GM Moskalenko responds to ChessVibes review of Revolutionize Your Chess
On January 28th we published a review of Viktor Moskalenko's latest book Revolutionize Your Chess, and it wasn't a positive one. Now we have received a reaction by Mr Moskalenko, which we're happy to publish as an open letter here at ChessVibes.
In his review of Revolutionize Your Chess our reviewer Arne Moll wrote that he didn't like the book. He used strong words, like 'amazingly silly', 'rather confusing', 'extremely simplistic' and 'hopelessly flawed'. Here's GM Moskalenko's reaction:
On January 28 ChessVibes posted a singularly negative review, written by Arne Moll, of my new book Revolutionize Your Chess. The way Mr Moll approached my book, the tone of his review, the many (in my view) unjustified points he makes, and the subsequent vitriolic reactions by quite a few ChessVibes readers (some of whom confessed they didn’t know my book at all) did shock me.
My initial reaction was quite emotional. I really could not understand what I did to deserve Mr Moll’s bashing. On a Spanish website I did question Mr Moll’s motives, an unjustified action for which I have apologized. Now, after I have had some time to reflect, I am very grateful that ChessVibes has allowed me to post this more considered reaction.
Mr Moll hits his review off by venting his irritation that there are appearing many “improve your chess” books on the market. He confesses that he is not really interested in those books, because improving is only of secondary interest to him. Could it be that this negative attitude towards this type of works has coloured what he writes on my book?
Because the sole purpose of Revolutionize Your Chess is indeed this: to give to aspiring club players a set of tools with which they can improve their chess. I cannot help that Mr Moll dislikes the genre, and I cannot help that there are other books that make the same claim. But I think my book deserves to be judged for what it is. Mr Moll does not do this. In his incredibly fierce attack on my book he uses hyperbole, sarcasm and condescension in an apparent effort to humiliate me. He calls a part of my book ‘amazingly silly’, ‘extremely simplistic’ and ‘hopelessly flawed’. He says somewhere that when I write about the basic concepts of chess I ‘didn’t have a clue’, and he calls me ‘a show-off’. But, strangely, he fails to do one important thing: he does not contend that my system isn’t working! He has not tested, or even probed, if a chess player who does what I recommend in my book and who uses the tools I hand to him, becomes a better player or not. I will explain, later on, why I maintain that my system works.
Mr Moll heavily focuses on the foreword and the first two chapters of my books, in which I describe the structure of my system. Indeed 70% of his review is on less than 10% of my book. Briefly: in this part I offer a comprehensive analysis of all aspects of the game: Chess Skills, Personal Skills, as well as my 5 so called “Touchstones”: tools to use for a dynamic understanding of all positions on the board. I also propose a test, which I jokingly call the Moskalenko Test, which my students use to rate their performance in a game. Obviously, Mr Moll does not like what he sees.
One of Mr Moll’s big problems is that I say my system is ‘revolutionary’, while he recognizes various elements in my system that other writers have mentioned before me. He seems to think that finding elements in my book that also feature in other chess writers’ books somehow falsifies my claim that my system could lead to a revolution. I think that the comprehensiveness of my system (Personal Skills, Chess Skills, Touchstones and Test) is indeed new, and that most club players who follow my advice will truly revolutionize their chess, and become a better player.
In the Foreword of my book I tried to find the reason why most chess players, once they have reached a certain level, fail to make real progress (of course a central problem in chess teaching). I made Mr Moll almost choke with anger by writing: “The answer is quite simple: the general rules of the game have not been discovered yet.” This is what Mr Moll calls ‘amazingly silly’. And why? Because there are, writes Mr Moll, ‘thousands of grandmasters and tens of thousands of IM’s’ (incidentally, Mr Moll is more than 500% wrong here about the actual numbers) who are pretty strong players. He suggests, no doubt sarcastically, that I think that strong players have still not grasped the right system.
What a strange thing to say! Maybe Mr Moll does not know that I am a strong player myself? Please allow me to explain: I am a Grandmaster and a former champion of Ukraine. I have won dozens of international tournaments, and I am still an active player. I have coached quite a few strong players, Vassily Ivanchuk is one of them. I think I am well qualified to judge what top-players know and how they think. I am not an idiot, of course I know that I don’t need to explain to them the basics of how they must think about chess. Obviously, my book is meant for club players. About elite players I explain that the reason they are almost invincible for any amateur is that they are so good in applying the Touchstones. Being aware of the process in their head is another matter; often top-players are thinking intuitively. This is also in the book.
My statement about the general rules that have not been discovered yet, is of course meant to provoke my readers. That is my style of writing, I always look for ways to keep them awake.
“I like to see myself as a philosopher” writes Arne Moll somewhere in his review. I think therein may lie one of the basic problems with his article. My concepts are not philosophical at all, they are very practical. Mr Moll looks for philosophical trouble behind many statements I make. He says concepts like ‘time’ and ‘material’ (which I use as ‘Touchstones’ to evaluate a position on the board) are ‘tricky philosophical ideas in the first place’. But in my book they are not tricky, and they are not philosophical. They are practical tools which every chess player can use to become better. And in my book I explain how they can do so.
I am not a philosopher. Apart from my own career as a player, I have been a chess trainer for many years. I have taught hundreds of club players. My classes have been recorded by the Catalan Chess Federation and are available online for thousands of players. I have written two successful books (which Mr Moll to my amazement says he liked) which sold thousands of copies all over the world. I get good feedback, literally daily, from my pupils, my viewers and my readers. I think I know quite well what beginning and more advanced chess players know and how they think. And what they should do to become better players.
I was amazed to see Mr Moll stating that “Moskalenko really didn’t have a clue when he wrote about these concepts”. This statement is, among other things, quite strange for someone who professes he liked my other books. How does Mr Moll think a Grandmaster who has written some good chess books (that’s me) reaches that level? By not having a clue? My friends have advised me not to use the word I will use now, but I strongly feel I have to do it: here I think Mr Moll is being disrespectful.
Somewhere at the end of his review Mr Moll calls me ‘a show-off’ because I use my own games or fragments of my games to illustrate specific chess instruction topics. I have thought about the merits of his reproach for quite a while. Let me just say that I think it is a strange thing to blame me for. An illustration of an instructional theme is either on or off the mark, at least that is my opinion. The show-off reproach, again, fits in the general condescending tone of his review. Strangely, Mr Moll says he likes my other books (The Fabulous Budapest Gambit, and The Flexible French) a lot; but in these books I use my own games as examples just as much as I did here! Does Mr Moll think that Nimzowitsch is a show-off because he uses his own games in his books? Besides, I use games from dozens of other players as well.
From my 340 pages book with hundreds of games, fragments, exercises and examples, Mr Moll cites just one practical example. In this position:
I discuss two possible moves for White: the good move Be3 and the dynamic move d5. I recommend d5. Mr Moll claims that I fail to give ‘any reasons’ why I think d5 is more dynamic. But he is simply wrong! I do explain that after Be3 Black plays ...e6, blocking the position and giving White some trouble to exploit his lead in development. On the move d5 I explain that I choose this advance ‘in order to fight for space, hindering the development of the black kingside at the same time’. I think the example is not a bad illustration of the theme: there is a good, solid positional move available. And yet I recommend another move, a dynamic move. Without the solid move my example would be less valuable, I think.
After treating this one example wrongly, Mr Moll says that ALL the examples I give in the book (and there are many hundreds of them) are deficient. ALL examples suffer in that I ‘focus on the Touchstones for the sake of the Touchstones only’. Again, I find this a puzzling swipe. Mr Moll may not like the concept, but does he really think I employ the Touchstones just for their own sake? That I select my examples just to prove my system? Doesn’t he think my pupils would have left me many years ago if I would be doing just that?
I am not claiming originality in every point I make in the book. It is a strange thing to ask from an author, even from an author who claims to aim for a revolution. My book is a real revolution in that it brings everything together. Naming other books or authors who have written about some elements of my system does not mean my approach would somehow not be fresh.
And judging from the many positive reactions I get from readers, I may very well have succeeded. Obviously, not with Mr Moll. Maybe he is too strong a player (and too much of a philosopher) to find my concepts good tools. It may be that Mr Moll dislikes my enthusiasm. But I am a passionate believer in my system, because I know, from experience, that it works. It works for players of 1600 ELO, as well as for players with 2200 ELO, and even higher.
Maybe next time a chess improvement book comes up for review at ChessVibes, it would a good idea to ask someone to review it who does not dislike the genre, who does not see himself primarily as a philosopher, and who is more interested in the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Once more I would like to thank for the opportunity to publish this reaction.
Sincerely,
GM Viktor Moskalenko
Barcelona, 12 February, 2010
Update 14:40 CET: meanwhile Arne Moll has responded in the comments - we'll give it here as well:
As it is a true honour for me to have such a respected Grandmaster and author respond to my reviews, let me just mention a few general points that Mr. Moskalenko seems to have misunderstood in my initial review, rather than addressing every single sentence of his letter point by point.
Mr. Moskalenko starts off his letter with the complaint that I am supposedly not interested in ‘Improve your chess’ books and am therefore biased against his book Revolutionize Your Chess (and hence unqualified to review it objectively). To me, this merely shows Moskalenko doesn’t read my reviews on a regular basis (and indeed I couldn’t possibly expect him to), for then he would have known that the very review before the one I wrote on Moskalenko’s book, is a highly positive and enthusiastic review of Lars Bo Hansen’s book called (ironically, if anything) Improve Your Chess.
In fact, I was also very positive about Herman Grooten’s Chess Strategy for Club Players, the book that recently beat Revolutionize Your Chess in the ChessCafe Book of the Year competition, and numerous other books that intend to improve the reader’s chess skills. My remark ‘What’s with all these improve your chess books recently’ was just a ‘by the way’, trying to make the related (but admittedly not terribly relevant) general point that lately, a lot of books focus on chess improvement while surely trying to make the reader enjoy chess is at least as important as that.
In any case, as I had already written in the comments underneath my review, a reviewer’s personal taste is not relevant as long as he’s 'not prejudiced, focuses on the book and not his own taste, and he knows his literature.' I would think my liking Moskalenko’s previous book sort of proves I’m not prejudiced against him, and apart from this one ‘by the way’ paragraph, I focus my entire review on the contents of the book itself. As for ‘knowing my literature’, I think I’ve shown this already sufficiently in the review itself.
I could mention several other points in Mr. Moskalenko’s letter where he misinterprets my intentions and words. For instance, he makes much of my sarcasm and hyperbole, but then without blinking an eye declares that he himself means to ‘provoke his readers’ and that this is simply his ‘style of writing, I always look for ways to keep them awake’. Well, Mr. Moskalenko, it seems we agree on something after all! Perhaps we should just drop this point?
Another small thing to note is that Mr. Moskalenko altogether ignores the positive things I have mentioned about his book in my review, instead claiming it is ‘singularly negative’. This is also why it’s simply untrue that the one example I picked from the book to illustrate a point is used by me to imply that 'ALL the examples I give in the book (and there are many hundreds of them) are deficient.'
But here’s what I actually wrote in my review: 'To be sure, there are better examples in the book, but they all suffer from the same illness.' I also wrote, 'The book does contains good stuff, but I liked the Viktor Moskalenko of The Flexible French much, much better.' Forgive me for thinking this small nuance is probably worth pointing out.
I suppose I should also say I’m surprised by Mr. Moskalenko’s statement that his concepts ‘aren’t philosophical at all’ and that he himself, unlike me, ‘isn’t a philosopher’. Well, fair enough, but Moskalenko himself claims that while authors like Suba and Beim discuss many interesting aspects of dynamic chess, they offer ‘no theoretical framework’ - surely implying Revolutionize Your Chess is different in this respect! A few sentences later, he even explicitly states that ‘in the present book, we will make an attempt to systematize this dynamic approach to our game’.
And in Chapter 2, just to take one example, Moskalenko writes that the factor Time ‘has thus far been neglected in theoretical works. This dynamic factor should be included in any chess system if we want to call it conclusive’.
To me all this sounds distinctly philosophical. In fact, capitalizing the t in Time is, if anything else, the generally acknowledged way of indicating a ‘Platonization’ of the object at hand. But perhaps I’m again being too, well, philosophical here.There is, however, one point in Mr. Moskalenko’s reply that I would like to elaborate upon a bit in more detail. This is when he writes that I do not contend that the system described in Revolutionize Your Chess ‘isn’t working’: ‘He has not tested, or even probed, if a chess player who does what I recommend in my book and who uses the tools I hand to him, becomes a better player or not.’
Indeed I must confess that I haven’t fully tested the system (although Mr. Moskalenko couldn’t possibly know this himself), for the inexcusable reason that I am, apart from being a father and a full-time employee, just a reviewer whose task it is to read the book and write his conclusions down as accurately and conscientiously as possible. (I imagine Mr. Moskalenko also doesn’t accept positive reviews when the reviewer hasn’t fully tested the system?)
But suppose I would like to test Mr. Moskalenko’s system before writing anything at all about it. How would I do it? Surely applying the ‘Touchstone Tools’ in my own games is not nearly enough: a sample of just 1 player can’t possible say anything meaningful about a method, can it? I’d have to ask perhaps my entire chess team to study the book and apply it in their own games to the best of their ability.
But then there would still be the (in my view very likely) possibility that our game improved not because of the Touchstone Tools, but by us being suddenly occupied with chess for much more than we currently are. You see, this is what statisticians call the correlation is not causation maxim: the fact that we’re reading Moskalenko’s book and actively trying to apply the Touchstones doesn’t prove Moskalenko’s method works – not at all.
For all we know the very fact that we’re in an experiment might make us more conscious of our play during games, and we might improve our game even without studying anything at all. This is a variation of the well-known placebo effect. To avoid such confusion, we’d at least need some sort of control group with a bunch of players of the same average level who would also engage in active chess study, but specifically without using Moskalenko’s Touchstones – say, by studying Mark Dvoretsky’s books.
After some time – say, a year - we’d probably be able to say something about whether Moskalenko’s method works or not (calibrating for random rating fluctuations and such, of course), and whether it works any better than other current chess-improvement methods.
Now, this would be an extremely interesting experiment, and I would be more than willing to try it myself if given enough time and money, but what I’m really wondering is whether Mr. Moskalenko himself has ever done such an experiment.
After all, he accuses me of not having tested his method and very firmly claims that his method does work. My question is very simple: has Mr. Moskalenko systematically tested his method, and can we see the results? And perhaps I should mention another statisticians’ maxim, which is that the plural of anecdote is not data. It’s great to have many testimonies from players who are happy their money was well spent and they improved their chess by receiving chess training, but this doesn’t, of course, prove the training method itself works: it just proves they improved their game.
And this may have happened for numerous reasons – the most important one being what I also wrote in my initial review, which is that 'improving one’s chess can be achieved by studying any chess book seriously.' (Mr. Moskalenko seems to have overlooked this remark.)
Let me finish by what strikes me as an extremely important point, made by one of the commenters to this post. It’s this: 'Maybe [Moskalenko] is right in saying so, but he fails to address how his students got better using his advice.'
This is precisely my whole problem with the book. It’s not the Touchstone tools, it’s not the provocative language, not the lack of philosophical depth, not even the annoying -T1 and -T4 notation: it’s the lack of specificity; the lack of explaining how the touchstones work (and why), how students improve their game and how dynamic chess works; and how revolutionary Moskalenko’s book is, precisely.
Perhaps these questions are typical philosophical questions, but so be it. I’m just a an ordinary chess player trying to improve and be inspired by chess. Mr. Moskalenko claims he knows 'quite well what beginning and more advanced chess players know and how they think.' In other words, he knows exactly how I think. I can only hope he will some day understand my point of view in this matter after all.
Links
Founder and editor-in-chief of ChessVibes.com, Peter is responsible for most of the chess news and tournament reports. Often visiting top events, he also provides photos and videos for the site. He's a 1.e4 player himself, likes Thai food and the Stones.
Comments
AK
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Just a marginal note on wannabe philosophers :
I have met quite a lot of people with a degree in philosophy and even some people that i would consider to be real philosophers (the two groups of people are overlapping, but not as much as one would think). Few of the first group and none of the second group would ever make a statement like "I like to see myself as a philosopher". Actually i think that saying this is the best way to make a joke of oneself (at least among educated people).
Whatever the merits of his book, Mr Moskalenkos statement "I m not a philosopher"
sounds much more sophisticated to me than the one mentioned first.
blueofnoon
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
With due respect, I do not see much in his reaction other than boasting how a good player and coach he is.
Maybe he is right in saying so, but he fails to address how his students got better using his advice.
I am not against "how to become a better player" kind of books. In fact, "My System", "The Question of Modern Chess Theory" are my big favorites.
But judging from this debate, I am not too tempted to add this book to my library.
Kazzak
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Well - unfortunately, I believe the Chessvibes shoot-down of your book affected the Chesscafé voting for chess book of the year, and that's a shame.
I will be buying your book, Mr. Moskalenko.
octoberowl
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Very interesting to hear from the author here in reply. I also commented very negatively regarding this book and agreed with Arne Moll. I do not mean to show any 'disrespect' to the author, but I find a lot of the statements e makes in his defence as just plain silly. Like this one where he defends the idea that in his book he claims that ' the general rules of the game have have not been discovered yet.' :
'My statement about the general rules that have not been discovered yet, is of course meant to provoke my readers. That is my style of writing, I always look for ways to keep them awake.'
Ah! So you were just joking?
So now instead of actually defending the arguement he proposes he now tries to say that he was merely trying to keep me 'awake'?!
Sorry, but I am already awake, and if the author want me to spend my hard earned to buy his book, he damned well better come up with a better arguement that this!
And as a previous commenter noted, although he claims in his defence to be about to produce 'proof' that his system 'works'....we never hear that 'proof'... We do hear a lot of boasting about the fact he is a GM and even more about how he has trained 'hundreds' of players. But 'proof'?
Silence reigns there.
I do applaud chessvibes for their fairness in publishing the author's defence. Very well done. But I would also like to see a reply from Arne Moll! Any chance of that?
john
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I bought Revolutionise Your Chess in the hope that it would offer a clear cut new method for improvement...but it doesn't.
It is probably the MOST CONFUSING chess book I have ever read. Many of the examples in it I have seen elsewhere, only explained far better. About the only thing it does well is show off a few Moskalenko games, but forgive me if I am just not interested because that is not what I bought it for...
I completely agree with the ChessVibes review.
Steer clear and keep your sanity!!
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Okay so I googled it.
Heres' some other points of view.
Not that I guarantee their veracity.
British Chess Magazine: "A substantial work, rich in ideas for all three stages of the game."
Cor Jansen, Provinciaalse Zeeuwse Courant: "A wake-up call for chess players of all levels (..) The author has introduced something new: the Five Touchstones you should keep in mind when playing a game. If you do so consistently, you will not be disappointed."
Stephen Dann, Worcester Telegram: "Moskalenko does use human games and analysis going back to the 20th century, which are entertaining and give the volume great perspective (ways to mentally view things), sometimes lost today in America."
Richard Vedder, Schaaksite.nl: "I fail to see what the theoretical part adds to what the avarage player already knows. Fortunately, there is a lot to be learned in the practical part of the book (..) In the chapters on the middlegame my eyes have finally been opened."
Marshtower Chess Reviews: "I enjoyed this book. There is a lot to read, a lot to absorb. I know it's only January but, at the end of the year, when I compile my list of the top books I have reviewed in 2010, I'll be surprised if 'Revolutionize Your Chess' isn't included."
Out of interest Arnie did you take " The Moskalenko Test " it says you can measure your progress? (a rhetorical question)
Again,I have not read the book so I am not in a position to take sides - but the co-ordination of the comments at the top of this post seem somewhat suspect.
Time for me to exit this drama - stage left
Dude
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Wonderful to see this discussion here. Can such debating about different points of view be found anywhere else on English language chess sites?
@Jo It seems that you are copypasting this page from the publisher. No wonder only positive comments on the book can be found on that page.
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Jo: Not that it matters (I never said my review is anything more than my own opinion), but regarding the other reviews you mention (or rather copy/paste): not all of those are in fact that positive about Moskalenko's book. Don't just read the headlines selected by the publisher itself - read the entire reviews and you'll see what I mean.
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Ron Hoffman:
Thanks for knowing better than myself what I do not know 'enough' about!
By the way, I didn't say I was a philosopher (let alone 'primarily a philosopher', as Moskalenko writes), I wrote I liked to see myself as one. There's a difference, wouldn't you agree?
Macauley
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
"Arne should be fired! Fired, I say!!!" ;)
OMG, that's adorable!
All I can say is, great fun to read this thread!
And...donate to Haiti relief. (www.theirc.org/)
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@ Britishfan. "If a book stands on it’s own merits, the author does not respond to reviews."
"That's like saying if you got a good product, you don't need to advertise"
Pure British bunk... ( I only call it British...because I remember us an up and coming businessman in London in my early 20's (1970's) hearing this line over and over again from supposed adults. I never did find a good line to respond to it in those days and it got so I half believed it for a while.
Looking back I realize that the people who thought this way were basically either comfortably numb with there status within the British class system, brainwashed by the British school system.. or just plainly ignorant and untraveled.
Please excuse the aggressive tone of this post - sometimes I still get aggravated by the twaddle I had to unlearn from my Pink Floyd schooldays.
Tom
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I really want to read this book now!
Tim
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
OK, some people like the book (voted 2nd best book for 2009) and some people don't like the book.
Fair enough for both sides to state their preference and why, but no need to try and convert the other camp.
It's only an opinion (and matter of taste), so both sides can be valid. Let the egos rest.
Let it be (as someone once sang).
burnett
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Mr Arne Moll,
After someone feels insulted by your writing, an apology really won´t hurt you or your intellectuel "rightness". Why not give yourself the luxury of let´s say a reasonable 1% chance that you migt be wrong? (a litlle doubt never hurts filosophical aspirations).
From personal experience I can assure you that Victor Moskalenko is a very modest, kind and dedicated coach not a show off, you really got a wrong impression there. Give the man some air, if not for you the book migt be very beneficial for club players.
Your review struck me too as becoming rather personal and insulting, (though I take your word for it that this was not your intention). The book is clearly still in the fase of "draft" or "workbook / excercise book" and fails a good editor, no need to be a genius to see that.
For my chess class (age group 6-8) I formulated the "Baby version" of the five touchstones; Check before every move 1 Position of the king, 2. Direct threats 3. placement of pieces and pawns 4. Material balance. They all made a hudge leap forward in playing strenght. I seemed to me that being forced to do the "checklist" they got much less carried away by fantastic "variations". Maybe Moskalenko´s discovery can be simply that the players who got stuck at club level suffer from a failure of very basic dicipline (matrix) to organise all their more sophisticated thoughts, and that grandmasters may have (more ore less consciously) mastered a "simplistc" but very effective discipline. Maybe chess is less "intellectual" then we like to think, more a game of alertness and stamina, and maybe that is why so many kids are so strong (Trained by a non-intelligent machines)
I always wondered why many obviously intelligent people (e.g. easely mastering a university degree) fail to impress at chess, I would not be surprised that Moskalenko´s discovery is close to the truth and that he is capable of teaching this (somewhat shocking to the intellectual mind) "simplicity".
To put this discovery in a philosophical context is maybe somethng for you Mr Moll? That would be very elegant on your part.
Friendly greetings.
Nonationalism
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Sometimes the truth hurts, Paul.
burnett
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@GuidedBy Voices
Yes that is is wise remark, I think it might have been prudent by the chess vibes editorial staff to have an expert check the review of Mr Moll (who did not want to reveal his own playing strenght when I asked him, so maybe he is a GM, no idea, maybe he has also a very modest side) using derogatories like "amazingly silly" when judging the work of a GM (And very experienced coach). Maybe for a small Dutch incrowd Mr Moll is a well known figure, to larger public he remains unknown and I don´t see any introduction or presentation of the man on the site. He speaks of Mr Moskaleko´s opnion vs. his opinion, but to me the importance of his opinion is still a mystery. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Friendly greetings.
Chiel Reemer
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I don't think the moderator should do anything with this thread. It's beautiful! A wonderful world of laughter and frightened ego's feeding on each others negativity, cloaked in reason.
Very entertaining! Keep it up!
Vasileios
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I think the dispute between A. Moll and V. Moskalenko is rather pointless. Grandmasters have been throughout the years trying to outline principles for the understanding of the game and develop what I would term as the strategic rules of the game. However it is very difficult, if not impossible for a human to fathom such a theme as essentially is the safety of one piece, the King, in conjunction with the other 31 remaining forces. Experience shows that chess might be a draw, but we are not even sure about that.
My main point is that, for the time being, above all is the chaotic and unfathomable for a human mind tactical nature of a game we have been unable so far to explore completely, despite computer capability and capacity standards increasing. There is indeed a strategy that rules all this chaos, but we have seen only some fluctuations of it, it is virtually non definable at this point.You can define rules and forms of strategy only in things you have mastered inside out.
In other words, first you prove something and only then you can give a strategic explanation; the rules of strategy depend on whether the proof is valid.
Someone might argue that there are parts of the game we have mastered completely such as several endings and specific recurring motifs in the middlegame or the opening. Agreed, but these are just particles in the whole system of chess. And they derive from one and only thing, the safety of the enemy monarch.But alone on this success you cannot form rules governing the strategy of the game as a whole.
it has for example, been funny for me to see strategic rules being made for such issues as to which Rook can be put to a certain square, about centralisation, about exchanges, about pawn structures. And when we try to apply them we might be successful in the majority of cases, but also we quite often fail.
My point is that real rules have no exceptions. Every exception gets incorporated to the Rule and becomes part of it.
You cannot form a Rule if you do not have an overview of the whole thing.
thus, the only way to revolutionise one's chess is probably to play like mr Carlsen, which is very close to calculation like a computer.
You might argue that Magnus dismisses several continuations on strategic grounds and so strategy plays a role after all, it cannot be only tactics that matter.
But in fact, what is human strategy? hasn't it been formulated by an accumulated mass of tactical experiences? Carlsen has already a huge experience as well as a stronger calculating powerstation than others, a natural gift.
The point I want to make here is that although these experiences are a guarantee of relative success, cannot be considered as strategic rules in the objective sense. We believe that these are the rules, and some of them might be indeed be so, but this will be proven once the game has been exhausted.
Only then the real rules might come to the fore;
For example: there is a strong inclination today among the majority of chessplayers to believe that the objectively best replies to 1.d4 and 1.e4 are the symettrical ones, and that these openings should lead to a draw.This is verified by the extensive use of the Petroff and Slav. This might be true, but still needs to be verified by an exhaustion of all possibilities. Only then we can formulate a rule, that symmetrical openings are the best, and some others might be losing.
Many years ago it was thought that the King's Gambit was the best way to open the game, Now this opinion would cause laughter.
Several years ago, people would put the pawns on different colour to that of their only bishop automatically, Today they have started understanding that this dogma can in several cases be destructive as then the pawns will lack protection.
there are numerous examples of human rules and strategies that are continuing to formulate. But this evolution will be superseded and improved once the comps reach their final verdict about chess.Till then, the one to have the better strategy, is the one who sees one move ahead.
Simmillion
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I was kind of surprised with the acid tone our Arne chose when doing the Moskalenko review (I own a copy of The Flexible French, which I find pretty close to a perfect openingbook) but in the end I liked it.
All the Arne reviews and colums are pretty personal (Showing off?). Thats why I like to read his pieces. And I find it smart not to review only 'personal favorites' but also well known books you dont like. Too bad for GM Moskalenko that his was the one.
I also like -and I see this as a compliment for Chessvibes and her reactors- that GM Moskalenko takes the time to react.
The fact the book got reviewed is in itself positive (how many books dont even make it to Arne Acid?) and the fact Moskalenko reacts is also pretty cool.
Because of Arne I thought: " I've got enough books' (start reading them silly!) and now because of the GM I think: " I know what I'll buy the next time I visit van Stockum
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
As it is a true honour for me to have such a respected Grandmaster and author respond to my reviews, let me just mention a few general points that Mr. Moskalenko seems to have misunderstood in my initial review, rather than addressing every single sentence of his letter point by point.
Mr. Moskalenko starts off his letter with the complaint that I am supposedly not interested in ‘Improve your chess’ books and am therefore biased against his book Revolutionize Your Chess (and hence unqualified to review it objectively). To me, this merely shows Moskalenko doesn’t read my reviews on a regular basis (and indeed I couldn’t possibly expect him to), for then he would have known that the very review before the one I wrote on Moskalenko’s book, is a highly positive and enthusiastic review of Lars Bo Hansen’s book called (ironically, if anything) Improve Your Chess.
In fact, I was also very positive about Herman Grooten’s Chess Strategy for Club Players, the book that recently beat Revolutionize Your Chess in the ChessCafe Book of the Year competition, and numerous other books that intend to improve the reader’s chess skills. My remark ‘What’s with all these improve your chess books recently’ was just a ‘by the way’, trying to make the related (but admittedly not terribly relevant) general point that lately, a lot of books focus on chess improvement while surely trying to make the reader enjoy chess is at least as important as that.
In any case, as I had already written in the comments underneath my review, a reviewer’s personal taste is not relevant as long as he’s 'not prejudiced, focuses on the book and not his own taste, and he knows his literature.' I would think my liking Moskalenko’s previous book sort of proves I’m not prejudiced against him, and apart from this one ‘by the way’ paragraph, I focus my entire review on the contents of the book itself. As for ‘knowing my literature’, I think I’ve shown this already sufficiently in the review itself.
I could mention several other points in Mr. Moskalenko’s letter where he misinterprets my intentions and words. For instance, he makes much of my sarcasm and hyperbole, but then without blinking an eye declares that he himself means to ‘provoke his readers’ and that this is simply his ‘style of writing, I always look for ways to keep them awake’. Well, Mr. Moskalenko, it seems we agree on something after all! Perhaps we should just drop this point?
Another small thing to note is that Mr. Moskalenko altogether ignores the positive things I have mentioned about his book in my review, instead claiming it is ‘singularly negative’. This is also why it’s simply untrue that the one example I picked from the book to illustrate a point is used by me to imply that 'ALL the examples I give in the book (and there are many hundreds of them) are deficient.'
But here’s what I actually wrote in my review: 'To be sure, there are better examples in the book, but they all suffer from the same illness.' I also wrote, 'The book does contains good stuff, but I liked the Viktor Moskalenko of The Flexible French much, much better.' Forgive me for thinking this small nuance is probably worth pointing out.
I suppose I should also say I’m surprised by Mr. Moskalenko’s statement that his concepts ‘aren’t philosophical at all’ and that he himself, unlike me, ‘isn’t a philosopher’. Well, fair enough, but Moskalenko himself claims that while authors like Suba and Beim discuss many interesting aspects of dynamic chess, they offer ‘no theoretical framework’ - surely implying Revolutionize Your Chess is different in this respect! A few sentences later, he even explicitly states that ‘in the present book, we will make an attempt to systematize this dynamic approach to our game’.
And in Chapter 2, just to take one example, Moskalenko writes that the factor Time ‘has thus far been neglected in theoretical works. This dynamic factor should be included in any chess system if we want to call it conclusive’.
To me all this sounds distinctly philosophical. In fact, capitalizing the t in Time is, if anything else, the generally acknowledged way of indicating a ‘Platonization’ of the object at hand. But perhaps I’m again being too, well, philosophical here.
There is, however, one point in Mr. Moskalenko’s reply that I would like to elaborate upon a bit in more detail. This is when he writes that I do not contend that the system described in Revolutionize Your Chess ‘isn’t working’: ‘He has not tested, or even probed, if a chess player who does what I recommend in my book and who uses the tools I hand to him, becomes a better player or not.’
Indeed I must confess that I haven’t fully tested the system (although Mr. Moskalenko couldn’t possibly know this himself), for the inexcusable reason that I am, apart from being a father and a full-time employee, just a reviewer whose task it is to read the book and write his conclusions down as accurately and conscientiously as possible. (I imagine Mr. Moskalenko also doesn’t accept positive reviews when the reviewer hasn’t fully tested the system?)
But suppose I would like to test Mr. Moskalenko’s system before writing anything at all about it. How would I do it? Surely applying the ‘Touchstone Tools’ in my own games is not nearly enough: a sample of just 1 player can’t possible say anything meaningful about a method, can it? I’d have to ask perhaps my entire chess team to study the book and apply it in their own games to the best of their ability.
But then there would still be the (in my view very likely) possibility that our game improved not because of the Touchstone Tools, but by us being suddenly occupied with chess for much more than we currently are. You see, this is what statisticians call the correlation is not causation maxim: the fact that we’re reading Moskalenko’s book and actively trying to apply the Touchstones doesn’t prove Moskalenko’s method works – not at all.
For all we know the very fact that we’re in an experiment might make us more conscious of our play during games, and we might improve our game even without studying anything at all. This is a variation of the well-known placebo effect. To avoid such confusion, we’d at least need some sort of control group with a bunch of players of the same average level who would also engage in active chess study, but specifically without using Moskalenko’s Touchstones – say, by studying Mark Dvoretsky’s books.
After some time – say, a year - we’d probably be able to say something about whether Moskalenko’s method works or not (calibrating for random rating fluctuations and such, of course), and whether it works any better than other current chess-improvement methods.
Now, this would be an extremely interesting experiment, and I would be more than willing to try it myself if given enough time and money, but what I’m really wondering is whether Mr. Moskalenko himself has ever done such an experiment.
After all, he accuses me of not having tested his method and very firmly claims that his method does work. My question is very simple: has Mr. Moskalenko systematically tested his method, and can we see the results? And perhaps I should mention another statisticians’ maxim, which is that the plural of anecdote is not data. It’s great to have many testimonies from players who are happy their money was well spent and they improved their chess by receiving chess training, but this doesn’t, of course, prove the training method itself works: it just proves they improved their game.
And this may have happened for numerous reasons – the most important one being what I also wrote in my initial review, which is that 'improving one’s chess can be achieved by studying any chess book seriously.' (Mr. Moskalenko seems to have overlooked this remark.)
Let me finish by what strikes me as an extremely important point, made by one of the commenters to this post. It’s this: 'Maybe [Moskalenko] is right in saying so, but he fails to address how his students got better using his advice.'
This is precisely my whole problem with the book. It’s not the Touchstone tools, it’s not the provocative language, not the lack of philosophical depth, not even the annoying -T1 and -T4 notation: it’s the lack of specificity; the lack of explaining how the touchstones work (and why), how students improve their game and how dynamic chess works; and how revolutionary Moskalenko’s book is, precisely.
Perhaps these questions are typical philosophical questions, but so be it. I’m just a an ordinary chess player trying to improve and be inspired by chess. Mr. Moskalenko claims he knows 'quite well what beginning and more advanced chess players know and how they think.' In other words, he knows exactly how I think. I can only hope he will some day understand my point of view in this matter after all.
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@blueofnoon Not sure where your pulling your "due respect" out of but it definitely stinks to suggest he is boasting,
He is in a position where he is defending his credibility in front of an audience that probably haven't read his book. So it is requisite that he informs us of his track record, before addressing criticisms of his system and illustrations therof.
As far as you not being tempted,,,you shouldn't be....he says quite specifically that the first couple of chapters are an introduction....and from the sounds of it your attention span runs a couple of paragraphs at most.
I have not read the book so I am not in a position to take sides...but his response sounded adequate to me.
Paul
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
From Moll's post:
"Let me finish by what strikes me as an extremely important point, made by one of the commenters to this post. It’s this: ‘Maybe [Moskalenko] is right in saying so, but he fails to address how his students got better using his advice.’
This is precisely my whole problem with the book. It’s not the Touchstone tools, it’s not the provocative language, not the lack of philosophical depth, not even the annoying -T1 and -T4 notation: it’s the lack of specificity; the lack of explaining how the touchstones work (and why), how students improve their game and how dynamic chess works; and how revolutionary Moskalenko’s book is, precisely."
This I totally disagree with. People who spend their entire book telling you what they have done for you, how they are going to do it, and how it's made you stronger are nothing but self-help writers. If the book substitutes substance for telling me what it has done for me, then i'll definitely take the former.
Paul
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
In general it was an incredibly harsh review. The book can't be that bad, and if I had worked as hard on something as Molashenko I would definitely be personally upset and affected by the hyperbole used in the review. I think it's pretty far from the truth and self serving to use rhetoric like that to make your article move flashy and get more reads. I certainly doubt it's accuracy.
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Arnies in the house with his blunderbus....take a chill pill.....You wrote your review - - he answered....An author has a right to get emotional to defend his work and livliehood...The reviewer if confident in his review..need add nothing further.
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Dude - ok one encore... Not sure what your point is but it SEEMS like your interested in the link
http://shop.chesscafe.com/item.asp?PID=3048
and it seems you missed the caveat "Not that I guarantee their veracity"
Jarvis
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Arne: A simple question; why do you use demeaning language to describe the work of Mr Moskalenko? Since you are a philosopher; in what way does that make this world a better place? I suggest you strive harder to uphold respect and dignity for your fellow human beings. Please withhold your sophistic excuses, just sincerely consider what I write.
JM
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Jarvis:
Surely I must misunderstand you... Please tell me you're not really claiming that a review shouldn't judge its subject?!
bird
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I really like Arne´s reviews. I´ve read a lot of reviews of many chess sites and almost always the reviews are too good to believe them. I´ve read Arne´s reviews and he has positive and negative reviews for the books, and he is the only one that i ´ve found that do this.
I enjoy reading his opinion and i must admit that i´ve bought or stopped ordering books according to his advice, and until now i am not disappointed.
I think is normal that an autor can be upset if he receives a bad note for his book, and more if the author is a person who is so hot-blooded as Moskalenko, but I wish it won´t change the way Arne does his reviews.
Sven Bakker
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
All publicity is good publicity, so all this hoopla probably only helps sell the book
I thought any claim of all encompassing systems in fields of science and philosophy have long been given up. We can only hope so gather as many useful different viewpoints as possible and synthesize everything into a good grasp of what needs to be done to get results
7 minute abs for everyone
Michael
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I haven't read the book but already its pretentious title annoys me. The book may contain useful material and those touchstone rules do sound reasonable (although they're not new at all and any half-decent player knows them anyway). But to suggest that a few simple tools alone can "revolutionize" your chess is simply a big fraud. If you really want to improve your chess, you have to play a lot, work very hard, keep good physical form and so on (which most of us don't have the time to do). No touchstone is going to change that.
luzin
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
i like Moll's writing.
I have not read Moskalenko's book and i will not, if only for his silly title and bad taste cover :)
let me guess that those two alone were enough to make Moll angry!
Tom
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Arne Moll should probably get fired. I recognize his job is to review books, but that is such a ridiculous job to have. I don't know why a good chess website such as www.chessvibes.com feels like it needs to have a book reviewer on their staff.
Arne Moll obviously gets his kicks by disparaging the good work done by others. The man is a parasite. Let him go!
Tom
Marino Kuper
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I had bought the book before mr. Moll wrote his review. I can honestly say that mr. Molls review (as critical as it is) imho is almost too kind for the book. The touchstone tools that Mosalenko uses, may be an adequate system to analyze with hindsight (though I even doubt that it is), but it certainly doesn't help the average club player to chose a move during the game. And if it doesn't help here, it cannot help to improve your chess.
In fact Mosalenko did not write a middle game book, but a game collection of his own games selected around a few of his favorite openings systems.
Joeri
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Fully agree with Marino here.
As a 1950 player I am of course not someone who is knowledgeable about chess.
But having read works of Euwe, Watson, Silman, Franco, Marin, Yusupov, Tisdall and Dvoretsky of who'm I can say I like their work and I learned something from it. I can compare their work with that of Moskalenko. Mr. Moskalenko just falls incredibly short didactically.
His endgame section is way too superficial. He shows you some endgames with another theory called Properties of Pieces, Pawns and Squares.
The endgames he shows are ok but I just don't get the point which he wants to make. Maybe my chess skill is too low, but than for whom is this book intended?
You have to read it to believe it and I'm afraid you'll have to buy it 'cause of that ;-)
The worst thing is, is that the book is 350 pages long and 175 pages is filled with opening analysis (50 pages of these 175 in the section on the middlegame!!) That's 50 %!!
There is one thing that many chess teachers emphasize and that is the study of openings. You will not improve much by studying opening theory.
After the weak part of the touchstones and endgames this large openingssection which already starts in the middlegame part of the book was the reason for me to put it down.
@tom : Please read Arne's other reviews.
Tom
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@joeri: joeri...I recognize that you think Arne' is some sort of hero because he reads the books that are presented to him and then he writes his opinion on whether the book is good or bad. You - evidently being a fan of his - read his opinion and go along with what Arne tells you.
The thing here, joeri, is that Arne's opinions on other people's works are about as important as the gum stuck on the sole of your shoe.
The man gets his notoriety (and if Chessvibes is crazy enough to pay him, his money!) from criticizing the works of others!
This is parasitic. Arne should devote himself to improving his own chess instead of talking smack about the GOOD work of others.
Dig it.
Tom
Peter Doggers
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
OK, so you're arguing that getting notoriety from criticizing the works of others is parasitic. So what exactly is the problem? That he's getting notoriety? Or that he criticizes the works of others? I can assure you that he doesn't care about the former, and about the latter, well, the word 'critic' comes from Greek. That's how long it already exists, that art of offering reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation.
Joeri
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Tom you're a bit presumptuous on some parts...
I just said "read Arne's other reviews." If you do, you'll see that not much of them are negative. They are critical, but not negative. Most reviews are positive. Read the one on the flexible French I'd say.
As a critical reviewer it is your job to review books and give your opinion on books after reading them. Why else review books? Should publishers just bring it out and say this is the greatest book ever? A reviewer has the responsibility to bring out an honest review, and not just some positive bla-bla like John Elburg.
Of course you cannot also bring down a book if it is not justified. I do not think Arne did that having read the book myself...
Tom
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Peter: I'm not interested in getting into a Classical Debate on the ultimate meaning of words. Please get your head out of that ancient toilet!
I'm not saying that to incite you emotionally mind you. I'm saying that so that you may tap into resources that cannot be learned from books or from teachers, but from your own personal experience.
I don't know if this will answer your question or not, but I think critics - as a lot - are parasites. It is so easy to sit back, have a drink, half-heartedly (or even whole-heartedly) read a few pages, listen to a few tracks, watch a couple of scenes and then write what one thinks about the work. But what about actually creating a work...Who gives a donkey's ass whether Arne-boy, or Roger Ebert, or some well known music critic thinks about somebody else's work.
Put that turd of a human being to create something on their own and watch them regurgitate the stuff that they once had the audacity to call 'bad work.'
Parasites the lot of them!
Tom
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
joeri: You obviously have no manhood of your own...keep hiding behind Arne!
lol...
IC
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I didn't delve much into the comment, but I know one thing for sure GM Moskalenko is a respected player/coach and maybe even a respected human being, but although I can understand his responses, based on his will to defend himself I just have to catagorize him under annoying people who just can't allow themselves to be critisized.
I belive it's no coinicidance that after so many reviews only GM Moskalenko sent a comment, and I am sure other writers over the course of some time also didnt agree with Arne Moll, but they just didnt!
Mr Moskalenko defended his books (on french and on the budapest) numerous times on NIC Yearbooks, each time claiming his work is so good and so amazing, while others just dotn understand as him... this means his comment on this site is not special at all, just part of his "repirtoare".
It's undignified for the author to respond in such way, and it's also very petty, maybe GM Moskalenko Writes very good chess books (I dont know yet, but I'm pretty sure thery're quite ok for some players) on the human context he just fails...
To sum things:
Arne moll didn't do anything special
Viktor Moskelanko being petty and acting like a child, also bragging about irrelavent achivements
p.s GM moskalenko might also comment on my comment if he'll ever read it and will politly say I'm a cimplete idiot, but I dont belive he'll have time to read all this.
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Tom, it's funny: whenever I write a positive review, people complain I am not objective and only trying to please the author or the publisher. Now when I write a negative one (which happens quite rarely, by the way - it's not something I particularly like) you complain I'm just being parasitic and get my pleasure from bashing others.
My conclusion is I can never please everyone and therefore I just write what I want to, okay? Besides, if there's anyone 'hiding' (as you accuse joeri of doing), it's you by not publishing your full name here for everyone to see. Way to go!
Tom
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Arne: You're a parasite, man. You live off of the work of others. You're a parasite.
Enjoy!
TOM
British fan
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
If a book stands on it's own merits, the author does not respond to reviews.
trollkiler
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I can't help but wonder, how u even bother to answer to such trolls that go around forums to get their daily fix of insulting others.
Why not simply block him.
This thing is crossing the line of freedom of speech. As in speaking his mind, he simply insults people without having something to add to the conversation.
Ron Hoffman
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
At last someone who takes the trouble to respond intelligently to one of Arne's 'reviews'.
Just a simple request: Arne, you are not a 'philosopher' (even apart from the fact that you did not study it at university, you also do not know enough about it ok), do stop trying to pose as one.
Sligunner
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
The review trashes the GM's book; the GM replies . . . that should be it. Then Chessvibes allows the reviewer the last work? Come on guys, that really is unfair.
Coco Loco
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Arne,
As a reader, I've been annoyed by your tone - opinionated, disrespectful, unbalanced, aggressive, call it what you will - on a few occasions and even bothered to write about it. Perhaps you also like to always look for ways to keep the readers awake, but it's a turnoff to a subset of those readers (mind you, the internet is not exactly a civilized place, as some posters often remind us, but why cater to that crowd?) I know it's hard to self analyze, but maybe the other cv editors can pitch in their views.
guitarspider
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Arne,
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your critical reviews. It's very rare to find chess reviews on the internet which actually dare to say something negative about the reviewed products. Don't let the haters deter you. Mr. Moskalenkos reply, which does not address the points you criticized, only shows you were spot on.
cheers!
CAL|Daniel
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I would like to add... with great respect to GM Moskalenko that he seems to miss a key point. Your work does NEED to be fresh and add new ideas to the field to be qualified as "revolutionary" as well as to be deemed worth purchasing. Why should I - potential consumer - care about your work if it does not have something original in it? If I already own 10 books that collectively cover every single point you mention? This is what Arne's review hit on the most for me. Nothing you say is the slightest bit new or original.
"I am not claiming originality in every point I make in the book. It is a strange thing to ask from an author, even from an author who claims to aim for a revolution. My book is a real revolution in that it brings everything together. Naming other books or authors who have written about some elements of my system does not mean my approach would somehow not be fresh."
Gerando
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Mr Moll's uncompromising review has forced Mr Moskalenko to give additional explanations, and I thank both of them for giving us this extensive discussion. Maybe I will give another thought of buying this book now, because a book that creates such a discussion cannot be entirely bad.
Hanseman
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Arne: grow up & read the whole book before reviewing it.
@Victor: i like your book and it helps me a great deal in improving my chess, thx for writing it.
@chessvibes: for the sake of professional chess journalism, don't allow your writers to publish sole negative reviews, without any sense for nuance.
Joe
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I agree with guitarspiders praise of Arne's work.
And about all that philosophical whining: a philosopher is someone who can systematically and rationally think of his own. Of all text I've seen here Arne's posts are of a good level in these aspects (as well as some others) and his review made valid, specific and clear objections to the book.
If you don't understand Arne's so-called 'philosophical' approach of things, try to at least keep a simple rule of a Socratic debate/method: always interpret your adversaries words in the most positively possible way.
boki
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Seems it is not allowed to write somenthing negative about Moskalekos book.
There was a similiar answer in a NIC Yearbook to some (unjustified )critisism by Gutman on his book on the budapest.
In my Opinion Moskalenko overreacts
Paul
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Besides being "philosophical" Arne is a guy who is objective. Chessvibes readers are not known to be richguys buying all chesscrap. (Besides that i will buy the book of Moskalenko, due to Arne) Oscar Wilde once wrote something like: it's better they write bad things about you than write nothing about you!
Keep up the good work on this site..i love the discussions! (And i don't think Arne tries to humiliate people and authors)
Paul
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Ron i know you are a smart guy with 2 (two) majors but don't judge Arne for not having a master degree, it's not about education but about sense and free speech. Maybe you disagree but don't call him an "elohssa" (yes read it backwards) Your fiend Paul Berkhoudt!
Joeri
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Just one more thing.
Moskalenko writes
"I have written two successful books (which Mr Moll to my amazement says he liked)"
Check out the comment on dec 23rd on the flexible french review
http://www.chessvibes.com/reviews/review-the-flexible-french/#more-2196
Amazing...
Bert
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I've read the book for the largest part and spoken to two other buyers about it before reading Moll's review. Our opinions and considerations were remarkable identical.
1. We bought it because of the interesting Flexible French (when we are advertising...)
2. The touchstones are of no help at all. When you play 5. b4 after 1.e4 e5 2.Pf3 Pc6 4.Lc4 Lc5 every beginner knows it costs material but it is good for tempo and unsafe opponent's king. So a T1 -, and a T3+ and T5+ (or whatever).
But how do you weigh these pluses and minuses? The book simply fails to quantify.
3.With nearly every move the T-values, which are completely useless for the reader, are given. Very irritating.
4. The whole book breaths of conceit. Many examples are taken from (rapid, blitz) games of the author. This doesn't invite reading.
5. Despite all this some chapters are very interesting. Like, playing with the isolanus.
My impression was that something had gone wrong, that the author must have realized on a certain moment that his idea of touchstones didn't work, but that it was too late/too much effort to rewrite the book. I'm really surprised that Moskolenko still stands behind his ideas. A lack of self-criticism, a self-created environment where it is not done to speak against the master?
Meppie
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Really amazing!
Of course it's not nice to read a negative review about a book of your own. But reacting on a (negative) review is the most stupid thing you can do. Look how much negative attention the book gets now......
blueofnoon
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
The point is the subject of Arne's review was the book, not GM Moskalenko himself.
A good writer can sometimes produce terrible book, and get negative reviews.
Boasting how good a writer you are in such case probably would not help you.
I am interested to know how many people improved their rating after reading this book. I would expect many, since GM Moskalenko insists the book is "practical".
Rob
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Tom - What's with this 'parasite' non-sense! I visit some chess sites just to read the reviews (silman's is one). I read as many as I can, to get as good a picture as I can, before I buy a book. A reviewers job is to say a good book is good and a bad book is bad. In this case Arnie gave the book the thumbs down and he's being labeled a 'parasite'. Maybe you ought to rethink what a reviewer does? I've read many of Arnie's reviews and so far I agree with ALL of them (for the books I now own) - he is someone I trust.
Book reviews certainly add to a chess website! I only wish there were more to read!
S
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Indeed you can't expect GM Moskalenko to read these reviews on a regular basis. In fact, you can't possibly expect that of anyone. Why?
Hoffmans and Coco Loco really said it all.
I have read quite a few books that were reviewed on this site and each time it struck me how the reviews were filled with -what I would call- pseudo intellectual nonsense that spoiled the reasonable parts on chess. It also seems to me that the reviewer is sometimes desperately looking for arguments and points of critique-even when there is no reason.
And just like sligunner, I'm also a bit dissapointed that chessvibes felt the need to produce a reply to the GM's reply.
When the reviewer and the author have spoken- the public can decide for themselves. There is no need to add another piece and childishly aim for the last word.
If the article was any good in the first place there shouldn't be much reason for that. But now there is another piece where the large amounts of sophisms just hurt the eye.
Fortunately there is Linares to follow on this site!
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Arne
"Not that it matters (I never said my review is anything more than my own opinion), but regarding the other reviews you mention (or rather copy/paste): not all of those are in fact that positive about Moskalenko’s book. Don’t just read the headlines selected by the publisher itself – read the entire reviews and you’ll see what I mean."
I did not say the reviews were either good or bad and I take it as writ that even a moron would understand these were quotes. I do not appreciate the lesson in critical reading - even though you maybe perched on your philosophers stool up high.
The emphasis you place on copying and pasting and that these are not complete , indicates to me that you are responding to what you feel is an attack
In fact you have replied in such a way as to show you haven't even bothered to read my posts in full, just responding emotionally in a knee-jerk fashion.
Isn't that pretty much the same thing that you have you accused Moskalenko of doing.
Maybe in the critics "glass house" its ok for the critic to throw stones but not the author.
I sincerely hope you read more of the book before writing your review, than you did with this thread before replying to my post.
Today,you have persuaded me to move from a neutral stance to siding with Moskalenko on this matter - quite simply because - just like good ole Pres. Bush - you have not convinced me of your real reasons for going to war.
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Jo, sorry for not reading your posts properly after your comment "Arnies in the house with his blunderbus….take a chill pill". I'm sure the rest was just as informative as this one, I just couldn't stop laughing anymore after that.
Seriously though: if you have anything substantial to argue regarding my original review, I'd be happy to explain myself more clearly where possible. I still think my criticism of Moskalenko's book was well-founded and sufficiently argued, so I have nothing much to add to it. So far, however, the current discussion is mostly about personal preferences and insinuations rather than actual arguments.
Nemozyne
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
And in this thread, surely, chess had its finest hour.
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Arnie
We cool. Appreciate the response..slipping gear back into neutral
British fan
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Jo "“That’s like saying if you got a good product, you don’t need to advertise”
No, that's like saying “If a book stands on it’s own merits, the author does not respond to reviews.” This is a response to a review, not an advertisement. That's why 99.99% of creators don't respond to reviews. They're secure and confident in the quality of their product and they let the product speak for itself.
Bert de Bruut
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I just read on Spraggett'ssite: ''If you don't have enemies, you don't have character.'' Paul Newman. So be it. Just keep up the good work, Arne, and keep us informed over your critical opinions.
@Tom: by definition a host does not benefit from a parasite, so your attempt at slander obviously fails.
@Ron Hoffman: Arne never said he is a philosopher, only that he likes to see himself as one, like all of us here like to see ourselves as chessplayers where in fact we are patzers.
Simmillion
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Let's Fire Arne!!
(amazing discovery by joeri, regarding the Moskalenko reaction on Acid Arne's review of his Flexible french. Conspiracy theorists might conclude this is a set up. Making Arne a feared reviewer and the GM a much discussed writer. Reading everything above, now I think I'll first check the book in a library, before spending my hard earned money on it)
Dave Smith
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Hi folks. I think that the theory of chess is what a "real philosopher" David Hume would call "mere words". Chess is about moves and not words. Theory (development, centralisaton, T's 1,2,3 and so on) is neccesserily how we think about the game communally. It is imperfect but it it is the only possible way to do so. I found the most interesting part of this discussion to be Moskalenko's line against the Na6 Slav. (Am I the only one who looked at the moves rather than the "philosophy" ?) I have a friend who plays that line and I shall be playing d5!? against him as soon as possible. On that basis I shall probably pick up his book when I am next at a tourney book stall.
Cheers folks 8-)
Frans
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
My impression is that mr. Moll is wrong on 2 levels: in WHAT he says about the book and its author and in HOW he says it. However he has every right to be wrong according to me.
If this discussion ends up in a good exchange of ideas about methods how to improve your chess (or that of your pupils if you are a trainer) then we would all benefit from this strange review and this confusing thread. I hope that will happen.
Paul
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Regardless of his opinion using the insulting tone was self serving and hurtful.
Rini Luyks
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
This post's comment section is becoming a written soap of the worst level!
Please cut the crap, Mr. Administrator. Harmful to this nice site.
jan
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Chessvibes should just have placed the response by Moskalenko without further comments and leave it to the visitors of this site to judge. It doesn't give a strong impression that Arne feels the need for a long response to Moskalenko's letter. Apparenly, Arne likes to criticize other people, but can't handle criticism very well himself.
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@jan: This is called a discussion. It's when two people differ in opinion and respond to each other's arguments. I don't see what's wrong with it.
Anyway, I agree with Rini that the 'discussion' is getting out of hand. IMO this has nothing to do with either mine or Moskalenko's points of view, which are clearly stated, but with many commenter's emphasis on 'tone of voice', my identity as a philosopher, whether Mr. Moskalenko is an unpleasant character, whether negative reviews have a right to exist at all, and whether Mr. Moskalenko or I should have replied to each other in the first place. I think this is all completely irrelevant! It's just how discussions go, whether online or in the papers.
So what about responding to our arguments, guys? Can the success of Moskalenko's theory be quantified? Do his ideas make sense from a theoretical point of view, as he claims? Or are they merely useful in practice? (I never questioned this.) Any thoughts anyone?
Ron Hoffman
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Arne, you are very welcome :-)) I can tell because you are demonstrating it :-)))
Ah yes there is a difference, we agree on that :-))
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Well Ron, since you're apparently qualified to tell, why don't you enlighten us with your informed philosophical opinion on the matter at hand? I'd love to be corrected if you would think it necessary, so don't hesitate!
jan
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@ Arne
A book review is something else than a discussion!
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@ Britishfan
1 in 10,000 writers insecure?!? - pull the other.one.
British fan
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Jo I never said that. I said most writers don't respond to reviews. Why don't you make some more racist comments based on nationality. Oh, I forgot. You were already warned about that.
British fan
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Here's the proof. Jo: "Pure British bunk… ( I only call it British…because I remember us an up and coming businessman in London in my early 20’s (1970’s) hearing this line over and over again from supposed adults. I never did find a good line to respond to it in those days and it got so I half believed it for a while.
Looking back I realize that the people who thought this way were basically either comfortably numb with there status within the British class system, brainwashed by the British school system.. or just plainly ignorant and untraveled."
"@Arnie
We cool. Appreciate the response..slipping gear back into neutral"
British fan
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Jo "Looking back I realize that the people who thought this way were basically either comfortably numb with there status within the British class system, brainwashed by the British school system.. or just plainly ignorant and untraveled.”
You might not want to call others ignorant when you don't know the different usages of the words "their" and "there".
Junior
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Arne is always trying to show off. He also tends to think he is very smart, but in reality, you are not... you are just a regular fella. Perhaps you could use Moskalenko´s book to improve your chess, eh?
Tim
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
This is getting a bit childish in parts, and isn't helping the ChessVibes image.
Some people need to put their egos in check - and move on. Please.
S
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
"So what about responding to the arguments guys? "
Ok, forgive me for continuing this, but here's my 2 cents:
First of all, I think it is pretty clear you were biased.
Your reasoning in the reply (about the unrelated Hansen review) doesn't make much sense and the introduction text in your review of "revolutionize your chess" speaks for itself -and for Moskalenko's view of your bias:
"On the cover we read that this book is ‘a brand-new system to become a better player’. Now, I don’t know about you, but whenever I hear the word ’system’ together with the words ‘to become a better player’, I tend to turn sober right away and put on my most sceptical glasses. Haven’t we heard such claims before, and haven’t authors learned from the past? Apparently not. "
Secondly, I was puzzled what to make of this:
"I could mention several other points in Mr. Moskalenko’s letter where he misinterprets my intentions and words. For instance, he makes much of my sarcasm and hyperbole, but then without blinking an eye declares that he himself means to ‘provoke his readers’ and that this is simply his ‘style of writing, I always look for ways to keep them awake’. Well, Mr. Moskalenko, it seems we agree on something after all! Perhaps we should just drop this point?"
Once again I fail to see the logic. Were your "sarcasm" and hyperboles also means to keep your readers awake Arne? They were very harsh words meant to describe the low quality of the book-I don't see how naming Moskalenko's text truly stupid is comparable with the exaggerations and boasts of a typical writer.
I also don't like how, shortly after, the words of the GM are "misinterpreted".
You write:
"This is also why it’s simply untrue that the one example I picked from the book to illustrate a point is used by me to imply that ‘ALL the examples I give in the book (and there are many hundreds of them) are deficient.’"
Here is what the GM wrote in his reply: " After treating this one example wrongly, Mr Moll says that ALL the examples I give in the book (and there are many hundreds of them) are deficient. ALL examples suffer in that I ‘focus on the Touchstones for the sake of the Touchstones only’. Again, I find this a puzzling swipe."
And here is what you wrote in the review (after 3 paragraphs of critique on 1 example):
"Okay, perhaps I’m reading way too much in this one example. To be sure, there are better examples in the book, but they all suffer from the same illness: too much focus on the touchstones for the sake of the touchstones only."
This is exactly what the GM says in his reply and nothing positive changes the fact that you described all examples as flawed.
You also fail to reply to the GM's additional and quite convincing explanation of the strength of the diagram-underlining the fact that he, unlike you said, did provide reasons for the dynamic choice.
And then comes the grand finale, taking half of your reply.
" There is, however, one point in Mr. Moskalenko’s reply that I would like to elaborate upon a bit in more detail. This is when he writes that I do not contend that the system described in Revolutionize Your Chess ‘isn’t working’: "
followed by 7 paragraphs of a bit more detail, explaining things about statistics, philosophy and the methodological problems conducting research as to whether or not an improvement system is working.
But in the end, it's pretty clear that he is right and that you didn't contend. And then you turn it around: The Author has to prove his system is working.
But like Moskalenko says; he as a coach, has contacts with readers and students to back him up.
All in all I don't think that your reply added anything to the "discussion", as you like to call it, or the evaluation of the book.
And your finish, well, it was just remarkable.
"I can only hope he will some day understand my point of view in this matter after all. "
Mr. Moll, I can only hope that one day you understand why it is unlikely that GM Moskalenko will ever "understand" how his writings are truly stupid.
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@S
I'm sorry but again your reply focuses mainly on my tone of voice, the shape of my reply and my supposed bias against the author, rather than the points I raise in the review.
Let me say once again that I think my criticism of the Touchstones and the examples Moskalenko gives are pretty clear. Mainly, my criticism is NOT that the Touchstone system do no work (so Mr. Moskalenko doesn't have to prove this, and neither do I, but since he himself claims I haven't tested his system I asked him if he himself has tested it in a meaningful way, and what it would mean to do so). I do doubt that his method always - or even in general - works, especially since I've also heard from many players that they think his method is NOT effective - so the question remains why the touchstones work sometimes and sometimes not - my guess is that they are not as effective or well-founded as Mr. Moskalenko claims, but I'd be extremely interested to hear Mr. Moskalenko's reply to these people who say his method didn't help them. In any case, he can't use the argument that they haven't understood them properly since it's his duty as an author to explain them, wouldn't you agree?. (Again, I don't have too much faith in anecdotes in general, whether positive or negative, but it strikes me Moskalenko altogether ignores the negative anecdotes so far.)
Anyway, my main point in the review was that they - the touchstones - are needlessly confusing his explanations - yes, ALL his explanations, however good they sometimes actually are (you see, an explanation can be good and STILL contain needlessly confusing stuff) and that they add nothing in a philosophical sense to our understanding of chess (even though Moskalenko boasts this in his book - weirdly denying it in his reply again.).
I will make one final point about the sarcasm and the (according to some) harsh tone of the review, because I think this is an unfair complaint. First of all, my (in my view rather mild) sarcasm was triggered by the tone of Moskalenko's book. Read it and you'll know what I mean.
But more importantly, if you read my review, you no doubt noticed I wrote things like Mr. Moskalenko seems like a sympathetic person despite everything, and I really liked his previous books, that perhaps I am too much trying to think like a philosopher to appreciate his book, and most importantly that I doubted for a long time myself whether to write anything about the book at all.
Now, do these strike you as the musings of someone who just wants to 'bash' an author (Moskalenko's words) and simply write a review to show how 'truly stupid' (words I also never used) a book is?
Best regards, Arne
h gee
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I like when a reviewer takes a stand to voice his opinion. That's why I read the column. It takes courage. I think if you don't like this sort of honesty, you should take a look at some of those other sites. You all know the type; the ones that contain only nice reviews of every book sent their way. Going by those opinions, you'd be buying everything out there. And Tom, Tom, Tom..why don't you go somewhere else, where everything is rosey and peachy...by your definition, everyone would be a parasite, from those analysing games played by others to reviewers like Mr. Moll. Maybe you can review something for us. I suspect it would fall far short of even your expectations. And as for Mr Moll; don't apologize and don't let them get to you. I know the type. They complain, they rant, they insult. But they do not have solutions. I read your column because I want to read your opinions. So take courage...
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Britishfan
a)
"That’s why 99.99% of creators don’t respond to reviews. They’re secure and confident in the quality of their product and they let the product speak for itself."
Your words not mine. sounds like 1 in 10,000 to me.
b)
"I never said that. I said most writers don’t respond to reviews. Why don’t you make some more racist comments based on nationality. Oh, I forgot. You were already warned about that."
I have never been warned by anybody for any such thing....and to top it off - by heritage, birth and upbringing I'm English . Its embarrassing to me to hear such ill thought out comments by a fellow countryman if that what you are (Britishfan does'nt make this clear)
Jo
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Britishfan
"Here’s the proof. Jo:"
Proof of what????
burnett
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Dear Mr Moll,
I agree with you that nearly all comments are about how you said things and not what you said. You said things in a very unpolite, disrespectful and rude way and this, Mr Moll, does matter to many people, and that was the main reason you got so much response. Apparently your stand in this was that what you had to say was so important and urgent that you could say it in whatever way you wanted. (totally irrelevant, are your words I think you use in respect to how to express your opinion). Well, that is at least a sign of great enthousiasm for your work as reviewer although what you had to say became with every elaboration less interesting (I think everyone got more or less your appreciation of the book after your very first version), but I have to compliment you that the tone is now indeed 100%correct and that somehow, although uncapable making an apology, it seems you finally got the point!
Well now, that leaves us with the matter at hand, how to improve our chess? What is your personal preference and how far have you come? As I said before maybe the main bulk of "progress" in chess is not a very refined philpsophical task but more the acquiring of a certain "automatic simplicity". You did not answer till now whether you find that "phlisophically acceptable"?
Friendly greetings.
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@burnett, your last point seems very reasonable, but is not in fact Moskalenko's point at all, so perhaps we should discuss this in another thread some time.
burnett
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Hi, thanks for answering.
Well, if someone writes a book about such diverse subjects as; isolani, sämisch, B versus Kt, sacrifices, dynamic play etc. etc. and claims that all this could be grasped anyway and maybe even understood better by applying to all these different concepts "five touchstones", five very basic ways (checklist) to focus on a (any) position, than yes I do think that the point is that the most efficient way to make progress is (in the view of the author) going back to simplicity. And, well I see no other way to read this book than as indeed only tips about what are actually the most important ("not yet discovered" VM) general rules to become more succesfull (scoring more points). That with other words checking during the game the position according to these "irritating" T´s is finally paying off better (in score) than applying the much more intellectually satisfying concepts of Steinitz, Botvinnik, Nimzo and compagny. And as said before, a very satisfying solution why kids play stronger than us. The actual "knowledge" and historical heritage as "burden" and simple "touchstones" (closer to machinery functioning) as more effective.
Well, if you find that outside the scope of the discussion I will respect that, but i think it is The Key and central theme of the Moskalenko book.
Friendly greetings.
Tom
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Hey Arne. This is Tom here. I recognize that there is a great chance (100% chance even) that you don't care to hear from me.
I am the man who had earlier called you a parasite. I want to apologize for having called you a parasite. You are obviously a gentleman, something which I am not. I am a hard-edged guy. However, that being a part of me, that does not give me the right to judge you.
I'm no Saint and I shouldn't be speaking negatively about others when there is work to be done on myself.
In all fairness, that is the point that I'm trying to make however about the profession of being a critic. I stand by the fact that Criticism should most definitely not be a profession - no matter how educated the person is.
There is obviously good work and bad work in the world, but ultimately everyone is just trying to express the stuff inside of them. I won't attempt to knock you again (not that I did in the first place...I am not that presumptious).
However, I still feel that Arne Moll should devote himself to becoming a better chess player and not a critic.
With good vibrations and respect,
Tom
Derek Confuse
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Ive read the book. I honestly have to say the book is a shame to chess.
I started reading the book @ a rating of around 1950. When I read the book I can say my rating now hardly reaches 1450. Thats a drop of 500 elo points by only reading 1 book!
Besides the money for the book i also want my elo back mr Moskalenko!!!
GuidedByVoices
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I am convinced that to properly critisize someone else's work, in writting, in a public journal or website, you must be at least a peer reviewer. I understand that Arne is not a GM, so I fully understand GM Moskalenko's being upset.
I am a molecular endocrinologist, and when I submit a paper to a mainstream journal, it is throughly reviewed by at least 3 independent referees, blind to each other, who have got a PhD degree. Then, the journal's editor in chief makes a decision as to the value of the submitted manuscript.
I do not see the point of a primary or secondary school student reviewing my work... Regarding chess, I rather prefer the reviews from FM Hansen or IM Watson.
I own Moskalenko's "The flexible French", it's a fantastic book, though I find it a bit over-optimistic in some lines... So, to reach a balance, I work in paralel with the books by Eingorn, Ulhman & Watson... But Moskalenko's merit is that he manages to keep you not only awake, but also willing to experiment and research further...
I haven't read "Revolutionaze...", because I am not going to improve at my age, but I bet it contains a lot of the usual engaging stuff from Viktor.
Nonationalism
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I think a better comparison is a scientist writing a popular book for a general audience. Such books are often reviewed by non-specialists and this is dandy because they are written for them, just like Moskalenkos book.
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@burnett
My playing strength used to be close to 2300, now I'm in a different gear I'm afraid, currently around 2200 FIDE (for all to see on the wonderful FIDE website), so I'm in fact right into Moskalenko's target audience: what better reviewer can you wish for?
By the way, to repeat once again, I didn't use the words 'amazingly silly' for the entire book and most certainly not for Moskalenko's work as a coach or his playing strength or even his writing abilities. I used it for one particular statement he made regarding the history of general chess concepts. I don't see what playing strength has to do with this anyway, since any 1200 player could point this out as well and be perfectly correct about it.
Jarvis
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I agree with the previous speaker, but let me say that I don't think he understands me or gets my point. Not that I have made any btw. Approaching 100 comments on this thread!
GuidedByVoices
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I guess this thread has more to do with impinging upon Moskalenko's skills as an author rather than upon the work in itself. I mean, a hundred posts indicate me that Moskalenko is a highly regarded author, so to demolish one of his books, you really need to come up with quite a bit more than sentences such as "amazingly silly"; BTW, that was rough. I am in the same strenght segment as Arne, but I would not dare to demise a thick book drawing light conclusions mostly from the first two chapters... One should go through every diagram and demolish all the supporting analysis, one by one. I bet Arne did not even scratched the surface of the book, which is not going to help his reputation as a high caliber reviewer.
Arne, did you refute a single variation given in the book? Chess is about that, you know... If the anlysis are fine and the tematic examples are OK, then the book cannot be poor. Can you demolish any concrete part of the book at all? If not, then the review should have never been released here...
Arne Moll
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Guided
Sorry did you actually read my review? It's not about the chess but about the theory behind his explanations. And 'amazingly silly' are just two words taken out of context from a rather lengthy review if I may say so. If you haven't grasped that by now I really do not know what to tell you anymore. Seems to me you're just writing this stuff to provoke me - strange, since you accuse me of doing the same. Have you never read a book review or an album or concert review or something like that? Do you really think such reviews are always written by exact peers? On what planet do you live? The review I wrote was largely negative - yes, but such reviews are published routinely every day in every newspaper, magazine or website around the world. Please show me some arguments instead of ranting on about scientific peer reviews and what not. This is not a scientific journal, it's a chess website for chess entertainment. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. It was just a review. Let's move on, okay?
Jarvis
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
100!!!
Joeri
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Peer reviews in chess are more for magazines such as NIC yearbook and Informator. There GM's discuss each others work. Work which is meant for GM's, and which you can judge if you are chess able (say 2500+, more or less).
Moskalenko's book is written for the chess masses. So the masses can review it too. Especially with such a pretentious title!
Suppose you can bring out books with titles such as
"The greatest chess book ever" by just owning a GM-title and blasting every bad review away if the reviewer is supposedly not chess-able?
You would get reviews like "Well I am not really allowed to say anything about the book, because my chess proficiency is way too low. I checked all variations with Rybka 3.0 which says it's ok but I will tell you in a year or so if anything good has come out of this book for my chess understanding. My verdict = unknown, I have sent this book to Carlsen and Kasparov for their training session and I hope they have time for it"
So Guidedbyvoices what to do? No reviews? Or should we hire GM's to write book-reviews? Problem is that who judges if the book is a good teaching book? Should we hire professional teachers who can judge a book didactically?
I think you can judge the book by comparing it with other books that come out. If you do that than this one just doesn't deliver.
US
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
Anonym Joeri in amazon.com on Moskalenko's book
4 of 8 people found the following review helpful: 2.0 out of 5 stars
No revolution, January 28, 2010 By Joeri (A'foort, Netherlands)
''This book is basically nothing special. There is nothing really new in it.
The really bad part is that this book does not give you anything revolutionary to work with and the things it gives are done much better in other books by Silman, Grooten, Euwe etc.
Don't believe the hype I'd say!
The book is not bad, but there are much better and even more revolutionary books out there to be bought...''
You've done that for masses?
Joeri
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
:-) Fair point US. Haven't got much time to write a real review. It's just a quick comment on the book. Just wanted to inform the people that they shouldn't buy this book too quickly.
But still, I haven't heard any people on this forum (except one) who read the book and actually liked it?
US
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
So you're working for Grooten's book? In cities such as chessvibes, amazon and chesscafe...?
Bert
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I like the review by Joeri better. The one from Moll is way too large, you shouldn't write a lengthy comment about something you don't ilke. It's confusing, why so much ado about apparently nothing? As a reader you get the awkward feeling the reviewer enjoys demolishing the book.
The point stands, that no one who has read it seems to fancy the book . People who've read previous works defend Moskalenko, but, as they say, good results in the past don't guarantee the same for the future.
JR
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
I don't think a reviewer should necessarily be of approximate equal playing strength as the author. I would even go further as the books which inspired me most (Moskalenko's Flexible French amongst them) actually were recommended to me by players of my (or slightly above) my strength. Judging from his FIDE rating, Arne fits in this category for me and indeed I am very satisfied with some of the books which he reviewed positively in the past (regardless whether I read the review before or after I ordered the respective book). In my experience, their opinions usually are more useful than those of grandmasters (which - I hasten to add - I certainly do take seriously).
That said, if I would have had the same opinion about the book as Arne (I have not read the book and am not planning to do this in the near future), I think I would have chosen a somewhat more neutral terminology at some points, the more because it is my experience that ironic statements regularly are not interpreted as such and at some points the wordings are, in my opinion, simply too harsh. However, fortunately, everyone has his own style, and so has Arne.
I keep on reading your reviews with interest, so please keep up the good work!
burnett
1 year 11 months ago
Permalink
@Arne Moll,
Yes as far as your elo is concerned you are indeed right in Moskalenko´s target group.
As far as your question is concerned "What better reviewer can you wish for?" I first quote your words on chessvibes;
"Let me finish by quoting what I wrote myself in this review about Moskalenko: “In this book he comes across as a bit of a show-off who pompously presents his ‘revolutionary’ ideas whithout any kind of self-reflection.”
In retrospect, I guess in this sentence I should only regret the words ‘a bit of’. The rest is self-explanatory. (Arne Moll about his book review in comments)
Well my answer is that I wish for a reviewer who does not go after the writer personally, and although your don´t stop repeating that you do not, I would say, if you allow me to use your phrasing; the words "about Moskaleno" are self-explanatory.
Finally, I found many valid (and entertaining) points in your review, and with an apology about your bashing tone you would be an 100% acceptable book reviewer to me.
Than more in general the title "revolutionize your chess" has to be read with an emphasis on YOUR and would be somewhat more precise when after chess the word "results" would be added. So we are talking about the guy going from 2000 to 2150 feeling himself Napoleon, the wife proud etc. Nothing like the French revolution itself and neither a jump foreward in philosophy. Exercise books written only to stimulate archiements have a tendency to be rather boring, a piano book with only cords, though the fastest way to progress, is object of hate for a piano student. In this genre Moskaleko´s book is relatively fun to read.
So, I´m sorry to hear you are going down from 2300 (nearly) to 2200, but I Never fully believe chess players who tell me the major joy in chess is the fun not the winning (and especially not those on decline), for me winning is still the ultimate fun and I reached already 54 years! You write that you believe you can make progress by studying whatever chess book, maybe....though in these modern times I doubt if that is stil valid (or sufficient) In an interview with a youth champion of Andalucia the striking answer when asked what the young champion´s favorite books were, was; "I do not read books, my coach reads book and than he tells me how to play." (this was a 2350 player)"
Once ready to use the book in this pespective you do not have to take everyting so exremely litterally. "General rules have not been discovered yet" (extremely silly-Moll) when spoken by a coach on the sideline to urge you to correct mistakes is more a very polite way to say "You still know know no shit, work harder, have you checked your king position( and four more points) instead of dreaning to be Nimzovich ( Or a philosopher-in your case-)"?
I wish you succes and pleasure in book reviewing and in chess and leave the last word to you, I somehow got the feeling you might like that.
Friendly greetings.
Icebreaker
1 year 4 months ago
Permalink
Athough this is severely after most of the hype about this book was published, let me just say this; I actually have the book and have read through all the chapters except the isolated queens pawn chapter in dynamic chess.
First of all, i don't pretend to be any sort of philosopher in regards to chess literature, but it strikes me as wrong that everyone is getting too involved in Moskalenko's five touchstones. Obviously he knows that he didn't INVENT them, he was just putting them together as another tool to assist club players.
There is one very important thing Mr Moll ignored in his response to Victor Moskalenko. This is that he focuses on too little of the actual material. Instead, he uses most of his review to criticise the five touchstones. Obviously he has a problem with them, but so what! If you don't like this particular section in the book, then either disregard it or simply don't read it. The book was made so basically any chapter can be read by itself despite the -T1 and +T3 notation, they are simply some indications about the crucial features of the position.
As one of the only people to do this, i am going to say that the other chapters are quite well presented and informative. Moskalenko (as well as many other d4 players i suspect) have noticed that there is hardly anything published for White against the Nimzo Indian in the last few years. In fact the major work for d4 players (Avrukh's GM rep. 2) avoids it with 3.Nf3 and 3...Bb4+ leading to a Bogo-Indian amongst other things. The Four pawns attack chapter is very nice, with all the necessary variations. The Endgame chapters also presents a nice few endgames to study that Moskalenko has collected over the years.
There are some improvements to the book however i would like Moskalenko to consider. Chapter 7 is good, however i wonder whether the 'fragments' could be presented as puzzles!?
Also, the way you structure the repertoire is interesting, however i am personally more in favour of the ideas sprinkling through the variations, rather than the other way around. Oh, and a warning that Black players will have to study a repertoire for the french after 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 would be useful (even though you have published a book on the french, in a way people would have to buy both your books, otherwise black players would simply have to hope people wouldn't play 2.e4)
In any case, the book is pretty useful to club players despite the questionable 'system' Moskalenko presents. 9/10.
Your comment
Speak your mind
By posting a comment you are agreeing to abide our Terms & Conditions