On 09 Oct 2007 17:33:33 +0100 (BST)
David Richerby wrote:

If it was, directly, or indirectly, received from a book, how can
you maintain that such a book is useless?

Perhaps it was from a book. But if it was, it was a book that
happened to contain this information and much more besides, not a book
specifically about how to get a knight from A to B.

Why do you object to niche chess books? If they achieve what they set
out to do, what's the problem?

I never claimed you had to read the entire eighty-page book to learn
the methods within. In fact, in my review I explicitly said that
you'd only need to read about 8 pages of it to learn the method.

Well, yes. But it's still an eighty page book and it's still eight
pages to describe how to do something trivial.

I don't think it's trivial. Nor do I think most chess players would
find it trivial. I think the book could have been shorter (by
omitting the first half that describes why the method works), but then
it would have been less interesting. It could have also been shortened
by taking out the examples, exercises, and diagrams, but then it would
have made learning the method harder. So, I think it's really the
perfect length.

I, for one, am glad the author didn't try to cram the whole method
in to a single page, without any examples, explanations, exercises,
diagrams, or answers... as I would have probably had a harder time
learning it.

Of course. And it may well be an especially well-written book that
explains the method extremely well. But it still strikes me as being
like a book that teaches you enough rock-climbing skills to let you
get to the second floor of your house by scaling the outside wall and
coming in through the window, rather than just telling you to walk up
the stairs.

Well, the trial and error parts of the method you describe is not like
"walking up the stairs", but more like trying to solve a maze by
randomly picking directions, instead of always making right hand turns.
But, hey, it works for you... and you seem to be in no hurry to improve
on it. Fine. But I do think that many other chess players will be
interested in learning a better way.