barnaby wrote on 02/22/14 at 17:30:52:


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



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.

Oups, this is because you have to copy the link without the "):" at the end.

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"

OK, i understand that the above source cannot convince anybody, but honestly, 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, so i understand why it was not stated directly. If this move is not to be found in a database it is given the "N" sign. As i said, this means nothing more. Many of the "N"s are fairly obvious moves, or moves that has been recommended elsewhere. As you know, QC has put some great names as their authors and they have been doing that without been told to, it is a natural way for a GM to do his research through a database. I am really surprized that this is not as natural and obvious as it is to me and many other people i know and have worked with.

Lastly, i didn't mean that "you have to applaud the positive achievments of QC", i only meant that if you think that there are such serious mistakes you are doing very well by letting other people in this foroum know about them, but my impression was that this critisism somehow went a bit of the mark at some point and was more negative that it should be. I am sure that this is because of the soft spot about the opening (correct guess?  ).

Mr Bucker appears upset about this. With a modicum of justification, it appears. A blip, an omission, rather than anti-Kaissiber malice, I rather think. But point made, time to move on. Life is short.

Tricky to check absolutely everything and I remember some Ruy Marshall fiends hauling poor fluffy/Vigorito over the coals for this too. Credit to those folk who have access to everything and are that organised. Wish I was.

The whole 'N' thing was a bit wobbly in the old Informant days too. I understood 'N' there to be not published in that series yet, a very limited notion of it, that's true.

Bit much to generalise to all QC books, that is true, I think, I agree with Amet. QC deserve to be commended for raising the overall level. 

***
Back to the list of books to choose from...?
***

As far as i understand, the "N" symbol is put when this move doesn't appear to the databases of human play. Yes, many moves have been suggested in the publications but haven't been played, but this doesn't seem that they are not novelties. This is quite clear to the reader and it doesnt mean more than that (for example that all the "N"-awarded moves where found by the author of the QC book). Also, in general, in a QC-theory book has many more author-produced novelties can be found compared with unplayed-suggestions found in other sources. In fact, when a move has an "N" it is very usefull for the reader (for example it saves him study time) and it means that from now on the path is new an less explored. Where is the problem with that?

In fact, in the recent "Playing the French" with I co-authored (where there was a very careful check of the sources both by the authors and the editorial team -the 3 pages of bibliography is the result of that-) there are instances where a move is awarded an "N" but it is explained in the text that "this was proposed by [author] in [book]" etc. Albeit, this is not always an easy thing to do i'd say and it requires lots of time as also IM Cox put it. I am not trying to defend John Shaw, i just state my personal experience on this matter.

As i understand it, Mr Bucker thinks that his analysis was misunderstood by Shaw or was intensively given wrongly, right? But why, generalise things with all the QC publications? Isn't QC the only publication where there is a constant try to correct their publications through their newsletters and blog posts (at a large scale)? I am sure that if Mr Bucker provides a list with all the places where he thinks that corrections to the book have to be made, the QC will respond positively as has done countless of times before (and not always publish this, again from a personal experience). 

Again, i am only expressing thoughts here. I fully understand Mr Bucker's try to convince people here not to vote for Shaw's book if his opinion is that it doesn't deserve this title based on the flaws he has found in it. I have done it also myself at times in the past. I just don't understand that huge amount of negativeness and generalisation expressed by him.

In the meantime I voted for GM Rep 15 ...

Speelman quoted that in Analysing the Endgame. He didn't cite his source. Well, not immediately. Toward the end of the introduction he gives credit to Tom Lehrer.

This is what Speelman, a conscientious author, wrote:

"Finally...plagiarism. Given the nature of some of my material (i.e. "updating") I have not been able totally to disregard the words of the "great Lobachevsky" as reported by Mr. Lehrer. But I have mae acknowledgements where they are due, and, in any case, much of my research is - original!" (Analysing the Endgame (1988) page 3)

While I understand that Stefan is rightly upset, I rather doubt that Shaw deliberately tried to rob him of his ideas.