Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:03:58 03/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2004 at 14:49:13, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>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 Albert, your comments are quite interesting and I would not mind discussing these OT morality issues but fear we are straying much too far from the main subject of this bulletin board, which is "computer chess," [whatever that is]. We are in dire mortal danger of being ZAPPED by a moderator! : ) 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.