Author: margolies,marc
Date: 11:36:30 03/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
thank you for your courteous response, Bob. I am sure that I am as guilty as charged :-) Truthfully I believed that I was responding to your writing, not reviewing your writing. But it is still extremely valuable to me to know how I am understood by my correspondents--I'll try to modify the tone of my writing here. I also use engines analytically. Despite the fact that my education makes me quite comfortable with ideas like bitboards and minimax optimizations, I have not practically applied them to game programming. Although I feel certain that I may someday do this for the experience of it, my tendency is to vector any additional energies I discover within me directly to playing and understanding chess, not epi-phenominal issues like programming chess. I still find computer chess increasingly interesting, if only because it has raised our human playing standards so high and so fast. On March 10, 2004 at 11:46:49, Bob Durrett wrote: >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.