Volcanor wrote on 01/08/14 at 12:43:33:
Bibs wrote on 01/08/14 at 08:18:28:
Surprised to see the Panov book there. The writing was terse. But, different opinions, and that's fine.
Wasn't being sarcastic btw, about different opinions. That's the point of exchanging views in such an arena as this, and of a poll.
I also value different opinions and I didn't consider your remark as being sarcastic. I just wanted to explain my choice. And I learned a new english word, terse. From the definition I found (brief, concise and to the point), I'd say that it's a rather positive definition, either for a chess book or in general. But I feel you meant it negatievely, so is the word terse generally used in a negative way, implying a lack of detail or something else? And if you don't like terse chess books, you should be happy to read Everyman's books by Lakdawala
Sorry for the digression, back to chess. Regarding the Panov book by D'Costa, I find it instructive by itself, and even more worthwile in combination with an older book from Karpov & Podgaets "Caro-Kann Defense, Panov Attack". The latter contains a lot of interesting chess variations, very poorly structurated and with poor (or lack of) commentary and position evaluation. The D'Costa goes straight to the point, explains the selection of variation discussed, and focusses very well on the target audiance for such a book, mainly amateurs between 1600 and 2000 Elo. In combination with the Karpov book, I think it can be worthwile up to 2300 Elo. But that's just my opinion...
Ah, but there is middle ground to be had. Terse (see also 'laconic') on the one hand. Versus verbal diarrhoea, rubbish metaphors vomited onto the keyboard, "look at me, ooh!!!", on the other.
In my own academic writing (and here too I guess) I aim for the middle road. Some life, without overreaching and being a tw@t. QC books have it about right.
Yes, works well enough with K/P I guess.
Sadler had the Socratic angle bang on, but few as strong as him have written chess books.
Again, IMHO, just one punter. And sorry for the tangent.
Back to the ranch....