| |
Main
Date: 29 Mar 2006 00:54:49
From:
Subject: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
Hi
My local second hand bookstore has copies of Vols I & II of the above
book. The only drawback is that it's the 1964 version. Amazon, I see,
has copies published in 2001 available. Given that Max Euwe died in
1981, how much revision took place to these books between 1964 & 2001
or are they all simple re-prints of the original? Basically, is it
worth buying the 1964 version for a couple of quid for each volume or
buying the 2001 version from Amazon for c GBP18 each?
Regards
Roger
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 20:51:34
From: Jon
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My local second hand bookstore has copies of Vols I & II of the above
> book. The only drawback is that it's the 1964 version.
[Snip]
>Basically, is it
> worth buying the 1964 version for a couple of quid for each volume
I would say that yes indeed it is worth buying them for a couple of quid
each if you can. If you don't want to keep them then they'd probably easily
do �10/each plus on ebay IME.
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 20:48:10
From: Jon
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Basically, is it
> worth buying the 1964 version for a couple of quid for each volume or
> buying the 2001 version from Amazon for c GBP18 each?
Chess Direct (www.chessdirect.co.uk) Sell them for �14.99 each. Buy both and
claim a 10% discount.
www.bcmchess.co.uk and www.chess.co.uk also sell at �14.99 each.
Not sure about postagecosts so check around for the best deal.
--
Remove numbers from email address to reply
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 12:25:46
From:
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
> Around
here, all "official" documents are being set sans-serif and
with ragged gins on the grounds that dyslexic people find
that easier to read.
Actually, no. Not in general. Nicely printed (Electra for example)
books with lined up edges and no rivers are easiest.
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 03:07:49
From:
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
Thanks for those comments Dave. I was just concerned that the books
might have been radically revised since 1964 rendering them useless.
Descriptive notation holds no fears as it's what I grew up on. In fact,
I often wish that they'd stuck to it as, even today, I find it harder
to visualise what's going on reading algebraic notation than I do with
descriptive. I guess it's just the way my brain has become wired.
Regards
Roger
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 10:39:23
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
In article <[email protected] >,
<[email protected] > wrote:
> My local second hand bookstore has copies of Vols I & II of the above
> book. The only drawback is that it's the 1964 version. Amazon, I see,
> has copies published in 2001 available. Given that Max Euwe died in
> 1981, how much revision took place to these books between 1964 & 2001
> or are they all simple re-prints of the original? Basically, is it
> worth buying the 1964 version for a couple of quid for each volume or
> buying the 2001 version from Amazon for c GBP18 each?
Various things to note.
1) Amazon.co.uk says `Availability: usually dispatched in 4-6 weeks'.
In my experience, this usually means, `Actually, we looked around
for a bit but we couldn't find this. Sorry, but we can't ship it
to you.' The last time this happened, I mailed them and suggested
they alter the website to stop claiming that they could dispatch it
in 4-6 weeks and received a reply saying basically, `Sorry we
couldn't find it' and ignoring my point.
2) Amazon.co.uk also says that they want a 1.99UKP sourcing fee, plus
the price of the book. Again, this suggests to me that they're
relatively unlikely to be able to find it for you. (I assume they
won't charge the fee if they can't find the book but I've not
looked.)
3) The 2001 edition is published by Lou Hays and has been `Completely
re-edited and translated to algebraic notation in this 1994
edition,' according to the Amazon.com page. Personally, I'm not a
fan of Lou Hays. I don't have a copy of Nimzowitch's `My System'
apart from his so I can't say anything about his editing. What I
can say is that I really don't like his typesetting. The
sans-serif font is harder to read than a serifed font (damnit, the
whole point of the little horizontal lines is to guide the eye
across the page) and the gins are too small for my taste.
That being the case, given the choice of buying a Hays edition or
the original, I'd probably go for the original. I wouldn't be too
upset if I couldn't find a copy of the original, though. Hays
isn't terrible; just suboptimal.
So, in sumy, my guess is that there's a good chance that Amazon
won't actually be able to get these books to you and that, unless
descriptive notation is a problem for you, you're probably better off
with the 1964 edition. (Which is, presumably, cheaper and you know
you'll get your copy.)
Besides, if you buy the second-hand books and hate them, you can
probably Ebay them at a profit! :-)
A final point is that http://www.abebooks.com/ might be able to help
you find a copy of the Hays edition if that's what you want and Amazon
can't help.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Dangerous Spoon (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ piece of cutlery but it could explode
at any minute!
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 13:48:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> 3) The 2001 edition is published by Lou Hays and has been `Completely
> re-edited and translated to algebraic notation in this 1994
> edition,' according to the Amazon.com page. Personally, I'm not a
> fan of Lou Hays. I don't have a copy of Nimzowitch's `My System'
> apart from his so I can't say anything about his editing.
OK, I can say a little about his editing. Apparently, in the original
edition, the date and location of the first example game (Nimzowitsch-
Alapin) were not specified. In the Hays edition, it's given as
Carlsbad 1911. According to commentary on chessgames.com[1], this is
incorrect and the game was actually a casual game played in St Peters-
burg in 1914. Other sources claim Vilnius 1912 (with a transposition
to the French from the Sicilian) and Riga 1913.
Dave.
[1] http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102375&kpage=2
--
David Richerby Happy Cheese (TM): it's like a brick
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cheese that makes your troubles
melt away!
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 18:46:34
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
On 2006-03-29, David Richerby wrote:
> What I can say is that I really don't like his typesetting. The
> sans-serif font is harder to read than a serifed font (damnit,
> the whole point of the little horizontal lines is to guide the
> eye across the page)
Neither the studies I have read, nor my experience talking to
readers in 20 years as a graphic designer and typographer, suggests
that sans-serif is harder to read.
> and the gins are too small for my taste.
That does make a difference.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 09:31:19
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
Chris F.A. Johnson <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 2006-03-29, David Richerby wrote:
>> What I can say is that I really don't like his typesetting. The
>> sans-serif font is harder to read than a serifed font (damnit,
>> the whole point of the little horizontal lines is to guide the
>> eye across the page)
>
> Neither the studies I have read, nor my experience talking to
> readers in 20 years as a graphic designer and typographer, suggests
> that sans-serif is harder to read.
That surprises me. If it's not for ease of reading, why is it that
nearly all books, newspapers and academic papers are set in serifed
fonts?
(Wikipedia claims that serifed fonts are easier in print but there's
no citation so this tells us nothing.)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Strange Cheese (TM): it's like a lump
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cheese but it's totally weird!
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 12:44:48
From: Alexander Wagner
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
On 2006-03-30, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
Hi!
> Chris F.A. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2006-03-29, David Richerby wrote:
>>> What I can say is that I really don't like his
>>> typesetting. The sans-serif font is harder to read than
>>> a serifed font (damnit, the whole point of the little
>>> horizontal lines is to guide the eye across the page)
>>
>> Neither the studies I have read, nor my experience
>> talking to readers in 20 years as a graphic designer and
>> typographer, suggests that sans-serif is harder to read.
>
> That surprises me. If it's not for ease of reading, why
> is it that nearly all books, newspapers and academic
> papers are set in serifed fonts?
Hm, a very practical point comes to my mind here: the
default font of LaTeX is a serifed font. :) As this one
gives a very pleasing impression of the print there is
actually no need to fiddle arround with fonts. (At least I
did stop this immediately once I started to use the "Real
Thing" (tm) for typesetting. And not only cause it's
actually a bit involved to change the default font for a
newbe ;)
> (Wikipedia claims that serifed fonts are easier in print
> but there's no citation so this tells us nothing.)
Well I'd say back in the days where you really had to set
the letters by hand this might be very true as the serifes
give you a clear line where to align the letters. Maybe this
statement is "historic" in that sense? At least my
Laserprinter doesn't make a difference wether I feed it with
Helvetica or Times ;)
To my personal experience I strongly prefer serifed fonts
for long texts. And I prefer really _set_ text, not that
rubbish that any Word (processor) produces. But even for
these things I find Times easier to read than Helvetica.
(Just to give well known examples.)
Some people argue that the serifes guide the eye on reading
so you have some sort of a line on which the text is
written. I don't know wether this is really the point though
as I prefer to use unlined paper if writing by hand.
On the other hand on transparencies where I have
comparatively few text, especially not large paragraphs I
prefer a sans serif font. Yet again really set and not ...
IMHO the most important influence though is not really
the font but that you have a really well set text. Long
documents written in whatever font with (a) Word (processor)
are just ugly to read. Just TeX the same stuff and it's much
easier to read and more pleasing to the eye. (IMHO!)
You know, I'm just using LaTeX for everyting and get best
results ;)
Anyway, as far as I know there exist studies which claim at
one time that serifed fonts and the other time that sans
fonts are easier to read, so I believe that it's more or
less a matter of personal taste and not of scientific
statements. (Which does not say, that personal taste is of
no importance ;)
--
Kind regards,
Alexander Wagner
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 14:35:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Typesetting (was Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer)
|
Alexander Wagner <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If it's not for ease of reading, why is it that nearly all books,
>> newspapers and academic papers are set in serifed fonts?
>
> Hm, a very practical point comes to my mind here: the default font
> of LaTeX is a serifed font. :)
Many (though by no means all) academic papers are typeset with LaTeX.
However, I seriously doubt that any commercial newspapers are set with
LaTeX and I also doubt that anything but a small minority of books are
set in LaTeX.
> As this one gives a very pleasing impression of the print there is
> actually no need to fiddle arround with fonts. (At least I did stop
> this immediately once I started to use the "Real Thing" (tm) for
> typesetting. And not only cause it's actually a bit involved to
> change the default font for a newbe ;)
Many people don't like Computer Modern but this is easily fixed by
\usepackage{times}.
>> (Wikipedia claims that serifed fonts are easier in print but
>> there's no citation so this tells us nothing.)
>
> Well I'd say back in the days where you really had to set the
> letters by hand this might be very true as the serifes give you a
> clear line where to align the letters.
Nope. If you're setting metal type by hand, each letter comes on a
piece of metal that you put into a rack. Vertical alignment happens
naturally. (The principle is the same as placing letters into a
Scrabble rack.)
> IMHO the most important influence though is not really the font but
> that you have a really well set text.
Some studies I found on the web suggested that good kerning and
sensible gins are more important than serifs for ease of reading.
> Anyway, as far as I know there exist studies which claim at one time
> that serifed fonts and the other time that sans fonts are easier to
> read, so I believe that it's more or less a matter of personal taste
> and not of scientific statements.
I found material on the web that suggested that sans-serif fonts are
likely to be clearer on-screen because the resolution is low enough
that the serifs get in the way.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Technicolor Gigantic Cheese (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a brick of cheese but it's
huge and in realistic colour!
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 17:44:33
From: Dr A. N. Walker
Subject: Re: The Middle Game by Euwe & Kramer
|
In article <JIl*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> [...] The
> sans-serif font is harder to read than a serifed font [...]
I'm glad I'm not the only person to think so. Around
here, all "official" documents are being set sans-serif and
with ragged gins on the grounds that dyslexic people find
that easier to read. I don't know whether that is true or not
-- the only evidence we were given was an ancient study using
dot-matrix printers, and it is certainly true that Times Roman
looks bad when the resolution is so poor that the serifs break
up and that justification looks bad when double/triple spacing
is the only weapon -- but *I* find it harder to read.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]
|
|
