"Skeptic" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently, we had attacks here on Taylor Kingston's review of Soltis'
books by Phil Innes and GM Ray Keene, OBE.

The attacks were silly and self-contradictory: first, Kingston was
accused of paying special attention to a specific game (Duras-Teichman
1906) and still missing a mistake in the analysis, no doubt because
Kingston is not of master strength.

Not at all. He didn't even play through the game Mr. Pipel. You can make the
same commentary as a GM or without even knowing the moves.

Then, when it turned out that
Kingston actually only mentioned the historical introduction to the
game in the context of criticizing Soltis' historical writing in the
book,

You could make the same historical error if you didn't know the moves but
not if you were a chess writer - since the game is FAMOUS for the error.

That is the emphasis.

they criticized Kingston for *NOT* paying attention to the game,
no doubt because Mr. Kingston knows he cannot really check analysis,
not being of master strength.

So first Kingston paid special attention to a certain game and then he
didn't pay enough attention to it. Well, which one is it? Doesn't
matter, as long as Kingston can be attacked unfairly.

Yes it does matter - since Kingston himself seemed not to know either the
history nor be able to analyse the game. Maybe Winnie the Pooh should do
reviews?

But Kingston did know enough to criticise the analysis of the Author,
Soltis. Except that he chose to be vague about it, and suggested that more
material 'might' have been added.

As a chess player I would want to know why - did the games require more
analysis to be comprehensible? how much more? what should be left out of the
book in order to accommodate other material. But we don't know why he makes
his comments, since it is entirely unclear to me if he read over more than
half a dozen of the book's 100 games.

That aside, The real point of this criticism is nothing that Kingston
wrote or didn't write. It is the "general principle" that one should
ignore book reviews by non-masters

not true.

(or as as they are known today,
grandmasters...) I admit that there is something to it (the best
reviews, I think, are written today by the likes of John Nunn and
Richard Forster, who are *both* knowledgeable about chess history and
strong players; and a complete patzer will probably not be a good
reviewer.)

even they make errors. Nunn left out an entire variation of the French in
NCO, and as Keene notes, "finally john nunn the man who rewrote bobby
fischers analysis for fischer v bolbochan 1962 and left fischers king in
check is quoted as a paragon of chess accuracy"

However, it is simply not true that one cannot be a good
reviewer without being a master, or that masters are necessarily good
reviewers.

But above all, I wonder: does GM Keene, OBE, *REALLY* want us to judge
his books by what masters wrote about them? Does he want his friend and
co-author, Eric Schiller, to have HIS books judged by what masters
wrote about them?

I doubt it.

who doubts it? someone who cant write his name, and puts absolute and
general statements in the mouths of others, when a specific topic is
addressed !!

To give a short selection, Hans Ree claimed Keene cannot be bothered to
spend time in his writing on "trifles such as truth and style"; John
Donaldson called his books "potboilers" and accused him--truthfully--of
plagiarising his work; Paul Lamford accused him of writing "Keene
junk"; B. H. Wood (the editor of CHESS) said he can "claim anything on
the slightest evidence"; Korchnoi (not exactly a patzer) called him "a
man without moral scruples" when it turned out that he was busy--what
else?

what else indeed?

dutch gm hans ree has been quoted by mr pipel as being hostile to me -hans
, whom i regard as one of my oldest friends ,has gladly accepted my
invitation to hospitality and a gm tournament in london this coming august-i
thought mr pipel might like to know that!

an earlier poster quoted a negative review of one of my books by dr dave
regis--dr regis now works with me and has typeset several of my recent books
including my forthcoming book on tony miles

mr skeptic quotes viktor korchnoi-i answered korchnoi in depth in my book
massacre in merano still in print with hardinge simpole


--writing a book about the Korchnoi-Karpov 1978 match when he was
supposed to be acting as Korchnoi's second. This, of course, doesn't
stop GM Keene, OBE, from bragging that "Grandmaster Ray Keene was
Korchnoi's chief second during this wild chess extravaganza and this
book tells the inside story" in the web page selling the same book on
Hardinge Simpole's web site.

perhaps you will note 2 things - that in this instance we are discussing a
particular instance, and secondly, things are not quite so gloomy, pace
Keene's answers above, as anyone might gain the impression thereof by
reading your material alone

As for his friend Eric Schiller, Tony Miles called one of his book
"utter crap" (this being the complete review)

Tony had one of the worse mouths in chess. He also racially insulted the
entire Indian Chess Federation for similar 'loose talk' and I had to write
them a pious letter saying that no, I didn't think he was making rascist
remarks. While I didn't like what Short said of Tony, Tony said much worse
of him [these were all comptemporaries you know, after the top couple of
spots in the Brit pantheon.]

and Carsten Hansen called
another "the worst book I have ever seen". Hugh Myers called him an
"assassin of chess history" and, as it turned out, proved that Schiller
praised as "best" a book about Nimzowitsch's defense that does not even
exist, apparently in a bungled attempt to "get back" at Myers (who
published a book about same defense) for criticizing him.

****y, eh? I wonder quite how objective all these commentaries are? I could
write an even worse criticism - from Timman, who said that 90% of all
opening books were crap. Timman evidently disagreed with critical reviewers
who thought they have sufficient merit to recommend. But is this
/rhetorical/ level of interaction stanidng in place of what is actually
useful in a chess book?

You know, you read the book, you study the lines, you take in the patterns,
you understand the general idea, but not all of it - 'why not this?' you ask
yourself - but eventually you play the opening and THEN the worth of what
you have read it revealed.

What is lacking in much chess reviewing is thiss sence of needing to digest
the material, then WORK at figuring out its use to your chess game, by
actually persevering with it - maybe for YEARS?

The worth of slight analytical comments, and slighter reviews is less clear.

If I were GM Keene, OBE,

But you are not - you can't even write your name.

I would probably try to get *more* non-masters
to review chess books, not less. If one could get a a total patzer
ignorant of chess history--a member of Keene's and Schiller's target
audience, in other words--a post as a chess book reviewer (presumably
by offering the editor money), then Keene or Schiller's latest book
might have half a chance of being reviewed positively. As far as the
opinion of GMs about their work, however, it is uniformally that of
disgust and justified derision.

What is derisory is that anyone can pick up a book and immediately know as
much as its author - especially if they are a strong player. If the
publisher indicates that this is possible on their book covers - then strong
rebuke is necessary - and if non masters write of how to do it, but cannot
prove that they themselves ever did it - Hoohah!- I suggest similar
scepticism.

Many people resent chess books because the topic is difficult! The topic
demands work! And no instant-stardom is ahievable, and instead of looking to
thmesleves, they blame the author - by way of reacting to the publisher who
wrote in large red type on the cover: Not Losing with the Dunst! The
Creative Defenders Miracle Non-Attack.


Phil Innes