| The Historian 2006-08-02, 10:40 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> 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!
It should be easy enough to show us what I allegedly ignored. Do you
consider calling a move "sensible" to be 'analysis'?
quote:
> 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.
Unlike you, Philsy, some of us have a real job.
quote:
>
> 'criticise' ? I wrote one of the longest reviews of a chess book ever.
Do you mean this scribble?:
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/BlackisstillOK.htm
Not
quote:
> just the lines but the sidelines.
Here is Nearly an IM Innes showing mere mortals the fine art of
analysis:
"G. Giorgadze tries 7. Bb5+ ?! against a Grunfeld to be confronted
later by the novelty 13 ...Qa5! Then substantial analysis follows
White's options, of either 14. Qc2 or 14. e6, both of which are
essential lines for the serious Grunfeld student to understand, with
14.e6 being fantastically complicated..."
Excuse me, Nearly an IM, what in that passage hasn't been merely quoted
from the book you are 'reviewing'.
The AUTHOR of the book is highly critical
quote:
> 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.
All this is beside the point. We are asking why you don't criticize
analysis in your book reviews.
quote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Brenan's point is what? He is obsessed about strong player's ratings?
Sorry to break it to you, Philsy, but I doubt there are very few people
here who consider you a 'strong player'.
Or he
quote:
> 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.
>
>
> Of course, snip all you cannot understand of that which would illuminate the
> intent of others.
Thank you for falling into the trap. I hadn't cut a word of your
deathless prose, Your I-ness.
Lie, distort, obsess, and make disgusting personal
quote:
> commentaries instead.
>
> The chess-yokel method.
Snip more Innesian nosense. Folks, do you think he'll fall for it a
second time?
|