proustiskeen wrote on 01/16/13 at 04:26:26:


Well written reviews.  Keep it up!

Re R+B vs. R
I had it myself several times. The importance is that it may save positions in practical endgames R+B+pawns were youre a pawn down. ..
And unless I am mistaken I saw it recently in the Tata tournament. But of course in pct of games it is a small percentage.At the same time, positions from deep opening analysis may never show up in any of your games.

Recently I inaugurated a blog devoted to chess book reviews.  My first review was of Hawkins' book.  Have a gander if you're so inclined.

http://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/amateur-to-im-part-i/

http://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/amateur-to-im-part-ii/

brabo wrote on 11/29/12 at 11:17:25:


Put me in the 'thought it was a rotten review' camp, but since most of what I was going to say about it has already been said I'll just add

• Keith Arkell is now on at least 18/18 for KRB v KR (see foot of this post from 13th December 2010: http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/krb-v-kr.html)
• the 18 includes rapid play games and not just classical time limit OTB.

As for Jonathan Hawkins, I reckon anybody in English chess who has an interest in the game that goes beyond their own local league knows of him.  One of the things that 'everybody knows' is that his elo rating doesn't reflect his true strength due to a lack of opportunities to play rated games.  (4ncl aside, league chess in england is usually unrated).

His English Chess Federation grade is probably a more accurate reflection of his improvement.  You can see how it's developed since 1996 here:-

http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=174270L ;

If the main gripe with the book is that the title is misleading, it would hardly be the first: 'Play Like a Grandmaster', 'Winning Pawn Structures', 'Winning with the X'. Let's engage with the content.

That review is an awful 'look at me' hatchet job, but at least it has the virtue of being transparent.

Arkell claims to have been on the stronger side 17 times. Clearly he seems to aim for this endgame since he knows how to squeeze out a win!

Arkell also claims to have played more than 6000 games.

IMJohnCox wrote on 11/29/12 at 01:32:40:

I share your opinion. I played as FM more than 600 rated games and not once this endgame popped up. Neither can I remember even a blitz or rapidgame in which i encountered this endgame. 
However I remember an interview of 2009 in which Keith Arkell (Britisch GM, you surely must know) claimed to have it already met 17 times on the board, achieving an astonishing 17/17 !! See http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.be/2009/11/arkell-interview-iii.html

So if you take the statistics of the games of Keith Arkell then I am pretty sure that 1,77% is realistic.
If you take my database then you get 0%. I mean, it really depends which database you are using. Statistics can prove anything.

I also want to indicate that today I would use the second rank defense. Very easy to study and explained on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_and_bishop_versus_rook_endgame#Second-rank_def...

The R&B vs R percentage looks absurd to me too Perhaps its a percentage of games that were played out to the end, or past some move limit like 60(? 80?), or something?

Still I don't think I can ever remember even seeing it. 

R & P vs R I have although really not very often. I'm not at all sure if I've ever reached it myself.

I'm with Alias; I think that's a good review. I don't agree with it: personally I'd value the book a fair bit more than the reviewer, but that's a difference of opinion. And I agree that the cover and blurb are hideous.

Alias wrote on 11/28/12 at 07:59:05:

That was the most overwritten review in recent memory. The writer is totally in love with the sound of his own voice. Pretty much every sentence reads like it was first written straightforwardly and made as florid as possible. I wouldn't want to run into this guy at a party.

I did find it pretty hilarious that the ninth paragraph of the review begins "Enough of the preamble, on to A2IM itself.".

Alias wrote on 11/28/12 at 07:59:05:


Really? That was well written?

The reviewer, Vijay Raghavan, spent the first six paragraphs of his review talking about the cover in depth and other chess improvement books. 

He spent a paragraph complaining about the spelling of Carlsbad/Karlsbad/Karlovy. 

Just when you think you're getting to the meat of the review, the reviewer discusses an argument between Capablanca and Lasker about the importance of the endgame. He references, Lamprecht and Muller, Wikipedia, Gustafsson,  and Svidler, barely mentioning the book he's supposedly reviewing.

Clearly, the reviewer hated the book. He seems to personally dislike the author, too. Here's his final paragraph:

"I would remind Hawkins that virtually all the terrible "improvement" books that litter the market today are the work of a small group of former chess players; by definition, these writers are incapable of producing measurable improvement in themselves. I hope Hawkins does not hasten to join this guild of defeated warriors too soon; rather than writing books to tell us how it is done, he should show us how in the best possible way: by playing chess. There will be plenty of time to pontificate when he resigns from competitive chess forever."

Source:
http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/review865.htm

The review itself needs a summary. Don't judge a book by its cover unless you dislike both the cover and the book. Then you can spend all the ink you want dissing the cover.

There are a lot of terrible books out there that don't help players to improve despite their promises. This is probably one of them.

The book is not encyclopedic. The author's choices aren't always the most useful choices. The book has typos and more importantly, misses some key ideas in the endgames he covers.

There are some really cool complex endgames analysed. The reviewer particularly liked  Sasikiran-Carlsen (Sarajevo, 2006), Nakamura-Kudrin (Reno, 2004), and Aronian-Bacrot (Khanty Mansyisk, 2005), calling his analysis "clear and insightful", but giving no example of it. 

Beyond that, the reviewer didn't have much positive to say about the book. But despite slamming the book from beginning to end, he gave it 3 out of 6 stars. I'm not quite sure why it deserved three stars based on the comments of the reviewer.

IMJohnCox wrote on 11/05/12 at 00:00:16:


yes and no, I have seen many a player make the same mistake again and again because they simply refused to look at their hard losses. I feel like while simply brute studying might be enough at some point that perhaps more focused and regimented studying would get you to your goals more efficiently.

I think the boast about spending ten years from his late teens to twenties is a bit at odds with the claim of the book itself. I suspect there'll be no money-back guarantee. 

Hi

It is out.Ive found this quick review http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2012/11/2/a-quick-review-of-amateur-to-im-prove...

Anyone got it?

best,
Larsen_fan

jonathan Hawkins , who made a remarkable improvement in his early Twenties from good club player to 2500 with 2 GM norms has. A book coming out with Mongoose where he ascribes his remarkable increase to mainly endgame study. There is a PDF excerpt at their site