I would say no, if you already understand the varieties of techniques it covers. It doesn't get more advanced. However, it is a decent historical overview. He

I would say no, if you already understand the varieties of techniques it covers. It doesn't get more advanced. However, it is a decent historical overview. He also pushes the same idea over and over again that there must be a master algorithm, when I got the feeling very early on that it wasn't a necessary thing or a practical concept to guide research. It's like arguing that you have to choose between electricity and magnetism, when they might just be aspects of the same underlying forces. Also, his reasons for claiming that certain algorithms are not the master algorithm are pretty weak and based on current progress, not theoretical limitations.