Supreme Chess Understanding – Statics & Dynamics

[John Upham]

Richard James has reviewed

Supreme Chess Understanding – Statics & Dynamics

by Wojciech Moranda

from Thinker's Publishing

at https://britishchessnews.com/2024/11/28 ... -dynamics/

71AqBL7mTSL._SL1388_.jpg

[MJMcCready]

How can anyone want to buy a book with a title as dodgy as that. His attempt to come up with a title that functioned as a selling point is so dire, I don't think it's likely to sell very much and is more likely to exemplify the decadence that chess literature is replete with, like come up with titles that make the book sound more interesting and informative than the book really is so they can profit more by use of deception, which has been going on for how long I don't know.

[John Upham]

As is usual, the publisher "came up" with the title.

[Roger Lancaster]

How can anyone want to buy a book with a title as dodgy as that. His attempt to come up with a title that functioned as a selling point is so dire, I don't think it's likely to sell very much and is more likely to exemplify the decadence that chess literature is replete with, like come up with titles that make the book sound more interesting and informative than the book really is so they can profit more by use of deception, which has been going on for how long I don't know.

I would respectfully point out, in case it had passed you by, that it's near-universal practice to describe things - not just chess books - in the most flattering manner in order to sell them. The Trade Descriptions Act was passed in 1968 in an attempt to prevent the worst excesses.

[Paul Cooksey]

You cannot judge a book by its cover.

[Nick Burrows]

How can anyone want to buy a book with a title as dodgy as that. His attempt to come up with a title that functioned as a selling point is so dire, I don't think it's likely to sell very much and is more likely to exemplify the decadence that chess literature is replete with, like come up with titles that make the book sound more interesting and informative than the book really is so they can profit more by use of deception, which has been going on for how long I don't know.

Have you considered writing a compendium of reviews of chess books that you've not read, but must be terrible.

" Chess books you SHOULD NOT McC-read"

[Tim Spanton]

Have you considered writing a compendium of reviews of chess books that you've not read, but must be terrible.

That would make an interesting thread.
Another interesting thread: chess books you most regret wasting money on.

[John Upham]

Don't worry all, Mc Cready will be teaming up with Clive W., Mark Howitt and Alan Llewellyn to bring you the "I'm not a Troll: it's a fact" chess podcast sponsored by Elon Musk

[Ian Thompson]

Have you considered writing a compendium of reviews of chess books that you've not read, but must be terrible.

I'd start that list with all the books claiming you can become good at the game without much effort, an obvious genre being opening books that recommend a dubious opening on the grounds that your opponent won't know what to do and will misplay it.

[Tim Spanton]

Have you considered writing a compendium of reviews of chess books that you've not read, but must be terrible.

I'd start that list with all the books claiming you can become good at the game without much effort, an obvious genre being opening books that recommend a dubious opening on the grounds that your opponent won't know what to do and will misplay it.

Sounds like a book for me ...

[Matt Mackenzie]

Have you considered writing a compendium of reviews of chess books that you've not read, but must be terrible.

I'd start that list with all the books claiming you can become good at the game without much effort, an obvious genre being opening books that recommend a dubious opening on the grounds that your opponent won't know what to do and will misplay it.

Tbf such books made quite a bit more sense in the pre-all powerful computer age.

[MJMcCready]

Don't worry all, Mc Cready will be teaming up with Clive W., Mark Howitt and Alan Llewellyn to bring you the "I'm not a Troll: it's a fact" chess podcast sponsored by Elon Musk

lol, well I suppose it could look like that but in truth I do wish chess literature was better than what it is. I find it rather sadenning that most titled chess players see writing soley as a means of communication rather than an art from which, like chess, requires much practice in order to perfect to put it mildly. It's a great shame that those who are titled and can write very well, like Rowson for example, are so few and far between, it really is in my opinion.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

You could argue that chess players perform as artists when they are thinking at the board and playing the game. Writing about it is an art form as well, but with different characteristics to the art form of playing the game. Even the horrors of rapidplay and blitz and bullet chess have their own aesthetic elements that can be considered art (as well as a sport).

I may have been slightly influenced here by having just recently read an account of Actor-Network Theory, which is philosophy of something (in the specific case I was reading about, the sociology of scientific knowledge, I think). Still a bit befuddled by it all, but then reading philosophical texts can do that. At least Rowson is readable! (He is very readable, but some can write in a slightly more accessible style, not that I can think of an example right now - maybe the way Matthew Sadler writes?)

[IM Jack Rudd]

Most chess writers see writing as a means of communication because that is what chess writing, in general, is for. It's like technical writing in general: the aim is not to make the text itself a wonderful piece of literature, it is to help others improve their skills at something else.

[MJMcCready]

Most chess writers see writing as a means of communication because that is what chess writing, in general, is for. It's like technical writing in general: the aim is not to make the text itself a wonderful piece of literature, it is to help others improve their skills at something else.

Yes I take your point but it doesn't help explain the disparity in quality of writing that is so apparent and seems to be worsening for a number of reasons that are perhaps best left unsaid or I'll end up writing thousands of words on it. It also needs to be remembered, or at least borne in mind at all times, that authorship and publications are no longer the primary source or method of learning anymore as once was, arguably, the case. Unedited and free online content and multimedia overtook overpriced publications a long time ago already. I can't establish exactly what that tells you but then I am rather cycnical towards chess literature on the whole and am inclined to believe that the state it has slid into of it is partly responsible. Publishers may well be more at fault than authors for this. Probably best I stop there. As mentioned earlier in the post, you sometimes encounter books that are so admirable, the first of mine was Chess for Tigers I think, one which I am happy to read again anytime. But that's just not so with the bulk of publications. I recently read Assiac's works and was astounded my his writing ability and English ability. I don't believe I have ever read anything by a foreigner so well-written in English. It left me thinking, well if he can do it, how come so many can't come nowhere near his level of expertise and isn't a great shame, it's such a rarety. Anyway, I had better stop or I will just go on and on about it.