Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 31
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Chess Book Review blog (Read 336244 times)
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2533
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #357 - 05/09/18 at 04:00:34
Post Tools
Clearly stated; thanks for sharing your perspective, Rene. It gives a better understanding of the issues being addressed. On the other hand, I don't think it's very productive to speculate about motives.
« Last Edit: 05/10/18 at 00:46:36 by ErictheRed »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #356 - 05/08/18 at 23:19:39
Post Tools
Some aspects of the review trouble me.

We read that Shereshevsky engages in "copying of other author's [sic.] works,"  "fails to adequately cite the passages he takes," and "reads like a freshman's plagiarized term paper." "Copying" is ambiguous. Does it mean fraudulent imitation or unauthorized reproduction? "Fails to adequately cite" is ambiguous. Does it mean "fails to cite" or "fails to use standard expected formats in citation"? "Reads like a freshman's plagiarized term paper" is ambiguous. Does it mean "contains as much plagiarism as a plagiarized term paper" or "reminds one of the rhythm of original and quoted material in a plagiarized term paper"? In each of these cases the milder of the two interpretations actually obtains, but the review does not clarify that, though it easily might have. In other words, it makes insinuations that go beyond the facts.

Part III of Shereshevsky's book reads not like a freshman's plagiarized term paper (those lack quotation marks and crediting asides), but like a bundled compendium of important recent chess thought for the Russian chess school--an annotated course reader--which it partly is. A copyright violation for using Xerox machines to generate a course reader is a matter of quite a lower order from passing off someone else's thought as one's own. No one is thrown from office years later in a scandal over Xerox rights. Moreover, it does not seem to have occurred to anyone that the inexplicable retranslations from English to Russian back into English might precisely preserve those rights under the law if an licensing agreement with the Russian Chess Federation exists. Perhaps this is poetic justice for Nunn's producing his gratuitously-edited version of Fischer's classic, a version which has been described as "My 60 Unforgettable Games." But why should gray areas of royalty disputes be of concern to the reader?

What is the defect of the citations in the book? Mostly, the absence of page numbers and the fact that where Shereshevsky quotes from only one work of an author, he names the work only in the first quote and thereafter only names the author. Once that is understood, there is not a quote in the book (at least not that I could find) for which there is doubt about the author, the title of the work cited, or which words are and are not Shereshevsky's.  One of the worst-cited quotes is that of Nunn's first passage on DAUT. At the end of one Shereshevsky chapter, on p.235, we get "We will now move on from Beim's work to John Nunn's excellent work Secrets of Practical Chess.." On the next page, at the head of a new chapter, we get simply "John Nunn: 'DAUT. This means ...<long quote>' " Now, that will not do as a citation in an academic journal, but in practice there is hardly a problem, especially given that the work in question contains a chapter called DAUT. Other quotes are generally in much better shape. "I would like to quote an excerpt from Mikhail Krasnekov's previously-mentioned article 'Wandering in the Wilds.'; "Now we will study the comments of Grandmaster Denis Khismatullin in the Magazine 64-Chess Review No. 4/2015"; and so on. True, after a quote has been introduced, subsequent quotes from the same work are often just attributed to the author. --This is what is meant by the depraved-sounding "fails to adequately cite."

Furthermore, the review seems needlessly dismissive. A discussion of the meaning of "genius" may be unimportant, but Shereshevsky's original method for combating time trouble given in Part III, on pp. 277-278, a method I have never seen and now plan to use myself, certainly does not constitute "banalities or gossip." Nor does Shereshevsky's revalatory clarification of Karpov's thought process on p. 281: "As for inaccuracies in his analysis of secondary lines [in the previous game against Spassky analyzed by Beim], they are caused by the fact that the future world champion hardly analyzed them. He just knew that he had an advantage in those lines, and how to deal with them is something he would work out if and when he came to it. In other words, Karpov [when making his 25th move in against Spassky] saw [the main line up to] the light at the end of the tunnel, i,e. 32. Qg5!!, and only looked around at the side variations relatively briefly." In fact, Shereshevsky generously attributes this visiom to Beim, who is, however, much more unclear about it if he even meant it.

The mention of a "freshman's ... term paper" is also gratuitously condescending (not that that's bad--I enjoy acid writing at times, and I've written some pretty insulting things about, e.g. Naroditsky. But I have another point in mind). So is the remark on the chapter "Laziness" that mostly consists of words by Nunn: "The title of [that] chapter? 'Laziness.' You couldn’t make it up if you tried." But did anyone think to ask why Shereshevsky should ever have entitled a chapter on opening analysis "Laziness?"  --As a matter of fact, it is not Shereshevsky on whom irony has been lost here. On the contrary, that subtle author, with gentle self-deprecation, confesses to laziness in introducing the Nunn quote: "It seemed very important to me to show the reader the application of the principle of 'DAUT' in home analysis of questionable opening schemes. ... I tried this good intention myself and found that it is like other such good intentions [in that I am too lazy to do it--R.D.]. So...I decided to present Nunn's own version and not waste time" (p. 244). Hence the chapter title.

Now, even if proustiskeen had noticed this, I have no doubt that he would still have disapproved of the quote; and I believe that he genuinely finds the "conducting" method illegitimate, even repulsive. Maybe he's even right--I don't insist on my view. Yet something more nags at me.

LeeRoth wrote on 05/03/18 at 14:57:25:
Everything is quoted and attributed.  YMMV, but I personally found John's review a bit unfair and perhaps a little too self-righteous in this regard -- the book is condemned on this basis alone and two posters here have already gotten the impression, based on the review, that Shereshevsky is "stealing" other people's ideas.

Indeed, given that (1) Chess Life has the largest circulation of any chess magazine in the world, (2) the attack on Shereshevsky's book leaves the impression that the author and publisher and hence the purchaser are morally compromised, (3) very little time in the review is devoted to Shereshevsky's chess ideas; that hence (4) the effect of the review is not to disagree with or criticize or even mock Shereshevsky's ideas but to prevent people from reading them, first by implicating purchasers of the book and second by pressuring the publisher to withdraw it (this is really playing hardball--we all know in what a cowardly manner public-entertainment companies in this era fold to mere allegations of bad behavior by someone associated with them); and that (5) the review is condescending and insinuates graver offenses than exist ("I said it read like a student's plagiarized term paper")--given all that, one might wonder whether proustiskeen has some ulterior reason for animus against this book, conscious or unconscious.

I believe that such a reason exists in Shereshevsky's omission, dismissal, and psychological diagnosis (including, notably, the word "immoral") of the work of proustiskeen's teacher and chess mentor John Watson.

I respect Watson--and Hartmann: we all have our excesses--but I just bought a second copy of The Shereshevsky Method, a hard copy in addition to my ForwardChess one, to show my support for Shereshevsky and NIC in this matter.
« Last Edit: 05/09/18 at 10:31:22 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2338
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #355 - 05/07/18 at 06:14:38
Post Tools
It is possible that 'IM_Serious' was trying to be funny, but it did not carry well, and it just came across as a rather stupid comment.

Plagiarism is a serious issue. It is stealing, with a lazy cherry on top.
For chess, see also: Keene, Naroditsky, Grivas.

Careful plagiarists! "Winter is coming", as they say: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/copying.html
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1667
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #354 - 05/06/18 at 15:06:29
Post Tools
IM_Serious wrote on 05/06/18 at 04:51:52:
Someone should definitely check into that, right?
You can check it yourself, just by watching the credits at the end.

The non-fiction book I am currently reading does not have any permissions. Oh, wait, the author wrote it all himself. But surely he should have credited the many illustrations he used? Um, no, "Illustrated by the Author".

The non-fiction book I most recently finished has two-and-a-half pages of closely-packed acknowledgements at the front. Here is one I selected at random:
Quote:
Unitas Spiritus abridged from THE MYSTICAL THEOLOGY OF ST. BERNARD, translated by A. H. C. Downes. Published by Sheed & Ward, 1940. Reprinted by permission of Cecile J. Gilson;


If a reviewer sees large swaths of quoted text, he ought to check whether it is credited. I expect that, because I would do it myself, and I want to know. Then again, I always watch the movie credits as well.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #353 - 05/06/18 at 14:32:14
Post Tools
IM_Serious wrote on 05/06/18 at 04:51:52:
For example last night, I was watching The Departed (2006).

Wow, that's a fantastic movie, but it opens with a song from The Rolling Stones.

That's right, Gimme Shelter plays for almost 2 minutes, can you believe it?

So, I wonder if they got proper permission to use that song.

Someone should definitely check into that, right?


Of course directors and studios get permission and likely pay for any music they use in their movies. Unlike chess publishers (?) they have to handle these things correctly, or they may get sued! There have sometimes been conflicts over this, but is there any reason to think there should be one in this case?

Scorsese even directed a two-hour documentary on the Rolling Stones (Shine a Light, 2008), so they seem to be on good terms.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 766
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #352 - 05/06/18 at 14:30:24
Post Tools
IM_Serious wrote on 05/06/18 at 04:51:52:
For example last night, I was watching The Departed (2006).

Wow, that's a fantastic movie, but it opens with a song from The Rolling Stones.

That's right, Gimme Shelter plays for almost 2 minutes, can you believe it?

So, I wonder if they got proper permission to use that song.

Of course they did.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IM_Serious
Junior Member
**
Offline


Bibliophile

Posts: 50
Joined: 06/04/16
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #351 - 05/06/18 at 04:51:52
Post Tools
I made the horrible mistake of reading Shereshevsky's book before checking with any reviewers..

I thought the book was great -- a kind of a modern-day "Battle of Chess Ideas."

Somehow while reading, I was never concerned that the quoted passages were too long, or that maybe the publisher didn't get permission.

I guess this is why we need  professional  book reviewers.

Even so, I wonder exactly how that works.

For example last night, I was watching The Departed (2006).

Wow, that's a fantastic movie, but it opens with a song from The Rolling Stones.

That's right, Gimme Shelter plays for almost 2 minutes, can you believe it?

So, I wonder if they got proper permission to use that song.

Someone should definitely check into that, right?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Justinhorton
Full Member
***
Offline


Kingpinista

Posts: 240
Joined: 10/27/06
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #350 - 05/04/18 at 06:01:18
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 05/03/18 at 23:51:23:
Thanks for refreshing my memory. Yes, I was thinking of your work on outing Keene, but I see now it's worse than I recalled.

Did the Times or the Spectator ever take action on these findings?


No. They did nothing.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #349 - 05/03/18 at 23:51:23
Post Tools
Justinhorton wrote on 05/03/18 at 18:05:08:
Stigma wrote on 05/03/18 at 16:15:48:
There have been some notable accusations in the West, i.e. against Keene (though maybe that was mostly about self-plagiarization?)


No it wasn't (although there was plenty of that too).

Thanks for refreshing my memory. Yes, I was thinking of your work on outing Keene, but I see now it's worse than I recalled.

Did the Times or the Spectator ever take action on these findings? It looks like in the chess world plagiarism has no real consequences (apart from some well-deserved online shaming in Keene's case).

Out of curiosity I googled the Naroditsky book I alluded to: Mastering Positional Chess. New in Chess often update their books, but I haven't found any updated edition of this one, only the original from 2010. More tellingly the book has disappeared from New in Chess' own website.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 678
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #348 - 05/03/18 at 19:03:15
Post Tools
It's not quoted and attributed. There are almost no page references, and in most cases, no titles or sources given. That's why I say that he does not "adequately cite."

This also doesn't materially change my key problems with the book: (a) the publishers didn't get permission to use the material in English before going to press, (b) they retranslated material from once-translated Russian (as someone who has worked extensively with foreign language sources / translations in another field, I can say that you simply don't do this), and (c) there's an ethical problem with quoting pages upon pages of someone else's work and then putting your name on the title page.

LeeRoth wrote on 05/03/18 at 14:57:25:
The Shereshevsky book is basically a re-packaging of his earlier work.  But that is the whole point.  The Soviet Chess Conveyer was an English-language work that was never printed in Russian.  This new book, which was originally printed in Russian, was intended in large part to fill that gap.  

Shereshevsky has a rambling style that isn't for everyone.  His presentation of other author's thoughts is meant to be a survey of modern chess thinking and there are some nuggets of wisdom for the reader who is willing to do the work.  At one point, Shereshevsky presents a conversation between Sakaev and Dvoretsky (which I think comes from a Dvoretsky book) where Dvoretsky weighs in on a debate that we just had here at the ChessPub about how to think about a chess position. 

[A digression:  Dvoretsky's basic point is that players learn to grasp positions intuitively, based on their experience and judgment, and don't select candidate moves by marching through some careful analysis of positional characteristics.]

I personally don't find anything wrong with the way Shereshevsky presents this in the book and I agree with Rene that it is not dishonest.  Everything is quoted and attributed.  YMMV, but I personally found John's review a bit unfair and perhaps a little too self-righteous in this regard -- the book is condemned on this basis alone and two posters here have already gotten the impression, based on the review, that Shereshevsky is "stealing" other people's ideas.   

John does have a point that Shereshevsky's contributions to the debate and comments are often minimal to the point of merely introducing other's thoughts, and this is certainly a fair thing to criticize in a review.  One does get the feeling that there wasn't a whole lot of effort put in to the presentation of this material.
 


 

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Justinhorton
Full Member
***
Offline


Kingpinista

Posts: 240
Joined: 10/27/06
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #347 - 05/03/18 at 18:26:51
Post Tools
Obviously this isn't the same thing (in fact, pace Samuel Jackson, it's not even the same sport). But "not as bad as Ray Keene" isn't much of a recommendation, is it?

I find the whole thing extraordinary, and perhaps the most extraordinary thing is the retranslation of Nunn back into English rather than use the original English text. I guess I'd be interested to know whether there's a Russian edition of Secrets Of Practical Chess, whether Shereshevsky was quoting from that and whether he had permission to do so (I'm guessing not, on the last count at least, but I'd be keen to know for sure) but at any rate, without express permission you can't just extract pages of somebody else's work and claim "fair use". I don't think I've come across anything quite like it.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Justinhorton
Full Member
***
Offline


Kingpinista

Posts: 240
Joined: 10/27/06
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #346 - 05/03/18 at 18:05:08
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 05/03/18 at 16:15:48:
There have been some notable accusations in the West, i.e. against Keene (though maybe that was mostly about self-plagiarization?)


No it wasn't (although there was plenty of that too).
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1667
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #345 - 05/03/18 at 16:39:39
Post Tools
Now I googled "quoting with permission" and read up on it. Okay, it is complicated, but not that complicated. I think Shereshevsky needed to get permission here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #344 - 05/03/18 at 16:15:48
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 05/03/18 at 14:57:25:
I personally don't find anything wrong with the way Shereshevsky presents this in the book and I agree with Rene that it is not dishonest.  Everything is quoted and attributed.  YMMV, but I personally found John's review a bit unfair and perhaps a little too self-righteous in this regard -- the book is condemned on this basis alone and two posters here have already gotten the impression, based on the review, that Shereshevsky is "stealing" other people's ideas. 

I admit that I took John's word for this. After so many good and thought-provoking reviews I have some trust in his judgment. I haven't seen the book myself.

That said, fair use is sometimes tricky but far from impossible, especially when you have editors to help you. Academics and all kinds of non-fiction authors deal with this all the time, switching between situating, quoting, paraphrasing, elaborating and responding as appropriate. The gold standard is presenting someone else's argument in a new or even better way than they did themselves.

Normally you don't want to quote so much from another author that even the most interested reader has no reason to consult the original source anymore (on that particular topic).

I haven't noticed problems of this magnitude in other Soviet or Russian sources, by Dvoretsky or Kotov for instance. The Soviet Union doesn't have the best reputation for respecting copyright, so I'm sure there are examples I'm not aware of.

There have been some notable accusations in the West, i.e. against Keene (though maybe that was mostly about self-plagiarization?) and against a young American author who sailed a bit too close to Dvoretsky in some examples in his first book. Incidentally also a New in Chess book.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Chess Book Review blog
Reply #343 - 05/03/18 at 14:57:25
Post Tools
The Shereshevsky book is basically a re-packaging of his earlier work.  But that is the whole point.  The Soviet Chess Conveyer was an English-language work that was never printed in Russian.  This new book, which was originally printed in Russian, was intended in large part to fill that gap.  

Shereshevsky has a rambling style that isn't for everyone.  His presentation of other author's thoughts is meant to be a survey of modern chess thinking and there are some nuggets of wisdom for the reader who is willing to do the work.  At one point, Shereshevsky presents a conversation between Sakaev and Dvoretsky (which I think comes from a Dvoretsky book) where Dvoretsky weighs in on a debate that we just had here at the ChessPub about how to think about a chess position. 

[A digression:  Dvoretsky's basic point is that players learn to grasp positions intuitively, based on their experience and judgment, and don't select candidate moves by marching through some careful analysis of positional characteristics.]

I personally don't find anything wrong with the way Shereshevsky presents this in the book and I agree with Rene that it is not dishonest.  Everything is quoted and attributed.  YMMV, but I personally found John's review a bit unfair and perhaps a little too self-righteous in this regard -- the book is condemned on this basis alone and two posters here have already gotten the impression, based on the review, that Shereshevsky is "stealing" other people's ideas.   

John does have a point that Shereshevsky's contributions to the debate and comments are often minimal to the point of merely introducing other's thoughts, and this is certainly a fair thing to criticize in a review.  One does get the feeling that there wasn't a whole lot of effort put in to the presentation of this material.
 


 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 31
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo