| The Historian 2006-08-02, 10:39 pm |
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
>
> Perhaps Phil Innes will favor us with links to all the book reviews
> he has written, to see if he subjected every move of every game to
> exhaustive analysis, as he seems to expect of other reviewers.
It appears Innes doesn't even bother reading the entire book when
reviewing:
"Am I really going to read this book? I don't think so, but I will
pick a few chapters, 1, 11, 21, 31 and maybe, if it goes well..."
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/C...rBizSecrets.htm
As for the other books Innes has reviewed, there's little sign he's
analyzed every game in them. For example, in this one:
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/G...ntheOpening.htm
"...Spassky-Osnos, Leningrad 1963, which occupies 5 pages of analysis
before arriving at move 10, Black having grabbed a pawn or two via a
Queen sortie. Then he makes an error at move 14 which would otherwise
allow time to return the same pawn or two with advantage. But no
analysis followed the sensible 14. ...Bd7..."
All we know from this is that Innes considers 14....Bd7 "sensible". He
offers no explanation why the move is "sensible"; it could just as well
have been called "charming", "verbose", or "fat-reducing".
Moving on, the Nearly an IM finds "Chapter 2 begins with
Anderssen-Dufresne, 1852..." Innes notes the game is annotated, but
offers no comment on the quality of the annotation. The "Evergreen" is
routinely presented with analysis recycled from book to book. Did the
author take the easy way out or analyze the game afresh? Did Innes
bother to check? He certainly didn't bother to tell his readers.
|