Do authors lose credibility when they're not playing or not great players?

Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next
Last Post

22 months ago · Quote · #61
Elubas

I took a couple peeks into the book and it actually seemed to be pretty enlightening. Perhaps you should judge the book more on what you learn from it than anything else. Indeed, modern, high level chess is defined more by pragmatism and I actually agree if he said "rule independence."

Stuff like development, etc, I would not call rules, but I would think of them as just one more thing to consider in the position. Ultimately everything depends on whether you're achieving something. Sometimes, development is giving you lots of threats to work with. The most straightforward counterexample is when the center is closed, yet even then the final verdict will be determined by the answer to the question that asks if the side with more development will still find a way to break through.

When you see lots of development, it would in my opinion be inferior to handle it this way: Check if there are "exceptions," then assume that the move or position is good. Instead, don't even think about rules or exceptions: just ask yourself whether it is giving him concrete problems.

Every single good move, whether it's intuitive -- developing towards the center --, or not -- gaining space on the queenside, delaying development --, has one thing in common: it gives the opponent a problem, and that's what Watson probably assumes grandmasters are looking for, and I would, too! In any case, you get to see a less usual perspective on things, so, like I said, one should be able to learn from it.

Ultimately, judge the book for the book, not the author; if you read something that seems to contain a lot of wisdom, don't pretend that it doesn't if you happen to find out that your author is "only a master," or something.

If it's said to contain a lot of interesting stuff, why not give it a try? No need to be stubborn here. It's your call, though.
22 months ago · Quote · #62
PUMAPRIDE

brilliantboy wrote:

PUMAPRIDE wrote:

brilliantboy wrote:

uhohspaghettio wrote:

brilliantboy wrote:

Amazon customer wrote:

2 out of 5 stars

Kasparov is just a lot of talk !, June 8, 2008

By KEN TELLS ALL "PERFECTIONIST"

This review is from: Garry Kasparov on Fischer: Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors, Part 4 (Hardcover)

Plain & simple, Kasparov has super computers doing all the work on finding Fischer mistakes in this book. Computers are the steroids of chess. Todays players cannot be judged equally because of this. Fischer, and prior chess masters, had only their minds and that is why they will continue to be known as the greatest natural players of all time.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2895YZCIJRPTH/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1857443950&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=

Amazon reviews are fun

Hey uhoh, why don't you post this topic over at chesspub and see what kind of reaction you get, maybe even Watson himself can chime in then.

Why, what kind of reaction do you think I'd get? In fact there was a topic there a while ago about something very similar, but rather the author was ~2100 or something like that.

Edit: Found the link: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1233353371/0

Whatever the case, it's a valid criticism, many prominent players have said the same thing apart from Aagaard. But I do agree it would be funny if John Watson showed up. It would be very hypocritical for someone like Silmann or Soltis to have this criticism about Watson. Though, I admit I would like if it were someone like Kasparov who came out and said these things rather than just Aagaard. However Kasparov is high up in a publishing company (Everyman Chess maybe), so he has both conflicts of interest and doesn't need enemies.

I just think that, like previous posters have opined, it's a bit naive to pass judgement on a book you haven't read, especially when it's such an acclaimed work and the critics (something every book has) are far outnumbered by the proponents. And more than a bit naive to think you have nothing to learn from the book even if the critiscisms are valid

Yes, I remember reading that topic, though I don't think the comparison is justified. The book chronicles his own and suggests other adult players adopt the same approach. The objection to Hortillosa's book is that the improvment he experienced was neither very great nor sustained and so some questioned his suitability to write such a book. Watson on the other hand is an IM, a very strong player relative to the majority of the chess world (regardless of when he played last) and a highly regarded opening theoretician and his book (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy) is not an instructional manual...he doesn't say "you must play this way and you'll gain XXX rating points"

well their advertisment were already full of lies, why need to read watsons book to review him. Seriously woudl you trust a criminal with your savings??( and no i dont mean that nice criminals like mikael milken , i mean those guys that knock you down in a dark ally at take all you got on your body)

You get more ridiculous every time you post. What are you babbling about, what advertisement? And suggesting that John Watson is a criminal...really? He's not even a prolific author (nor is Silman)...and even if he was, who is forcing you to buy his books?

Why are you twisting my words, are you an advertiser for watson and silman? you understand pretty well what i said. Just look aT silmans advertisment for watsons book, its pretty dishonest. Why would you invest your precious time and money in a dishonest person.
22 months ago · Quote · #63
PUMAPRIDE

Elubas wrote:

I took a couple peeks into the book and it actually seemed to be pretty enlightening. Perhaps you should judge the book more on what you learn from it than anything else. Indeed, modern, high level chess is defined more by pragmatism and I actually agree if he said "rule independence."

Stuff like development, etc, I would not call rules, but I would think of them as just one more thing to consider in the position. Ultimately everything depends on whether you're achieving something. Sometimes, development is giving you lots of threats to work with. The most straightforward counterexample is when the center is closed, yet even then the final verdict will be determined by the answer to the question that asks if the side with more development will still find a way to break through.

When you see lots of development, it would in my opinion be inferior to handle it this way: Check if there are "exceptions," then assume that the move or position is good. Instead, don't even think about rules or exceptions: just ask yourself whether it is giving him concrete problems.

Every single good move, whether it's intuitive -- developing towards the center --, or not -- gaining space on the queenside, delaying development --, has one thing in common: it gives the opponent a problem, and that's what Watson probably assumes grandmasters are looking for, and I would, too! In any case, you get to see a less usual perspective on things, so, like I said, one should be able to learn from it.

Ultimately, judge the book for the book, not the author; if you read something that seems to contain a lot of wisdom, don't pretend that it doesn't if you happen to find out that your author is "only a master," or something.

If it's said to contain a lot of interesting stuff, why not give it a try? No need to be stubborn here. It's your call, though.

Well because they proved dishonest already, why waste precious time and money on a chance that even so they are dishonest, they might write good books? i mean there arent enough good books out there, why need theirs? dont tell me they teach something you cant learn from the thousand of other books out there... well the point it you risk reading the book what happens, they get richer anyway, no matter if you waste your time or not. so why take risks??

Thats just my personal opinion but just read Silman advertisment for Watsons book
22 months ago · Quote · #64
NM Reb

Advertising dishonest ?! <GASP> You can't be serious ?! Do you think all the ads you see on TV or from other sources are always completely honest ?! If you do I have to admit you are the ONLY person I have met who does.
22 months ago · Quote · #65
kco

Pumapride - GambitKing ?
22 months ago · Quote · #66
PUMAPRIDE

solomonben wrote:

Do you still believe in Santa? That title will not teach you the "secrets" otherwise they wouldn't be secrets! In order to become strong you need to spend tons of money in coaches, and so many hours that it is better you go to college and get a real job.

The strongest GMs will not teach you anything, because they make a living out of it, so no way they lose their income, and for sure they will not give away their "secrets" for 20-30 dollar books. They will not tell you anything about their preparation, will just tell you vague comments, that you cannot really use.

But feel free to prove me wrong, and show me which titles, if studied, would bring a person at IM or GM level.

The stuff which is printed is just old material like Nimzovich ideas cooked over and over. Fischer a true legend, didn't tell anything of his preparation, and what he studied, how and so on, and the Russians being poor (if you notice the US championship is generally won by a Russian guy) will not tell you either.

Then of course there are endless useless articles, written by GMs or IMs, which also will not teach you anything about the real stuff.

well most people who want to improve chess are probably to old for college
22 months ago · Quote · #67
PUMAPRIDE

solomonben wrote:

Do you still believe in Santa? That title will not teach you the "secrets" otherwise they wouldn't be secrets! In order to become strong you need to spend tons of money in coaches, and so many hours that it is better you go to college and get a real job.

The strongest GMs will not teach you anything, because they make a living out of it, so no way they lose their income, and for sure they will not give away their "secrets" for 20-30 dollar books. They will not tell you anything about their preparation, will just tell you vague comments, that you cannot really use.

But feel free to prove me wrong, and show me which titles, if studied, would bring a person at IM or GM level.

The stuff which is printed is just old material like Nimzovich ideas cooked over and over. Fischer a true legend, didn't tell anything of his preparation, and what he studied, how and so on, and the Russians being poor (if you notice the US championship is generally won by a Russian guy) will not tell you either.

Then of course there are endless useless articles, written by GMs or IMs, which also will not teach you anything about the real stuff.

funny, now i remember a gm who said he became gm by only studieng bobby fischers my 60 memorable games.
22 months ago · Quote · #68
Arctor

kco wrote:

Pumapride - GambitKing ?

I really hope so. I'd like to believe that a real person couldn't be that ridiculous.

Pumapride, if you can't provide a comprehensible argument then my part in the discussion is over. I feel like I'm losing IQ points (of which I don't have many to begin with) just by reading your posts, which are mostly some variation on: "Fischer is my favorite player, X said this about Fischer. Therefore X is a filthy jew title-stealing criminal and his books suck"
22 months ago · Quote · #69
PUMAPRIDE

Reb wrote:

Advertising dishonest ?! You can't be serious ?! Do you think all the ads you see on TV or from other sources are always completely honest ?! If you do I have to admit you are the ONLY person I have met who does.

of course you are right, the point is that silman they pretended that its an honest assessment of the book and not advertisment. he misused his authority as and chess authority, i find that verry dishonest and not verry trustworthy. He spoke as an authority and pretended it was an honest assessment, if a good author has to go down this way and risks his name in the process, i dont believe he can be that good.
22 months ago · Quote · #70
PUMAPRIDE

brilliantboy wrote:

kco wrote:

Pumapride - GambitKing ?

I really hope so. I'd like to believe that a real person couldn't be that ridiculous.

Pumapride, if you can't provide a comprehensible argument then my part in the discussion is over. I feel like I'm losing IQ points (of which I don't have many to begin with) just by reading your posts, which are mostly some variation on: "Fischer is my favorite player, X said this about Fischer. Therefore X is a filthy jew title-stealing criminal and his books suck"

Because i critisize silman im a jewhater. well that makes sense, you must be really be on his advertising stuff. also its not fair to misuse jews to make silman look better, no jew in the entire world has anything to do with silmans dishonesty, thats just purely Silmans greed and it tells verry much about him as a person, if he uses jews to discredit me.

you know and that alone is a verry good prove that he must not be verry good. i know many great jews, that never in their entire life played the jew card. just look andre kostolany, did he ever play it?? did mikael milken ever play the jew card?? i dont think any great person has to go down that way.
22 months ago · Quote · #71
PUMAPRIDE

solomonben wrote:

Do you still believe in Santa? That title will not teach you the "secrets" otherwise they wouldn't be secrets! In order to become strong you need to spend tons of money in coaches, and so many hours that it is better you go to college and get a real job.

The strongest GMs will not teach you anything, because they make a living out of it, so no way they lose their income, and for sure they will not give away their "secrets" for 20-30 dollar books. They will not tell you anything about their preparation, will just tell you vague comments, that you cannot really use.

But feel free to prove me wrong, and show me which titles, if studied, would bring a person at IM or GM level.

The stuff which is printed is just old material like Nimzovich ideas cooked over and over. Fischer a true legend, didn't tell anything of his preparation, and what he studied, how and so on, and the Russians being poor (if you notice the US championship is generally won by a Russian guy) will not tell you either.

Then of course there are endless useless articles, written by GMs or IMs, which also will not teach you anything about the real stuff.

well but there are also people who are going to run a company, learn the stock market, but at the time were they cant do that learn to get better in that great game, so that they dont feel they have to waste their time. i feel not only it is fun, but you feel your time is not wasted if you learn something in the time i cant do the formentioned.
22 months ago · Quote · #72
waffllemaster

Natalia_Pogonina wrote:

They don't lose credibility, but their sense of the pulse of the game is starting to fade. Also, it depends on the type of book. If a 2300 tells you he knows all about the Gruenfeld or Najdorf, he is clearly lying.

I think this is the main point to make. If players like Silman write a book about basic chess elements, then obviously they're qualified to do so.
22 months ago · Quote · #73
waffllemaster

solomonben wrote:

Do you still believe in Santa? That title will not teach you the "secrets" otherwise they wouldn't be secrets! In order to become strong you need to spend tons of money in coaches, and so many hours that it is better you go to college and get a real job.

The strongest GMs will not teach you anything, because they make a living out of it, so no way they lose their income, and for sure they will not give away their "secrets" for 20-30 dollar books. They will not tell you anything about their preparation, will just tell you vague comments, that you cannot really use.

But feel free to prove me wrong, and show me which titles, if studied, would bring a person at IM or GM level.

The stuff which is printed is just old material like Nimzovich ideas cooked over and over. Fischer a true legend, didn't tell anything of his preparation, and what he studied, how and so on, and the Russians being poor (if you notice the US championship is generally won by a Russian guy) will not tell you either.

Then of course there are endless useless articles, written by GMs or IMs, which also will not teach you anything about the real stuff.

Your post needs to reconcile the ideas that 1) It requires years of hard work to becomes a world class player and 2) World class players write useless books and articles to keep their ranks thin.

Although you did put the word secrets in quotes so you do seem to understand there are no "secrets" a GM could tell us, or training methods they could outline, that would bypass the need for what is certainly more hard work than it's worth for all but the most passionate about the game.
22 months ago · Quote · #74
WGM Natalia_Pogonina

All this talk about top players assumedly not writing books because they are afraid of competition deserves to be posted in the Chess Humor thread. A few brief statements:

a) Most books are written for novice or club players who aim for 2000 or NM, not for GM and above level. Even if the authors had an evil intent to kill competition, pros aren't afraid of 2000-rated amateurs. The more of them, the more popular chess is, and the higher the potential earnings.

b) One can share secrets, but reading a book alone won't make the reader a top player since chess is one of the most competitive activities in the world. Normally even a talented person has to play & train in good conditions for at least 10 years to start thinking about becoming a pro. Those who think all they need to become GM is play with Chess Master, solve tactics and get a chess book, and then accuse the GMs of keeping certain secrets to themselves to hinder competition, simply don't know what they are talking about.

c) Writing a good book requires at least a year. A top pro would earn up to a few hundred thousand $ during this time. A chess book won't make one so much money for the author, as an average one sells just 2000-3000 copies. Not to mention that writing and playing are two different things. Not everyone is fond of that, and not everyone has the talent to write well even if he wants to. These are the main reasons why most top GMs don't write books at all.
22 months ago · Quote · #75
yusuf_prasojo

waffllemaster wroteAlthough you did put the word secrets in quotes so you do seem to understand there are no "secrets" a GM could tell us, or training methods they could outline, that would bypass the need for what is certainly more hard work than it's worth for all but the most passionate about the game.

I believe there are secrets. Many of them. It is not supposed to bypass the hard work, but still it (the knowledge) is something very useful but rarely or never been exposed. At GM level I guess it is mostly about but not limited to opening. How to refute certain line, what ideas are in certain positions, etc.
22 months ago · Quote · #76
WGM Natalia_Pogonina

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

waffllemaster wroteAlthough you did put the word secrets in quotes so you do seem to understand there are no "secrets" a GM could tell us, or training methods they could outline, that would bypass the need for what is certainly more hard work than it's worth for all but the most passionate about the game.

I believe there are secrets. Many of them. It is not supposed to bypass the hard work, but still it (the knowledge) is something very useful but rarely or never been exposed. At GM level I guess it is mostly about but not limited to opening. How to refute certain line, what ideas are in certain positions, etc.

True. People are exchanging ideas and novelties, as well as essential info (who is working with whom and on what, psychological and physical form, etc.). There's nothing really to publish, and it gets outdated quickly. If I need dossiers on my opponents in the Russian Superfinal, I will simply ask one of my seconds to prepare them and keep it confidential, as opposed to publishing the characteristics in a book.
22 months ago · Quote · #77
melvinbluestone

Natalia_Pogonina wrote:

They don't lose credibility, but their sense of the pulse of the game is starting to fade. Also, it depends on the type of book. If a 2300 tells you he knows all about the Gruenfeld or Najdorf, he is clearly lying.

Whoa! Hold on there! I think "lying" is a bit strong here. Maybe the author just gets nervous in competition or something. He may still have a good deal of knowledge to impart. And I'd be suspicious of anyone who says they know "all" about anything. GM Pogonina also writes in post #77 that "writing and playing" are different things, so I think she may have been exaggerating here. Anyway, the whole basic premise of uhohspaghettio's topic is faulty: that only top players can, or should, teach. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Jack Collins in this thread. Only a master himself, he taught a number of players who later became grandmasters, including Robert Byrne, William Lombardy and some guy named........ Bobby Fischer.
22 months ago · Quote · #78
Elubas

Yes I'm assuming Ms. Pogonina was exaggerating a tad, because she was smiling :)

Either that or the 2300 is ;)

And yes, if we look into the perspective of a top player, they probably, during their prime years anyway, don't have either the time or motivation to write because it both can reveal secrets -- if their opening ideas are totally exposed this could truly affect their career; and they would doubtlessly make more money playing anyway.
22 months ago · Quote · #79
joeick

My personall opinion is that an IM, FM or any master has a lot to teach 99.5% of the chess world. A "Has been" probably has a better understanding of the game than they used to if they still study, But as they age their calculation, focus and time sense degenerate, making top level play impossible. When chosing between a say... a GM writer or an IM writer, what I think is more important is the ability to teach and convey information, as both have a lot more chess knowlage than any amature or expert.
22 months ago · Quote · #80
PUMAPRIDE

joeick wrote:

My personall opinion is that an IM, FM or any master has a lot to teach 99.5% of the chess world. A "Has been" probably has a better understanding of the game than they used to if they still study, But as they age their calculation, focus and time sense degenerate, making top level play impossible. When chosing between a say... a GM writer or an IM writer, what I think is more important is the ability to teach and convey information, as both have a lot more chess knowlage than any amature or expert.

well if an im has way more knowledge than an expert so has a gm way more knowledge than an im. sure if he can´t teach all gm knowledge wont help. but itds definetly an accurate assessment that chess is a search for the truth and the weaker the player the more faulty are their assumption, so i think we definetly would learn more from gms than ims. just look at the books written in the past, today everyone publishes work, but do you know a really good classic book ( i mean older than 20 years about strategy or technique that was written by an im?) i dont know but i know to little to judge.

well master still can teach a lot but when to choose between their knowledge and gms, i would always stick to the gm, as long as he knows how to teach