Larry Parr wrote (28 Apr 2006 19:18:09 -0700):
Larry Tapper, if memory serves, was the
character who dreamed up the postalcentric
defense for Taylor Kingston's flat out lie that
he was 2300+ ELO.

_
Larry Tapper wrote (1 May 2006 12:00:24 -0700)

Um, memory does not serve in this case

_
Indeed, a google search for June and July of 2005
fails to find any rgcp Larry Tapper note that
discusses rating claims by Taylor Kingston.
_
Will Larry Parr apologize, or does he think that
his "if memory serves" qualification absolves him
from any obligation to apologize?

Louis Blair wrote:
Larry Parr wrote (28 Apr 2006 19:18:09 -0700):
Larry Tapper, if memory serves, was the
character who dreamed up the postalcentric
defense for Taylor Kingston's flat out lie that
he was 2300+ ELO.

_
Larry Tapper wrote (1 May 2006 12:00:24 -0700)

Um, memory does not serve in this case

_
Indeed, a google search for June and July of 2005
fails to find any rgcp Larry Tapper note that
discusses rating claims by Taylor Kingston.
_
Will Larry Parr apologize, or does he think that
his "if memory serves" qualification absolves him
from any obligation to apologize?

Thanks Mr. Blair, your search techniques are better than mine. I did
post a note to the fide-chess list a couple of months later, objecting
to Sam Sloan's, er, magnified claim that Kingston had been reviewing
books in Chess Cafe under false pretenses, having led readers to
believe that he was a 2300 player.

This one reminds me of the incessantly repeated "Al Gore claimed he
invented the Internet" canard. It's tiresome.

Larry T.

As to the other accusations Bill Brock has made over and over again
hundreds of times over a period of years, just about everybody agrees
that having sex with a prostitute working in a whorehouse does not
constitute "child molestation". Also, prostitutes generally do not
generally carry photo ID cards with names and birth dates.

Sloan, would you be willing to affirm that, *to the best of your
knowledge*, that, from your 21st birthday until today, you have NEVER
had sexual relations with a minor (minor being defined by the
then-current local laws)?

I think it should be pointed out that there are two distinct types of
general chess literature. There are the "How To" manuals and there are
the "Historical" manuals. Now, please bear with me on my analogy, if
one had a love for old cars one might buy books that talked about the
old cars historically. Lots of information might be included(production
years, engine displacement, cost to buy new, ect).

If one wanted to repair the car and work on it that type of book would
be useless to the purpose. If you bought that book for that reason,
you bought the wrong book. You would instead want a book that tells you
how to tear down the engine or to rebuild a carbuerator.

If you wanted to read about the car "historically", then a repair
manual would be an aweful purchase.

So if a book's intent is to present a more historical examination of
something, don't be too harsh about it's technical side if it has one.
If it's intent is to be a technical book, don't be too harsh if it's
historical facts are weak.

There is plenty enough fault to be found in any work done by anyone to
waste alot of time worring about it. Be assured that person's taste
will also vary. What one person does not like someone else may. It
simply isn't a zero sum equation in my opinion.
Rob

wrote:
What a good spot by Ray Keene! I think he is spot on about book
reviewers, most of them are simply not qualified to write anything
meaningful.

Actually, it's completely off the mark. There are two criteria under
which one might want to review the technical content of a book:

1. its accuracy;
2. its effectiveness in conveying the material to the reader.

I agree that only a very strong player can authoritatively review a
book for technical accuracy, though the ability of computers to spot
tactical analytical mistakes lowers the bar a little here.

However, the best person to evaluate the effectiveness of a book at
conveying the material to the reader is somebody in the target
audience. A titled player will have no idea how well a book explains
ideas to a random club player and vice-versa. Since my understanding
is that Keene is not aiming his books primarily at titled players, it
seems that the non-titled player is actually more qualified to write
the review in this case. A book that doesn't explain things in a way
that is comprehensible to the intended audience is near-worthless,
regardless of how accurate it is.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Enormous Cheese (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ brick of cheese but it's huge!

On 04 May 2006 15:09:34 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
wrote:


... the best person to evaluate the effectiveness of a book at
conveying the material to the reader is somebody in the target
audience. A titled player will have no idea how well a book explains
ideas to a random club player and vice-versa. Since my understanding
is that Keene is not aiming his books primarily at titled players, it
seems that the non-titled player is actually more qualified to write
the review in this case. A book that doesn't explain things in a way
that is comprehensible to the intended audience is near-worthless,
regardless of how accurate it is.

When the book under review is primarily technical or pedagogical, a
potential problem with the reviewer coming from the target audience is
that the reviewer may lack perspective on how well the book conveys
material needed for mastery.

,An ideal reviewer might be a titled player who got the title
primarily through disciplined use of training material (rather than
through natural genius) and who still remembers each phase of his
apprenticeship.




Dave.

This is a good post!

I noted before that maybe the best reviews are by people who have worked
with a book over time, not only playing through its lines, but actually
deploying them in chess games!

Phil Innes

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
wrote:
What a good spot by Ray Keene! I think he is spot on about book
reviewers, most of them are simply not qualified to write anything
meaningful.

Actually, it's completely off the mark. There are two criteria under
which one might want to review the technical content of a book:

1. its accuracy;
2. its effectiveness in conveying the material to the reader.

I agree that only a very strong player can authoritatively review a
book for technical accuracy, though the ability of computers to spot
tactical analytical mistakes lowers the bar a little here.

However, the best person to evaluate the effectiveness of a book at
conveying the material to the reader is somebody in the target
audience. A titled player will have no idea how well a book explains
ideas to a random club player and vice-versa. Since my understanding
is that Keene is not aiming his books primarily at titled players, it
seems that the non-titled player is actually more qualified to write
the review in this case. A book that doesn't explain things in a way
that is comprehensible to the intended audience is near-worthless,
regardless of how accurate it is.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Enormous Cheese (TM): it's
like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ brick of cheese but it's
huge!

Chess One wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
[stuff]

This is a good post!

Thank you.

I noted before that maybe the best reviews are by people who have
worked with a book over time, not only playing through its lines,
but actually deploying them in chess games!

Yes. Of course, reviewers are often reviewing new books rather than
old favourites so there usually isn't enough time to gain this level
of familiarity with the work and the subject. Also, if all reviews
were like this, they'd pretty much all be positive, as nobody would
stick with a bad book long enough to review it!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Metal Gerbil (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet that's made of steel!

Sloan, would you be willing to affirm that, *to the best of your
knowledge*, that, from your 21st birthday until today, you have NEVER
had sexual relations with a minor (minor being defined by the
then-current local laws)?

Guess not.

so, will all agree to disagree?