an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/30/19 at 16:55:43:


I think in his interview on the perpetual podcast he said he was a chess dillitant (not sure if that is the correct word - most likely the wrong spelling too!) so he could grasp things very quickly. I think he said that he didnt sleep much because of his back problems so often worked on one book when in bed and another during the day?

Perhaps because a lot of what he writes is based on his own experience with an opening, and his games in particular that might help him speed up the writing process. Also, his chatty style may come naturally to him and not take any time at all to write (and if editors arent stripping it out or sending back for re-writes it doesnt add any delays).

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/30/19 at 21:42:24:


No, I was just attempting to give an example of similar things that he has written, lots of hyperbole and metaphor mixed in with references to politics or popular culture. 

I myself could not come up with writing the way that he does, because to use the amount of literary devices that he does when writing instead of just being literal and straightforward is too much for me.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 10/30/19 at 20:20:04:


I myself have Asperger's, but I find his style very hard to read. It is not straightforward to the point, but uses all sorts of literary devices. Instead of writing for example something like, "Black finds himself on a shaky bridge, which reminds me of Simon and Garfunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Water", it would be easier to just write, "Black is worse in this position."

In any case, I bought the book at a bookstore. The lines are indeed very aggressive, which is unlike his previous books.

I think that this was discussed few times, but his writing style using all sorts of hyperbole and metaphor is seriously annoying to me. 

I personally prefer straight to the point, even better if the author writes more robotically.

His books are decent, like a journalist's articles are decent. But as with journalism, there's always an angle or a hook. Don't expect scientific inquiry. A lot of chess writing starts from the other end. A player does a search for the truth to improve their own game, and when they are done they look around and think -- maybe there's a book here.

I don't like his prose, it's a distraction:
Quote:

My first reaction -- wait, is a craving for complications the root of all evil? Then I realize that the most thought Lakdawala put into it was checking the grammar and spelling, so it's useless trying to extract any deeper meaning from it. He just churns this stuff out. It's possible to cut whole paragraphs from his books without losing any information.

Edited:

ReneDescartes wrote on 10/30/19 at 01:07:52:


It's not the speed at which he puts me off that makes me doubt his thoroughness, but rather the fact that the books I have seen do have gaps. He is undoubtedly much less thorough that each author you mention.

However, thoroughness is not why I have bought his books: his years of coaching come through, and he anticipates questions and lines which a typical club player might ask.

Most importantly: he covers lines that I'm interested in, often which I don't see covered elsewhere in much detail (see below).

Quote:


Lakdawala is a solid IM. He does play positional lines, but has a long career and also played sharp lines in it. I think the I-am-a-boring-positional-player quips are jokes to a certain extent.

In many of his books, they are about lines he has played in the past: e.g. the London, Slav, ...d6 book, Modern, Sveshnikov.

For example, in his Slav book, he covers 6.Ne5 6...Na6, which is off the beaten track, and which he put some time into for his own work.

In his Sveshnikov book, he covers 6...h6, which is again a line he has played in the past, and again shows some originality. There is often some thoughtful stuff in his books.

Quote:


Yeah, Sielecki is a class act. I have watched his YouTube channel for many years, and loved the Nimzo book. In particular, the explanations of the Hübner were really first rate. I haven't read any other work of his.

But if I want to play the ...h6 Sveshnikov, isn't Lakdawala more or less my only source? What if I want a recent repertoire book on the Smyslov Caro Kann? Lakdawala was more or less the only option at that time.

Summary: there are gaps in the coverage. But he covers lines that I want to play that aren't receiving coverage elsewhere.

Thanks, TNich and VGA. 

TNich wrote on 10/28/19 at 23:40:12:

I'm not too surprised by that. I have some previous books by both authors and find them a bit variable. But Moskalenko actually plays these lines (and this style) after all.

I have Moska's old material on 4.f3 in Revolutionize Your Chess. Maybe I will just take that and Sopiko Guramishvili's recent Chess24 videos as a starting point for now. I'm really trying to take a break from 1.d4 to expand my horizons with some flank openings anyway.