quote:

---

>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> 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.
>