Good read with some new details.
The thing that is frustrating for me, at least, with these general interest articles on chess is that with all the stuff that I understand that they get wrong, I’m just not sure what they get right about the things I don’t have direct knowledge on.
For instance: the author seems not to understand that draws exist. Carlsen having a 125 game winning streak is absurd.
Confusing scores and ratings as:
In general, beginners have scores under 1,000, and grandmasters are 2,500 and above.
and referring to a match as a “match”, only to refer to a game as a “match” four paragraphs later is confusing.
and who would use a 30 person “fair play” division
to detect if a novice is suddenly using the Nimzo-Indian Defense
?
I mean, it’s an interesting enough article, but I just have no way to evaluate its points.
It was an interesting article… I also found it interesting that when I clicked on the article author, it listed her past articles. Scrolling through them I found no other chess related, or sports related articles at all. All of her previous articles were about finance and crypto.
I am not a genious, but I wonder if it is wise to put stock in an article written by someone who does not appear to have any experience nor is known as an authority on the subject.
Then again, I once wrote a small article about this Niemann situation myself… And since my blog is all about computer programming and electronics, nobody should listen to me either! 
Edit: shameless blog post plug from October of 2022.
As far as articles by non-chess people, it was certainly not the best I’ve seen, but far from the worst.
Writing about chess for non-chess-playing readers is challenging, because the ins and outs of chess are just not that interesting to non-chess players. That’s why most strong players stick to articles written to be read by other (fairly) strong players.
1 Like