Talk to me about the Sicilian.

Oh. you mean. "For Example"

As part of my reaction to #49, I thought it would be worthwhile to post a reminder of the start of this thread.

Well ok. For a start I do care, because I have a basic level of unconditional regard for other human beings until they do something to lose it. Secondly he is talking about how easy it is to understand, something you God Level Intelligence make it difficult for you to grasp.The struggles of us mortals. This is why the Tyrant of the Old Testament nailed his only Son to tree so he could understand what it was like to be a feeble runt. 

Which I might add seems like a pretty shitty move when instead he could have just admitted that he didnt and couldnt know absolutely everything

What are your qualifications in Epistemology?

Because Im not qualified to teach it

Do you remember the identification of something incorrect?

I have no such wish.

I do not share your beliefs about what books do.

Well...I got stirred by someone perhaps...Not the first time someone has tried...Anyway. To finish the fight now I'm in it, there are plenty of reasons to care about someones view on something, even assuming your Epistemological position is that what they are saying is utter false, and there are a great many things you can learn from arguments that are incorrect. This is assuming that what he was saying was utterly false, and on that question his FIDE rating is totally Ad Hominem. It has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of what he has to say. Also reading the quote, it said it was easier to understand. That to me is a matter of opinion. I cared about that opinion. Frankly a lot of you are pedantic egomaniacs and I'm bored. Count me out of this conversation from now on. Goodbye.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

Anonymous said...

This is a well written review. I purchased the book and unfortunately I am a bit disappointed. The primer portion of the book is not very well written.

For most of the "mistakes", the author gives very little explanatory prose. Just one or two examples and nothing else. He spends an inordinate amount of time on when to exchange bishop for knight compared to the other mistakes. 

The repertoire portion seems nice but again I could just pick lines out of a database since the prose is lacking.

Incorrect.

See, for example #45 in this thread.

Why do you constantly share reviews kindaspongey? Where are your own thoughts and opinions?

You're better off not responding to his copy and paste jobs.  The more you respond, the more he will do his passive/aggressive shtick.

this is what happens when you discuss the sicilian.  it never ends well ...

most of you know italian is different from sicilian. e5 against c5, yes. but wait, there's more.

brought to you by the educational bunny.

@kindaspongey -

Continue to post in the forums as you have been. You have just as much right to post content as any other chess.com subscriber. It’s called freedom of expression. The overwhelming majority of the forum readership benefits from the information you provide especially as the content you post are mostly quotes reflecting the perspective of those who are more expert at chess than those who try to silence you. Whether it can be construed as controversial is immaterial.  The forum bullies can’t be allowed to control and censor forum content and shout down contributors simply because their mean-spirited and immature sensibilities are disturbed.

Seems to me that it can be helpful to know something about a book when considering it.