GabrielGale wrote on 02/14/14 at 02:29:48:

If Shaw wins this 2013 poll, fine with me. This won't put me off from visiting the forum. It would be great if the chesspub forum could be ambitious and set a minimum standard for priceworthy opening books, but I can live with the forum as it is. Ultimately, it is Tony K's decision how he wants the forum to be: a lively place where authors and readers can share ideas about variations, or full of discussions about soccer and the "climate change hoax". 

There is a right of quotation. It comes with a duty: when you quote from another work, proper crediting is a must. When an author fails to credit properly, he cannot claim the right of quotation. It is as simple as that. 

It is true that academic works follow stricter rules. In science, an author has to make sure that a reader can "trace back" his sources, including page numbers, bibliography, footnotes and whatnot. But academia aside, you still have to quote properly in chess. There is, in particular, a requirement to quote properly when using material from Kaissiber. This is a must for anybody, academic or not. And no, this is NOT primarily a moral issue. It is a legal issue. 

Whether a certain amount of abusing the right of quotation already qualifies as a criminal act which you can take to court is a different question entirely. So what means "proper crediting" in an opening book? Possible definitions may vary, Aagaard's or Shaw's definition may greatly differ from mine. This topic is worth exploring. 

TalJechin wrote on 01/08/14 at 15:30:20:


I had to buy the Svetushkin book from Europe and have it shipped to the US because it wasn't available locally (so that may hurt it's chances with US voters.)  I have to say it is excellent - well organized and clearly written.  I wish more opening books adopted it's style by organizing major variations with a chapter each on 1) Main ideas; 2) Step by step (variations) and then 3) Complete (annotated) games to illustrate.

I guess that many voters prefer books offering much value for the money. In this respect, a 600-page work may have an advantage. But I am disappointed that a writer of chess books has a similar point of view. BPaulsen may change his opinion, once he sees his own work misquoted. 

John Shaw's book The King's Gambit often avoids to quote his sources, or doesn't quote properly - often it is hard to distinguish between Shaw's ideas and foreign ideas. This could be sloppiness, if it were not so widespread in his book. Even more irritating are the cases where Shaw misrepresents evaluations of other authors. Let's see an example: a situation covered by Shaw on p. 429 in his work, bottom right, diagram after 20...a6. Shaw writes: 

Quote:
 

My original analysis, published here on chesspub, can be found as reply #15 in this thread: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1258547823/all What I had actually written was:

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/03/10 at 12:48:38:


So, Shaw is wrong to claim that I evaluated 20...a6 as unclear. I had thought that Black may "survive". 

Further, "his" moves 21. Ba4! b5 22. Bxh8! do not refute my opinion, as they were already part of my analysis. 

Finally, my 22...Nc6! seems more precise than 22...bxa4. White has a small plus, but to say that "White has the upper hand" would seem overoptimistic. 

Pages 47-90 in Shaw's book cover what he calls the "Flude Line". This is another topic with a "history" on chesspub.  However, it is a pity that John Shaw is getting almost every detail wrong. After 9. Nc3 Qe7 10.0-0 Bxe5 he ascribes the continuation 11.Nb5 ("!!" Shaw) to the Australian David Flude. Mr. Flude himself had honestly attributed the move to Keres. John Shaw seems puzzled ("one can rarely be totally sure who saw a move first"), but he might just have looked into Kaissiber #33, which discussed 11. Nb5 in detail, saying "11.Nb5! (Nei 1980)". Ivo Nei was the man who edited the "Keres" after Keres' death. 

The position after 11...0-0 12.dxe5 a6 was regarded as good for Black by Nei, Estrin, Glaskow, Gallagher and a few others. David Flude's important contribution, published 2004 on chesspub, was 13.Nd4!. All these facts had been in Kaissiber #33. John Shaw's decision to name 9.Nc3 "Flude Line" is a bit strange. At the very least I'd expect that Shaw would credit my analyses properly. I had studied the line in articles for chesscafe.com, and Kaissiber #33. John Shaw has filled these chapters with many of my findings, and he does not think it is necessary to give the precise sources? The bibliography of King's Gambit doesn't even list Kaissiber, but it does mention another magazine which I never heard of: Kassiber. 

Let's close for today with p. 114, line 5/6 from above. Shaw writes: "On the ChessPublishing Forum it was claimed: 15.Bxf4 was unclear, but in this case I have to disagree..." Why doesn't Shaw say who had proposed the move / made the evaluation? By the way, I can't find that chesspub thread to which Shaw is refering. This kind of quotation isn't helpful for other authors who want to check the source in more detail.

voted: open spanish by mikhalevski

The order of the books this year was in the order they were nominated. Usually, they are in alphabetical order.

I'll be posting the poll this weekend. This is your last chance for nominations!

This thread has gone quiet the last few days. I am guessing that most of the best books of the year have already been nominated. 

I will give everyone until January 31st, then I will close the nominations and post the poll.

It turns out I haven't bought any book in 2013 (or at least, not books published in 2013) so I don't think I can make a suggesting, but I'll check the finalists and discussion.

In case people want to remind themselves of what was published in 2013, you can see at the NiC website: http://www.newinchess.com/Shop/?&Page=1&;

Search for "Fighting Chess: Move by Move" and then start scrolling up.  Was quite surprised that some books I thought quite old were 2013.