Blind Faith

[Paul Heaton]

I'm sure many authors acquire some frustration when others comment on a book that they haven't read.

As someone who has the book, and read large parts of it, I thought it was both original and good. Chris should be very proud of writing it.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Forgive me if this causes offence, but there is something in the way you (Chris Ross) write that comes across as, er, 'different' is the best word I can come up with. I like it very much, but only because I get a sense of the meaning you are trying to convey, using a linguistic register that is not quite what might be expected. And I am now writing the same way!

What I am trying to say is that this factor should be taken into consideration. (I agree with what Paul wrote above as well.)

[Chris Ross]

Thanks to Paul Heaton and Christopher Kruezer.
I think this goes to demonstratively illustrate to how narrow-minded such reviewers (I use the word loosely) and "respectable chess players" (I use the phrase cautiously), such as Master Ivell, can actually add value to such threads.

[Matt Mackenzie]

This is an interesting discussion but let's not get too "personal" eh (I apply this to all "sides")

[NickFaulks]

“A niche opinion” clearly demonstrates to how narrow-minded you are reflecting on things. That alone, shows to your limited appreciation of the wider picture. Your incosideration for “otherness” illustrates an innate bias or, politely put, inability to constructively perceive alternative perceptions. Some folk would call that direct discrimination. You may wish to Google, "unconscious bias training". Rest assured, you are not alone in these generic prejudice’s.

However, the main point of the post is to illustrate that you have successfully corrupted an authentic thread about a book review. With your judgmental and un-constructive criticism of the book, without evidenced and peer-supported review analysis, you have affectively derailed the discussion on this topic. Admittedly you have done this unwittingly, but upon reflection, best practice suggests that you ought to report your initial comments to the admin of the site and request that your un-qualified comments should be deleted from the thread.

I was going to let this pass but, since failure to comment is now being interpreted as support, I feel bound to say that I found the above collection of words to be meaningless drivel.

[Roger de Coverly]

After all, in my opinion, I think Tal was a terrible chess player.

Good enough to become World Champion in 1960, even if his contemporaries eventually figured out how to play against him.

Is it not the accepteed opinion that he used judgement rather than calculation in his sacrifices?

The alpha zero style of engines may have caught up with this by analysing towards the end of the game. That's different to earlier generations that would cut off analysis based on the positional ideas of their programmers.

[Paul Cooksey]

I find Chris' response to Nick so unreasonable that I assume it is intended to promote interest in his book rather than to make any serious point.

Is it not the accepted opinion that [Tal] used judgement rather than calculation in his sacrifices?

I don't think that is entirely the received opinion, Bronstein more often used as the archetype of an intuitive attacking player.

Botvinnik seems to have had great respect for Tal's calculation, describing him as having a faster processor than other players. But also regarded him as a gambler, preferring complex lines over best play. It seems to me there is something modern in that attitude. Top GMs often talk about positions being easier or harder to play rather than objective assessment, at least when one side does not have a clear advantage.

[Nick Ivell]

You are certainly right, Paul, that no serious point has been made; rather oodles of modish propaganda.

I can't imagine anyone is fooled by this. Perhaps 'trolling' is the most polite way to put it.

[Chris Ross]

You are certainly right, Paul, that no serious point has been made; rather oodles of modish propaganda.

I can't imagine anyone is fooled by this. Perhaps 'trolling' is the most polite way to put it.

Highly instructive though, that not even one simple question can be answered without a defensive sniffling retreat and a “oh, don’t pick on me”!

Still, your posturing is my financial gain!!

[Nick Ivell]

Have a care, Mr Ross. Your posts are intemperate and foolish. Anyone can see that.

You have interpreted absence of comment as tacit support. Big mistake to make.

You are trashing your own reputation. Is it worth it, to sell a few more copies?

[NickFaulks]

Highly instructive though, that not even one simple question can be answered

Which question?

[Chris Ross]

Have a care, Mr Ross. Your posts are intemperate and foolish. Anyone can see that.

You have interpreted absence of comment as tacit support. Big mistake to make.

You are trashing your own reputation. Is it worth it, to sell a few more copies?

Well, “Master” Ivell, your gullibility has certainly been to my advantage, for which, I extend my everlasting gratitude.
In the world of academia where I work, tacit support usually defines itself with lone-wolf stance, but we’ll let you wallow in your self-righteousness...

No fear though, my reputation will prevail, have no concerns about that, my learned fellow! After all, a simple comparison with our relevant accomplishments (tournament success/title/rating) and participation in teams across the country...and that’s just the basics, I’m confident of which name is more widely known and respected...ah yeah, and who’s written an inspiring book – book sales can validate this, if you wish to see.

OH dear, queue the defensive grouching now...

Thanks for the continual bumping of the thread!

[Ian Thompson]

After all, a simple comparison with our relevant accomplishments (tournament success/title/rating) and participation in teams across the country...and that’s just the basics, I’m confident of which name is more widely known and respected

I too think that's an easy one to answer ... and it's not you.

[John Upham]

Thanks for the continual bumping of the thread!

If I'd known where this thread was going to end up I'd have never initiated it.

[Nick Ivell]

Time for the thread to be closed, I feel.

Why was this thread initially bumped? For financial gain, most likely. I put it to the mods that this is an abuse of the forum.

In closing the thread, you will also be doing this cantankerous author a favour. You may salvage what is left of his shattered reputation - good luck with that.