I ain’t seen it. But I bet it’s rubbish.

Two thumbs down.

https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Gam...

If you don't know the title of the book and haven't seen it, why would you bet it's rubbish and give it two thumbs down before you even look at it? Is it just because it's about Tal's games and you don't like Tal's games? Which, BTW, is your prerogative.

If you don't know the title of the book and haven't seen it, why would you bet it's rubbish and give it two thumbs down before you even look at it? ...>

Very good little boy, lets just misspell the correction too

If you are going to critique at least know how to spell

For pete's sake!

I disagree, but not for the reason you may think. I don't think that there's anything wrong with being opinionated even if you are wrong. It shows that you are capable of critical thinking. And, after all, I'm opinionated all the time and I have been wrong many times (hopefully less than 50% but I think that it is a close call). The only thing I consider wrong is to present an opinion and try to pass it off as a fact, alternative or otherwise, which it isn't.

So I have no problem with <offramp> presenting his opinion, I'm just pointing out that he has no apparent basis on which to form an opinion. Which is fine also, although I personally try to avoid doing that. I prefer to have a basis for an opinion but I also recognize that basis can be wrong. So I actually look favorably to someone pointing out <why> my basis is wrong. I will sometimes, even often, agree with them, and then change my opinion. That's one way I learn.

So in this case with <offramp>. I didn't say that he was wrong although it can certainly be justifiably interpreted that way. I was just perplexed that he would form an opinion on a book without looking at it, so it was more of a curiosity on how he could do that rather than a criticism. For example, as I pointed out, if he has not in the past been favorably impressed by Tal's games then it would not be unreasonable for him to think unfavorably on a book about Tal's games. And, even though I'm biased since Tal is my all-time favorite player, others have commented (including Tal himself!) that many of his sacrifices were unsound and only succeeded because of less than best play by his opponents. So if <offramp> shares that opinion, then I would say that there's a justified basis, even though I might disagree with him, for him to consider and bet that a book of Tal's games was rubbish.

I was just in the process of deleting my post for being "off-topic" when I read yours>

Food for sought.>