Latest Updates:
Poll
Poll closed Question: What was the Opening Book of the Year for 2013?
bars   pie
*** This poll has now closed ***


The King's Gambit ~ Shaw    
  23 (32.4%)
The Open Spanish ~ Mikhalevski    
  6 (8.5%)
The Panov-Botvinnik Attack ~ D'Costa    
  0 (0.0%)
Kotronias on the King's Indian, V. 1: Fianch    
  4 (5.6%)
GM Repertoire 12: The Modern Benoni~ Petrov    
  3 (4.2%)
Playing the French ~Aagaard & Ntirlis    
  14 (19.7%)
The Ultimate anti-Grunfeld...~Svetushkin    
  2 (2.8%)
A Practical White Rep. w/ 1.d4 &2.c4~Kornev    
  4 (5.6%)
GM Repertoire 14: The French Defence v 1~Berg    
  0 (0.0%)
The Perfect Pirc-Modern ~Moskalenko    
  3 (4.2%)
GM Repertoire 14: The French Defence v 2~Berg    
  5 (7.0%)
Cunning Chess Opening Rep. for White~Burgess    
  7 (9.9%)




Total votes: 71
« Last Modified by: Smyslov_Fan on: 02/12/14 at 16:31:48 »
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) John Shaw wins 2013 Opening Book of the Year! (Read 70600 times)
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2378
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #102 - 02/25/14 at 18:55:52
Post Tools
Okay, if I could have my vote back I would vote to have the voting over.  How long are we waiting?  Surely people have had more than enough time to cast their ballots. 

I think that counting the votes, declaring a winner, and moving the John Shaw grievances to a single thread (i.e., one devoted just to that, over in the 1.e4 e5 forum) would be prudent at this point. 

P.s. most chess authors are not scholars, and chess books are not typically scholarly works.  Especially not opening books.  If they were, they'd be obsolete by the time they were published--ask anyone who has worked on a thesis, or published research in a scholarly journal.  It takes time.

Not only does it take time, but because chess publications do not have a historical tradition of maintaining scholarly standards, it's nearly impossible to track down source material at all.  In my opinion, an author that analyzes
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Bg5 c5 7. d5 e6 8. Qd2 exd5 9. cxd5 and calls Bd7!? "an interesting idea of Andrew Martin's" is doing an OK job.  Perhaps not a perfect job, but is it possible to track down exactly where he first recommended it, or who first played it?  Most likely not.  And many authors just analyze the line with no indication of who thought it up, anyway.  If an author says, "Martin suggests that 10.Nge2! is White's most promising try for advantage," again, I think he's doing a pretty good job of crediting Andrew Martin without digging through hundreds of publications that didn't do their own due diligence, anyway.

We don't have a tradition of scholarly citation in chess, but I respect an author that gives credit the best he can. 

I mean this post in a general sense; I haven't seen Shaw's work, so I can't comment on it in particular. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #101 - 02/25/14 at 17:53:21
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 02/22/14 at 15:32:15:
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty ):

"The chess term, novelty, is used for a move in chess which has never been played before in a recorded game"

[...] when i started studying chess in 2002-2003 this was exactly what i was told that a novelty was and that's why the use of the term seems natural to me. And from studying a QC book this becomes quite clear, [...]

This simply isn't true for the concrete book we are discussing here. Shaw does not put the N sign behind a move in games which he analyzes. He is using the N sign in his own analysis. And I fail to see why an older analysis can be ignored when it comes to Shaw's claiming an N for his own sheer analysis.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1935
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #100 - 02/24/14 at 18:44:15
Post Tools
I just realised - it isn't Watson (PTF III) or Watson (PTF IV), its also Watson (some chess pub column some time!). Hummmm.

It doesn't make it any less good to read of course but I do rather pity the next person who has to write a book/article in the area.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #99 - 02/24/14 at 16:06:17
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 02/24/14 at 15:56:35:
Not greatly useful if you give the same ref for 37 difference sources!


Exactly. It's only slightly better than if someone is crediting a line to the "British Chess Magazine", without giving the year (1883? 2014?). And to think that an author is using such an BCM issue, and then credits a line to "BCM" without a year or page number... wow.   
Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1499
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #98 - 02/24/14 at 16:03:42
Post Tools
I have read chess books for 20 years and to my mind "N" simply means it has not been played over the board. In these days where one can find a single novel move simply by turning on an engine, I find it difficult that an author can claim an "N" over a single move.

However, if it is a whole paragraph of original analysis, containing a series of moves or piece manuevers (especially lines not easily found by engines), then I think there is a valid argument that the *entire sequence* of moves is worthy of the "N" label.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1935
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #97 - 02/24/14 at 15:56:35
Post Tools
You give the references not just to credit people but so that people can go back and check the original sources. In case they're interested or such like.

Not greatly useful if you give the same ref for 37 difference sources!

Its a basic form of scholarly behaviour. Obviously its less serious than it would be in an academic publication but chess theoretical works aren't so different in principle. Its a very additive field.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #96 - 02/24/14 at 15:32:04
Post Tools
fluffy wrote on 02/23/14 at 15:17:01:
[...] you cannot copyright moves. you are also not going to create a legal definition of novelty.

Most authorities agree that there isn't a copyright on single moves, or on a single, uncommented chess game (but Robert Hübner may disagree).

But a selection of games, a game with comments, an article - all of these are protected by copyright. At least that's what I believe, and what is confirmed by various papers on the topic. So you have to credit properly, when you are using material from one of the 37 Kaissiber issues.   

fluffy wrote on 02/23/14 at 15:17:01:
Using Stefan's ABC here, what if B is working on something and has not seen A's analysis?

Jacob Aagaard sent me an e-mail in 2008 and asked for Kaissiber issues covering the King's Gambit. I sent ten Kaissiber issues to Quality Chess, no charge. Somehow they managed to misspell the name in the bibliography, but I can assure you that they had all the relevant issues. 

fluffy wrote on 02/23/14 at 15:17:01:
As an author myself, I know what it's like to see someone publish an idea that I had mentioned years before. But it does not necessarily mean they are being sneaky or dishonest (although it could indeed mean they are lifting my idea). When I write, if I come across some idea from a source and mention it, I do try to say something like "an untried idea that was mentioned by Buecker" or something.

I haven't accused you of any wrongdoings. The majority of authors are crediting Kaissiber just fine, when they are quoting from it. If John Watson or Bronznik are crediting properly, why can't Shaw?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SteelyDanIII
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 86
Joined: 05/14/10
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #95 - 02/24/14 at 15:02:45
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/24/14 at 14:51:20:
There is a similar problem in TKG. Even when a Kaissiber variation is credited to "Bücker" (which isn't always the case), to identify the precise source is hard: googling "Kassiber" (as in Shaw's bibliography) fails. The correct "Kaissiber" isn't useful either, since Shaw avoids to give the issue#, and there are 37 back issues.

That bastard. Must have cost you many agonizing sleepless nights.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #94 - 02/24/14 at 14:51:20
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 02/24/14 at 10:06:15:
The only complaint would seem to be that just using Watson when you've got both PTFIII and IV in your bibliography isn't precisely ideal Smiley

There is a similar problem in TKG. Even when a Kaissiber variation is credited to "Bücker" (which isn't always the case), there are still 37 various issues of Kaissiber.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1935
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #93 - 02/24/14 at 10:06:15
Post Tools
Reading Berg volume 2, I have to say that it is very slightly jarring how they're using N. Such is their choice.

Berg does seem to do a good job of crediting people. The only complaint would seem to be that just using Watson when you've got both PTFIII and IV in your bibliography isn't precisely ideal Smiley (Esp as a good number of the references in Volume 2 are in fact to PTFIII.).

Rather a fun book as it happens but I've not read enough of the others to sensibly vote.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 856
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #92 - 02/23/14 at 21:01:08
Post Tools
fluffy wrote on 02/23/14 at 15:17:01:
If 10 years later the move is still unplayed then it's probably not so important and I do think that C can mention it without "credit" because the move clearly does not really matter much.

In my last blogarticle I talked about fashion in chess: http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2014/02/fashion.html
A variation becomes suddenly very popular but after some time people just want something new/ different.
However it also happens that sometimes a variation is busted and is directed to less serious forms of playing chess: e.g. blitz. This can happen if a move leading to a refutation is published in a book or magazine even if never played on the board.

If later somebody writes a book about the same opening then it is certainly important to include why that particular variation isn't played anymore. Readers often don't know the history of an opening so I am not agreeing that a move which after 10 years is still 'unplayed', will probably not be so important.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
fluffy
Full Member
***
Offline


International Master

Posts: 235
Location: USA
Joined: 08/01/05
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #91 - 02/23/14 at 15:17:01
Post Tools
this thread is crazy. you cannot copyright moves. you are also not going to create a legal definition of novelty.

Using Stefan's ABC here, what if B is working on something and has not seen A's analysis? you cannot check every source in the world. Then A could "claim" 20.f5! as his own finding, as he may have found it himself. it's not so hard nowadays to find novelties. If 10 years later the move is still unplayed then it's probably not so important and I do think that C can mention it without "credit" because the move clearly does not really matter much.

As an author myself, I know what it's like to see someone publish an idea that I had mentioned years before. But it does not necessarily mean they are being sneaky or dishonest (although it could indeed mean they are lifting my idea). When I write, if I come across some idea from a source and mention it, I do try to say something like "an untried idea that was mentioned by Buecker" or something. However, if the move has appeared in multiple sources I may just say that or say nothing because the idea must be fairly obvious, at least with an engine. you cannot "credit" every unplayed move in a chess book.

We are talking about chess moves after all not some life changing invention.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #90 - 02/22/14 at 22:30:17
Post Tools
IMJohnCox wrote on 02/22/14 at 21:35:33:
It depends what you mean by 'matter'. If you think the expression N means that the author is claiming an original invention, then obviously it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, all the author means is that the move hasn't been subjected to over-the-board testing, then obviously it does. It's clear to me that different people use the term differently and that QC mean the latter.

So let us assume a typical situation. An author working on a QC book sees a novelty recommended by Bücker in an article. Would he feel justified, by the QC interpretation of the term "N", to copy/paste my idea into his book, without quoting my name or the source of my article? His logic would simply be: my suggestion had not been played in a game, it was "only" analysis in an article.

I am aware, John, that you are merely playing the advocatus diaboli. What I want is to have Quality Chess spell out, exactly, how seriously they are taking the copyright in opening literature.

Anyway, I feel that we are making some progress, at last. 

(Post edited, to avoid being misunderstood.)

------------

On second thought, IM Cox hit the core of the issue with his remark "It's clear to me that different people use the term differently". If it were true that the term N is only used for a new move played in a game, using the N term for mere analysis by a QC author would be wrong.
Grin

Let's see: Someone (A) is doing analytical work and, as a result, recommends a new move (say, 20.f5!) in a magazine. It has never before been played in a game.

Someone else (B) is working on a book for Quality Chess. Knowing about A's analysis doesn't stop him from writing 20.f5!N in his work. It is just analysis, alas, not a played game.

Another person (C) may write another book ten years later and check the database. Still, nobody has ever played 20.f5! in a game. So he feels justified by this idiotic Wikipedia definition to write 20.f5!N in his own book??

And neither B nor C are doing anything wrong when they believe that no crediting to older written source(s) is necessary? Alas, it is only analysis, not GM practice?
Grin Grin Grin
« Last Edit: 02/23/14 at 06:53:37 by Stefan Buecker »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby
Senior Member
****
Offline


The night is dark and
full of terrors.

Posts: 333
Joined: 01/09/12
Gender: Female
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #89 - 02/22/14 at 21:36:25
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/22/14 at 19:33:42:
barnaby wrote on 02/22/14 at 17:30:52:
"theoretical novelty 'tn,' a move in the opening which is thought not to have been played before."
~ the oxford companion to chess, p. 418


From a piece written by Max Lange in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1864, p. 82:

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/langeb9let58za6.jpg

Here the term "theoretische Neuerung" [= theoretical novelty] has been used for a new idea developed by the theoretician Jaenisch. It should be obvious to everybody that it doesn't matter whether a "novelty" is first played in a game or whether it has its origin in a published article or book.


emphasis mine

i agree with this but also realize it is our opinion and open for debate and there is not 100% universal codification, especially
across a lot of languages, cultures, and legal concepts of intellectual property

at same time i also try to keep on mind the saying that, "there is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.”

Cool





  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMJohnCox
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1547
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender: Male
Re: 2013 Opening Book of the Year
Reply #88 - 02/22/14 at 21:35:33
Post Tools
>It should be obvious to everybody that it doesn't matter whether a "novelty" is first played in a game or whether it has its origin in a published article or book.

It depends what you mean by 'matter'. If you think the expression N means that the author is claiming an original invention, then obviously it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, all the author means is that the move hasn't been subjected to over-the-board testing, then obviously it does. It's clear to me that different people use the term differently and that QC mean the latter.

Back at the ranch, for me Playing the French is a pretty clear winner out of those I know of (which doesn't include Berg's or Kotronias' books, which may well be splendid, nor indeed really John S's KG book).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo