Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

14:55 UTC
ISC 2020



Remember me

Forgot your
Click here!
to create your account if you don't already have one.

Rating lists


MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade Looking for co-author for book
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Monday, Nov 9, 2009 23:33]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [09-11-09]

Looking for co-author for book

I look for a co-author for a book on chess studies for beginners. Is anyone interested?

The book will be published for free on internet under a free license (CC-BY-NC-ND), so no profit to be gained. It shall consist of 100 studies (50 selected by each author), commented by both authors.

Please send me e-mail or note or reply to this thread if interested.

For the same book I also seek a typesetter.
(Read Only)pid=4348
(2) Posted by Mihail Croitor [Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009 12:41]

hm, Siegfired,
it is a good idea, but knowing my assiduity and English-level i cant be agree. I can only recommend some endgames.
(Read Only)pid=4351
(3) Posted by Geoff Foster [Wednesday, Nov 11, 2009 02:07]

I might be able to help with typesetting, depending on what software is used. I can also help with English grammar.
(Read Only)pid=4352
(4) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Wednesday, Nov 11, 2009 02:36]

What software do you suggest? Maybe writing in MatPlus language and let Milan process it to PDF is an idea (that would make the typesetter almost superfluos).
(Read Only)pid=4353
(5) Posted by Geoff Foster [Wednesday, Nov 11, 2009 10:04]

I was thinking of using Microsoft Word and then converting it to PDF (I have Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Professional).
(Read Only)pid=4354
(6) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Monday, Nov 16, 2009 19:09]

I found that Oleg Pervakov has created a similar book with Mark Dvoretsky called "Studien für Praktiker". It is highly recommended that we only use studies not in that book. :-)
(Read Only)pid=4364
(7) Posted by shankar ram [Sunday, Dec 6, 2009 04:56]

MS Word 2007 can save directly to PDF. No need to have acrobat or any other software.

Also, these days, there may be ways to allow visitors to download the entire content as PDF or other formats, in addition to viewing the content online. Such an "offline" version would be dynamic and continuously reflect changes made to the web pages. MV or Kotesovec might know!
(Read Only)pid=4403
(8) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Sunday, Dec 6, 2009 09:12]

Why to publish book for free at internet? Some of our friends are writing books for legal publishing. I just ask you about the reasons. Why?
(Read Only)pid=4404
(9) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Sunday, Dec 6, 2009 22:40]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [09-12-07]

Why to publish book for free at internet? Some of our friends are writing books for legal publishing. I just ask you about the reasons. Why?

First of all, publishing a book for free is legal.

Then let's get to your question, that I will split into two parts, from the meaning of "free".
Assuming first, you mean "free" in the monetary sense:
I don't think people should pay for knowledge. Yes, you might say I am a communist or whatnotever. In fact, I think it's better for both - authors and readers. Authors will give their work out, they will teach people, while readers can learn. The right to gain knowledge is a fundamental human right. Why should I limit it to those who have money? There were so many things I wanted when I was young... of course not only things one can buy, but also some of those... and many of them I got later. What if I died before? I could never have experienced them. I will die, just as my readers will, but the book will remain. And then: Why charge money at all? The book will be up in P2P networks anyway, punishing those who would actually pay for it while others can get it for free. Of course, I could use lawyers and whatnotever, like the fascists of the music industry do - but why should I punish people for the fact that they read my books? Either I want people to read it - then everyone should be able to - or I don't. Financial things don't matter to me - if they would, I might think elseway. What's the use in money? My health is not the best - I might have a few more years to live, maybe less, maybe more, maybe a full lifetime. What if I die tomorrow? What if I get hit by a car or something? What's the use in having money then? I don't have children (yet?), or anyone who would need my little money. Why should I try to gain more - or anything? I believe that the It-Is will help me. Even if I didn't think so, the points above would apply.

Now "free" in the sense of the license:
I will not have much time to live, maybe a few years (but then, it might as well be a few decades). Even when I'll die it will take 70 years until someone will legally be able to read the book if it is out of print. [Passage removed that could be misunderstood] Personally, I don't want people to think in 70 years, it's great that I died now because now they finally can read my books. And much less do I want people to go through an era where my works are inavailable. What's the use of my works if they can't be read - in the worst case will disappear forever because nobody legally can copy them?

The other aspect of a free license is that I can allow everyone to work on the book - just like everyone can work on Wikipedia - to add content to it, make comments, anthologize (well, if someone needs to). You can take and give, that's how the world should work. The capitalistic system was doomed from its very beginnings.

EDIT: Removed a misunderstandable passage
(Read Only)pid=4407
(10) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 17:22]

OK. Thank you. Good luck!
(Read Only)pid=4419
(11) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, May 17, 2010 20:53]

was the book written. I would be most interested in reading it.
(Read Only)pid=5393
(12) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Tuesday, May 18, 2010 01:00]

Well, I started to write one alone but did not get far yet (still at the introduction). Probably I should wait for the main part until hhdbiv is available.

Until then, I recommend my award in Schach 2006-2007 for you to read:
(Read Only)pid=5394
(13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:30]


I very much enjoyed reading your award, again.
I particularly admire the attention you give to your objective criteria.
Though, I do not believe the long explanation necessary -- few awards would provide such space -- it is a pleasure to read the (very familiar) criteria which you have nicely gathered together.

However, as always (hehe) one thing slightly trouble me.
In 5th/6th Comm., blk to move, white wins, by Pietro Rossi...

You state that in hindsight, you wished this problem were eliminated from the award, due to "constructional flaws."
Furthermore, you go on to state:
"The white bishop should in my opinion have belonged to f7 [instead g8] in the starting position.
[For that reason I should have excluded it from the award.]"

First, quite frankly, I wouldn't substantially miss this problem, were it not included in your award.
There is some good value in this early, but I soon begin wondering how it might have been better expressed.

And, I agree that wBg8->f7 makes for a significant improvement (I'll assume the problem remains correct, and suffers no other injury).
However, it seems somewhat harsh (almost dogmatic) to imply (have I misread?) that this feature, alone, is cause for exclusion.

In the larger context of the problem, your slight shift does appear to create a pointed change in the motivation of the entire solution -- so, please understand, I recognize that this seemingly minor detail does transform the entire landscape.

However, consider this...
Many judges would simply make the improvement, and award the modified version!?
Now, I don't generally approve of this practice myself...
...but, if a slight modification substantially changes my evaluation...
...and, if the alternative (no award) would be unpleasant (given the need for a simple tweak)...
...I might consider (I can't believe I'm actually saying this!) judging a modified version.
So, there, I said it.

Tell me where I'm wrong. :-)

Finally, if your award cannot be altered, what value has a public retraction of a specific problem?
It seems, somehow, only more cruel to permanently tag a problem with some award, then state in public that it deserved nothing.
Wouldn't it be better to have either given nothing, or simply kept your dissatisfaction quiet?
(Read Only)pid=5395
(14) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Tuesday, May 18, 2010 15:10]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [10-05-18]

Dear Kevin,

you are a great friend to me, and as in every friendship there are details where one agrees and such where one does not agree.

When I judged the award, I regarded the sacrifice of the bishop as well as the play of the study as enough to give it the commendation. However, the sacrifice of the bishop being not zweckrein (what is the english word?), i.e. serving multiple functions when it could serve just one, diminishes the value of the sacrifice greatly. However, without this sacrifice, there would probably much less material be necessary.

(= 5+7 )

Pietro Rossi
Schach 05/2007, 5th to 6th commendation
White wins
Version by Siegfried Hornecker, original
(EDIT: FEN 3k1K2/p1p5/Pp3p2/2P3Pp/3P4/3p4/8/8)
(EDIT2: Better version)

1.g6 d2 2.g7 d1Q 3.g8Q Qg4 4.Qd5+ Qd7 5.Qa8+ Qc8 6.Qe4! Qd7 7.c6 Qd6+ 8.Kf7 Kc8 9.d5! Qe5 10.Qg2 Qg5 11.Qh3+! f5 12.Qf3! Qd8! 13.Qxf5+ Kb8 14.Qxh5 Qc8! 15.Qe5!! Qd8 16.Qd4!! Kc8!i 17.Qg4+ Kb8 18.d6! cxd6 19.Qd7 Qc7 20.Ke8 and white wins.

i - 16...Qc8 17.Ke7 Qxa6 18.d6! and white wins.
Sadly the end in this line is not unique: 18...Qe2+ 19.Kd7 Qh2 20.Qh8+! Qxh8 21.dxc7+ Ka8 22.c8Q+ Qxc8+ 23.Kxc8 and black is checkmated soon. But also 19.Kd8 Qh2 20.d7 and white wins.

I don't see any justification today to include a study that can be substantially improved in such a way, even making it a pawn endgame, into an award. Without the zweckreinheit of the bishop's sacrifice, this position is just as good and has six (!) pieces less. So I stay at the point that the flaw of the bishop's position is enough as to make an exclusion. Either the author wanted to show the play by the queens, then seven pieces can be saved. Or he wanted to show the bishop sacrifice, additionally, then it should have been zweckrein.

I do not agree that a judge should publish modified versions. It is the duty of the author of a study to make sure that his study is correct and in the best (i.e. most economical) possible way.

Of course it might seem cruel to you. Isn't it just as cruel to the other problems that have not been awarded to be included in the PGN file? If I should have kept my dissatisfaction quiet, why not also for all the other studies that got not awarded?


Best regards,
(Read Only)pid=5396
(15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, May 18, 2010 21:53]


As usual, good points.
As for the English equivalent word... Well, in my experience, nobody has quite the equivalent of any German word.
But, I do agree with your analysis.
In fact, I probably agree completely -- I simply needed to understand why.

Thanks for your help. :)
(Read Only)pid=5397
(16) Posted by Bojan Basic [Tuesday, May 18, 2010 22:22]

However, the sacrifice of the bishop being not zweckrein (what is the english word?)

How about pure in aim?
(Read Only)pid=5398
(17) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Wednesday, May 19, 2010 20:02]; edited by Sergiy Didukh [10-05-19]

To those who are impatient to see a good selection of studies, nicely commented and explained, I can advise a book by John Nunn "Endgame Challenge" 2002, with 250 studies that the author considers as best of all times. I would have included 100 of them in my own selection of 250, because I am also fond of elegant unexpected sacrifices with beautiful mates, quietly dominated queens and mutual zugzwangs. These ideas surely appeal to J.Nunn. There are very little strange inclusions and incorrect studies. This cannot be told about Y.Vladimirov selection "1000 studies" 2004 (only in Russian) and another his book "1000 chess masterpieces" with around 300 studies. However, both authors printed a known study by R.Reti with a dual on move one 1.Rd2! or 1.Rd3! Why do people call it a masterpiece if it is just a poor dualistic study?
(Read Only)pid=5400
(18) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, May 19, 2010 22:01]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-05-19]

Consider Loveday's famous "Indian-Theme" (directmate) problem (1845)...
Wasn't even correct, even when viewed from generally accepted standards of the day.
Yet, on some level, it might be considered a masterpiece.

Shinkmann's famous #8 (1887)...
Another brilliant masterpiece which cannot even be fully salvaged today (save, perhaps, using chesss960).

Even Saavedra (1895)...
On some level it is rightly viewed as a masterpiece.
On another level, the main-line dual makes you want to light a fire.

Several of Reti's studies were pioneering...
Many of his novel ideas revolutionized even the board game.

I can appreciate that the following problem is something of a masterpiece.
This definitely belongs in a book titled, "500 unsound chess masterpieces."
It does not belong in the company of endgame studies which conform to standards above the reasonable expectation of an amateur player.
[edit: the inclusion of such a problem calls into question the correctness of the book's entire collection]

R.Reti, 1922
(= 2+2 )

White wins. {cooked}
(Read Only)pid=5401

No more posts

MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade Looking for co-author for book