I've never seen this book for sale before:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390047010475
However I know of it because it was the recipient of the shortest ever review of a chess book. The review can be found here:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/records.html
Originally posted by Fat LadyHere's another one by Tony Miles. Not much longer!
I've never seen this book for sale before:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390047010475
However I know of it because it was the recipient of the shortest ever review of a chess book. The review can be found here:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/records.html
Unorthodox Chess Openings
by Eric Schiller.
Cardoza Publishing 1998, 520 pp., £18.95.
Utter crap.
Originally posted by Fat LadyI though it was Tony Miles' famous "Utter crap." review on Schiller's "Unorthodox chess openings".
I've never seen this book for sale before:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390047010475
However I know of it because it was the recipient of the shortest ever review of a chess book. The review can be found here:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/records.html
Hi guys.
"Utter Crap."
I actually have the KINGPIN with this famous review.
Just phot-copied it for you.
http://chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=16
I just flipped through it and an article by Richard Forster called,
'When the Boss Takes Over.' caught my eye. He gives this game.
Look out for 9.Qxd6 if 9...Qxd6 then 10.f3 is mate.
Rozic- Oskam Paris Olympiad 1924.
And White cannot avoid mate.
Originally posted by NowakowskiI agree with this Watson`s statement:
How would you review Hans Berliner's "The System"?
-GIN
"THE SYSTEM turns out to be a lazily written collection of dogmatic claims, banalities, and awful analysis, colored throughout by an arrogance that fails to disguise the book’s ultimate shallowness."
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_The_System.html
Such books don`t deserve longer review.
Hi.
Just read Watson's review. He does not mess about does he.
"If it weren’t for his overbearing style, deceptive presentation, and
obvious disrespect for the great chessplayers past and present,
I might just write off Berliner’s book as nonsense. As it is, I think that
it is a careless and dishonest effort that represents the very worst in
chess writing.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I can understand him.
Hi.
Just read Watson's review. He does not mess about does he.
[b]"If it weren’t for his overbearing style, deceptive presentation, and
obvious disrespect for the great chessplayers past and present,
I might just write off Berliner’s book as nonsense. As it is, I think that
it is a careless and dishonest effort that represents the very worst in
chess writing.
"[/b]
I saw that book recently in a bargain box at a bookstall.
They wanted £5.00 for it - might buy it if it appears in a 2nd hand shop.
Edward Winter reckons the worse ever chess book is;
Chess (Basics, Laws and Terms)
by B.K. Chaturvedi. Abhishek Publications,
57-59, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-17, India. 2001
http://chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=210
(tried getting a link to Winter's site but cannot ATM - he must
be updating his site)
Picked up 'Logical Chess' & 'The art of the Middle Game' by Kotov & Keres
for 50p each at a car boot sale on Sunday.
I already have them so will pass them onto a good home.
Any serious contender for the ‘Worst-ever Chess Book Award’ needs to display a comprehensive range of defects, for the competition is tough. Spectacular incompetence with basic facts is a sine qua non. There must also be many typos (or ‘mere typos’, as some self-exculpatory authors like to call them), with at least one or two jumping out to hit the eye from almost any page where the opened volume happens to expose itself. The prose should be excruciating. Wily and/or inept propaganda is de rigueur. As its crowning glory, the book should contain the uncredited lifting of other people’s writing, whilst also featuring self-congratulatory words about its superiority over rival titles.
At this point, a number of readers will naturally be anticipating the nomination of Nathan Divinsky’s The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia, but we intend to consider another front-runner, a 191-page hardback published in India in 2001: Chess (Basics, Laws and Terms) by B.K. Chaturvedi.
His Preface includes the observation ‘this book starts with the presumption that the reader is totally uninitiated’, but the reader ends with the presumption that it is the author who merits that description. Page 187 defines the ‘Closed Game’ as ‘Types of opening with 1. P-e4, P-e4.’, while page 189 supplies this explanation of ‘Open Games’: ‘Games played with not the standard type of openings like e4 etc.’ On page 188 we are told that ‘Control’ is ‘A Piece controlling a square without the square being accessible to it.’ The definition of ‘Zugz Wang’ (page 191) begins not with a sentence but with a string of words: ‘A situation where the obligation to move is less than a handicap because any move likely to damage the position of the mover.’ Full stop.
The spelling ‘Zugz Wang’ comes as no surprise, since from the outset the author demonstrates indifference to the way words in any language end up on the printed page. Page 4 advises how to write the word ‘chess’ in various languages (e.g. ‘Schah’ in German, ‘Schak’ in Danish and ‘Seacchi’ in Italian).
As regards blindfold chess we are unaccountably informed on page 140 that Capablanca ‘is believed to have started this tradition’. On page 7 it is called ‘bling-fold’. Typos exist by the basinful. Information, of sorts, is offered on such masters as ‘Labour Domais’, ‘Steintz’, ‘Nninzovich’, ‘Enwe’, ‘Resbevsky’ and ‘Rober Fisher’, as well as ‘the famous chess historian Musray’. On page 9 we learn that Emanuel Lasker (‘Emmanuel’ and ‘Emanual’ are the book’s variant spellings) ‘remained world champion for a very long period (1821-1921) which is still a record’. And so it should be, given that 1821 virtually predates the chess career of Labour Domais. The following page records that at Hastings, 1895 three of Pillsbury’s opponents were ‘Schtechter, Schlecter, Jauowshi’. In some passages it is unclear whether the text was typed or something fell on the keyboard.
Next, a few samples of Mr Chaturvedi’s prose. On page 8 he comments regarding Steinitz: ‘Many of his compositions served as the beacons to the new learners of this brainy game.’ On page 25 readers are informed how the knight moves: ‘He does not jump in the sense what a checker piece does; that is, he does not capture what he jumps over.’ Page 37 has further instruction: ‘Although we have already hinted about values each Piece is worth of, now we are giving their comparative details.’ A few pages later (page 41) the reader is considered ready for an introduction to chess notation: ‘Chess, being a game of pure intelligence and powerful imagination, has ever remained the beloved of intelligent persons. So they devised a system of enjoying the game even if they are absent. That system is writing notations for the moves.’
If only for its prose, typos and blunders, Mr Chaturvedi’s hardback would stand out from most (though by no means all) chess books, but there is more, starting with some deceptive flag-waving. In his 1995 match against Kasparov in New York, Anand won the first decisive game (game 9) but scored only +0 –4 =4 in the remainder of the match. Any respectable author would thus employ a word such as ‘comfortable’ or ‘decisive’ to describe Kasparov’s victory, but not Mr Chaturvedi. He writes on page 3:
‘However, the most renowned Indian chess player to date is Vishwanath [sic] Anand who recently challenged the current World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov and missed the mark with a difference of just four [sic] points.’
And from page 11 of this book (which, we reiterate, was published in 2001):
‘The present title holder is Gary Kasparov. He was challenged by India’s Vishwanath [sic] Anand or “Vishy” in 1995 and despite Vishy’s claiming initial victories [sic – the propagandist’s plural] and forcing Kasparov to draw, he eventually lost. So Kasparov remains the undisputed Chess Champion.’
For all this, of course, Anand himself is blameless, just as it was hardly Nigel Short’s fault that a small number of British ‘chess writers’ elected to slop jingoistic treacle over his shoulders before, during and after his 1993 match with Kasparov.
Mr Chaturvedi’s Preface tries to answer a question that may be uppermost in many of his readers’ minds, i.e. why the book was published at all:
‘Despite its gaining popularity, good Indian books on chess are still a rare commodity. Most of the books that are available in the market are either by foreign authors – which cost a lot – or the replica of their works which appear not only cheap in price and production but contain a lot of misprints and mistakes. No doubt the foreign books are good if one can afford them, but they appear to be totally foreign in their style and presentation.’
In reality, Indian beginners would do better to procure a little book like Chess Made Easy by C.J.S. Purdy and G. Koshnitsky (first published in 1942 but frequently reissued and updated since then). It is certainly ‘cheap in price’ and does not ‘contain a lot of misprints and mistakes’. Above all, despite the handicap of being ‘by foreign authors’ it can hardly be one of the works dismissed by Mr Chaturvedi as ‘totally foreign in their style and presentation’, for the simple reason that he has pirated it and tried to pass it off as his own work. One example from dozens occurs on pages 29-30:
‘Once in a game, you have a privilege of moving two pieces in a single move – the King and one Rook. This is called “castling”. Castling can be done only when the King and the Rook have as yet made no move in the game, and have nothing between them.’
Let us compare that with pages 13-14 of Chess Made Easy (of which we are following the 1986 edition):
‘Once in a game, you have the privilege of moving two pieces in a single move – the King and one Rook. This is called “castling”. Castling can be done only when the King and Rook have as yet made no move in the game, and have nothing between them.’
- Edward Winter, 2002
Originally posted by greenpawn34Hm.
Hi.
Just read Watson's review. He does not mess about does he.
[b]"If it weren’t for his overbearing style, deceptive presentation, and
obvious disrespect for the great chessplayers past and present,
I might just write off Berliner’s book as nonsense. As it is, I think that
it is a careless and dishonest effort that represents the very worst in
chess writing.[/b]
You'd think a former CC champion might have something to add.
Rather than be such a detractant. Or perhaps he just stands to
radically against the previous generations of thought.
I personally found his book fascinating. I wonder how many here have
read it? I think it would be surprising to see what people thought after
reading it, instead of after reading a review about it.
Add: I'd love to give those books a happy home, and pass them on
afterwards.
-GIN
Originally posted by NowakowskiFrom Silman`s review:
Hm.
You'd think a former CC champion might have something to add.
Rather than be such a detractant. Or perhaps he just stands to
radically against the previous generations of thought.
I personally found his book fascinating. I wonder how many here have
read it? I think it would be surprising to see what people thought after
reading it, instea ...[text shortened]... it.
Add: I'd love to give those books a happy home, and pass them on
afterwards.
-GIN
"Hans Berliner was postal champion of the world. While this is impressive by itself, I have always found postal players to be a bit out of touch with the realities surrounding chess understanding--they usually feel that their form of chess is better, more pure, more accurate, and...(their self congratulations seems to go on and on and on). Berliner's The System highlights this problem in a very sharp way (I should add that some of my favorite new books in the last few years have been by postal players, so don't let my prejudice pull the wool over your eyes).
My angst towards postal chess began when I read that many postal aficionados honestly felt that a postal World Champion would beat an over-the-board World Champion in a postal game. The postal caste never seemed to realize that their understanding of chess as a whole was so far below any over-the-board World Champion's as to make the argument virtually laughable.
Yes, postal players can use books and databases to their heart's content. And yes, they can stare at a move until their eyes fall out and their kitchen clocks break down and drop from the walls. All this, at its highest level, allows them to play the openings exceedingly well (though far below super GM level, of course), and it also lets them handle tactical situations superbly. Alas, their understanding of positional chess and the game's inner workings has always been, and will always be, lacking.
Here we run directly into my criticism of Berliner's book: he insists that he understands the secrets of chess better than any other player in history (Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov included), and his name-dropping and obvious (at least to me) egocentric ravings only proves how little he really knows (or how much, if he proves to be correct!)."
http://jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_system_world_champ_appr.html
From Bauer`s review:
"I found these introductory discussions to be generally simplistic. We learn the same things that most basic texts teach us – knights are best in blocked positions and on advanced squares, bishops are bad when blocked by their own pawns, rooks increase in value as pawns are exchanged. There's little here that most players haven't read before.
Berliner does attempt to embellish his system with some more original material, although even here most players will have been exposed to the concepts before. He explains the importance of keeping options open, not prematurely resolving tension (i.e., the threat is stronger than the execution), not unnecessarily allowing transpositions, etc."
"The crux of Berliner's book is his belief that he can, through use of his system principles, prove the best opening move and prove an advantage for white in several mainstream openings. This is quite a claim, and I would expect some pretty deep and probing analysis to prove these facts. Alas, it is not to be, and it leads me to take the bulk of the book with a large grain of NaCl.
Berliner argues that 1.d4 is clearly the best first move. While there is some recent practice to suggest that this may be the case (NEW IN CHESS YEARBOOK suggests that its database of high level games shows that 1.d4 performs better than any other first move), the evidence from practice is far from conclusive. Indeed, some of Berliner's proof seems pretty flimsy.
For example, Berliner largely dismisses 1.e4 because after 1...e5 2.Nf3 doesn't keep white's options open (it blocks the f-pawn, which is necessary for white to fight for board control). As a result, Berliner concludes that 2.f4 would be the only logical "system" move. He then, without any analysis, concludes that, "Since 2.f4 is not feasible, it is likely that 1.e4 is wrong." First, Berliner provides no analysis to show why 2.f4 is wrong; rather he relies on offhand comments from Fischer (who played 2.f4 from time to time) and the conclusions of Weaver Adams (I'm not making this up) to back this up. Where is the rigorous systematic proof for this?"
"There has been much written of late about adopting a rigorous analytical approach to the openings. John Watson's influential book SECRETS OF MODERN CHESS STRATEGY: ADVANCES SINCE NIMZOWITSCH suggests such a perspective. Berliner, on the other hand, argues for adherence to the system even when analysis might suggest otherwise."
http://jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_rb/rb_systm_wrld_chmpns_apprch.html