| |
Main
Date: 17 Nov 2007 21:06:58
From: Offramp
Subject: Pandolfini Panned
|
Edward Winter, at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html number
5280, has panned Bruce Pandilfini's new book Treasure Chess, which has
the subtitle Trivia, Quotes, Puzzles, and Lore from the World's Oldest
Game.
Of course draughts is older, so Bruce has made a mistake even on the
cover!
The funniest mistake that Winter points out is this one, Pandolfini on
Tal (page 79):
'His intuitive feel for the art of inscrutable sacrifice was difficult
to play against, though chess fans loved it. Finally they had a
champion they couldn't understand, whom they understood.'
LOROL!
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 22:44:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
On Nov 18, 1:53 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Pandolfini has written a 288 page book, which was obviously a lot of
> work, and Edward Winter as usual goes through it and finds six
> typographical errors.
This is a grave error. Edward Winter, given proper motivation
and ample time, would likely uncover countless other errors in
such a long work. The only reason he found what you claim
are only six is that he clearly was disgusted, and merely flipped
through it.
This is precisely the same approach and the same attitude
taken by GM Miles when he "reviewed" a hack job written by
Ray Keene. It seems to me that they simply did not deem it
worthy of their time to attempt a comprehensive listing of all
errors, so when you write as above, you reveal an astounding
lack of erudition.
When I read these "reviews", I get the distinct impression
that only the most glaring of errors are reported, and more
to the point, that the "reviewers" did not actually attempt to
read the work being panned. The reason for this attitude is
obvious -- just take a gander at the story about women's
shoes; anybody who knows anything knows that that story
has long been refuted, yet it rears its ugly head once again.
Better to reprint an old book, like say The ABCs of Chess,
than to add to the already-overwhelming pile of hack jobs.
As I said before, it comes off as greed. In the old days, a
few writers /worked for years/ to produce just a single work
of art. Nowadays, it's all about the money, and the more
potboilers you publish, the greater the royalties that will
accrue.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 22:27:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
On Nov 18, 10:11 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The origins of chess are by no means clear, and
> there is the issue of what fits within the definition
> of chess. There have been puzzling finds in China
> and the Balkans that seem to predate the usual
> attribution to India in the mid-first millennium.
A quickie Google search unveils a host of similar
claims, made for other board games, such as Go, for
instance. The point is this: no claim which cannot
be substantiated by the facts should be made at all.
After all, no one is holding a gun to the author's head;
he could just as easily come up with some other
title, claim, or blurb to sell his wares. The same
principle applies to the publisher (if you can hold still
the blame long enough to pinpoint its location, nixing
the shift-the-blame game for a mere nanosecond).
> I would not have made the claim on the cover of the
> Pandolfini volume, if it has been accurately reported
> here, but it is my no means an absurd claim.
Missing the point; it is not /absurdity/ alone which
precludes the making of unsubstantiated claims. The
fact that a claim cannot be substantiated, in itself
precludes making the claim, as a matter of simple
honesty. Here's a relatively painless suggestion:
rather than boldly invent "facts", simply insert the
phrase "one of" before "the oldest known board
game(s)".
> As for
> the missing "board," I think that given the context of
> the book's substance, the publishers regarded that
> much as understood.
Apparently, we have already reached the point
where the blame is shifted about to others. That, too,
is a *very old game*! Much older, I suspect, than
chess.
> I well remember how Winter seriously criticized
> Larry Evans, one of his favorite targets, for an error
> over which GM Evans had no control in THE TEN
> MOST COMMON CHESS MISTAKES (and how to
> avoid them) because avoid was spelled "aviod" on the
> spine of the book by the publisher (since corrected).
Edward Winter is a pedantic nitpicker; his latest
efforts show that it is not personal enmity toward
Larry Evans, but rather an endemic /need/ to correct
spelling errors and wrong dates which motivates him.
He apparently flipped through Bruce Pandolfini's
most recent work /searching for such errors/, and
he was not disappointed. Even such tiny nits as
digits out of proper order in a date will set him off,
sending the pedant beyond the point known as
"critical" mass.
But consider this: these efforts unwittingly reveal
the carelessness, the lack of real effort by certain
authors -- some of the time -- which do make up the
bulk of what we chess players buy and read. Is it
bad that we are informed when a capable writer
doles out another potboiler sans research, sans
effort? I don't think so. Just take it with a grain
of salt, for even the work of Edward Winter himself
would likely not stand up to scrutiny by a twin
brother pedant, whose interests lay in areas in
which EW is weakest.
IMO, Bruce Pandolfini can -- as demonstrated --
do much better than his latest effort.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 10:53:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
I agree that it is annoying.
Pandolfini has written a 288 page book, which was obviously a lot of
work, and Edward Winter as usual goes through it and finds six
typographical errors.
Winter always does this but at least we have him pegged for what he
is.
There is one good side to this, which is that as a result of Winter's
pan I found out that the book exists, which I would not have known
otherwise.
http://www.amazon.com/Treasure-Chess-Trivia-Quotes-Puzzles/dp/0375722041/
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 07:21:40
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
On Nov 18, 6:41 am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I am pretty certain that Mr Winter's favourite reading is about famous
> Brotish comedians.
Ah yes, the typical opening act on the Borscht Belt. The audience
was served brot to go with their borscht.
> I very much doubt that EW read BP's book in any
> depth at all.
If so, it may have been an act of mercy. I like Bruce, he's a good
chess teacher and an entertaining writer, but factual accuracy and
scholarly rigor are not at all his strong suits. As he himself wrote
in his latest "Q&A Way" column at www.chesscafe.com, "I'm no expert on
the history of board games or, for that matter, on anything else."
This does not sound like the kind of book he should have attempted.
|
| |
RANDOM NITPICKING
<I seriously doubt that EW [Edward Winter] reads these hack-jobs
thoroughly; it is far more likely he scans through, in search of
spelling errors and wrong dates. For one thing,
we are given nothing in the way of a general impression of what the
book was really about, just random nit-picks. > -- help bot
The origins of chess are by no means clear, and
there is the issue of what fits within the definition
of chess. There have been puzzling finds in China
and the Balkans that seem to predate the usual
attribution to India in the mid-first millennium.
I would not have made the claim on the cover of the
Pandolfini volume, if it has been accurately reported
here, but it is my no means an absurd claim. As for
the missing "board," I think that given the context of
the book's substance, the publishers regarded that
much as understood.
I well remember how Winter seriously criticized
Larry Evans, one of his favorite targets, for an error
over which GM Evans had no control in THE TEN
MOST COMMON CHESS MISTAKES (and how to
avoid them) because avoid was spelled "aviod" on the
spine of the book by the publisher (since corrected).
Chess One wrote:
> "Anders Thulin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e9U%[email protected]...
> > Offramp wrote:
> >> Edward Winter, at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html number
> >> 5280, has panned Bruce Pandilfini's new book Treasure Chess, which has
> >> the subtitle Trivia, Quotes, Puzzles, and Lore from the World's Oldest
> >> Game.
> >> Of course draughts is older, so Bruce has made a mistake even on the
> >> cover!
> >
> > Not necessarily. Author's don't always get to formulate front cover
> > matter: the omission of the term 'board' could easily be an artistic
> > decision, for example to avoid an extra line for the subtitle
> > (assuming the publisher knows or cares, of course).
>
> True. Standard contract copperlate default text expressely states that
> covers belong to the publisher, not the author.
>
> I found another title a while ago on gambit play, where the back cover blurb
> talked about 'a thorough education in gambit play', which contains 'wild and
> aggressive chess', yet the poor author began his introduction by modestly
> admitting respectively [to paraphrase] that the book was but a sketch, and
> based on sensible investments of material for future gain, rather than a
> rash thash.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> > It's unfortunate, I admit, but the source of the mistake is not quite
> > as clearcut as you suggest.
> >
> > The publisher should be mentioned: it's Random House.
> >
> >> The funniest mistake that Winter points out is this one, Pandolfini on
> >> Tal (page 79):
> >>
> >> 'His intuitive feel for the art of inscrutable sacrifice was difficult
> >> to play against, though chess fans loved it. Finally they had a
> >> champion they couldn't understand, whom they understood.'
> >
> > But what's the mistake? It reads much more like an attempt at paradox --
> > not at all out of place for a player like Tal. Perhaps it's out of place
> > for Pandolfini, but if it is (i.e. it is a suspected plagiarism -- it
> > sounds
> > a bit Tartakoverish to me), it should be explained clearer.
> >
> > Mistaken and confused dates and facts are the real problems from the
> > point of chess history. Artistic, editorial and stylistic inadvertencies
> > may be
> > unfortunate, but they really should be criticised from a different point
> > of view.
> >
> > --
> > Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 03:41:43
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
On Nov 18, 6:03 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:06 am, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
> I seriously doubt that EW reads these hack-jobs
> thoroughly; it is far more likely he scans through, in
> search of spelling errors and wrong dates. For one thing,
> we are given nothing in the way of a general impression
> of what the book was really about, just random nit-picks.
> The conclusion must be that if a hack writer cannot get
> his basic facts straight, then his thoughts aren't really
> worth reading.
I am pretty certain that Mr Winter's favourite reading is about famous
Brotish comedians. I know that he has read biogs of Morecambe & Wise
and Frankie Howerd. I very much doubt that EW read BP's book in any
depth at all.
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 10:07:06
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
Offramp wrote:
> Edward Winter, at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html number
> 5280, has panned Bruce Pandilfini's new book Treasure Chess, which has
> the subtitle Trivia, Quotes, Puzzles, and Lore from the World's Oldest
> Game.
> Of course draughts is older, so Bruce has made a mistake even on the
> cover!
Not necessarily. Author's don't always get to formulate front cover
matter: the omission of the term 'board' could easily be an artistic
decision, for example to avoid an extra line for the subtitle
(assuming the publisher knows or cares, of course).
It's unfortunate, I admit, but the source of the mistake is not quite
as clearcut as you suggest.
The publisher should be mentioned: it's Random House.
> The funniest mistake that Winter points out is this one, Pandolfini on
> Tal (page 79):
>
> 'His intuitive feel for the art of inscrutable sacrifice was difficult
> to play against, though chess fans loved it. Finally they had a
> champion they couldn't understand, whom they understood.'
But what's the mistake? It reads much more like an attempt at paradox --
not at all out of place for a player like Tal. Perhaps it's out of place
for Pandolfini, but if it is (i.e. it is a suspected plagiarism -- it sounds
a bit Tartakoverish to me), it should be explained clearer.
Mistaken and confused dates and facts are the real problems from the
point of chess history. Artistic, editorial and stylistic inadvertencies may be
unfortunate, but they really should be criticised from a different point of view.
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 11:40:31
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
Anders Thulin <[email protected] > wrote:
> Offramp wrote:
>> Edward Winter, at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html
>> number 5280, has panned Bruce Pandilfini's new book Treasure Chess,
>> which has the subtitle Trivia, Quotes, Puzzles, and Lore from the
>> World's Oldest Game.
>> Of course draughts is older, so Bruce has made a mistake even on
>> the cover!
>
> Not necessarily. Author's don't always get to formulate front cover
> matter: the omission of the term 'board' could easily be an artistic
> decision, for example to avoid an extra line for the subtitle
> (assuming the publisher knows or cares, of course).
But draughts is a board game too so, assuming it really is older, even
inserting the word `board' wouldn't make the publisher's blurb true.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Incredible Mouldy Shack (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a house in the woods but it's
starting to grow mushrooms and it'll
blow your mind!
|
| | |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 14:29:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
"Anders Thulin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e9U%[email protected]...
> Offramp wrote:
>> Edward Winter, at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html number
>> 5280, has panned Bruce Pandilfini's new book Treasure Chess, which has
>> the subtitle Trivia, Quotes, Puzzles, and Lore from the World's Oldest
>> Game.
>> Of course draughts is older, so Bruce has made a mistake even on the
>> cover!
>
> Not necessarily. Author's don't always get to formulate front cover
> matter: the omission of the term 'board' could easily be an artistic
> decision, for example to avoid an extra line for the subtitle
> (assuming the publisher knows or cares, of course).
True. Standard contract copperlate default text expressely states that
covers belong to the publisher, not the author.
I found another title a while ago on gambit play, where the back cover blurb
talked about 'a thorough education in gambit play', which contains 'wild and
aggressive chess', yet the poor author began his introduction by modestly
admitting respectively [to paraphrase] that the book was but a sketch, and
based on sensible investments of material for future gain, rather than a
rash thash.
Phil Innes
> It's unfortunate, I admit, but the source of the mistake is not quite
> as clearcut as you suggest.
>
> The publisher should be mentioned: it's Random House.
>
>> The funniest mistake that Winter points out is this one, Pandolfini on
>> Tal (page 79):
>>
>> 'His intuitive feel for the art of inscrutable sacrifice was difficult
>> to play against, though chess fans loved it. Finally they had a
>> champion they couldn't understand, whom they understood.'
>
> But what's the mistake? It reads much more like an attempt at paradox --
> not at all out of place for a player like Tal. Perhaps it's out of place
> for Pandolfini, but if it is (i.e. it is a suspected plagiarism -- it
> sounds
> a bit Tartakoverish to me), it should be explained clearer.
>
> Mistaken and confused dates and facts are the real problems from the
> point of chess history. Artistic, editorial and stylistic inadvertencies
> may be
> unfortunate, but they really should be criticised from a different point
> of view.
>
> --
> Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2007 22:03:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Pandolfini Panned
|
On Nov 18, 12:06 am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> Edward Winter, athttp://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.htmlnumber
> 5280, has panned Bruce Pandilfini's new book Treasure Chess, which has
> the subtitle Trivia, Quotes, Puzzles, and Lore from the World's Oldest
> Game.
> Of course draughts is older, so Bruce has made a mistake even on the
> cover!
The cover says "game", not "board game"; surely, you
are not suggesting that a silly board game was invented
before games like keep-away -- played by many social
animals as well as by humans, /instinctively/?
Regardless of which board game was invented first, BP
got his facts wrong. And his dates. For example, the date
of the women's shoes incident is given as happening during
Paul Morphy's lifetime, but in reality, it was much later that
this; it seems to have come about as the result of another
hack writer's efforts long afterward!
> The funniest mistake that Winter points out is this one, Pandolfini on
> Tal (page 79):
>
> 'His intuitive feel for the art of inscrutable sacrifice was difficult
> to play against, though chess fans loved it. Finally they had a
> champion they couldn't understand, whom they understood.'
A few of EW's criticisms seemed to relate to voodoo
phrases, possibly picked up from Mr. Pandolfini's young
student who played in "Searching for Bobby Fischer".
I seriously doubt that EW reads these hack-jobs
thoroughly; it is far more likely he scans through, in
search of spelling errors and wrong dates. For one thing,
we are given nothing in the way of a general impression
of what the book was really about, just random nit-picks.
The conclusion must be that if a hack writer cannot get
his basic facts straight, then his thoughts aren't really
worth reading.
But this all misses the point: most of these famous
writers "churn out material" for the sole purpose of
making money. And we, the general public, are
stupid enough to keep buying their hack-jobs, so the
cycle continues. The worst of the lot "churn out" the
greatest quantity of material, and make the most
money, from the least effort. Go figure.
-- help bot
|
|
