| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:40 pm |
|
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145764899.572764.29080@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> 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.
Adorjan is such a cheap-skate author, no? He provides probably the deepest
game analysis from any GM in all of chess, and to the extent that it might
be worth mentioning to anyone innocnetly reading this material, that he was
the trainer to Kasparov and Leko. Not bad qualifications!
But lets escape into this //diversion// even further - who next will Brennan
attack in his rage against knowledge? Maybe like help-bot he will see fit to
negatively mention even patzer-Kasparov
R
O
F
L
!
!
quote:
> While on the subject, it's surprising that a person who brags about his
> playing ability as often as Innes does
I am a poor second to yourself in this respect - you are obsessed by it! And
its not braggadocio, its what it was!
quote:
> 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.
I will oblige all readers by writing Adorjan's own comments here, about
myself and other reviewers - once, of course, we deal with the current
issue!
The current issue addresses who can even understand the need to analyse
games in order to make chessic comments about them. What does Taylor
Kingston think he is about? We see a group of people who can freely
criticise GMs at chess making very slight and slighting references, but who
are unable even to look at a chess diagram of their own choice either
chessically understand it, or historically note that the position is
infamous.
Phil Innes
|