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





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
Chess One

2006-08-02, 10:41 pm


"Taylor Kingston" <taylor.kingston@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1145803561.389572.188830@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:

> Chess One wrote:
>
> "a diagram of his own choice"? Please explain to us, Phil, how a
> diagram I never wrote about, probably never gave more than a quick
> glance, becomes "a diagram of my own choice."
> BTW, the book in question has close to 400 diagrams. From now on, we
> will expect you to examine in detail each diagrammed position of any
> books you review in the future.
>
>
> Phil Innes talking about intelligibility is like Helen Keller
> reviewing movies.


and hollywood cameos and peyote-taking and other things californian

would you think that the game you mentioned had a diagram at all, and if
that could be the one in question? it being unusual to actually diagram a
game in a review

of course, this would be to understand 'intelligibly'
quote:

>
> That would be fair comment had I attempted to analyze the game in
> question, but I did not. So, it's rather like saying that even if a
> baseball player


no - no! its never ever going to be anything like baseball!
quote:

> gets a hit, he should be criticized for failing to
> score a touchdown.
>
>
> The issue is that Raymond Keene, OBE, has attempted a cheap smear
> based on an obvious lie. Why Keene (or is it just Phil Innes pretending
> to speak for Keene?)


laugh
quote:

> suddenly considers a small fry like myself worthy
> of his attention, I have no idea --


neither have i, and against advice thought you may have had an actual ches
question
quote:

> perhaps he has been goaded by the
> sycophant Innes.


one word from me and he does what he wants
quote:

> It's unfortunate. This might have been an opportunity for Keene to
> dispel at least some of the negative image that's grown around him.
> Instead, he's merely confirmed some of the ugly aspects of his
> reputation.


i wonder how that image has been grown? maybe people write ugly stuff?
indulge in book banning activities and insist on a negative view - though
why anyone should do so is frankly bewintering

it can't be about willingness to talk chess with critics

phil innes


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