Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:49:13 03/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
>>>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 don't understand this last phrase at all. Are you saying he was somehow
promoting himself as opposed to reviewing the book? If that's the case, I'd be
curious to kow what lead you to that conclusion since I didn't feel that at all.
You bring up the issue of Mig getting paid for his review two times, so
apparently you take issue with a professional getting paid to opine and write a
review, which is also something I don't understand.
>>>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.
?? Could you give any arguments and examples to support this? Where does he say
the order the material should be presented? If the work has 192 pages, and they
are numbered 1 to 192, why would reading these pages in order somehow be wrong,
and to do so arrogant and childish? Does the author suggest a different reading
order? If so, then why present the material in the order it is in in the first
place? Frankly, I thought Mig was quite clear on his issues with the work. For
one thing, the title of the book is "How to Use Computers to Improve Your
Chess". Mig explains that the first 70 pages or so (out of 192!!) present a
history of software etc. but do not deal with the announced subject of the book.
If what he said is true, then I completely agree with him.
>>>
>>>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."
I completely disagree. The subject matter is precisely the title "How to Use
Computers to Improve Your Chess" and not an isolated word. This is not an
openeing reference book in which one may safely ignore lines that are irrelevant
to one's repertoire. The subject isn't chess, but how to use computers to
improve one's chess. Thus, what I am interested in is how I will improve my game
via the use of computers. I full expect the author to deal with exactly that. If
the 70 pages on history somehow show me how I can USE computers to improve my
game, then fine. If not, the author is wasting my time. If a student were to
turn in a papper in which they devoted over a 3rd of the paper to something that
was not a part of the subject matter, you can be sure it would be sorely
reflected in the grade, and deservedly so.
>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." : )
I am still completely at a loss with this whole payment issue you now bring up
for the third time. How is this at all relevant?? Mig is a professional with a
proven track record, and I would be fairly shocked if he were to start working
for free.
Albert
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.