Trefor wrote on 02/03/16 at 07:47:40:
Have just been reading Taylor's WordPress Blog, which explains, in his opinion, why this book is still not published.
I won't give the url here as I obviously have no idea of the truth. Let's just say that he names names and isn't sparing with accusations!
Let's just say he has a rather "imaginative" interpretation of events, as well as a very selective memory.
For instance, regarding the new comment:
Before this I had written eight previous books for Everyman, such as Slay the Sicilian, without editing problems, indeed usually with almost no editing at all. I strive to turn in an absolutely clean copy. — Yes, he had written several books previously for Everyman, and I edited almost all of them, indeed without problems, but not with "almost no editing". They were all
rigorously edited, not least because he never submitted a "clean copy". Apart from anything else, the manuscripts were always full of abbreviations which had to be individually converted. I already posted about this (and his other complaints about the editing) two years ago on the first page of this thread.
But as regards the offending variation...
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/24/14 at 06:52:45:
analytical corrections/queries were mostly referred back to Tim for his consideration (some he accepted, some he didn't – fair enough). Occasionally, I might insert something trivial extra, for explanatory purposes (the sort of thing that would be prefaced by "Ed." in a magazine), and add text to that, but these would (almost always) have been thrown up by Fritz running in the background. I'm not sure what went wrong in the case he mentions (maybe I missed a move out when typing them into the document), but I can't look at it until Tim gives the exact reference.
Okay, now he has given the reference, and of course his analysis is correct. So it's rather odd. I'm not sure how this faulty addition got through unchecked. Firstly, as I said, analytical queries/corrections were mostly (as in virtually all) referred back to him –
seven pages worth for this book (though, as was his right, he ignored two-thirds of them). Secondly, if this one wasn't referred (which it doesn't appear to have been), I'm not sure how it got through anyway, since
Fritz would have been running on my machine too.
Well, it's very annoying of course, though I'm not sure it's really worth throwing your toys out of your pram over. The idea that a reputation could be ruined by one mistake in one bracketed variation is ridiculous. Mistakes are inevitable in chess books. Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse my adding an extraneous one, so apologies are clearly due here – for what little they're worth now.