On Mar 4, 9:50 am, "Taylor Kingston" wrote:

A review:http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review431.pdf

A very well-written review, IMO.

BTW, in addition to the problems already noted by EW and
TK, in just reading excerpts from this review, I found additional
errors where the authors made assertions which are obviously
countermanded by the facts. This, to me, suggests a certain
unfamiliarity with the history of chess.

More to the point, is the general concept that the farther
one gets from the time of events, the less accurate will be
the reporting of events by witnesses. This of course is
counterbalanced by the advantage of having a better
perspective after the passing of time.

The first decent review I read, the one at ChessCafe.com,
questioned whether the authors even knew a Rook from a
Knight, and even after reading the review by Taylor Kingston,
I am not sure of the answer. Yet there are dangers inherent
in being "too close" to one's subject as well, as we saw
with GM Seirawan's book on the match.

-- help bot