Zuke Em reviewed at ChessCafe

[katar]

New review at chesscafe.com by Carsten Hansen re Zuke 'Em. Overall favorable but not effusively glowing like many of the other reviews i've seen.

http://www.chesscafe.com/hansen/hansen.htm

(above URL will expire, but the review will be available from chesscafe archives.)

Any reactions?

[Rudel]

Thanks for pointing this out.

Here is my response, which I have submitted to chess cafe:


I read over the review you posted of my book, Zuke 'Em: The Colle System Revolutionized, and was rather shocked by two parts in particular.

The first startling thing about the review is that it suggested "Starting Out: The Colle" as a recommended alternative. I am stumped as to why this recommendation could even be considered a valid one, for that book is based on a completely different opening. It would be akin to suggesting a Sicilian Dragon book in the midst of a review on the Najdorf.

The book suggested covers the Colle-Koltanowski. The "c3-Colle." My book, as the title indicates, is on the Colle-Zukertort, the "b3-Colle." If a player desires to play the Colle-Zukertort, he would find the reviewer's recommendation rather unavailing.

I must honestly wonder how closely the book was read given this rather bizarre recommendation. Other remarks he made (as described more fully below) suitably do not engender confidence in the review.

The second surprising aspect of the review is more a matter of opinion.
The main criticism leveled at Zuke 'Em was that the chapters did not use a consistent presentation. I believe you will find the remarks on pages 48 and 214 frame the overall structure. I could understand how a cursory look-through might miss this, but I would think someone reading the book straight through would find the structure obvious.


The first 3 chapters (which I admit do differ significantly from one another) are an extended introduction and familiarization with the C-Z, allowing people a "quick start" guide so they can go out and start playing it. The middle chapters [chapters 4 through 11] are the meat of the book and, contrary to the review presented, have a consistent presentation.

The final "chapters" are additional bonus material [as pretty well indicated by their names, e.g. "Extra Analysis," "New Ideas Index," "Variation Index" etc.] This part of the book is separated from the rest on the Table of Contents and by remarks on page 214. It appears the reviewer misunderstood chapters 13 and 14 (which I assume is what he refers to when speaking of "idea catalogues") These "chapters" (which comprise just a few pages) are simply a visual index used for study, it is part of the appendix matter similar to a game index or player index or index of variations. To slight a book because such chapters do not have the games and analysis found in other chapters is odd.

In short, the reference chapters of the book (chapters 4 through 11) all carry a consistent format. The chapters after those are appendix material that no sane individual would expect to match the rest of the book, and the first three chapters are an admittedly idiosyncratic introduction.

[Tumshie]

That's them told then! Any response as yet?

[Rudel]

not yet.

[Zukertort_Player]

David,
Would you like it if I responded to the reviewer of Zuke'Em stating my support for the book:
Reasons
My positive over the board Experience with the opening due to the content and presentation of your book?
The point I want to make to that reviewer is: Content and the Presentation of said Content is more important than the Name of the Author!
I would send you a copy of it before I would respond to the reviewer review on http://www.chesscafe.com.
Here's an idea: Collect everyone's review of the book, and empahsize the point that several people's praise of the book has signifigance.
If I have your permission, I will do so accordingly.
Let me know what you would like me to do.

Zukertort_Player

[Rudel]

Zukertort_Player,
I would love for you {or anyone else} to respond to the review.
Please don't feel the need to send me your response to "vet" it... I think whatever it is you want to say is what you should say.

Thanks so much for offering!

[Zukertort_Player]

David,
Here is the posting I submitted on chesscafe.com:
I want to make some points as it relates to the review of David Rudel's Zuke'Em: The Colle Zukertort Revolutionized:
1.) The content of the book is written from the point of view on the reader.(Guess what? The reader is the one buying the book!) Translation: Explanation is the heart of content;
Keep in Mind: Analysis without Explanation is useless!

2.)As it relates to comparing one opening book to another(in this case, comparing the C3-Colle to the B3-Colle) is like comparing apples to oranges. The responder to a review should be sure they understand what exactly they are talking about, before they make insulting remarks.

3.) I can say from experience that (when comparing the two approaches of opening books: Analysis-based with little-no explanation vs. Explanation- based examples with analysis),David Rudels' Zuke'Em: The Colle-Zukertort Revolutionized has raised my rating from an average player to a player(when I have the white pieces)to a player who can hold his own against "A" players- players with rating around 2300. The proof is in the results!

Finally, I challenge anyone to suggest any opening book that has helped players as much David Rudel's Zuke'Em: The Colle-Zukertort Revolutionized!
If you are serious about improving your opening game with the most efficiency, then I strongly recommend you purchase David Rudel's book: Zuke'Em: The Colle-Zukertort Revolutionized!

[Rudel]

Thanks. That was awfully kind of you.

[Zukertort_Player]

David,
I felt like I needed to right the wrongs. You have been unjustly criticized, as well as people outright slandering you.
I am just waiting for my posting to appear on the chesscafe.com website.
By the way, I was not exaggerating about my progress from the white side, because I have close games with masters: even one rated slightly over 2300 of which I should have won.
I think in April, I will start submitting my games with the Engines' analysis.
I also have one game that I would call: "Slash and Hack".
I will submit on the forum first, unless you would like to see the Engines' analysis before then.

[Rudel]

Nope, just submit them here...would love to have them.
I'm thrilled to hear of your progress.