... It seems to me you are incable to undertand that the reputation of the most books you suggested are irrelevant with what the OP is asking about when the possibilities to find the right information he seek are not included in most of them!!!
It seems to me that the person could have found it of value to have an improved understanding of one or the other of the openings.
... Let's say that he doesn't have the nessecary founds to buy on of those , but he can find the Killer Chess Opening repertoire only or the Zuke'em all ....
He is doomed to do not understand anything from the information he will read about, according to what he ask and don't understand.
I see no reason to doubt that the book would help the reader to play the opening covered in the book and no reason to doubt that the reader would value such a book. If I remember correctly, I suggested a Starting Out book that might have been more helpful on the same opening.
Exactly my point. You didnt understand the OP question, you didnt understand what information he is looking about to know, you dont have idea which book incude the difference between the Koltanowsky system and the Zukertor, you have no clue how and if both openings can mix their ideas, you dont know if the books you are suggested contains such information but...
You are authorized to suggest!!
Resulting : The OP things that because the Zukem'all book doesnt mention the Koltanowsky its the same as one. If he cant find a "Starting Out" book or something with basic informations and fundamental ones its okay?? to read the Killer Opening Repertoire since it contain 24 pages of repertoire options in the Zukertor...right?
Are you joking with us Kindaspongey or you are cluelless enough?
... You didnt understand the OP question, you didnt understand what information he is looking about to know, you dont have idea which book incude the difference between the Koltanowsky system and the Zukertor, you have no clue how and if both openings can mix their ideas, you dont know if the books you are suggested contains such information but...
You are authorized to suggest!!
Resulting : The OP things that because the Zukem'all book doesnt mention the Koltanowsky its the same as one. If he cant find a "Starting Out" book or something with basic informations and fundamental ones its okay?? to read the Killer Opening Repertoire since it contain 24 pages of repertoire options in the Zukertor...right?
Are you joking with us Kindaspongey or you are cluelless enough?
If I remember correctly, the Killer book had sample games, but I agree that a Starting Out book would probably have been better. I tried to provide information to enable the player to see which books had the most focus on basic information and fundamentals and which books had the authors with the best credentials.
... There is no value in improved understanding of an opening for a beginner. ...
"... In games between novice chess players, color is not the most important factor, but acquired knowledge is crucial. Without the basics of opening play it is easy to fail, and that's why openings must be learned. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
"I tried to provide information to enable the player to see which books had the most focus on basic information and fundamentals and which books had the authors with the best credentials."
No you didnt! The basic informations are irrelevant if the book does not clarify why both openings cant mix their ideas, or when you can use the Koltanowsky in advance of the Zukertor and vice versa.
None or one of the books you mentioned contains this information which is exactly what the OP asks about.
Suggesting books based on authors credentials and not what the reader is looking for its not a useful thing to do from your side.
The OP didnt asked how to play the Colle or the Zukertor. The OP asked when the Zukertor can become Colle.
Now..go to your suggestions and tell me where exactly this information is written about!
"I tried to provide information to enable the player to see which books had the most focus on basic information and fundamentals and which books had the authors with the best credentials."
No you didnt! ...
See the links that I provided with the books.
"I tried to provide information to enable the player to see which books had the most focus on basic information and fundamentals and which books had the authors with the best credentials."
No you didnt! ...
See the links that I provided with the books.
I saw the links and i have read the books. Where exactly contains the information the OP is looking for in those books is my question and why you suggested books irrelevant with what the OP is looking for.
Do you understand English or should i write it in Japanese?
... The basic informations are irrelevant if the book does not clarify why both openings cant mix their ideas, or when you can use the Koltanowsky in advance of the Zukertor and vice versa.
None or one of the books you mentioned contains this information which is exactly what the OP asks about. ...
There seems to be a widespread belief that a book does not have to discuss both openings in order to provide information relevant to assisting the reader with the playing of one of the openings.
... Suggesting books based on authors credentials and not what the reader is looking for its not a useful thing to do from your side.
The OP didnt asked how to play the Colle or the Zukertor. The OP asked when the Zukertor can become Colle. ...
I see no reason to doubt that the player would have valued assistance with the playing of one of the openings.
... The basic informations are irrelevant if the book does not clarify why both openings cant mix their ideas, or when you can use the Koltanowsky in advance of the Zukertor and vice versa.
None or one of the books you mentioned contains this information which is exactly what the OP asks about. ...
There seems to be a widespread belief that a book does not have to discuss both openings in order to provide information relevant to assisting the reader with the playing of one of the openings.
How as that? Both openings are based in the same pawn structure and color complex, they have similar origin...
How a beginner on this opening would clarify that both openings cant mix their ideas? and what is your responsibility as someone who suggest these books to a beginner ?
Read a repertoire book and understand by your own? Thats your proposal?
"I tried to provide information to enable the player to see which books had the most focus on basic information and fundamentals and which books had the authors with the best credentials."
No you didnt! ...
See the links that I provided with the books.
I saw the links and i have read the books. Where exactly contains the information the OP is looking for in those books is my question and why you suggested books irrelevant with what the OP is looking for.
Do you understand English or should i write it in Japanese?
I would expect your understanding of English to enable you to perceive that you quoted a sentence that refers to providing information about author credentials and locating a focus on basic information and fundamentals. The quoted sentence does not claim that I provided information satisfying your relevance beliefs. My belief was that the player might value more explanation about one or the other of those openings, and I acted in accordance with that belief.
"I tried to provide information to enable the player to see which books had the most focus on basic information and fundamentals and which books had the authors with the best credentials."
No you didnt! ...
See the links that I provided with the books.
I saw the links and i have read the books. Where exactly contains the information the OP is looking for in those books is my question and why you suggested books irrelevant with what the OP is looking for.
Do you understand English or should i write it in Japanese?
I would expect your understanding of English to enable you to perceive that you quoted a sentence that refers to providing information about author credentials and locating a focus on basic information and fundamental. The quoted sentence does not claim that I provided information satisfying your relevance beliefs. My belief was that the player might value more explanation about one or the other of those openings, and I acted in accordance with that belief.
Exactly. Your belief is not objective to what the OP is looking for but to what you understand is better for him to read, so in sence you admitt that you are not authorized to provide the right information through book content but you still do it? Right?
Who told you that our awareness its an alothy for our actions?
... How a beginner on this opening would clarify that both openings cant mix their ideas? and what is your responsibility as someone who suggest these books to a beginner ?
Read a repertoire book and understand by your own? Thats your proposal?
My idea was that the player could look at the information and choose a book suitable for the player's level (probably a Starting Out book). I have seen a lot of commentary in connection with those books and I have never seen anyone but you fear that such a book would result in a reader mixing the ideas of the two openings.
... My belief was that the player might value more explanation about one or the other of those openings, and I acted in accordance with that belief.
Exactly. Your belief is not objective to what the OP is looking for but to what you understand is better for him to read, ...
I did not refer to a belief about what would be better for the player to read. I referred to my belief about what the player might value.
... in sence you admitt that you are not authorized to provide the right information through book content but you still do it? Right? ...
I am not aware of any authorization requirements around here. Also, I suspect that I do not share your notion of "right information".
... "... In games between novice chess players, color is not the most important factor, but acquired knowledge is crucial. Without the basics of opening play it is easy to fail, and that's why openings must be learned. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
Averbakh talks about the basics of opening play not about improved understanding of an opening.
I suggest that you look again at those last four words: "... openings must be learned. ...."
... How a beginner on this opening would clarify that both openings cant mix their ideas? and what is your responsibility as someone who suggest these books to a beginner ?
Read a repertoire book and understand by your own? Thats your proposal?
My idea was that the player could look at the information and choose a book suitable for the player's level (probably a Starting Out book). I have seen a lot of commentary in connection with those books and I have never seen anyone but you fear that such a book would result in a reader mixing the ideas of the two openings.
That is because you didnt looked the OP. If you look closely to what he write it is more than obvious that he will not understand nothing from a repertoire book. The thing is that you dont care about...
If you was care about, your list should include only one book and not ten which five are irrelevant with what the OP is looking for to understand.
... in sence you admitt that you are not authorized to provide the right information through book content but you still do it? Right? ...
I am not aware of any authorization requirements around here. Also, I suspect that I do not share your notion of "right information".
That is true! It not require an authorization but that gives the right to members like you post anecessary or dangerous misleading content by wasting people's time here and energy to seek information.
I dont think you understand the meaning of " right " information. We have nothing to share...
... What you did in that thread had no meaning at all. The list you gave is reffering to each opening separate with out mentioning why both can't mixed their ideas at the same time. ...
It seems to me that the books had a reputation of helping the reader with one or the other of the possibilities.
It seems to me you are incable to undertand that the reputation of the most books you suggested are irrelevant with what the OP is asking about when the possibilities to find the right information he seek are not included in most of them!!!