| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:40 pm |
| The idiotic commentary continues... Not only did Brennan accuse me of not
providing counter analysis in book reviews, he even visited the reviews,
quoted OTHER comments from them, and IGNORED actual analytical comments!
But what a pathetic serial diversion - Brennan needs to defend his need for
no chess ability by diverting attention from Kingston's similar commentary -
the usual proxy arrangement - but Brennan has a big stake in this, since
school-of-Winter makes its living from such thin stuff.
quote:
>
> I made no comment about the author or his analysis. I merely pointed
> out the book reviewer, one Phil Innes, failed to criticize the
> analysis.
'criticise' ? I wrote one of the longest reviews of a chess book ever. Not
just the lines but the sidelines. The AUTHOR of the book is highly critical
of cheap analysis, and the title goes much deeper into opening preparations
for champion level play, on the basis of deep analysis, both technically and
psychologically.
quote:
> From your response one can conclude the Innes book reviewing
> standard can be summed up thus -
From your continuous distortions of what you read the only thing being
examined here is your very mean understanding of chess - mean in both senses
of the word.
quote:
> "The higher the rating, the better the book."
>
>
> Gary Kasparov is a great chessplayer. However, if he wrote a poor book,
> he should be criticized for it. I recall Richard Forster, a real IM,
> Mr. Innes, not a Nearly one, has criticized some Kasparov analysis.
> Should IM Forster be dismissed as a reviewer also?
>
>
> As stated. Thanks for making my point.
Brenan's point is what? He is obsessed about strong player's ratings? Or he
merely resents that strong players can make commentary about chess which
evades the wit of weaker players? This is the Kingston defence!
It is not evident to him that Kingston's chess skill does not allow him to
look at a chess diagram of his own choice and speak intelligibly about it in
chess terms - in fact, missing the key factor that determines the game in
one stroke?
That IS the issue! While all sorts of people can write generically about
chess, and if Alekhine wore brown or green socks and such trivia, the
not-even-an-expert writer is simply no match for GM analysts when the topic
is chess analysis! QED.
This subject puzzles all the recent writers here who have complained. They
wanna be like GMs, and GMs get to write books, but they can't write the same
books themselves - so any books will do, otherwise the GM commentary must be
reduced to next to nothing, to equalise them with their own efforts in
determining the colour of Alekhine's socks.
quote:
>
> Snip more Innesian nonsense.
Of course, snip all you cannot understand of that which would illuminate the
intent of others. Lie, distort, obsess, and make disgusting personal
commentaries instead.
The chess-yokel method.
Phil Innes
|