Chess One wrote:


(Much ad hominem snipped)

When I asked you how many games in a "100-best" a reviewer would need to
play through to reasonably assess the title, you were silent.


Changing the subject seems to be one of your
favorite ploys. Nevertheless, if you want to discuss
this issue it should be kept seperate from your ad
hominem attacks on critics of the Evans ratpackers.

Put another way, you could just start a thread in
which to discuss, say, the art of reviewing chess
books. BTW, your handler seems to have taken a
position on this very issue, exempting TK and
others from being accountable for replaying every
game in a collection before writing a review thereof.

------

One issue I think deserves attention is the idea of
bashing a reviewer for "missing" a refutation, while at
the same time excusing an author for the same. In
one interesting case, a GM author claimed to have
carefully scutinized each of the games *he* selected
for publication, yet he nevertheless overlooked an
obvious double blunder! What makes this case so
interesting is the way in which a certain group of
unscrupulous scumbags then attempted to use this
GM gaffe to spear a hapless 2300+ reviewer -- while
giving their pal, the blind GM, a free pass! I don't
know which is funnier: the GM's own claims regarding
the care he took in creating that book, or the fact that
those clowns actually believed nobody would see
through their childish ploy.

If only things were different. If only chess books
could be written by sincere, hard-working experts who
were willing to earn their keep, instead of a select
group of lazy (but titled) dunces, just for money.

-- help bot