On 12 Oct 2007 15:52:03 +0100 (BST)
David Richerby wrote:

foot wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
I note that it's offside for me to call AT `fancy' but just fine
for you to call my technique `much vaunted'.

You are vaunting about your technique... constantly. So to call it
"much vaunted" is simply to state a fact.

I've promoted it no more than you've promoted Alexander's. I've
presented it as a simple way of doing something that isn't difficult;
you've presented Alexander's technique as some great discovery that
will be of practical benefit to most chess players. It sounds to me
that your use of the phrase `much vaunted' serves no function except
to be a hypocritical perjorative.

No, it's a simple statement of fact. You vaunted your method quite a
lot, and I just called your method by what it was: a much vaunted
method. Whether the method I reviewed was also much vaunted or not is
really beside the point, as I never claimed that a method must be bad
if it was much vaunted. It would indeed be hypocritical if I did claim
that, but I never did.

On 12 Oct 2007 14:18:33 +0100 (BST)
David Richerby wrote:

foot wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
foot wrote:
As I've said several times now, the part of the book that teaches
the method only takes up 8 pages!

This is obviously some strange new meaning of the word `only' of
which I was previously unaware. Mine took less than half a page.

Yes. And yours isn't even half as useful.

In what way? It does exactly the same thing.

The method you describe is not (in my experience) as reliable, as
quick, or as free from the possibility of confusion. So, lacking these
qualities is what makes the method you describe not even half as useful.

Not to mention that you didn't have any diagrams illustrating what
you were describing.

What diagrams would you suggest to enhance the explanation?

Well, for example, a diagram illustrating what you meant by a 3x3
square... where is the knight in relation to that square? It's not
clear from your explanation. I happen to know exactly what you meant,
because there's a similar rule in Alexander's Technique, and because I
evaluated and tried out several knight positions relative to a 3x3
square on the board.. but if you had a simple diagram, it would have
been much easier to see what you meant.

That's just one example. There are others, such as diagrams
illustrating the starting and ending squares of the knight, in addition
to the path it would take to get between those squares. This would be
especially useful in longer knight paths.

And there are other still. But I'm not here to give you specific advice
on writing your own book, but simply to make the point that diagrams can
make an explanation clearer.

I would rather have something clearly explained in more pages than a
optimally condensed, but less than optimally clear explanation.

So would I. But what part of my explanation was causing difficulties
for you? Perhaps I can explain that part better.

See above.

You are really grasping at straws. At first you were harping that
it took a whole 80 pages to explain the method. Now that I've
pointed out that it only takes 8 pages you're still not satisfied,
as you can explain your own method in only one page.

If I did claim that it took all eighty pages after you'd already said
that only eight pages gave the method, I apologise for the inaccuracy
and any confusion that may have caused. As I recall, I merely
complained that I didn't see the need for an eighty-page book on the
topic and, really, it doesn't matter what the other seventy-two pages
contain.

Yes. You don't need an 80 page book. But that's quite irrelevant to
the point at hand, considering that you don't even need to read the
full 80 pages of the "Knight Moves" book to learn Alexander's
Technique. As I said, 40 pages are about why the technique works the
way it does, 8 pages for learning the method, and the rest of the book
are examples, exercises, answers, reference, and index... Sure, those
might also be superfluous (strictly speaking... if you want just the
bare bones description of the method and nothing more), but I think they
add to the value of the book.

So, if a method can't be explained in one page it's not worth
learning? How many one-page chess books have you bought recently?

If a method can't be explained in one page but an alternative method
of doing exactly the same thing can be explained in one page, I know
which one I'll go for.

But your method doesn't do the same thing, since is error prone,
potentially slow and confusing (for longer paths).

But, even if the methods were identical, just because each method
could be explained in one page (as could Alexander's Technique, if you
took out the diagrams and tried to cram in as much text as possible on
to a single page) doesn't mean that that's the best way of explaining
the method.

Clarity and ease of learning the method also count for something. I'd
pick the clearest and easiest to learn explanation rather than the
shortest one.. especially as we're talking only about 15 minutes of
reading time, for the longer explanation, if that. It's really
splitting hairs to insist the method must be explained on one page in
this case.

Alexander's technique sounds to me like a very hard way to do
something nearly trivial.

Is your own rule of "Moving to the opposite corner of a 3x3 square
always takes four moves" a "very hard way to do something nearly
trivial"? Because Alexander's Technique consists of rules no harder
than that.

No, it's a trivial way to do something nearly trivial. How many such
rules does Alexander's Technique actually have? You've not actually
said, as I recall, other than that it takes eight pages to list them.

I haven't counted them, but there are one or two rules per length of
the minimum knight path we're talking about (ie. 1 through 6)... so
maybe between 8 and 12 rules. Not really much (if at all) longer than
your own method.

foot wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
foot wrote:
Not to mention that you didn't have any diagrams illustrating what
you were describing.

What diagrams would you suggest to enhance the explanation?

Well, for example, a diagram illustrating what you meant by a 3x3
square... where is the knight in relation to that square? It's not
clear from your explanation.

Nice troll. You had me.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Portable Tool (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a handy household tool but
you can take it anywhere and it's
perfect for your grandparents!