Website founded by
MatPlus.Net Forum General 4th edition of Milan's Encyclopedia?
You can only view this page!
|(1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Mar 3, 2019 11:28]|
4th edition of Milan's Encyclopedia?
There is still hope for mankind: I just discovered that my town's
public library has the Encyclopedia of Chess Problems. :-O
I being me, already on p.16 I found the 2nd typo :P
Is there some errata list floating around (where one could
also contribute for some eventual 4th edition)?
|(2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Mar 3, 2019 12:59]|
Oh.. it is already in third edition? Of course there is hope for mankind.
|(3) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Mar 5, 2019 10:47]|
Yup, brand new 3rd edition, 2018, Sahovski informator.
(I.e. I don't know anyone in the redaction I could
annoy directly :-)
|(4) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Wednesday, Mar 6, 2019 10:36]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [19-03-06]|
I sent to Hauke (to his new e-mail address) the e-mail address of Josip Asik [director of Informator company] for further contact about the matter.
|(5) Posted by Branislav Djurašević [Wednesday, Mar 6, 2019 10:57]|
Siegfried, Josip Asik is not general manager in Chess Informant more than year ago. Please, visit: https://sahovski.com/
|(6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Sep 17, 2019 23:08]|
For your convenience, here is a typo list I compiled.
Feel free to embiggen, but I'm a profi - I use to catch
99% of the typos even at a glance due to looong training
as a publications proofreader, so don't think you can
find another one easily :-)
In any case, I found virtually no severe errors.
11 +Rd3: rook is a knight :-)
16 Apply s/"Hinfürung"/"Hinführung", this error appears
a handful of times over the book.
18 "Sackman" misses one "n".
21 #35, diagram: wQ shall be a wG.
34 "Clearence" should be "Clearance"
46 Arrival Fleck is NOT Stocchi Blocks by logical necessity
(merely by constructive impossibility). With 2 variants,
I easily do an Arrival Fleck with decoy error and line opening dual avoidance.
60 #192 "P" should be figurine (or none).
79 In German, it's "Zick-Zack".
113 #377 1.Sd5~ unguards f4, not f6.
115 #382 2.Qd2+ 3.Qc7 - should be 3.Qd8.
120 #402 +sPc6
123 #414 Bxe4 should be Bxc4.
151 "can easily found" - "find" or "be found".
204 "colletion" should be "collection"
216 #774 "decoyos" should be "decoys" (But it sound goood.
I could improvise a rap on the spot: "Living here in my
arroyo, playing a decoyo..." :-)
218 #781 c) 2.Bd7 should be Bc2
220 top: "it's" should be "its"
225 bottom: "Hinlekung" should be "Hinlenkung".
226 #808 Rxa5+ should be Rxa4+
236 #849 1,Sg5? should be 1.Sg5!
245 #884 The bullet before Rh1+ is too much?
252 #909 "mat es" no whitespace, make it "mates"
256 "Not the same as ->Zero" - contradicts the statement a few
lines earlier with "Dummy", also there is no entry "Zero"
(except in the register, where it links to "Leaper" again)
291 #1048 A whole variant got lost, as it seems. After 1.~
the missing mate is 2.Sc8+ 3.Rc7.
292 After "two-mover" a full stop misses.
301 #1081 It's a bit confusing here :-) *Both* rooks
*together* form the 3rd thematic piece, so it also doesn't
matter if Raxd4 or Rdxd4 is played.
303 "Zweckt-rübung" is broken incorrect. "Zweck-trübung"
307 #1105 1.Rg7!! The first ! is bold, the second not.
Probably the latter is just superfluous.
326 #1178 2...Bxe3 is no check
336 #1220 "Vornehme" should be "Vornehmer"
337 "quilty" - indeed, plagiators should give up chess and
start making quilts instead :-)
354 #1279 "flight on f6" should be f5
372 #1348 1.Bg3! should be 1.Bg3?
381 Ideal Ruchlis Table: "C1" should be "C"
387 #1412 Are you schor? :-) (In the "Degener", nothing is said about unpinning a *black* piece. And obviously, Se3 doesn't unpin any black indeed)
391 (above 1429) "Massman" should be "Massmann"
404 Square: Surely one of the zillion fairy variants will allow more than one piece on a square. Augsburg and Ghost
at least comes close.
407 #1477 1.Kxc6# drop the #
421 "succesful" should be "successful"
434 "poure" should be "pour"
439 #1581 6.Sd3!! misses a +
449 #1619 Just for the record (pun intended), I did it with 8.
|(7) Posted by Michael McDowell [Wednesday, Sep 18, 2019 08:33]|
One thing you failed to notice is that the book has two authors.
|(8) Posted by Jakob Leck [Thursday, Sep 19, 2019 17:24]|
Impressive list, Hauke, did you read the whole book? ;)
Anyway, I found three wrong stipulations:
242 #869: the stipulation should probably read h#4 0411... (or h#3.5 4111...)
273 #984: same thing, here it should probably be h#6 0111... (or h#5.5)
360 #1307: stipulation should read h#4 0111... (or h#3.5)
|(9) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, Sep 19, 2019 23:31]|
Yup, I did, so much interesting material :-)
And no, I already forgot who is coauthor, I hope he forgives me
that Milans fame overshadows him...
|(10) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Friday, Sep 20, 2019 08:02]|
|(11) Posted by Joose Norri [Friday, Sep 20, 2019 16:57]|
Hauke, 46: anything with two variations is not Fleck.
|(12) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Sep 20, 2019 17:34]|
That's why I said "logical" - I *did* try to get 3, and maybe
it's even possible with promoted material. If the statement
made is true only by chance or because I'm to stooopid for
a counterexample, it should be weakened at least.
|(13) Posted by Joose Norri [Saturday, Sep 21, 2019 08:40]|
A decoy error is never active dual avoidance - the old test being that you try putting a dummy on the blocking square.
|(14) Posted by [Saturday, Sep 21, 2019 19:54]; edited by [19-09-21]|
Severe errors ...
Well, I can't help thinking that an encyclopedia without reasonably substantial articles for some of the fundamental terms is somewhat lacking. Perhaps not for the old hands, but definitely for newcomers to the field.
I'd like to see articles covering at least zugzwang and threat.
zugzwang may appear simple enough, but problem-world zugzwang is sufficiently far from chess zugzwang that it needs some words. I think. The current entry simply repeats the definition for chess zugzwang, but does not go into just what 'disadvantage' means. In chess, it's loss of tempo, material, space, attacking or drawing opportunities, perhaps even lack of clarity ... whereas in a problem none of those are relevant. And since black, in a standard problem, should not be able to escape mate, any black move is, in a sense, a move to black's own disadvantage.
Some further clarification is, I think, desirable.
(Actually ... wasn't there a terminology committee some years back? Did that produce anything of use?)
|(15) Posted by Jan Hein Verduin [Monday, Sep 23, 2019 19:44]|
I think another mistake in the Encyclopedia is on p115 concerning #381. The refutations are swapped, and should read 1.Qc4?,Bf2! and 1.Qe6?,Sf2! Thus the problem is not a proto-Banny but a proto-Vladimirov.
|(16) Posted by [Saturday, Oct 12, 2019 07:59]; edited by [19-10-12]|
Just came across this complex of confusion:
The definition of pure mate is at least ambiguous or at worst incorrect.
"Mate is called pure when every flight of the mated king is either guarded by the enemy man, or blocked by an own man." (Entry "Mate, pure, economical", p. 277, Encyclopedia of Chess Problems, 2018 -- 3rd edition according to the cover, but as the cataloguing information on the last page of the text gives 2012 as publishing year, I'm not really sure if this is a new edition, or if it only is a new printing).
The term 'flight' or 'king's flight' is defined by the Encyclopedia in terms of flight squares: a flight square is a square to which the (black) king can legally move. But in a mate (in the FIDE sense, but not as defined by the Encyclopedia) the king can't legally move at all, so there can be no flights (= flight squares) available. (The encyclopedia defines mate in terms of the king not being able to parry an attack from the opponent; is this different from the FIDE definition, which is expressed in terms of legal moves? The reader is not helped to answer that question.)
The usual definition of pure mate seems to be that given a mate, every square in the king's field is guarded *once*, or blocked -- with some additional requirements on double checks and pins that I omit as less relevant in this particular context. This definition uses the definition of king's field as the squares adjacent to the the one on which the king stands (3, 5 or 8 depending on just where that happens to be). That the king's square is attacked is implicit in the mate.
That definition of 'king's field' is furthermore different from that provided by the Encyclopedia -- which is 'the square on which the king stands and the eight surrounding squares', which raises some more questions about edge and corner placements.
The smallest change necessary to the Enclyclopedia entry for pure mate is to correct 'guarded by the enemy man' to 'guarded by a single enemy man'.
Some additional work is needed on the use and/or definition of the term 'flight' as well.
But as there are additional ambiguity and lack of clarity, all definitions associated with the entry 'mate, pure, economical' need to be reviewed and not impossibly adjusted to ensure they are ... 'coherent' for the lack of a better term.
Add to this the definition of 'king's field' found in Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.) which adds: "It is incorrect to include the sqaure on which the king stands as part of the field." It seems highly desirable that the Encyclopedia should acknowledge this opinion, and, preferably explain its own position. Alternatively, it should correct its own definition and use of the term accordingly.
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum General 4th edition of Milan's Encyclopedia?