"Jerry Creed" wrote in message ...
After reading these 2 reviews, what is your opinion of the book.

http://www.chesscafe.com/winter/winter.htm,
http://www.chesshistory.com/,{see The Critical Eye


Question: How many reviews should one read in order to arrive at a
correct opinion about a book? Even if one read reviews on both sides
of an issue (you accidently selected two on the same side of the
issue), that would not be enough.

....and you wonder why people loathe you!!!



"Gene Venable" wrote in message
om...
"Jerry Creed" wrote in message
...
After reading these 2 reviews, what is your opinion of the book.

http://www.chesscafe.com/winter/winter.htm,
http://www.chesshistory.com/,{see The Critical Eye


Question: How many reviews should one read in order to arrive at a
correct opinion about a book? Even if one read reviews on both sides
of an issue (you accidently selected two on the same side of the
issue), that would not be enough.

(Gene Venable) wrote in message . com...
"Jerry Creed" wrote in message ...
After reading these 2 reviews, what is your opinion of the book.

http://www.chesscafe.com/winter/winter.htm,
http://www.chesshistory.com/,{see The Critical Eye


Question: How many reviews should one read in order to arrive at a
correct opinion about a book? Even if one read reviews on both sides
of an issue (you accidently selected two on the same side of the
issue), that would not be enough.

Who really knows? I've run across many occasions where reviewers I
respect reach divergent conclusions about chess books. Sometimes it's
a matter of taste, sometimes one reviewer perhaps did not grasp as
much about the book's content as another. It's also likely that
different calibers of players will react differently to certain books
and color their judgement on its merit as well.

It should also be noted that few chess book reviewers are doing it for
financial compensation; in most cases they are done as a sort of
public service to the chess playing public. With only so many hours
in the day, it is understandable if a book doesn't always get a
microscopic examination by the reviewer.

The book in question is 437 pages, and it's absolutely packed with
content. I'm not surprised that there are things some reviewers are
calling into question. With that many pages and 148 games, well, it's
quite likely that some will call into question certain aspects of it.

I've worked with the book off and on for a couple of weeks, and I'm
hesitant to do much of a full blown review. I'm no chess historian,
and I do not have the time or inclination to meticulously search out
past references to many of these games and commentary. At the same
time, I have been fascinated by much of the book's discussion. Do I
know who wrote it? No, I do not. Does that necessarily detract from
it? I'll leave that to others. So far, I've found it an interesting
compendium, even if it may have some flaws.

Randy Bauer

Thanks, Randy. That's what I wanted to know. If others would buy and read
it in spite of the negative reviews I cited.


"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
om...
(Gene Venable) wrote in message
. com...
"Jerry Creed" wrote in message
...
After reading these 2 reviews, what is your opinion of the book.

http://www.chesscafe.com/winter/winter.htm,
http://www.chesshistory.com/,{see The Critical Eye


Question: How many reviews should one read in order to arrive at a
correct opinion about a book? Even if one read reviews on both sides
of an issue (you accidently selected two on the same side of the
issue), that would not be enough.

Who really knows? I've run across many occasions where reviewers I
respect reach divergent conclusions about chess books. Sometimes it's
a matter of taste, sometimes one reviewer perhaps did not grasp as
much about the book's content as another. It's also likely that
different calibers of players will react differently to certain books
and color their judgement on its merit as well.

It should also be noted that few chess book reviewers are doing it for
financial compensation; in most cases they are done as a sort of
public service to the chess playing public. With only so many hours
in the day, it is understandable if a book doesn't always get a
microscopic examination by the reviewer.

The book in question is 437 pages, and it's absolutely packed with
content. I'm not surprised that there are things some reviewers are
calling into question. With that many pages and 148 games, well, it's
quite likely that some will call into question certain aspects of it.

I've worked with the book off and on for a couple of weeks, and I'm
hesitant to do much of a full blown review. I'm no chess historian,
and I do not have the time or inclination to meticulously search out
past references to many of these games and commentary. At the same
time, I have been fascinated by much of the book's discussion. Do I
know who wrote it? No, I do not. Does that necessarily detract from
it? I'll leave that to others. So far, I've found it an interesting
compendium, even if it may have some flaws.

Randy Bauer