Reddit reviews A Chemist's Guide to Valence Bond Theory

Yet C2 forms a quadruple bond according to Sason Shaik's calculations. And he knows all about hybridization since he literally wrote the book on modern Valence-Bond theory.

I can never pass up an opportunity to grind this particular ax - valence bond theory is actually a current area of research and is used in numerous applications. It is not merely a stepping stone to learning MO theory for the understanding of molecular structure and reactivity.

Both Valence Bond Theory and MO Theory are approximations of the truth, and how close you get with either approach depends on how far you take them. One is not intrinsically more complete than the other. There are systems that are easier to describe with MO Theory (such as using Huckel MO Theory for aromaticity), but VB Theory will give you an equivalent answer if you do it properly. The equivalence of these approaches have been known since the 1930s, yet most chemistry texts will teach that MO theory is superior to VB theory. It isn't true.

To learn more everyone should check out the publications by Sason Shaik and Philippe Hiberty (such as this excellent Account of Chemical Research), which are nicely summarized in their recent monograph.

I don't mean to go off on you and I agree with what you are saying, but the whole "VBT isn't as good as MOT" is a huge misconception that more chemists need to be aware of.

Edit: /u/MJ81 beat me to the punch and referenced the relevant chapter of the book I mentioned. Still, the paper I linked is a really enjoyable read. It's a transcript of a fun conversation between Roald Hoffman and Shaik and Hiberty about the history of the VBT-MOT rivalry.