Home > Archive > Chess politics > August 2006 > Re: standards of book reviewing - Philth Innes





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: standards of book reviewing - Philth Innes
The Historian

2006-08-02, 10:39 pm


Chess One wrote:
quote:

> Later, O Great Truth Teller, later!


In other words, Innes admits he doesn't check the analysis of games
when he reviews a book.

Another example:

http://www.chessville.com/reviews/BlackisstillOK.htm

In this review, the Nearly an IM speaks of "well-annotated" games with
"much analysis" but doesn't criticize any of the analysis in the
review. Instead, he plays lap-dog to Adjoran, accepting all his
comments as gospel.

While on the subject, it's surprising that a person who brags about his
playing ability as often as Innes does not attempt to criticize
analysis. Innes has written six book reviews for Chessville; three of
them are on books that contain no games, one is a book for chess
parents that contains only a few games (again with no comments from
Innes), one is an opening manual on gambit play, and this Adjoran
volume.


[vbcol=seagreen]
> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145747627.053145.63150@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Copyright 2003 - 2009 gamesreviews.net Software forum  PC Hardware reviews