MNb wrote on 12/12/08 at 21:35:47:
.... the authors should do their best to find best play by the virtual opponent. Everybody can do that, unregarding playing strength, especially when aided by some strong chess machine. I feel that the authors fail in this respect, but maybe it's better in the latest edition.
I disagree only with regard that "everbody can do that." Everybody cannot, I opine. I think it is often hard for even the very best to find best play for the opposition. I wish I could. I cannot. Believe me, if I could, I would, and I wager so would you!
1. I think "strong chess machine" is not so wise as many chess players think it is.
2. Human judgement is still behind "strong chess machine," often in the form of mathematical expertise versus Chess expertise.
I believe that a skilled and highly functional chess technician can produce servicable books, maybe even seminal ones, regardless of rated playing strength as I do not see any evidence that rating and chess book authorship share a corollary relationship, BUT, and it is a big but (bigger than JLo's), without serious chess wisdom, any author will have far too many blind spots to be considered a "skilled and highly functional chess technician."
Living up to one's reputaion places tremendous burden to actually produce good work. What do lessors have to lose? Very little. So, instead they usually take the road of trying to hard to convince people of their validity. And the work itself suffers. And this, when it cannot hope to be all that good to begin with.
For example, I do not think Johannson's King Gambit books are all that good. They are poorly formatted, edited, full of superfluous lines, and difficult to navigate. This seems to be the albatross around the neck of every one of these efforts by the "lessors," as I shall call them. Even though these KG books may have some worthwhile tidbits in them, they are far too tedious to use, have too strong an agenda, and don't even fit on the bookshelf properly. I wager a stronger player, backed by a better publisher could do beter work.
(Then again, maybe not. Where is that anticipated Shaw KG tome?
)
I do not spend money or time purchasing and then reading a book about Cardio-vascular surgery penned by the guy that almost went to med school but couldn't crack the entrance exams. Too many books written by guys that have actually done the surgery. Why would it be any different for chess?
Depsite the excellent PR that says it could be, it isn't.