Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: OT: How the hell do the chess geeks annotate??

Author: margolies,marc

Date: 20:43:18 12/03/03

Go up one level in this thread


Yeah Rick, it seems like 'smoke and mirrors' to me, too. Whenever I need to use
a game citation, I prefer to chose one between two players who have already
passed on to the great chess hall in the sky. that way I don't get sued and I
can lie a little bit.
Chess book authors in fact often fudge the move order in games to emphasize a
didactic point in their writings. John Nunn went out of his way to correct
Vukovich in a reissue of his attacking tome. For all the truth it has, you can
learn alot less from the Nunn version than the original. The Artfulness in Art
is the trick of decieving the audience to reveal a higher truth. In the era of
chess databses which include everything that's almost impossible to do. Fib a
little in a game score and you get audited. It's like writing a book for the IRS
or something.
It is too easy to catch a fibber when we read these days because so many of us
read along with a database and its virtual gameboard instead of that vinyl and
plastic thing which falls off the end of the table when the book is right in
front of you.
Among modern fibbers, I like the introduction to Jon Rowson's "Understanding The
Grunfeld," where he re-arranges the opening move order of
Donald_Byrne/R_J_Fischer 1956 to underscore a point. To pick on Donny Byrne like
that, Geeesh! At least when Vukovich muddled a players moves he took the man's
name off the scoresheet and called that player anonymous! (But not in the Nunn
'corrected edition' of course.)



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.