Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
14:23 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Magazine General Your opinion is welcome |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by David Knezevic [Saturday, Mar 24, 2007 23:04] | Your opinion is welcome
By now many of you have already received the Spring 2007 issue of Mat Plus (MP) and Mat Plus Review (MPR), and many other will receive it shortly. We, the Editorial team, do hope that you are satisfied with the quality we offer, and we would certainly be glad to know if it is so.
As, every printed publication is liable to errors, while your copy was on its way to you few have already been noticed (and few even before the magazine was mailed - they were reported in attached "Errata Corrige" paper).
Of course, we would like to hear your reactions even if some of them are not afirmative. I am personally not happy with the amount of fairy material in MPR - apart some classic genres I beleive that there is no more than one diagram with fairy pieces (two Nightriders). However, our pages are open to all kinds of chess problems and it's up to composers and experts to fill the gap in their favourite genres (especially endgames and fairies).
Please use this "General" group for your opinions, comments, suggestions or even disapprobation. For each issue an "Errata" group will be open for reports of printing and other errors.
I was not very happy with the first comment, received in a SMS message. In my rough translation:
"I think that old Mat Plus was better. MPR has too much text and the number of diagrams is too low for a 64 pages volume." (Dragan Stojnic).
The facts: there is over 280 diagrams in MPR, which gives the average of 4.4 diagrams per page. MP has 155 diagrams on 24 pages or 6.45 per page (so overall average is about 5.43 problems per page). I have no idea whether it's a good or bad average. As Dragan, I like to see many problems, but I also like to read about them. It seems to me that the number of diagrams and the amount of texts is well balanced in this issue. Quot homines tot sententiae :-)
| | | (2) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Mar 27, 2007 11:41] |
I wouldn't say it's too much text as such (generally I
find the solution discussion more interesting than the
raw problem). Then, whether it was such a glorious idea to
carve Internet entries into stone, which are quickly
written... (bet I just made a few more enemies now :-)
Hauke
| | | (3) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, Mar 27, 2007 23:06] |
Well, carve into stone... everything is in a sense carved very soon after posting as crawlers are tirelessly browsing Internet sites and saving content either for search or other purposes. matplus.net site is already within scope of Google...
I am quite surprised how much place was dedicated to Internet posts. The most interesting are there the diagrams and discussion about them.
I would also concur to Hauke's opinion that numerous posts are written quite in a hurry as the nature of Internet has taught us over years (yes, this post is wonderful example, hehe).
| | | (4) Posted by Neal Turner [Thursday, Mar 29, 2007 12:50] |
I was very impressed with the Review - the cover, paper, printing, diagrams all top quality. However this just served to highlight the less than great quality of the Magazine. The articles in the Review were excellent, as one would expect from their authors, but, but, but (you know what's coming next) what are the internet posts doing there?
Surely the point of a chat forum is the 'chat' - who would want their everyday chattering recorded and 'set in stone'? Now the awareness that their posts may end up printed in the Review will make posters more self-conscious and guarded in their posts, so undermining the whole philosophy of an exhuberant, spontaneous internet chat forum. Then there's also the fact that many subscribers will be already familiar with this material from visiting the site. If a thread on the forum inspires somebody to produce an article (like Chris. Feather's) that's great, but please, let's keep the original posts in their rightful place.
I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in suggesting that the internet posts be eliminated and replaced by the Magazine content, which would instantly make it the best produced problem magazine on the market.
| | | (5) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Mar 29, 2007 14:21] |
I also think you should publish less internet discussions there. Also, give the URL of every topic for those interested. By now, there are 26 pages of internet discussions. Ten pages should be enough, imo. Instead, articles could be published.
| | | (6) Posted by Iļja Ketris [Monday, Apr 2, 2007 01:19] |
A disclaimer here would not harm, warning people that their posts may end up in the printed magazine.
Rather that printing entire threads, I would moderate them a little prior to publication off-line, leaving only the most interesting and important messages.
| | | (7) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Apr 2, 2007 22:29] |
Siegfried: Articles can be published... yes, but first someone has to write them. As far as I can say, sometimes it takes quite a lot of effort to force authors to write. :-)
| | | (8) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Tuesday, Apr 3, 2007 18:49] |
I would agree that printing internet forums in printed magazine is a waste of precious(and expensive according to Milan's editorial) space.If there are no original articles to fill pages I would prefer to see reprints of some old articles from hard-to-find magazines or tourneys awards from less known magazines.
| | | (9) Posted by Uri Avner [Saturday, Apr 28, 2007 15:57]; edited by Uri Avner [07-04-28] |
About printing posts, my opinion is somewhat different.
I personally find this material printed in Mat-Plus Review much more refreshing and thought provoking than many of the articles I can find elsewhere. That's more than enough justification for me to "carve them into stone". It may well be that the right proportion devoted to them is yet to be found, but I would hate to see them disappear.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Magazine General Your opinion is welcome |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
