevsky upholds a humanistic vision of chess that is very close to my own.