Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:46:49 03/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2004 at 10:11:46, margolies,marc wrote: >Hi Bob, >interesting answer, but a little bit of hurt there. >reviewers might disagree with you without regard to their motives. so i am not >sure that dissing mig for getting paid--if he were paid-- amounts to much. he is >certainly qualified to write such a review (and he seems to have read the book >too!) >your point about how a book is read interests me a bit more. i am juggling two >ideas in my head: 1> bob is talking a tad about himself more than the book (less >likely) or 2> bob is making a structural argument about the reading process in >the style of philosopher mortimer adler (he wrote 'how to read a book' published >by the u of chicago twenty or more years ago)-- then bob concludes that there is >only one proper way to read, so mig's review fails because mig did not adhere to >this principle. >all in all, I'd like to know which chapters were most important in kongsted's >computer book (as you mentioned that you read those chapters first)--to you, >bob, i mean. does your opinion share any congruences with the reviewer's in this >regard? >all the best to you, marc > > > >On March 10, 2004 at 09:49:30, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On March 10, 2004 at 01:28:01, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>>http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm >>> >>>this seems like an accurate appraisal to me. But I only looked at CK's book in >>>the store--because of its chessbase bias I did not purchase it. >>>I thought that the best part of kongsted was the how computers think section >>>with game analysis. But mig is a bit of a hotspur about this because it is >>>atopical to the book title. >>>-marc >> >>I did buy the book and take it home, and yes I did read every page. >> >>I was not interested in writing a book review for money as MIG did but was only >>looking for new information and insights which I could use. >> >>The mistake MIG made was to read the book from front to back. That is NOT the >>correct way to read such a book IF you want to obtain useful new information >>from the book! [When searching for useful information in a book, there is a >>better way to conduct the search.] MIG apparently was only reading the book to >>make more money for MIG by writing a book review. >> >>I first scanned the table of contents and then found the most interesting >>chapter and quickly read it first, making notes in the margins. Then I went to >>the second most interesting chapter and read it. Before I was done, I had >>quickly read the whole book, but in MY order, not front to back. I then went >>back to the places I had marked and studied those sections more carefully. >> >>A serious mistake MIG made was to decide, before even opening the cover of the >>book, that the author was required [by MIG] to provide only the information MIG >>wanted to read and to only present the material in the manner MIG preferred. >>That is a little bit childish, if not downright arrogant. >> >>The author did the best that he could, given the fact that he is obviously not >>an amateur chess programmer. He is a user of chess software. I agree with MIG >>that it would be nice if certain sections were expanded in future editions. >> >>The key "bottom line" question has to be: "Was the book was worth the reader's >>time?" In my case, it was. In someone else's case, who knows? It depends on >>how much the reader already knows. >> >>Bob D. Marc: It is interesting that we have three "reviews" here. First, MIG wrote a review of Kongsted's book, then I wrote a bulletin which could be considered to be a review of MIG's blurb, and then you wrote a bulletin which could be considered to be a review of my bulletin. Of course, in each case the author also put a little bit of himself into it and offered information beyond just offering a "review." It seems wise to apply the same standards to each of the three reviewers. We don't need any double [or triple] standards here! : ) The best way to "read" a book depends on several factors including the purpose of the "reading." This is a generality, but it is a start. I read all chess books, culling out none. Kongsted's book was no exception. The key word in the title was "chess" and not "computers" or "improve." My first step in looking at any chess book is to scan through the book, usually beginning with the last page. The purpose is to rapidly obtain an overview of the content. Then I look at whatever interests me most. Keep in mind that I am not getting paid to do this, so feel free to "do it my way." : ) In this case, I started with Chapter 6, "Computer Assisted Analysis" since I typically spend 5-10 hours a day doing computer assisted analysis. [I am retired.] The chapter was especially relevant to my current interests. Note that I am not an amateur chess programmer. I am a chess enthusiast who uses chess software extensively. An amateur chess programmer will obtain no assistance in learning how to program from Kongsted's book but may instead find a few useful insights into how users utilize the software. Bob D.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.