| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:39 pm |
| Addressing Neil Brennen,
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:45:54 GMT):
quote:
> Later, O Great Truth Teller, later!
>_
> meanwhile lets not get distracted about not even
> playing through the games in order to declare that
> Soltis is 'superficial'.
>_
> ROFL!
_
If Phil Innes reads the review, he will find a discussion of
specific moves in the part of the review that refers to
annotations that "are more than 'light notes'" while not
containing "great depth".
_
Duras-Teichmann-Ostende-1906 is briefly mentioned in
a different part of the review where another aspect of the
Soltis book was discussed:
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf
|