KWR's last comment suggests one thing that's wrong with the picture: the photographer (not the one responsible for the book's cover, but me!) didn't do an especially good job.
I'll hint at the second one: I'm American, not British.
Third: am I really the best they can do? If I were a player of Sokolov's caliber, I'd want to be blurbed by someone better than me. :)
Actually, the blurbed quote is funny. I remember wondering one day why publishers never seemed to use my reviews, even when they were very favorable. The answer I arrived at was that there needed to be some purple prose, and so what you're reading was the product of a little experiment. That's not to say that I wasn't enthusiastic about the book - I was - but the business about marvelous [sic!] analysis was a bit of blurb fishing. It worked. So if you review books and want to have your name grace or deface someone's book, here are some words you might want to use: "marvelous", "superb", "classic", and, of course, "indispensable".
Well, given that New In Chess is a European book publisher with presumably a style guide that is compatible with British usage, is it that suprising (or should I say surprizing?) that Dan's original comment about "marvelous" analysis was "marvellously" changed, even in a direct quote?
Actually the Knight looks just as bulgiferous in the ChessCafe cover shot here. Meanwhile over at ICC Dennis has either been airbrushed out, or never was there to begin with (earlier printing?)...
I think I have to un-hint the second hint: Ay laddie, he lives in Dublin not Belfast---an' ye live in the wee shadow of Notre Dame, na less! Still, if it be ye ha doon the book blarb then all can be forgiven, as it take the true blarney to coom oop wi' sich words.
That does leave the serious question of whether you were thought to be one of GM Baburin's staff. I would instead conjecture that the sales editor had some idea of the top-10 chess sites and applied what we math/CS folks would call an "equivalence relation" to the lot.
Ken: Maybe that was a special cover just for me, printed in a limited edition of one copy? :) On the ostensibly more serious question, I'd consider myself a member of the CT staff, though certainly at a lower level than El Jefe Baburin and Chief Annotator Golubev.
Dennis, I think you can and should take your third point as a (deserved) compliment: Due to your Internet presence, many potential buyers and readers may be more familiar with your name than with most IMs or run-of-the-mill GMs. They may also think that your review is more thorough and thus more credible: How many hours can/do you spend on a book review - reading and writing? How many minutes would a top GM spend?
Still, "marvel(l)ous" may have made the difference. The Max Euwe Center tried even harder - "An extraordinarily instructive book and indipensable [sic!?] instruction material for d4-players" - but maybe the publisher doesn't like the suggestion that the book is less relevant for e4-players!?
As to the number of l's, Jeffrey may well be right that it's editorial policy. They would also "translate" GM Fontaine's review from an original French version ... . In your case, it may just be auto-correction by the software - should we expect a British or Dutch copy-editor to change it back to American English?
For me, it's the use of "great games" that grates more than anything. That is clearly an attribute specific to a middlegame book, and says nothing about an author's overall style, quality & reliability. I would argue that it borders on deliberate mis-selling.
Of course, an openings book may well feature some 'great games', but such an entertainment factor is not the main point of this sort of publication...
As a British editor and journalist if this book is in British English of course I would have put the 'l' in as sure as a 'u' would have gone into 'color'. If it's in American English then they made a mistake. I sometimes have to produce copy in both American and Britsh versions - thankfully I've never had to deal with a 'marvel(l)ous'.
Is it me or at first glance does this work like look a cook book? Perhaps it's just the checkered pattern that reminds of the old cookbooks my grandmother used to keep in the kitchen. Also what with the "revisited" bit . . . did we leave the Ruy Lopez for a while . . . this is one of the more popular openings even today.
You're correct, Scott. In fact, the two sentences are separated by more than a page(!), and "[G]reat games" is not the beginning of a sentence, either. Ugh! That said, I don't feel put out by the way I've been excerpted here, as my assessment of the earlier Sokolov book is and was very positive.
Monday, March 8, 2010 at 6:23PM
Reader Comments (18)
I mean he is trying to teach you to win a chess middlegame. And at least they didn't put it on the cover.... doh!
DM's review quoted on cover is for a different book!
It's a one volume work that purports to have unexplored resources in the Ruy Lopez?
What you call "DM's review" needs accompaniment from a harp and balalaika...or Harp laced with Stolichnaya :-)
As a perpetuation of this and this, simply amazing!
I meant to add---is the thing on f3 really a White Knight? It looks like an elephant's ear, or a half-eaten biscuit that's gone rock-hard stale.
KWR's last comment suggests one thing that's wrong with the picture: the photographer (not the one responsible for the book's cover, but me!) didn't do an especially good job.
I'll hint at the second one: I'm American, not British.
Third: am I really the best they can do? If I were a player of Sokolov's caliber, I'd want to be blurbed by someone better than me. :)
Actually, the blurbed quote is funny. I remember wondering one day why publishers never seemed to use my reviews, even when they were very favorable. The answer I arrived at was that there needed to be some purple prose, and so what you're reading was the product of a little experiment. That's not to say that I wasn't enthusiastic about the book - I was - but the business about marvelous [sic!] analysis was a bit of blurb fishing. It worked. So if you review books and want to have your name grace or deface someone's book, here are some words you might want to use: "marvelous", "superb", "classic", and, of course, "indispensable".
Well, given that New In Chess is a European book publisher with presumably a style guide that is compatible with British usage, is it that suprising (or should I say surprizing?) that Dan's original comment about "marvelous" analysis was "marvellously" changed, even in a direct quote?
Actually the Knight looks just as bulgiferous in the ChessCafe cover shot here. Meanwhile over at ICC Dennis has either been airbrushed out, or never was there to begin with (earlier printing?)...
I think I have to un-hint the second hint: Ay laddie, he lives in Dublin not Belfast---an' ye live in the wee shadow of Notre Dame, na less! Still, if it be ye ha doon the book blarb then all can be forgiven, as it take the true blarney to coom oop wi' sich words.
That does leave the serious question of whether you were thought to be one of GM Baburin's staff. I would instead conjecture that the sales editor had some idea of the top-10 chess sites and applied what we math/CS folks would call an "equivalence relation" to the lot.
Ken: Maybe that was a special cover just for me, printed in a limited edition of one copy? :) On the ostensibly more serious question, I'd consider myself a member of the CT staff, though certainly at a lower level than El Jefe Baburin and Chief Annotator Golubev.
Dennis, I think you can and should take your third point as a (deserved) compliment: Due to your Internet presence, many potential buyers and readers may be more familiar with your name than with most IMs or run-of-the-mill GMs. They may also think that your review is more thorough and thus more credible: How many hours can/do you spend on a book review - reading and writing? How many minutes would a top GM spend?
Still, "marvel(l)ous" may have made the difference. The Max Euwe Center tried even harder - "An extraordinarily instructive book and indipensable [sic!?] instruction material for d4-players" - but maybe the publisher doesn't like the suggestion that the book is less relevant for e4-players!?
As to the number of l's, Jeffrey may well be right that it's editorial policy. They would also "translate" GM Fontaine's review from an original French version ... . In your case, it may just be auto-correction by the software - should we expect a British or Dutch copy-editor to change it back to American English?
For me, it's the use of "great games" that grates more than anything. That is clearly an attribute specific to a middlegame book, and says nothing about an author's overall style, quality & reliability. I would argue that it borders on deliberate mis-selling.
Of course, an openings book may well feature some 'great games', but such an entertainment factor is not the main point of this sort of publication...
As a British editor and journalist if this book is in British English of course I would have put the 'l' in as sure as a 'u' would have gone into 'color'. If it's in American English then they made a mistake. I sometimes have to produce copy in both American and Britsh versions - thankfully I've never had to deal with a 'marvel(l)ous'.
Is it me or at first glance does this work like look a cook book? Perhaps it's just the checkered pattern that reminds of the old cookbooks my grandmother used to keep in the kitchen. Also what with the "revisited" bit . . . did we leave the Ruy Lopez for a while . . . this is one of the more popular openings even today.
Where is the white king standing. It looks like it is off the board.
The white king is on d1; check out the shadow. Judging from the queen's shadow, she's on e0.5.
Strike that last comment. It seems my old eyes cannot distinguish between a king's shadow and a pawn's shadow.
The given quote should include ellipsis, since "Great games" does not immediately follow the end of "explanations."
At least I assume so - I found another mention of your quote at the Amazon site, and it does indicate a break in the quote:
http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Chess-Middlegames-Essential-Structures/dp/905691264X
You're correct, Scott. In fact, the two sentences are separated by more than a page(!), and "[G]reat games" is not the beginning of a sentence, either. Ugh! That said, I don't feel put out by the way I've been excerpted here, as my assessment of the earlier Sokolov book is and was very positive.