Opening

This book covers many of the basic openings in reasonable depth, and also touches on some more advanced ones. The biggest problem I had with it were typing errors, and missing information. Some descriptions of openings have moves missing, and there are some sentences which do not make sense. This couold confuse some readers (It confused me!). I think there are better books out there.

A practical guide to improving your play. Includes all aspects of chess including openings, middle games and endings. Based on an imaginary club, readers at the club level will find a lot to identify with. The chapter on move selection is one of the best on the subject.

One shouldn't be confused when buying this book without the luxury of browsing it. This isn't a book recommending a certain opening as such. It's geared more toward someone who doesn't have a opening repertoire, jumps from opening to opening, or have faced roadblocks in deciding what opening to play.

Steve Giddens introduces these possible familiar themes in the books introduction:

- Most of us blame the opening for our defeat, unjustifiably
- We never say, "If only I knew endgames better" or "If I could play fixed-pawn games better."
- We resign to saying, "It's that opening, I always lose with it. I'll have to give it up."
- Players under master strength spend a disproportionate time on studying openings.
- We gain very little from this time wasted, due to constant switching around of openings, rote memorization w/o understanding, trusting authority rather than our own ideas, etc.
- Too few players understand HOW to learn an opening and develop a repertoire.
- Due to spending too much time on the opening, we seriously neglect the other areas.
- When we lose, we usually blame the openings, oblivious to the fact that we lost because of our endgame, etc., then spend yet MORE time on another opening
- This book will help you develop an opening repertoire. It won't guarantee wins, but will set you down the correct path, and help you see the true reason for losses, which is rarely the opening.

The book then covers the following:

How building a repertoire allows a player to become very familiar in certain positions, but can result in a limited view on the game, being only proficient with certain pawn structures, etc. An prime example being Fischer, who played the Najdorf and KID almost exclusively. But how today, with the incredible ease of accessing games through computer databases, that masters can 'bookup' against players with fixed systems. This can happen at your local clubs, as well.

How growing pains exist in learning a new opening, and how it can take months or years to get comfortable with it. Example games are given when grandmasters have deviated from their familiar starting grounds only to show their lack of experience with their new opening show through in the middlegame (ie - Ulhmann, a French Defense player, starting out with the Caro-Kahn...Karpov, starting with a Sicilian Defense, etc.)

How a player shouldn't be concerned with memorizing the latest theory on move 13 of the QGD. A game of Nigel Short's (playing White) introduces a novelty in an opening where previous White tries resulted in difficulties. Nigel plays a move after assessing the position and following his plan. "I have a terrible memory," he explained, assuring the reader even more how great moves are made by understanding the position, and not through memorization or playing what's in vogue.

Whether to play 'Main line' or 'Side variations'. Whether to play offbeat opening or classical ones. Also, a chapter covering reverse openings (ie - King's Indian Attack, etc.), with a move in hand are discussed. He discusses the misconception of these openings - "If the King's Indian is good with Black, it must be fantastic with White." Yet, he give much explanation that these openings tend to lack the 'oomph', and that the extra move in hand, surprisingly, tends to be a disadvantage.

How a player should have his game assessed to determine his style and what openings he should consider playing.

When studying an opening, to beware of transpositions into lines you may be unprepared for (ie - Having mastered the Queen's Gambit, Exchanged variation and Queen's Indian, your opponent tricks you with 1. d4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 d5!, and now you're in lines where your prepared Exchange Variation loses it's punch as Nc3 hasn't been played.

The book at the end covers a dozen or so players and their repertoire, and each chapter's main theme is supported by at least a few example games. The book itself is also made of good quality paper and should last for quite a while.

The book is an interesting read, with quite a few games backing up all of the book's major points. As mentioned, it isn't a book you go over in preparation for a tournament, but acts as more of a guide for those who have become lost in the sea of opening theory and need a little wake-up call. This book is not at all a must-have book, and if you're under expert, you shouldn't be concerned so much with booking up as you should be other parts of the game, as it's returns are diminished. But for those who have become addicted to opening theory (you know who you are), or if you're a strong player who has yet to developed a proper repertoire and isn't sure where to start, this book may be a decent guide.

This book is for those who cant figure out a repertoire for themselves- its for those that need help figuring out a repoirtoire. Its not for me- I KNOW what to play- the King's Gambit as White (gottcha!) and the advance variation of the Caro-Kann as White, I will "wing" the Sicilian as White, Alekhine's and Grunfeld as Black. There, I did that all on my own. If you cant do that then buy this book- its a good book if you cant figure out an opening repertoire for yourself.

Jon Latimer picks up in this volume on the Siege of Tobruk where he left off in his previous volume in the Osprey Campaign Series, Operation Compass 1940. Although the style is similar to the first volume, this work is better written and better edited. However, it is important to note that this volume does not cover the entire siege of Tobruk, only the period from Rommel's initial offensive on 24 March to the end of Operate "Battleaxe" on 17 June 1941. Since the siege continued until late November 1941, this period will presumably be covered in another volume on "Operation Crusader". Nevertheless, the story of the siege seems oddly truncated in this account.

The section on commanders is far too brief. Rommel is the only Axis commander given serious attention and even the Allied commanders are mostly glossed over. Generalmajor Streich, commander of the 5th Light Division, had a poor relationship with Rommel and this should have been discussed since it contributed to the failure of the first German attack on Tobruk. The section on opposing armies is totally superficial, focusing on a general discussion of anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, rather than discussing the units involved in the siege. The German 5th Light was a very ad hoc force cobbled together from various bits and pieces in late 1940. More information on the 9th Australian Division should have been provided. Virtually no information on the Italians was provided - Latimer missed a chance here to comment on their recovery, of sorts, from the Beda Fomm disaster. The Order of Battle provided is quite thorough, although there is no list of Axis aircraft available. Latimer should also have made some mention of the reinforcement schedules for both sides. The campaign summary is solid, if unexceptional. Latimer covers all the main points, but a review of his bibliography reveals that he has not dug much past standard secondary sources. There has been a wealth of new information about the Desert War, including a lot of specialized studies on the panzer units of the Afrika Korps, as well as information about Enigma, that have not been incorporated in this volume. Excellent sources, such as the Royal Armored Corps histories and the Tank Museum do not appear to have been utilized. Perhaps in his next volume, Latimer can attempt a bit more research. Finally, there is no attempt at analysis, asking why couldn't Rommel take Tobruk? Obviously inadequate resources played a key factor, but Latimer sheds little light on the question of whether Rommel had any other options.

Latimer has done an outstanding job of compressing a large amount of information into the limited format of an Osprey volume. The reviewer (below) may have wanted a far fuller account, but if he has a way of including all of the information Latimer has conveyed *as well as* all the material he believes was missing in just 20,000 words then I suggest he contact Osprey immediately. Such an achievement would be remarkable. I wonder whether some reviewers are more interested in showing off their knowledge than in a reasonable assessment of the work in question.

Given the limited scope of the Osprey format and the general nature of the series' reading audience, Latimer has done a superb job of outlining most of the important aspects of this campaign and of pointing the interested reader in the direction of further, fuller accounts. Highly recommended.

This book has convinced me, once and for all NOT to buy any more chess books by authors who don't use computer programs to check their analysis. Example: page 129, top right, first parentheses: (32...Rd8 33. Rfd6, Rxd6 34. Rxd6, Rc8 35. Rd7, Kg8). Any computer program would instantly spot 34. Rxc6 forcing immediate resignation. This is 1999, not 1899; there is no excuse for such sloppy analytical work, nor is there much reason to buy books featuring analysis that would be refuted by a casual glance at Fritz 5 or even Fritz 1, for that matter. Despite this annoying flaw, and a considerable number of typos and bad grammar, the book is far from being the worst of its type. The games are plentiful and mostly good, and the repertoire is sound. But if you're already at or near Expert strength, you'd probably be better off getting the games from chesslab.com and saving your money for a real chess book.

Donaldson's book centers around a system that uses the opening moves 1. Nf3, 2. c4, 3. g3. Donaldson writes that he is aiming the book at players at the Expert to Master level. Thus, the chapters contain game after game, with in-line variations and relatively terse but clear commentary. Despite being 200 USCF rating points below the stated audience (at the edge between B and A), I am finding the book exciting and helpful, because it does, more than any other opening repertoire book I've seen, fulfill its promise of providing a strategically based opening lines that work! The first five chapters deal with Black's attempt at a defense based on the King's Indian setup, which in effect turns into a Closed-Sicilian Reversed. As a player with a definite dislike for games that plunge into heavy tactics, these five chapters are an answer to a prayer. Since the center pawns don't get locked up as they do in the KID, Black rarely has the opportunity to launch the dangerous mating attacks so common in the classical KID, and White is safely able to bring play to the queenside where he retains an advantage. A nice plus is that the anti-KID system practically plays itself for the first 10 moves, and play continues in clear strategic directions thereafter. Dedicated KID players seem to be unfamiliar with this approach, thus I often find myself with big time advantages as well as a positional plus going into the middle-game. I don't know of any other work that deals with this opening line to this depth, and would give this book four stars for this section alone. Other chapters deal with other possible responses to Donaldson's opening moves: Symmetrical English, Catalan, Semi-Tarrasch, Queen's Indian, Hedgehog, and a miscellaneous chapter. These chapters seem to me to be good for the direction in which they point, even if they are not treated as completely as they might be in more specialized opening volumes. Of the two sections I've looked at more closely, the Semi-Tarrasch and the closed-Catalan, I've definitely liked the set-ups Donaldson recommends. They suit my style, and I feel like I have a definite sense of direction in them. I've closely compared Donaldson's recommendations to Nieshtadt's (who wrote a great two-volume work on the Catalan) and found that Nieshtadt's more complete work lists the line Donaldson recommends as one of the strongest for White (though with a very slight change in move order). Thus, I would say Donaldson's volume does a valuable service in pointing out strong strategically-oriented lines that are buried in other more specialized opening volumes. You will have to do a bit more work reading this book than many others, but if you are seeking strategic lines for White, and don't mind converting your wins in the endgame, this book is definitely one to check out.

This is an Excellent book that provides an analysis of the openings based on 1. Nf3 that sets up long, positional games. There are no quick kills, but instead a great understanding of the importance of positioning in chess. One drawback is that some variations that I've encountered quite frequently are not analyzed in detail.

This is a repertoire book with something against most of the things you might meet after 1.d4. The lines are superficially explained and analysed, and do not often give white chances of an opening advantage. There are some useful lines here, but you can find better repertoire books anywhere easily.

The title is stolen from Fine's "Ideas behind the Chess Openings", and it is a ploy from the publisher to get more sales. The London system, which this book is based on, is not a modern opening, so the title could not be more misleading. I am sure the author had nothing to do with naming the book.

First of all the title of the book has caused much debate. It is now well known it was the publisher who decided to use the 50 year old title of Fine's book. A mistake to use the classics but hardly the author's fault. The soul of the openings are above average for me because I can learn the main one-the London System- fairly quickly. I train kids at school and the idea of easy development appeals to all ages.
A good effort and worth reading.

Yes, the title is misleading. So what! Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca has a misleading title too, but is considered a classic. I feel that every review here has entirely missed the boat on this book. This book aims right at the masses of intermediate players, who are always searching for an opening repertoire. Do you like Summerscale's book, "A Killer Opening Repertoire"? Then you just may really love this one. This one has mych more textutal explanations, far more games referenced in the notes, and overall, a better repertoire, IMHO. The repertoires are similar, but I like the London System recommeded by Lane more than Summerscale's Colle-Zukertort, and I like the London against the King's Indian more than Summerscale's Barry Attack. There is a chapter on the Barry here too. Let me something about reviews of chess books. It seems that the more specialized and highly rated the target audince, the better the review for a chess book. There are not many reviews out there for books like this one, Summerscale's, or The System by Berliner that really apply to the masses of non-professional players out there. I love all three of those books, with this one by Lane the most valuable of the three, to me. This is a great book, that you can stick with for years, gradually adding the products of your outside study to its content and guidance. I am not saying the book is perfect; but that it is an excellent and enjoyable companion for the masses of intermediate players looking for a book that speaks to them, that instructs themn, and gives them a sound,solid repertoire that will avoid masses of theory for which black maay be better prepared than you. Highly recommended, especially for the six dollar price at which I found it here used.

While this book is not on a par with Horowitz's or Nunn's opening books, it is a good start for the beginning chess player. By going through the book the reader will get a general idea of the underlying principles behind each of the 25 openings discussed.

Robertie skillfully shares the thoughts, advantages and problems with each of the openings. His annotation on the openings is neither exhaustive nor dry. It is simple expression of ideas for a beginning player.

I am a relative late-comer to chess and have had problems with opening play. After reading "Winning Chess Openings (Road to Chess Mastery)" I am much more comfortable in analyzing my opponent's opening. But more importantly, I now know the right questions to ask regarding the more advanced theory behind the opening.

This book is for the beginner and I would recommend it as such! Comparing it to advanced tomes with thousands upon thousands of opening variations is illogical. So, while there are other books out there that are more useful to the experienced amateur I believe that "Winning Chess Openings (Road to Chess Mastery)" is a fine place for the beginner/student to start. Remember - learning chess can be, and often is, a linear process. There is nothing wrong with getting the basics out of the way.

I picked this title up at the bookstore; just skimmed it with out really reading it; and was able to play a tactical trick that night while on-line. A very good book!

I love this book! At a GLANCE you can understand the strategic ideas behind an opening. (Great for a quick refresher of the memory!) And because concepts are so clearly explain...they actually STICK to your brain! (Something I can't say for most other opening books.) No this isn't MCO or ECO, but it was never meant to be. This is a book for the true beginner, and I think it does a great job!

This is drivel, unworthy of the paper its printed on. Phil should evolve a brain.

As a defender of creation science, Phillip Johnson is a breath of fresh air. Nowhere are there indefensible scientific arguments for a young earth, or a worldwide flood that accounts for the fossil record, or any of the other endlessly recycled Henry Morris/Duane Gish nonsense that makes up so much of the creationist "young earth" camp. Johnson frames the question more on a philosophical level, pitting the presuppositions of both camps against one another (materialistic naturalism vs. theistic supernaturalism), and attempting to show that adherents of the first camp make just as many untestable and unsupportable assumptions as the adherents of the second. Johnson is a talented writer, and presents a positive argument for "opening" the debate by forcing the evolutionists to relax their dogmatic hold on the thinking in academia, and allow for a more open and free discussion of the actual issues, including evidence for supernatural intervention in the creation and evolution of life.

Unfortunately, the only positive evidence Johnson suggests is Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument, which is just a repackaged intelligent design model, and the conventional attack on biology's admitted problem with the incompleteness of the fossil record. Throughout the book, Johnson emphasizes the dominance of the materialistic philosophy that pervades every aspect of modern public education and academia. This predisposition, he argues, hopelessly biases any approach to scientific facts and prevents scientists from appreciating the fuller truth that's out there if only they would open their eyes (minds). Johnson repeatedly mischaracterizes the practice of science and the state of affairs in biological circles.

Johnson's representation of the state of open mindedness in contemporary education is questionable. He seems to assume that the dominate role of a college education is to force memorization of a list of "materialistic" facts upon impressionable minds. As an educator, I see the situation as exactly the opposite. Thoughtful reflection and open minded investigation are far more common than Johnson seems to think.

A few specific examples where I think Johnson misses the boat just as badly: page 113 "Evolutionary biology is a field whose cultural importance far outstrips its modest intellectual and scientific content." I think most biologists would take issue with the characterization of the content of their science as "modest."

Page 114 "Biologists are at each others throats in private, fighting over every detail in the Darwinist scientific program. The versions of 'evolution' promulgated by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould , for example, have hardly anything in common except their common adherence to philosophical materialism and their mutual dislike for supernatural creation." He goes on to strongly imply that this ongoing debate is somehow being hidden. Anything but. I assume Johnson has read Dawkins' and Gould's books and should know better. As for their versions of evolution being so different, I'd venture to say that their agreements are far more substantial than their disagreements, and maybe Johnson should examine the actual differences between the scientific views of Michael Behe and Duane Gish, for example. Other creationists have similarly sought to highlight and utilize the differences between various cosmologists and, for instance, the issue of the age of the universe. While there might be legitimate and sometimes bitter disputes between astrophysicists over the size of the Hubble Constant, this dispute hardly gives any hope to the young- earther who is holding out for a 6000 year old universe.

Johnson's use of the example of evangelist Billy Graham deciding against studying the natural sciences and liberal theologies of his contemporaries strikes me as odd. If the naturalistic position is so untenable due to its weak foundation, what does Christianity and creation science have to fear by its presence in academia? How would Billy Graham's witness and testimony for Christianity have been weakened by studying the opposing philosophies? Is Johnson suggesting that attrition from traditional evangelical and fundamentalist circles can be stemmed by preventing the study of modern science?

Johnson's book is admittedly aimed at young readers, students who are going off to college to be faced with the inevitable "indoctrination" of materialism. But I'm not sure what his bottom line advice is for them. Does he wish them to shun the life sciences (as well as astronomy, archeology, geology, and other sciences) where the creation science theories will receive little sympathy? Or does he expect their professors to actually engage in the debate over the relative merits of their respective presuppositions? Does he believe that Christianity (or any religion) actually has anything to fear from the discoveries of science?

I wish Johnson well. His logic and rhetoric are powerful and he's a good arguer. However, I fear that his tactics will not advance the cause of creation science very much. Until scientists who believe in supernatural creation are willing to go toe to toe in the scientific journals, arguments of materialistic bias will yield few advances in the understanding of the origin of life.

And even if they do, this approach is destined to fail. Science is the study of phenomena that can be observed, tested, and replicated. Science relies on the construction of logical arguments that can be supported or falsified by such observation and testing. By definition, science will seek explanations for the apparently unexplainable. This is implicit in the process of scientific discovery. Religious belief systems ask that we accept as true that which cannot be seen or tested (Hebrews 11:1). Religion seeks certainty and welcomes the appeal to authority (e.g., thus saith the Lord). It is at this point that the two belief systems must part ways and agree to pursue their independent goals. Forcing one upon the other results in untenable scientific positions (such as most of creation science) or watered down and compromised religious traditions bereft of their spiritual meaning.

What makes this book interesting reading is that Johnson identifies the underlying philosophy of the Theory of evolution:a philosophy which denies the existence of anything outside of nature (if this is not a proper deffinition, please forgive me)which includes the God of the Bible. Now whether or not this philosophy is true is a vast issue of its own, but Johnson points out that all scientific evidence is interpretted in this view which instead of allowing the evidence to speak for itself all fossils,biology etc., is looked at as being part of the purposeless, mindless process.

Furthermore, Johnson wrote Defeating Darwinism to help equip people to identify and deal with the logical falicies in the Theory of Evolution and the tactics used by many evolutionists to avoid admitting the weak spots of the theory. In this I think he proves himself well and for those who are teetering between evolution and creationism this book is especially for you.

I do not recommend this book to prove to you that Evolution is evil and wrong as some have alluded to but I do recommend this book to open your mind to another view point of this most incredible theory. Is not this what the scientific method and the progression of science are all about?

These two men look normal and speak normally, which is more than can be said of most Bible prophecy people - just read the other two reviews!!!! Their book is interesting and makes a good case for the present time being the "end times" - however, only time will tell if they are accurate.

I bet this book ain't sellin' to hot right about now. All these new technologies and lightning-fast changes? at one point, people were afraid of telephones too. Don't mind me though, this might look nice next that other bestselling work of f.. oh, i'll just stop right there. I'm sorry.. i just get a kick out of the title.

Excuse me, someones at the door.

This book is excelent and it cunningly fits right into the crevise between my cheeks. I would recommend it to anyone and would also suggest some other reading - "Beelzebub - My true Story" - J R R Phartley, "That God guy, what a wuss" - B L Zeubb , "How to succeed in Life (by getting your head out of your nether parts)" - W R T Gubbins, ", "How to get rid of piles using execrable reading material" - Big Black God.

I honestly have never read anything quite like this book and I can honestly say that it opened my eyes! This Satan guy is one twisted s.o.b. though not half as wired as the doomsday twins from Wackedoutville. People believe this stuff, some of them might even be able to read. Oy-oy the world is truely coming to an end. Well, hopefully for some of these nutters.

Like the longevity of most useless academic fads, it seems the bane of ideological multiculturalism will be with us for the foreseeable future. The question for its opponents (or those who would merely like to inject some common sense into it) is simply, "What can we do about it?" Or, more pessimistically, "Is there anything we can do about it?" If one believes Lawrence Levine in The Opening of the American Mind, there's nothing to get uptight about. To him, multiculturalism is just an extension of the university's (and thus, academia's in general) continuing evolution. This indeed may be true; however, Levine, while claiming the academy "has always been political," conveniently glosses over modern (ideological) multiculturalism's [more and more] overt leftist agenda. And, he appears to contradict himself: while praising the increasing "openness" of the university, he blatantly fails to see the "clamp down" on dissenting political views - that is, views deemed "insensitive" (in the university's overused jargon) to any group that campus leaders declare.

Levine chides critics of the modern university saying they foster fears of "an eroding hierarchy and the encroachment of democratic society into the academe..." How does Levine define "democratic?" Most folks equate democracy with freedom, which includes freedom of thought. Ideological multiculturalism, however, does not allow for this facet of democracy; in fact, it has more in common with the former East Bloc definition of "democracy," which was an oxymoron. Apparently as an example of this "new" democracy, Levine states that the university "is one of the more successfully integrated and heterogeneous institutions in the United States." He notes that Berkeley has gone from 68.6 percent white in 1974 to 32.4 percent now; but in addition, the number of Asians increased almost 25 percent over the same time frame, while Hispanics increased over 10 percent and blacks 1.1 percent. What Levine never touches is a prominent reason why these numbers changed so dramatically - and this is true for campuses nationwide: preferential admissions policies based on race. A better example of the "new" democracy would be the military or even professional sports where merit and hard work still are held in esteem. How boring would sports be if teams had to meet racial requirements like universities? And even now, at Berkeley and other institutions (especially in California), Asians are suffering the fate of being "over-represented."

Speaking of "requirements," Levine exhaustively details why it's no big deal that Western Civilization courses are no longer mandatory, yet there's no word as to why multicultural requirements now exist in place of "Western Civ." He demonstrates that Stanford's Western Civ-replacing C.I.V. program has readings such as Ariel by José Enrique Rodó and Account of the Conquest of Mexico by Bernal Díaz and claims that these are what critics like William Bennett and Dinesh D'Souza are upset about. Hardly. Levine, who says he despises anecdotal evidence, cleverly uses it here. Ariel and Account are far from left-wing ideological readings (I know - I've read them). He plainly refuses to discuss what Bennett and D'Souza actually criticize - material like I, Rigoberta Menchu.

Levine "catches" himself at one point during research on African-American writers, claiming, "I soon realized that I was falling into the same pattern of allowing leadership to speak for followers." Interesting. What do we see on campus today? "Leaders" within the university and student groups "deciding" what's best for their followers. Levine can easily lament his error; on the other hand, folks like Alan Gribben at the University of Texas suffer a lifetime ostracism merely for voicing a protest against the "prevailing sensitivity." Levine further says that "those who oppose current developments in higher education have been more successful outside than inside the universities." Why is this? Is it because those that advocate the "current developments" are of like mind and ideology and work tooth and nail to silence the opposition (like Mr. Gribben)? Wouldn't it make sense that opponents of the "current developments" would have to look elsewhere to voice their views other than in the academic "ivory tower?"

Levine also spends a lot of time claiming that the university mirrors the "real world" - it *is* the real world, he says. But is it really? Poll after poll shows that a majority of the American population considers themselves politically "moderate to conservative." On the other hand, a professor who overtly claims that political ideology will more often than not find it difficult to advance his career in the realm of the university. Most Americans believe in achievement through merit, not preferential treatment based on race; yet here, too, the university sets itself apart from the "real world." An interesting section in Levine's book is where he takes a jab at Lynn Cheyney for claiming "today's students can disagree with professors. But to do so is to take a risk." He asks, "When was it not risky for a socialist student to confront her economics professor....for an atheist to confront his religion professor...?" Indeed, this is true, and of course a student should have a right to feel comfortable in expressing his or her opinion. But look at the above again carefully - a socialist or an atheist was then, and is now, clearly part of a small minority of the American population. What we see on campus today, however, are students who share the views of the majority of the American public who are reluctant to express their views in the classroom. Doesn't this seem a bit strange?

I believe the fact that ideological multiculturalism is contrary to the views of most Americans is what will eventually lead to its demise. I've continually used "ideological" before "multiculturalism" with good reason. Most people would not deny, given the rapid demographic changes in our country, that multicultural studies are appropriate and a good idea. It's only when leftist ideology-masquerading-as-multiculturalism comes into play that the general public starts objecting. As a result, the primary solution to combating ideological multiculturalism is to expose it. Richard Bernstein's (Dictatorship of Virtue) stories of Alan Gribben and the Committee for Quality Education in Brookline, Massachusetts are perfect examples. But it isn't easy. Any "dissenters," as the above folks will testify, must be prepared to face attacks possibly more fierce than those directed against a presidential candidate! These attacks usually will not address the subject matter but will be quite personal. After all, as Richard Bernstein notes, the ideological multiculturalists are most "virtuous;" to object to them makes one evil incarnate.

mr. levine's book, though balanced and thoroughly researched, is by no means an adequate response to bloom's controversial CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND. mr. levine is a historian skilled at manipulating quotes and thereby giving us a convincing (but distorted) picture of the conservative critics in higher education, while, alas, avoiding the central question. he simply ignores the real issues troubling campuses all over the country today. he makes his best point by demonstrating that, historically, the canon has been fluid and changing; but that hardly justifies what is being taught in college courses today. it's not so much that the multiculturalist "canon" is wrong or that it would corrupt the old values--the real problem is that almost all of the new books are weak and boring and customer-friendly. THE ESSENTIAL PARADOX, FOR ANYONE WHO HAS PAID ATTENTION TO TODAY'S COLLEGE EDUCATION, IS THAT IN THE ATTEMPT TO OPEN THE MINDS OF STUDENTS, THE "ISTS" HAVE IN FACT CLOSED AND NARROWED MANY, ALL TOO MANY, WITH BOOKS THAT HARDLY EVER STUMULATE A BRAIN CELL. whatever bloom's faults and prejudices may be, his book is written with genuine passion and concern, and ten years after its publication it disturbs us still, because so much of what it says applies to what we see everyday on every american campus. mr. levine is the typical academic star of today, always correct and smooth, but he has to do better than this to meet bloom's challenge.

Levine's book was one of the only things I could bear to read after Sept. 11. It is a book that looks at what is right with this country. Of course, on one level, it is about the 'culture wars' but on another level it is about what it means to be an American. Do we define it with apple pie and stars and stripes? Or with an understanding of the development of our polyglot, mongrel culture that challenges and infuriates? Are we just not very good Europeans, or are we something different? This book made me proud, for the first time in my life, to be an American, seeing it as an actual identity, rather than the lack of any real culture. It is a gift to understand our history through this lense. Strongly recommend!

Didnt like this book at all. The Author attempted to use "witty and clever" diction that only confused the reader. He isnt even certified to write this book under the category of math .... hes a CS professor! It has some good examples but over all it was very hard to follow

A very amusing fast read. Having worked with the media and the general public regarding statistics, I found myself nodding and smiling often at the examples presented. However, the last chapter really detracted from the overall flow of the book. The tone changes. Dewdney gets on a soapbox, telling everyone how the world can't live without more mathmaticians. Puh-lease!

Truly an eye-opening book, pointing out many often overlooked flaws and abuses in the use of mathematics to sell a product or advance a political agenda. Should be required reading in any consumer education course.