| |
| | 100 Greatest Chess Games |
 | | Soltis claims that a game which is unsound or with poor opposition (meaning the play of the loser, not the rating) shouldn't be included, but then includes both types, where it takes clear mistakes (sometimes numerous and not very obscure ones) for the opponent to lose. |
 | | His categories of "originality," "opposition [play in the game]," "soundness" (accuracy/difficulty), "breadth/depth," and "overall aesthetic quality" are ones which would greatly favor the correspondence game, and I suspect that there would be at least 30 or 40 of them if Soltis took his own categories seriously (I believe there were only 3). |
 | | They too relied upon games by top-level players and famous games, but they also had one of their 3 criteria as "historical significance." More importantly, they had deep and original analysis for every game; Soltis' notes are superficial and as far as I can see, completely unoriginal. |
| www.jeremysilman.com /book_reviews_jw/jw_100_greatest_chess_game.html (639 words) |
|