| |
Main
Date: 31 May 2008 20:09:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
I am in the process of reprinting "Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R.
von Bilguer", 1880 Edition, better known by its German title, Handbuch
des Schachspiels von P. R. von Bilguer.
This book is extremely rare. I happened to come across a copy in good
condition. I have been unable to find another one, and I have searched
everywhere.
This book is the equivalent of Modern Chess Openings, but for the 19th
Century. Like Modern Chess Openings, it is packed with long columns
and lines of analysis. It is in German but that should not prove a
problem because, like Chess Informant, it is multi-lingual. All you
need to do is remember that D = Queen, S = Knight, T = Rook and L =
Bishop.
The fact that it is 128 years old is the main reason I am reprinting
it. It contains opening traps and tricks which are no longer played
and are no longer to be found in any openings book.
The book is 6 3/4 x 10 1/2 inches and 720 pages. Every page is jam-
packed with chess analysis. I did not even know that so much analysis
had been done back in 1880.
Paul Rudolf von Bilguer (1815- 1840) was considered to be one of the
strongest chess players in the world, but he died at an early age. The
work continued without him and new editions kept coming out 90 years
after his death.
My reprint of the 1880 edition should be out within ten days. When it
comes out it will be available at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 08:27:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
The Bilguer Handbuch is available now:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
There is also one on ebay.com
Sam Sloan
On May 31, 10:09 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am in the process of reprinting "Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R.
> von Bilguer", 1880 Edition, better known by its German title, Handbuch
> des Schachspiels von P. R. von Bilguer.
>
> This book is extremely rare. I happened to come across a copy in good
> condition. I have been unable to find another one, and I have searched
> everywhere.
>
> This book is the equivalent of Modern Chess Openings, but for the 19th
> Century. Like Modern Chess Openings, it is packed with long columns
> and lines of analysis. It is in German but that should not prove a
> problem because, like Chess Informant, it is multi-lingual. All you
> need to do is remember that D = Queen, S = Knight, T = Rook and L =
> Bishop.
>
> The fact that it is 128 years old is the main reason I am reprinting
> it. It contains opening traps and tricks which are no longer played
> and are no longer to be found in any openings book.
>
> The book is 6 3/4 x 10 1/2 inches and 720 pages. Every page is jam-
> packed with chess analysis. I did not even know that so much analysis
> had been done back in 1880.
>
> Paul Rudolf von Bilguer (1815- 1840) was considered to be one of the
> strongest chess players in the world, but he died at an early age. The
> work continued without him and new editions kept coming out 90 years
> after his death.
>
> My reprint of the 1880 edition should be out within ten days. When it
> comes out it will be available at:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 01:05:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> > they just
> >didn't make a career out of it like Mr. Sloan has.
>
> Career? You call that a career? So far as I can tell
> Sloan has failed at everything he ever tried, flunked out
> of college, lost his NYC taxi driver's license, let his
> Asian mailorder brides ditch him, got barred by the
> SEC, came in 9th amondg 10 in a USCF election,
> etc etc endlessly.
You seem to have forgotten that Mr. Sloan:
1) singlehandedly defeated the U.S. Supreme Court;
2) earned the title of foreign master of Chinese Chess;
3) got elected to the USCF Executive Board;
4) has written and/or published dozens of books;
5) convincingly won the rgc grudge match;
6) is so famous that even Bill Goichberg hates him.
--help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 00:50:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> When playing Sloan, particularly after he has been traveling,
> you need to be prepared for the fact that he farts and snorts
> continually and that he exudes an awful smell, having slept
> on benches at bus stations for several days and not
> having had the opportunity to change his clothes.
>
> Also he is prone to bring along a child of one
> of his recent mailorder brides that is not yet house-broken.
> The bride, you ask? No, the child, poor unfortunate worm.
>
> This is worth about 500 rating points.
That gives me an idea...
Suppose I traveled to Mr. Sloan's house, offered to
look after his child while he cleaned up, and then
played him a marathon match while paying someone
to babysit his kids. Theoretically at least, this should
result in the transfer of four or five hundred rating points
from him to me, making me very nearly a GM. It goes
without saying that afterward, I could never play rated
chess again, but I suppose one must make sacrifices,
for the sake of true greatness... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 00:41:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
As far as I know, I have never met nor seen J=FCrgen R.
I am wondering who this person is and why he keeps saying these things
about me.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 15:20:08
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
samsloan <[email protected] > may have written:
> As far as I know, I have never met nor seen Jurgen R.
False.
> I am wondering who this person is
True.
> and why he keeps saying these things about me.
Easy. She hates you.
"Sloan has failed at everything he ever tried, flunked out
of college, lost his NYC taxi driver's license, let his
Asian mailorder brides ditch him, got barred by the
SEC, came in 9th amondg 10 in a USCF election, etc etc"
but Sloan has enjoyed much more untried pudenda than has
"Jurgen". So,.,.,
"Jurgen" can see that the current Mrs Sloan 8 is not a
mail-order. Mail-order does not carry such.
> Sam Sloan
I will give a clue. Jurgen R. is a "master" of usenet. She
probably is not in Germany/Oster and her name probably is not
Jurgen. Her ISP is not einsundeins.com of 1&1 or (...) but
at one time she and Calvin Q. shared the same one.
I only have a professional interest in her. Leave aside any
discussion of which profession, it can be unfruitful. Her
comment that FSS and RSS were equally disgusting was most
insightful. She cannot play chess, I think. It is not so
possible to fake well a knowledge, only an ignorance.
Cordially,
T.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 20:52:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 6, 12:00 pm, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> Don't forget, not only did Mr. Sloan win the
> last rgc grudge match,
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
>
> Right - I saw those games, and I didn't think
> I was watching any GM's. In fact, 1700 would
> a be generous estimate.
You are way, way off in another galaxy.
Here is a link to an actual cross-table, from here
on planet Earth:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200506269701-10152763
If you Andromedans are so very good at chess,
then why don't you challenge us Earthlings to a
match and *prove* it?
That cross-table is from a grudge match in
Earth year 2005; was there a more recent one?
As you can see, the two players performed in
the reverse of how their respective ratings would
have predicted. But combined, they averaged in
the very top of "Class A". Remember, you can't
just dismiss Mr. Sloan as a putz based on the
fact that he plays stupid openings; lots of good
players have played stupid openings, they just
didn't make a career out of it like Mr. Sloan has.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 09:06:26
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
> they just
>didn't make a career out of it like Mr. Sloan has.
Career? You call that a career? So far as I can tell
Sloan has failed at everything he ever tried, flunked out
of college, lost his NYC taxi driver's license, let his
Asian mailorder brides ditch him, got barred by the
SEC, came in 9th amondg 10 in a USCF election,
etc etc endlessly.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 08:55:47
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:82ba7ecf-cdec-4c73-ad65-ba9884c803e1@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 12:00 pm, J�rgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> Don't forget, not only did Mr. Sloan win the
> last rgc grudge match,
>
> ==========================
>
> Right - I saw those games, and I didn't think
> I was watching any GM's. In fact, 1700 would
> a be generous estimate.
You are way, way off in another galaxy.
Here is a link to an actual cross-table, from here
on planet Earth:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200506269701-10152763
If you Andromedans are so very good at chess,
then why don't you challenge us Earthlings to a
match and *prove* it?
That cross-table is from a grudge match in
Earth year 2005; was there a more recent one?
As you can see, the two players performed in
the reverse of how their respective ratings would
have predicted. But combined, they averaged in
the very top of "Class A". Remember, you can't
just dismiss Mr. Sloan as a putz based on the
fact that he plays stupid openings; lots of good
players have played stupid openings, they just
didn't make a career out of it like Mr. Sloan has.
-- help bot
=========================================
When playing Sloan, particularly after he has been traveling,
you need to be prepared for the fact that he farts and snorts
continually and that he exudes an awful smell, having slept
on benches at bus stations for several days and not
having had the opportunity to change his clothes.
Also he is prone to bring along a child of one
of his recent mailorder brides that is not yet house-broken.
The bride, you ask? No, the child, poor unfortunate worm.
This is worth about 500 rating points.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 20:35:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 6, 11:55 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> I don't believe that's true. While the relatively
> small selection at chessgames.com may or
> may not contain examples of strong chess by
> Mr. Sloan, if you were to sift through all of his
> games, there would very likely be at least a
> few which are virtually indistinguishable from
> those of "weak" grandmasters.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
>
> OK. Find such a game, post it, and let us take a
> closer look at it.
OK. Send me all of Sam Sloan's games. Will do.
(Never mind that the REAL reason I want these
game scores is to prepare for a possible grudge
match... .) ; >D
As for my own games, I am losing to the Advance
level at GetClub. Uhgh. I wanted an "unbalanced
position", and I sure got one.
Here is an idea for an experiment: go through
some old GM games and find some ugly ones.
Then, take the very best games from some lesser
player(s) and mix them in. Now, see if a random
chess player can tell which are which; I bet he
can't-- at least, not if you did this well enough.
In one fairly recent issue of Chess Lies
magazine, there was a game won by GM
Kaidanov against another GM. First move out
of book, the loser had an opportunity to simplify
into an even-ish Rook ending, but he was unable
to calculate the tactics. I've seen this kind of
thing, again and again. They really aren't all that
strong; it just /looks that way/ because "we" are
even weaker. : >D
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 08:36:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 6, 9:31 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> If you knew me you would know that I do not care about dough, fame or
> glory. I only care about women.
This just goes to show how little you know; any
man who has dough, fame and glory, can *get*
women, as they are attracted to such things--
especially money.
> I know the widow of Bobby Fischer well. I knew her long before Bobby
> did. However, no consideration can be given to reprinting MSMG until
> his estate is settled. Also, I am not sure that they would agree to it
> and there is also the complex question of who has the rights. Batsford
> claimed ownership of the rights.
My faded memory of what I read long ago had
poor Bobby Fischer selling the rights to his own
book, possibly to Larry Evans... and who knows
what's happened since then. Certainly, selling
the rights to such a book does not jibe with the
idea of BF being confident that he was /already/
the best chess player in the world.
> If they asked me of course I would do it, but otherwise I would not
> undertake such a project at this time.
Publishing rights aside, that book is in need
of some minor corrections, along with a proper
conversion to algebraic notation. Obviously,
despite the fact that some British hacks fell flat
on their faces here, any decent player ought to
be up to the task of notation conversion,
provided he is not insane like them (read their
explanations of their "work").
Another work which might sell well these
days is "Chess Genius: Paul Morphy vs.
Bobby Fischer", by GM Sloan (simply have
your name legally changed to something like
"George Macademia-nut Sloan").
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 07:14:10
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 5, 11:05 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> [...]
>
> >However, you are apparently not aware of the condition of these books
> >in the New York Public Library. The library staff brings them to you
> >in a box because the pages chip off as you try to turn them. You
> >cannot even photocopy the pages at any price, much less at three cents
> >a page, because the pages will break.
>
> Are you really so dense? These books *are* being digitized and
> made available on the internet. And once this has happened *then*
> you can print them on your laser printer at home much more cheaply than
> your Amazon copies.
>
Are you so sure? Where can you get printouts for 3 cents a page? Here
is New York it is hard to find a place that charges less than 10 cents
a page.
The 1880 Edition of Bilguer's Handbuch is 704 numbered pages. Counting
the introduction it is 718 pages. At three cents a page that comes to
$21.54. Who would want to pay $21.54 for a stack of 8.5 x 11 paper
when they can for only slightly more go out and buy an attractively
bound book?
Also, the digital reprints available online are still of low quality.
They will have to get better if there it to be much interest in them.
Do you play chess? You still have not answered that question and it is
beginning to seem increasingly unlikely.
The Bilguer Handbuch will be available momentarily:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 06:31:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 6, 7:16 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Suppose you were
> to get permission to do a reprint of MSMG-- now
> that would net you some serious dough (not to
> mention fame, glory and women). It appears that
> the British professionals botched the job royally,
> so that leaves the door open for your style of
> reprint, where you just photocopy the original and
> run off unedited copies and bind them. With no
> substantive changes to the original, it should not
> be too difficult to garner permission for this, so
> long as Bobby Fischer gets to keep 100% of the
> profits (yes, I know he is deceased, but still...).
>
> -- help bot
If you knew me you would know that I do not care about dough, fame or
glory. I only care about women.
I know the widow of Bobby Fischer well. I knew her long before Bobby
did. However, no consideration can be given to reprinting MSMG until
his estate is settled. Also, I am not sure that they would agree to it
and there is also the complex question of who has the rights. Batsford
claimed ownership of the rights.
If they asked me of course I would do it, but otherwise I would not
undertake such a project at this time.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 04:16:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 6, 6:43 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The book is listed now, but no price, picture or order information
> yet.
>
> That will come in a few hours.
>
> Take a look at
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
*Yawn.*
Mr. Sloan, if you want to sell more than just a few
hundred copies of some out-of-print manuscript, you
really ought to look into reprinting something more
in demand. You know, demand-- the other side of
the supply/demand equation. Suppose you were
to get permission to do a reprint of MSMG-- now
that would net you some serious dough (not to
mention fame, glory and women). It appears that
the British professionals botched the job royally,
so that leaves the door open for your style of
reprint, where you just photocopy the original and
run off unedited copies and bind them. With no
substantive changes to the original, it should not
be too difficult to garner permission for this, so
long as Bobby Fischer gets to keep 100% of the
profits (yes, I know he is deceased, but still...).
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 03:43:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
The book is listed now, but no price, picture or order information
yet.
That will come in a few hours.
Take a look at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 01:34:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 6, 3:56 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> > If you look up my games on chessgames.com you will probably conclude
> > that I am a grandmaster, since most of the games provided there are
> > wins by me.
>
> You are dreaming. It is enough to look at any one of yor games to
> know that you are a patzer.
I don't believe that's true. While the relatively
small selection at chessgames.com may or
may not contain examples of strong chess by
Mr. Sloan, if you were to sift through all of his
games, there would very likely be at least a
few which are virtually indistinguishable from
those of "weak" grandmasters.
In my years of learning the game, I managed
to produce an astounding number of poorly
played games. But at or around my peak, I
had a few games which were of decent quality,
and which, although not in the brilliant style
preferred by the masses, contained some
small evidence of respectable playing skill.
We are told that Mr. Sloan used to be of
nearly master strength-- back in the days
when he was young and handsome; er, make
that just young. Let's suppose that his real
strength was that of a strong USCF Expert;
is it not likely that he occasionally played a
competent, perhaps even impressive, game?
I expect so. After years of seeing annotated
games in which some famous player's flubs
are deliberately glossed over, I have perhaps
lowered my standards a bit for human versus
human games. If the greats -- or at any rate,
the famous -- can gloss over such errors and
still get published as "brilliancies", then why
can't Mr. Sloan get any slack here?
Don't forget, not only did Mr. Sloan win the
last rgc grudge match, he is still the top pick
for the next one-- in spite of being out-rated
by the nearly-an-IM 2450 Shakespearian
scholar. He also outclasses folks like Jr,
Larry Parr, Reverend Walker and Rob
Mitchell-- sorry for any redundancies. : >D
How about a posting by Mr. Sloan in which
he presents his "best" game(s), annotated?
Or one of his favorite games, perhaps?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 18:00:27
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
Don't forget, not only did Mr. Sloan win the
last rgc grudge match,
==========================
Right - I saw those games, and I didn't think
I was watching any GM's. In fact, 1700 would
a be generous estimate.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 17:55:24
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9aa151ae-cdb8-490c-be8a-b694977088ce@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 3:56 am, J�rgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> > If you look up my games on chessgames.com you will probably conclude
> > that I am a grandmaster, since most of the games provided there are
> > wins by me.
>
> You are dreaming. It is enough to look at any one of yor games to
> know that you are a patzer.
I don't believe that's true. While the relatively
small selection at chessgames.com may or
may not contain examples of strong chess by
Mr. Sloan, if you were to sift through all of his
games, there would very likely be at least a
few which are virtually indistinguishable from
those of "weak" grandmasters.
===========================
OK. Find such a game, post it, and let us take a
closer look at it.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 19:36:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 5, 9:07 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chessmetrics only goes back to 1850, because there were no tournaments
> before then. That is why Bilguer is not listed, since he died in 1840.
> Bilguer and Von Der Lasa were about the same age, Bilguer was three
> years older, so games between then are a reasonable comparison of
> their relative strengths.
In fact, not all players progress in gaining chess
strength at the same time.
> If you look up my games on chessgames.com you will probably conclude
> that I am a grandmaster, since most of the games provided there are
> wins by me.
If a random person who knew nothing about
the strength of Sam Sloan were to look at
only the results on chessgames.com, he
might make that mistake; but an examination
of the games themselves would unveil the
truth. That's why I like to examine games, in
addition to knowing a player's purported
results against other, purportedly strong chess
players; it puts things into better perspective.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 19:28:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 5, 8:26 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Many of the games among them were played in order to judge the consequences
> > of particular opening moves. Many others were essentially skittles games that were recorded in order to
> > study the opening later. Practically none were played under tournament conditions.
>
> This of course is true, especially since the first international
> tournament was London 1851, 11 years after Bilguer had died.
LOL. I think it is fair to say that absolutely none
of those games were played under "tournament"
conditions.
> Regular tournament play did not start until the 1870s. Virtually all
> the games before then that we have today are essentially coffee house
> or skittles games or from informal matches. Paul Morphy only played in
> one tournament in his life. All of the other games we have are only
> because Morphy wrote them down. Yet, we have no problem saying that
> Morphy was the strongest player of his era. How do we know that Morphy
> did not just throw away the scores of all the games he lost? How can
> we judge the strength of any of the players of that era?
Paul Morphy is hardly the only player to have
recorded chess games back then.
If you look at the vast majority of PM's games,
you /will notice/ that he was a lot stronger than
players like you and me. And if you look at his
overall record against the other top players, you
will notice that apart from any who ducked him,
he outscored them consistently. Mr. Morphy's
weakness was that his career lasted for such
a brief time, so we have no way of knowing
how he might have fared against the next great
chess player to come along.
> What I wrote was that Bilguer was "regarded as one of the strongest
> players in the world". That statement is true. It may have been that
> Bilguer was just a patzer who only kept and published games that he
> won. We have no way of knowing that now.
Who regarded him as such? And when,
exactly? My very quick research on the 'net
found dullards who made such assertions,
but they were long on words, and short on
facts of any substance.
> Printing of my book is progressing rapidly and it seems that it will
> be out in just a few days more:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
I wanted to suggest adding something of
value to the reprint, but in view of it's length,
that would be unlikely to pan out. I have a
feeling that printed books are s-l-o-w-l-y on
their way out. Far superior are computerized
books, which can be searched in a flash, no
matter how thick or in what font. Imagine if
you will, an openings "book" where all the
reader has to do is set up a position on the
graphical chess board, and instantly, every
comment relating to that specific position
is presented, sans effort. Alas, one will
still have to press the power button in order
to boot up the computer, and speak a few
commands (yes, speak them), but that is
about it; no more grueling searches or
complaints of "inadequate" indexing.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 06:07:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 5, 5:41 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mr. Sloan, you seem to have a bit of trouble
> following chronology. If, as you assert, Mr. Lasa
> was the strongest player in the world in the year
> 1851, that tells us nothing about his strength in
> the year 1840. And if, as you assert, Mr. Bilguer
> won the majority of his games against Mr. Lasa
> prior to his death, then we would need to look at
> Mr. Lasa'a strength in the earlier time-frame, not
> in 1851. This is elementary logic-- a subject with
> which many posters here appear to have grave
> difficulties.
>
> On the Web site chessmetrics.com, Mr. Bilguer
> is not even listed. And if you go to the Web site
> chessgames.com, you will find some games, but
> these are quite possibly the ones I discussed
> earlier; the ones where the original source did not
> specify who was who, but merely guessed at the
> identity of one of the two players-- the one whose
> first initial was "B", as in Bledow, or Bilguer, or... .
>
> -- help bot
Chessmetrics only goes back to 1850, because there were no tournaments
before then. That is why Bilguer is not listed, since he died in 1840.
Bilguer and Von Der Lasa were about the same age, Bilguer was three
years older, so games between then are a reasonable comparison of
their relative strengths.
If you look up my games on chessgames.com you will probably conclude
that I am a grandmaster, since most of the games provided there are
wins by me.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2008 09:56:52
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
[...]
>
> If you look up my games on chessgames.com you will probably conclude
> that I am a grandmaster, since most of the games provided there are
> wins by me.
You are dreaming. It is enough to look at any one of yor games to
know that you are a patzer.
On the other hand, everybody knows that you are the FWD Chinese
Chess World Champion. Where can we find some of the many games
you must have won while climbing that pinnacle?
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 05:54:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 5, 5:30 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:02ab3a17-bffc-=
[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 1:13 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I did a wee bit of research myself, but only on
> >> the internet. The claim that Mr. Bilguer was one
> >> of the "strongest players in the world" seems to
> >> be based on exceedingly weak evidence.
> >> In one case, a writer just guessed who was
> >> playing who, unable to tell for certain if the
> >> winner was one fellow or another. A little more
> >> reading led to the discovery that certain
> >> sweeping conclusions were based on the
> >> result of a single game... and that this game
> >> had the loser worn down in the midst of a sort
> >> of chess "marathon", by todays standards.
>
> >> Examining the game, we find that Mr. Bilguer
> >> was indeed capable of executing a mating
> >> attack on a completely defenseless King, but
> >> earlier he had made the kind of mistakes which
> >> are the hallmark of duffers. It seems to fall well
> >> short of the sort of evidence we have for ranking,
> >> say, Paul Morphy as among the strongest
> >> players in the world; or any number of others.
>
> >> -- help bot
>
> > Your research is not very good. According to Chessmetrics, Von Der
> > Lasa was the strongest player in the world in 1851 and according to
> > numerous databases Bilguer won the majority of games he played against
> > Von Der Lasa, so it is clearly true that Bilguer was regarded as one
> > of the strongest players in the world at the time of his death in
> > 1840.
>
> > There are many recorded and published games by Bilguer, not just one.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> If anybody is interested, here is a link to a book by von der Lasa that
> describes the circumstances under which many of the games in the
> Berlin Chess Club were played:
>
> http://books.google.de/books?id=3DRicCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=3Dfrontcover&dq=3D=
b...
>
> The 'Plejades' group (Bledow, Schorn, Horwitz, Mayet, Hanstein, Bilguer, v=
on
> der Lasa), among
> whom Bledow was recognized as the strongest player, regularly met in order=
> to study openings.
> Many of the games among them were played in order to judge the consequence=
s
> of particular opening moves.
> Many others were essentially skittles games that were reorded in order to
> study the opening later.
> Practically none were played under tournament conditions. Furthermore, in
> the Bilguer games
> collections the losing player is often unnamed. Guesses were made later.
>
> Incidentally, any good (general) library has the Bilguer books in various
> editions. I just checked
> the Bavarian State Library: They have 7 different editions, including the
> 6th.
> The NY Public Library also has 7 different editions, also including the 6t=
h.
> (Note that
> Sloan "searched everywhere" without discovering this fact.)
>
> The link above points to a book digitized in the course of the Google
> project at the
> New York Public Library. Very soon practically any out-of-copyright book
> will be
> available in this form. Google isn't the only organization with a gigantic=
> digitization
> project. Soon anybody can make a copy for about 3 cents a page.
Thank you for the link above, which is interesting and useful.
However, you are apparently not aware of the condition of these books
in the New York Public Library. The library staff brings them to you
in a box because the pages chip off as you try to turn them. You
cannot even photocopy the pages at any price, much less at three cents
a page, because the pages will break. The New York Public Library has
overhead scanners in non-public areas which are like Fort Knox (I know
that because I tried to get in there). I reproduced one book using
their services but that was a much more modern book dated 1927. The
results were not satisfactory:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891099
Chess players will want a book where they can flip through the pages,
looking up moves, or carry them to the men's room in big tournaments.
A book so fragile that it cannot even be touched is useless. Also,
people do not like to read online books. They want books made of paper
that they can hold in their hands and flip through.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 18:05:29
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
[...]
>However, you are apparently not aware of the condition of these books
>in the New York Public Library. The library staff brings them to you
>in a box because the pages chip off as you try to turn them. You
>cannot even photocopy the pages at any price, much less at three cents
>a page, because the pages will break.
Are you really so dense? These books *are* being digitized and
made available on the internet. And once this has happened *then*
you can print them on your laser printer at home much more cheaply than
your Amazon copies.
The old, fragile books that almost nobody is allowed to touch
are now being digitized, mechanically, essentially untouched by human hands.
Every significant library in the world is doing this today.
>The New York Public Library has
>overhead scanners in non-public areas which are like Fort Knox (I know
>that because I tried to get in there). I reproduced one book using
>their services but that was a much more modern book dated 1927. The
>results were not satisfactory:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891099
>Chess players will want a book where they can flip through the pages,
>looking up moves, or carry them to the men's room in big tournaments.
Of course, it is much more pleasant to read a physical book than to
stare at a screen. However, it is also *much* more convenient to have
dictionaries and encyclopedias on the PC than on the bookshelf, i.e.
books that you don't read page by page.
>A book so fragile that it cannot even be touched is useless. Also,
>people do not like to read online books. They want books made of paper
>that they can hold in their hands and flip through.
>Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 05:26:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 5, 5:30 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> Many of the games among them were played in order to judge the consequence=
s
> of particular opening moves. Many others were essentially skittles games t=
hat were recorded in order to
> study the opening later. Practically none were played under tournament con=
ditions.
This of course is true, especially since the first international
tournament was London 1851, 11 years after Bilguer had died.
Regular tournament play did not start until the 1870s. Virtually all
the games before then that we have today are essentially coffee house
or skittles games or from informal matches. Paul Morphy only played in
one tournament in his life. All of the other games we have are only
because Morphy wrote them down. Yet, we have no problem saying that
Morphy was the strongest player of his era. How do we know that Morphy
did not just throw away the scores of all the games he lost? How can
we judge the strength of any of the players of that era?
What I wrote was that Bilguer was "regarded as one of the strongest
players in the world". That statement is true. It may have been that
Bilguer was just a patzer who only kept and published games that he
won. We have no way of knowing that now.
Printing of my book is progressing rapidly and it seems that it will
be out in just a few days more:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 07:50:06
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:26:14 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Regular tournament play did not start until the 1870s. Virtually all
>the games before then that we have today are essentially coffee house
>or skittles games or from informal matches. Paul Morphy only played in
>one tournament in his life. All of the other games we have are only
>because Morphy wrote them down. Yet, we have no problem saying that
>Morphy was the strongest player of his era. How do we know that Morphy
>did not just throw away the scores of all the games he lost? How can
>we judge the strength of any of the players of that era?
AFAIK, most of the Morphy games were recorded by spectators.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 02:41:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 5, 4:17 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Your research is not very good
True. I was severely limited by the fact that the
online resources seemed to know little or nothing
on the subject of Mr. Bilguer's chess strength.
Reliable sources like, say, Edward Winter, came
up blank in my search, while two articles which
attempted to discuss the matter were written by
dullards.
> to Chessmetrics, Von Der
> Lasa was the strongest player in the world in 1851 and according to
> numerous databases Bilguer won the majority of games he played against
> Von Der Lasa, so it is clearly true that Bilguer was regarded as one
> of the strongest players in the world at the time of his death in
> 1840.
Mr. Sloan, you seem to have a bit of trouble
following chronology. If, as you assert, Mr. Lasa
was the strongest player in the world in the year
1851, that tells us nothing about his strength in
the year 1840. And if, as you assert, Mr. Bilguer
won the majority of his games against Mr. Lasa
prior to his death, then we would need to look at
Mr. Lasa'a strength in the earlier time-frame, not
in 1851. This is elementary logic-- a subject with
which many posters here appear to have grave
difficulties.
On the Web site chessmetrics.com, Mr. Bilguer
is not even listed. And if you go to the Web site
chessgames.com, you will find some games, but
these are quite possibly the ones I discussed
earlier; the ones where the original source did not
specify who was who, but merely guessed at the
identity of one of the two players-- the one whose
first initial was "B", as in Bledow, or Bilguer, or... .
One more item I should probably mention is
that Mr. Bilguer is described as a very sick man,
who apparently went blind while suffering from
"consumption"; this raises the possibility that
certain kind-hearted folk would not have been
inclined to "watch him squirm", to crush his ego,
to smash him like carrots. (Not so with Howard
Staunton-- a man who needed taking down a
peg or two.)
What my "not very good" research uncovered
was the fact that some writers were using mere
guesswork -- and faulty logic -- to back their
claims regarding Mr. Bilguer's purported
strength. Compare and contrast to the very
real evidence which exists for a few other
famous players of that era-- players who we
know to have been the strongest in the world.
In truth, even the name "Bilguer's handbook"
does not accurately reflect the reality, since
Mr. Lasa completed even the very first edition,
not Mr. Bilguer. It reminds me of all those
famous singers and actors who have died in
plane crashes-- their careers never shone so
bright as when they breathed their last. This
poor chap seems to have *gained* in strength
after dying... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 01:17:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 5, 1:13 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> I did a wee bit of research myself, but only on
> the internet. The claim that Mr. Bilguer was one
> of the "strongest players in the world" seems to
> be based on exceedingly weak evidence.
> In one case, a writer just guessed who was
> playing who, unable to tell for certain if the
> winner was one fellow or another. A little more
> reading led to the discovery that certain
> sweeping conclusions were based on the
> result of a single game... and that this game
> had the loser worn down in the midst of a sort
> of chess "marathon", by todays standards.
>
> Examining the game, we find that Mr. Bilguer
> was indeed capable of executing a mating
> attack on a completely defenseless King, but
> earlier he had made the kind of mistakes which
> are the hallmark of duffers. It seems to fall well
> short of the sort of evidence we have for ranking,
> say, Paul Morphy as among the strongest
> players in the world; or any number of others.
>
> -- help bot
Your research is not very good. According to Chessmetrics, Von Der
Lasa was the strongest player in the world in 1851 and according to
numerous databases Bilguer won the majority of games he played against
Von Der Lasa, so it is clearly true that Bilguer was regarded as one
of the strongest players in the world at the time of his death in
1840.
There are many recorded and published games by Bilguer, not just one.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 11:30:50
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:02ab3a17-bffc-45a0-9c11-3abb3dbb7eff@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 5, 1:13 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I did a wee bit of research myself, but only on
>> the internet. The claim that Mr. Bilguer was one
>> of the "strongest players in the world" seems to
>> be based on exceedingly weak evidence.
>> In one case, a writer just guessed who was
>> playing who, unable to tell for certain if the
>> winner was one fellow or another. A little more
>> reading led to the discovery that certain
>> sweeping conclusions were based on the
>> result of a single game... and that this game
>> had the loser worn down in the midst of a sort
>> of chess "marathon", by todays standards.
>>
>> Examining the game, we find that Mr. Bilguer
>> was indeed capable of executing a mating
>> attack on a completely defenseless King, but
>> earlier he had made the kind of mistakes which
>> are the hallmark of duffers. It seems to fall well
>> short of the sort of evidence we have for ranking,
>> say, Paul Morphy as among the strongest
>> players in the world; or any number of others.
>>
>> -- help bot
>
> Your research is not very good. According to Chessmetrics, Von Der
> Lasa was the strongest player in the world in 1851 and according to
> numerous databases Bilguer won the majority of games he played against
> Von Der Lasa, so it is clearly true that Bilguer was regarded as one
> of the strongest players in the world at the time of his death in
> 1840.
>
> There are many recorded and published games by Bilguer, not just one.
>
> Sam Sloan
If anybody is interested, here is a link to a book by von der Lasa that
describes the circumstances under which many of the games in the
Berlin Chess Club were played:
http://books.google.de/books?id=RicCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=berliner+schach+erinnerungen&ei=x6pHSKyZPJPgiQG2gZHvBA
The 'Plejades' group (Bledow, Schorn, Horwitz, Mayet, Hanstein, Bilguer, von
der Lasa), among
whom Bledow was recognized as the strongest player, regularly met in order
to study openings.
Many of the games among them were played in order to judge the consequences
of particular opening moves.
Many others were essentially skittles games that were reorded in order to
study the opening later.
Practically none were played under tournament conditions. Furthermore, in
the Bilguer games
collections the losing player is often unnamed. Guesses were made later.
Incidentally, any good (general) library has the Bilguer books in various
editions. I just checked
the Bavarian State Library: They have 7 different editions, including the
6th.
The NY Public Library also has 7 different editions, also including the 6th.
(Note that
Sloan "searched everywhere" without discovering this fact.)
The link above points to a book digitized in the course of the Google
project at the
New York Public Library. Very soon practically any out-of-copyright book
will be
available in this form. Google isn't the only organization with a gigantic
digitization
project. Soon anybody can make a copy for about 3 cents a page.
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 22:13:05
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 4, 7:42 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Why is everyone jumping on Sloan for this?
>
> > Mr. Sloan is widely disliked. Also, he was not
> > particularly careful in specifying that it was the
> > *specific edition* that is allegedly rare, not the
> > book in general (reprinted by Olms). On top of
> > that, Mr. Sloan tossed out the assertion that
> > Mr. Bilguer was one of the strongest chess
> > players in the world... a factoid plucked from
> > out of the blue (at best).
>
> You mentioned (well, will mention below) _ad hominem_? The fact that
> Sloan is an unpleasant character has/should have nothing to do with
> the merits or otherwise of reprinting the book.
Learn to read, fella. You asked "why" Mr. Sloan
was being attacked, and I responded with some
relevant reasons, explaining "why" I thought he
was being attacked (i.e. criticized) by so many
different posters here. Those reasons make
sense, whether you like it or not.
> > > and it's a rare item worth reprinting. It's not like
> > > anyone's forcing you to buy it.
>
> > Why should anyone buy this particular edition,
> > as opposed to others? Or as opposed to the
> > many alternatives? Mr. Sloan does not address
> > such questions, but instead launches wacky
> > "strongest" and "extremely rare" marketing
> > tricks.
>
> No one has to. That was my point, which seems to have escaped you.
Wrong. The fact remains, Mr. Sloan has been
"attacked" here, regardless of whether anybody
is being compelled to buy his wares or not.
Earlier, some idiot complained that the copyright
was likely expired, and I pointed out that Mr. Sloan
was not accused of copyright violation-- even by
his harshest critics; that guy was utterly daft; learn
from his mistake, to focus on what is *relevant*.
> Antiquarians and book collectors might want it. Since it's not a mass-
> market item, the marketing tricks are meaningless. And Sloan was
> correct that the item is "extremely rare."
The specific edition he is reprinting may well
be rare, but there is no reason for anyone here
to pursue it; obviously, a reprint will not be so
rare, and it seems that many of Mr. Sloan's
efforts add nothing to the original, except
fresher (acid-free?) paper and ink.
As for his tricks just being "meaningless", that
depends on the ability of the observer to discern
meaning. An undiscerning reader might very
well conclude that nothing can be learned... .
> > > (And I don't think anyone would accuse
> > > _me_ of being unduly pro-Sloan.)
>
> > Who cares? That would be /ad hominem/...
> > and nobody around here would stoop that low,
> > would they? Of course not.
>
> If one of Sloan's friends or supporters speaks in his favor, it can
> fairly be discounted.
Not if they present substantive evidence in
his support.
> If one of his harshest critics says that you and
> your cronies are out of line in attacking him on this, that's another
> matter.
You are a complete imbecile. Mr. Taylor hates
my guts (for pointing out a few of his gaffes), and
the other critics of Mr. Sloan are certainly anything
but "my cronies". Clearly, you have issues in
dealing with reality.
> Your adulation for computers is well known and not very interesting.
I am actually a critic of computers; just recently,
I poked fun at those who thought that the "Eliza" AI
program made for interesting conversations, and
I have often pointed out the gaffes of even the top-
rated chess programs here in rgc.
Where I favor computers over humans is in
their ability to remain *completely objective* in
chess analysis and in calculating ratings using
real math, not the imagination.
> The first statement is obviously correct, but since his costs are
> quite low he will presumably make a small profit. Nothing wrong with
> that.
"Small" being the key word. Either TK was wrong
about Mr. Sloan's motive being financial gains, or
else Mr. Sloan is wasting time on the wrong /type/
of project; I will not venture to guess which one,
but perhaps Mr. Sloan will shed some light on this
at a later date.
As far as I have seen, nobody has attacked Mr.
Sloan for reprinting Bilguer's Handbook; all the
attacks targeted his commentary, his reckless
claims, or his apparent inability to do basic
research, despite being a book publisher himself.
Just one of these items has been cleared up: Mr.
Sloan meant that the *specific edition* he is
reprinting was very rare.
I did a wee bit of research myself, but only on
the internet. The claim that Mr. Bilguer was one
of the "strongest players in the world" seems to
be based on exceedingly weak evidence.
In one case, a writer just guessed who was
playing who, unable to tell for certain if the
winner was one fellow or another. A little more
reading led to the discovery that certain
sweeping conclusions were based on the
result of a single game... and that this game
had the loser worn down in the midst of a sort
of chess "marathon", by todays standards.
Examining the game, we find that Mr. Bilguer
was indeed capable of executing a mating
attack on a completely defenseless King, but
earlier he had made the kind of mistakes which
are the hallmark of duffers. It seems to fall well
short of the sort of evidence we have for ranking,
say, Paul Morphy as among the strongest
players in the world; or any number of others.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 16:42:38
From:
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
help bot wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Why is everyone jumping on Sloan for this?
>
> Mr. Sloan is widely disliked. Also, he was not
> particularly careful in specifying that it was the
> *specific edition* that is allegedly rare, not the
> book in general (reprinted by Olms). On top of
> that, Mr. Sloan tossed out the assertion that
> Mr. Bilguer was one of the strongest chess
> players in the world... a factoid plucked from
> out of the blue (at best).
You mentioned (well, will mention below) _ad hominem_? The fact that
Sloan is an unpleasant character has/should have nothing to do with
the merits or otherwise of reprinting the book.
> > and it's a rare item worth reprinting. It's not like
> > anyone's forcing you to buy it.
>
> Why should anyone buy this particular edition,
> as opposed to others? Or as opposed to the
> many alternatives? Mr. Sloan does not address
> such questions, but instead launches wacky
> "strongest" and "extremely rare" marketing
> tricks.
No one has to. That was my point, which seems to have escaped you.
Antiquarians and book collectors might want it. Since it's not a mass-
market item, the marketing tricks are meaningless. And Sloan was
correct that the item is "extremely rare."
> > (And I don't think anyone would accuse
> > _me_ of being unduly pro-Sloan.)
>
> Who cares? That would be /ad hominem/...
> and nobody around here would stoop that low,
> would they? Of course not.
If one of Sloan's friends or supporters speaks in his favor, it can
fairly be discounted. If one of his harshest critics says that you and
your cronies are out of line in attacking him on this, that's another
matter.
> What I find more interesting than any particular
> edition of one such book, are the analytical
> disagreements between famous players of that
> era. Never mind all that has been written and
> "tested" since then; we now have extremely
> objective arbiters of sorts, in computers. In fact,
> they are so objective that they may sometimes
> side against *all* the old-time analysts, preferring
> some alternative that none of them had even
> considered. As for strength, well, how patient
> are you? Patient enough to allow some super-
> duty middle game possibilities to be worked out
> overnight? From what I've seen thus far, some
> chess engines are superior overall to even the
> strongest human analysts, in addition to being
> completely unbiased.
Your adulation for computers is well known and not very interesting.
> And I also think that relatively few people will
> actually buy such a reprint as this one, so
> either TK was wrong to suggest that Mr. Sloan's
> true motive was money, or else Mr. Sloan may
> just not be very bright in that area.
>
>
> -- help bot
The first statement is obviously correct, but since his costs are
quite low he will presumably make a small profit. Nothing wrong with
that.
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 08:48:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 4, 9:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:28 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have searched the German Language site ofhttp://www.bookfinder.com
> > and nowhere is the 1880 edition of Bilguer's Handbuch available.
>
> Quick repeat: Search for 'Handbuch des schachspiels', first hit I get
> is for Bilguer: Handbuch des schachspiels (no year) along with a
> number of
> other hits. Select that one. On second page I find one (or is it two)
> entries
> from Antiquariat Querido, and one from Antiquariat Bucherwelt for the
> 1880 edition.
>
> Of course, things change from day to day, so I can't promise they
> still will be
> there tomorrow.
>
> And as to 'not found anywhere in the world', I check outwww.abebooks.com
> for the title, restrict hits to 1880, and out pops both the Querido
> book,
> and one from Sinnewerk (bookshop in Berlin).
Perhaps you should have mentioned that the price they are charging for
the book is $384.25
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1072303542&searchurl=bsi%3D30%26tn%3DHandbuch%2Bdes%2Bschachspiels%26x%3D61%26y%3D12
I plan to charge a bit less for my reprint.
Also, it seems uncertain that they are offering the same book. I
realize that they say 1880 but there is nothing else to indicate that
it is the same edition as I am reprinting.
Sam Sloan
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 22:26:14
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 4, 9:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 10:28 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I have searched the German Language site ofhttp://www.bookfinder.com
>> > and nowhere is the 1880 edition of Bilguer's Handbuch available.
>>
>> Quick repeat: Search for 'Handbuch des schachspiels', first hit I get
>> is for Bilguer: Handbuch des schachspiels (no year) along with a
>> number of
>> other hits. Select that one. On second page I find one (or is it two)
>> entries
>> from Antiquariat Querido, and one from Antiquariat Bucherwelt for the
>> 1880 edition.
>>
>> Of course, things change from day to day, so I can't promise they
>> still will be
>> there tomorrow.
>>
>> And as to 'not found anywhere in the world', I check outwww.abebooks.com
>> for the title, restrict hits to 1880, and out pops both the Querido
>> book,
>> and one from Sinnewerk (bookshop in Berlin).
>
> Perhaps you should have mentioned that the price they are charging for
> the book is $384.25
>
> http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1072303542&searchurl=bsi%3D30%26tn%3DHandbuch%2Bdes%2Bschachspiels%26x%3D61%26y%3D12
>
> I plan to charge a bit less for my reprint.
>
> Also, it seems uncertain that they are offering the same book. I
> realize that they say 1880 but there is nothing else to indicate that
> it is the same edition as I am reprinting.
Presumably because can read neither the seller's description
nor 'your' book. LOL - an illiterate publisher!
He is selling an original 6th edition printed 1880 in good condition.
You are selling a xeroxed glue-bound copy of what you think
is an 1880 editionh. There had better be a price difference.
There is nothing special about the 6th edition. Somebody who
collects such books would probably be looking for the 1st, the
5th (the last one edited by von der Lasa) or the 8th (the last
and most authoritative).
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 06:23:43
From:
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 3, 9:24=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Why is everyone jumping on Sloan for this? The book is obviously out
> of copyright, and it's a rare item worth reprinting. It's not like
> anyone's forcing you to buy it. (And I don't think anyone would accuse
> _me_ of being unduly pro-Sloan.)
I don't see that anyone in this thread "jumped" on Sloan for
publishing the book. Rather, I and others took exception to various
inaccurate statements Sloan made pertaining to the book. Nothing new
there; usually Sam can't say three things without being wrong on at
least one or two of them.
> From the Oxford Companion:
> "Besides the first edition von der Lasa edited the next four (1852,
> 18956, 1864, 1874). The sixth edition (1880) by Constantin Schwede
> (1854-1917) was distinguished by a history derived from van der Linde,
> the seventh (1891) by Emil Schallopp (1843-1919) benefited from the
> assistance of Berger and L. Paulsen, and the final edition (1916-1921)
> by Schlechter included major contributions from Berger, Otto Gustav
> Koch (1849-1919), Kohtz, Spielmann, Tarrasch, and Teichmann."
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 06:05:35
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 2, 10:28 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have searched the German Language site ofhttp://www.bookfinder.com
> and nowhere is the 1880 edition of Bilguer's Handbuch available.
Quick repeat: Search for 'Handbuch des schachspiels', first hit I get
is for Bilguer: Handbuch des schachspiels (no year) along with a
number of
other hits. Select that one. On second page I find one (or is it two)
entries
from Antiquariat Querido, and one from Antiquariat Bucherwelt for the
1880 edition.
Of course, things change from day to day, so I can't promise they
still will be
there tomorrow.
And as to 'not found anywhere in the world', I check out www.abebooks.com
for the title, restrict hits to 1880, and out pops both the Querido
book,
and one from Sinnewerk (bookshop in Berlin).
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2008 22:06:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 3, 9:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Why is everyone jumping on Sloan for this?
Mr. Sloan is widely disliked. Also, he was not
particularly careful in specifying that it was the
*specific edition* that is allegedly rare, not the
book in general (reprinted by Olms). On top of
that, Mr. Sloan tossed out the assertion that
Mr. Bilguer was one of the strongest chess
players in the world... a factoid plucked from
out of the blue (at best).
> The book is obviously out of copyright,
...which is probably why nobody here attacked
Mr. Sloan for plagiarism.
> and it's a rare item worth reprinting. It's not like
> anyone's forcing you to buy it.
Why should anyone buy this particular edition,
as opposed to others? Or as opposed to the
many alternatives? Mr. Sloan does not address
such questions, but instead launches wacky
"strongest" and "extremely rare" marketing
tricks.
> (And I don't think anyone would accuse
> _me_ of being unduly pro-Sloan.)
Who cares? That would be /ad hominem/...
and nobody around here would stoop that low,
would they? Of course not.
What I find more interesting than any particular
edition of one such book, are the analytical
disagreements between famous players of that
era. Never mind all that has been written and
"tested" since then; we now have extremely
objective arbiters of sorts, in computers. In fact,
they are so objective that they may sometimes
side against *all* the old-time analysts, preferring
some alternative that none of them had even
considered. As for strength, well, how patient
are you? Patient enough to allow some super-
duty middle game possibilities to be worked out
overnight? From what I've seen thus far, some
chess engines are superior overall to even the
strongest human analysts, in addition to being
completely unbiased.
I think one can learn more from a careful
examination of some of these old "discussions"
than from merely acquiring a thick tabulation of
/supposedly/ best moves.
And I also think that relatively few people will
actually buy such a reprint as this one, so
either TK was wrong to suggest that Mr. Sloan's
true motive was money, or else Mr. Sloan may
just not be very bright in that area.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2008 18:24:11
From:
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
Why is everyone jumping on Sloan for this? The book is obviously out
of copyright, and it's a rare item worth reprinting. It's not like
anyone's forcing you to buy it. (And I don't think anyone would accuse
_me_ of being unduly pro-Sloan.)
From the Oxford Companion:
"Besides the first edition von der Lasa edited the next four (1852,
18956, 1864, 1874). The sixth edition (1880) by Constantin Schwede
(1854-1917) was distinguished by a history derived from van der Linde,
the seventh (1891) by Emil Schallopp (1843-1919) benefited from the
assistance of Berger and L. Paulsen, and the final edition (1916-1921)
by Schlechter included major contributions from Berger, Otto Gustav
Koch (1849-1919), Kohtz, Spielmann, Tarrasch, and Teichmann."
|
| |
Date: 02 Jun 2008 20:19:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
The Deed is Done.
The book has just been sent to my printer.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 02 Jun 2008 13:28:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 1, 11:37 am, Anders Thulin <[email protected] >
wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > Where exactly? I have searchedhttp://www.bookfinder.comand I cannot
> > find even one.
>
> There's this selection box with 'Books written in
> (Dutch
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 08:06:16
From:
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On May 31, 11:09=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am in the process of reprinting "Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R.
> von Bilguer", 1880 Edition, better known by its German title, Handbuch
> des Schachspiels von P. R. von Bilguer.
The 1880 edition (6th in a series of 8, I believe) was actually
edited by Constantin Scwede.
> This book is extremely rare. I happened to come across a copy in good
> condition. I have been unable to find another one, and I have searched
> everywhere.
>
> This book is the equivalent of Modern Chess Openings, but for the 19th
> Century. Like Modern Chess Openings, it is packed with long columns
> and lines of analysis.
All editions of the Handbuch had considerably more than openings:
rules, general principles, endgames, history etc. The 6th edition
features a historical section derived from van der Linde.
> It is in German but that should not prove a
> problem because, like Chess Informant, it is multi-lingual. All you
> need to do is remember that D =3D Queen, S =3D Knight, T =3D Rook and L =
=3D
> Bishop.
If it is like the 1843 edition I have, the book will prove _very_
hard to read for non-Germans. The bare chess moves are not difficult
to make out, but the notes, besides being in German, are in a sort of
Gothic font which is almost indecipherable for anyone not accustomed
to it.
> The fact that it is 128 years old is the main reason I am reprinting
> it.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you're trying to make an easy
buck, Sam?
> It contains opening traps and tricks which are no longer played
> and are no longer to be found in any openings book.
>
> The book is 6 3/4 x 10 1/2 inches and 720 pages. Every page is jam-
> packed with chess analysis. I did not even know that so much analysis
> had been done back in 1880.
There is a great deal you do not know, Sam.
> Paul Rudolf von Bilguer (1815-1840) was considered to be one of the
> strongest chess players in the world,
Bilguer's real strength is rather hard to judge, since few of his
games have survived. A recent article by Jeremy Spinrad discussed him:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinrad21.pdf
> but he died at an early age. The
> work continued without him and new editions kept coming out 90 years
> after his death.
You're saying the last edition came out in 1930? Not true. The 8th
and last edition, edited by Schlechter, came out around 1921. Hans
Kmoch published a Nachtrag, or supplement, to the Handbuch in 1930,
but it is incorrect to call this a "new edition."
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 08:19:10
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 31, 11:09 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am in the process of reprinting "Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R.
>> von Bilguer", 1880 Edition, better known by its German title, Handbuch
>> des Schachspiels von P. R. von Bilguer.
>
> The 1880 edition (6th in a series of 8, I believe) was actually
> edited by Constantin Scwede.
>
>> This book is extremely rare. I happened to come across a copy in good
>> condition. I have been unable to find another one, and I have searched
>> everywhere.
>>
>> This book is the equivalent of Modern Chess Openings, but for the 19th
>> Century. Like Modern Chess Openings, it is packed with long columns
>> and lines of analysis.
>
> All editions of the Handbuch had considerably more than openings:
> rules, general principles, endgames, history etc. The 6th edition
> features a historical section derived from van der Linde.
>
>> It is in German but that should not prove a
>> problem because, like Chess Informant, it is multi-lingual. All you
>> need to do is remember that D = Queen, S = Knight, T = Rook and L =
>> Bishop.
>
> If it is like the 1843 edition I have, the book will prove _very_
> hard to read for non-Germans. The bare chess moves are not difficult
> to make out, but the notes, besides being in German, are in a sort of
> Gothic font which is almost indecipherable for anyone not accustomed
> to it.
>
>> The fact that it is 128 years old is the main reason I am reprinting
>> it.
>
> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you're trying to make an easy
> buck, Sam?
>
>> It contains opening traps and tricks which are no longer played
>> and are no longer to be found in any openings book.
>>
>> The book is 6 3/4 x 10 1/2 inches and 720 pages. Every page is jam-
>> packed with chess analysis. I did not even know that so much analysis
>> had been done back in 1880.
>
> There is a great deal you do not know, Sam.
>
>> Paul Rudolf von Bilguer (1815-1840) was considered to be one of the
>> strongest chess players in the world,
>
> Bilguer's real strength is rather hard to judge, since few of his
> games have survived. A recent article by Jeremy Spinrad discussed him:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinrad21.pdf
>
>> but he died at an early age. The
>> work continued without him and new editions kept coming out 90 years
>> after his death.
>
> You're saying the last edition came out in 1930? Not true. The 8th
> and last edition, edited by Schlechter, came out around 1921. Hans
> Kmoch published a Nachtrag, or supplement, to the Handbuch in 1930,
> but it is incorrect to call this a "new edition."
I see that an online book titled "A Synopsis of Chess Openings, A
Tabular Analysis" by William Cook was published in English in 1884. The
author notes that the "Handbuch des Schachspiels" 1874 ed. was one of
his sources. This book is freely available via Google books online.
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 07:33:02
From:
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 1, 9:28=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 3:34 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bookfinder lists more than 50 copies.
>
> Where exactly? I have searchedhttp://www.bookfinder.comand I cannot
> find even one.
>
>
>
> > OK. Tell us one - just one - that isn't in the encyclopedia.
>
> Anybody who would make such a statement does not know anything about
> chess.
>
> What is your rating? Do you play chess, I cannot find your name in the
> lists?
If you mean the USCF lists, of course you can't find him, Sam. His e-
mail address indicates he's posting from Germany.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 06:28:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On Jun 1, 3:34 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Bookfinder lists more than 50 copies.
Where exactly? I have searched http://www.bookfinder.com and I cannot
find even one.
>
> OK. Tell us one - just one - that isn't in the encyclopedia.
Anybody who would make such a statement does not know anything about
chess.
What is your rating? Do you play chess, I cannot find your name in the
lists?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 19:59:44
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
[Gratuitous cross-post trimmed.]
samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> J=FCrgen R. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> OK. Tell us one - just one - that isn't in the encyclopedia.
>
> Anybody who would make such a statement does not know anything about
> chess.
It's not a statement: it's an imperative.
> What is your rating? Do you play chess, I cannot find your name in the
> lists?
They have comprehensive lists of chess players? Jeez, the spies have
must been busy. And is it really surprising that you didn't find
Juergen's name in whatever list you looked at, since he doesn't give
his full surname?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Edible Love Ghost (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ haunting spirit that you can share
with someone special but you can
eat it!
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 16:37:21
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
samsloan wrote:
> Where exactly? I have searched http://www.bookfinder.com and I cannot
> find even one.
There's this selection box with 'Books written in
(Dutch
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 09:40:58
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
Anders Thulin wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
>
>> Where exactly? I have searched http://www.bookfinder.com and I cannot
>> find even one.
>
> There's this selection box with 'Books written in
> (Dutch
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 09:44:26
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
J.D. Walker wrote:
> Anders Thulin wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>
>>> Where exactly? I have searched http://www.bookfinder.com and I cannot
>>> find even one.
>>
>> There's this selection box with 'Books written in
>> (Dutch
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 16:17:50
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
>
>> OK. Tell us one - just one - that isn't in the encyclopedia.
>Anybody who would make such a statement does not know anything about
>chess.
Wrong. To make such a statement it suffices to know that you are a fraud.
And take note: I did not say that there are no such openings in the
'Bilguer'
edition that you seem to have stumbled across.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 05:30:52
From:
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
On May 31, 11:09=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am in the process of reprinting "Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R.
> von Bilguer", 1880 Edition, better known by its German title, Handbuch
> des Schachspiels von P. R. von Bilguer.
>
> This book is extremely rare. I happened to come across a copy in good
> condition. I have been unable to find another one, and I have searched
> everywhere.
>
> This book is the equivalent of Modern Chess Openings, but for the 19th
> Century. Like Modern Chess Openings, it is packed with long columns
> and lines of analysis. It is in German but that should not prove a
> problem because, like Chess Informant, it is multi-lingual. All you
> need to do is remember that D =3D Queen, S =3D Knight, T =3D Rook and L =
=3D
> Bishop.
>
> The fact that it is 128 years old is the main reason I am reprinting
> it. It contains opening traps and tricks which are no longer played
> and are no longer to be found in any openings book.
>
> The book is 6 3/4 x 10 1/2 inches and 720 pages. Every page is jam-
> packed with chess analysis. I did not even know that so much analysis
> had been done back in 1880.
>
> Paul Rudolf von Bilguer (1815- 1840) was considered to be one of the
> strongest chess players in the world, but he died at an early age. The
> work continued without him and new editions kept coming out 90 years
> after his death.
>
> My reprint of the 1880 edition should be out within ten days. When it
> comes out it will be available at:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
>
> Sam Sloan
Edition Olms reissued the 1843 edition in 1979, with a foreword by
Korchnoi.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 09:34:31
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R. von Bilguer, 1880 Edition
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d86a06ce-23f6-43ac-8a26-fd24b430e23d@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I am in the process of reprinting "Manual of the Game of Chess by P.R.
> von Bilguer", 1880 Edition, better known by its German title, Handbuch
> des Schachspiels von P. R. von Bilguer.
>
> This book is extremely rare. I happened to come across a copy in good
> condition. I have been unable to find another one, and I have searched
> everywhere.
Bookfinder lists more than 50 copies.
Sloan, you are an incompetent fool.
> This book is the equivalent of Modern Chess Openings, but for the 19th
> Century. Like Modern Chess Openings, it is packed with long columns
> and lines of analysis. It is in German but that should not prove a
> problem because, like Chess Informant, it is multi-lingual. All you
> need to do is remember that D = Queen, S = Knight, T = Rook and L =
> Bishop.
>
> The fact that it is 128 years old is the main reason I am reprinting
> it. It contains opening traps and tricks which are no longer played
> and are no longer to be found in any openings book.
OK. Tell us one - just one - that isn't in the encyclopedia.
>
> The book is 6 3/4 x 10 1/2 inches and 720 pages. Every page is jam-
> packed with chess analysis. I did not even know that so much analysis
> had been done back in 1880.
>
> Paul Rudolf von Bilguer (1815- 1840) was considered to be one of the
> strongest chess players in the world, but he died at an early age. The
> work continued without him and new editions kept coming out 90 years
> after his death.
>
> My reprint of the 1880 edition should be out within ten days. When it
> comes out it will be available at:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891404
>
> Sam Sloan
|
|
