Chess Fundamentals by Jose Raul Capablanca

[samsloan]

Chess Fundamentals

by José Raúl Capablanca

Foreword by Sam Sloan

World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik regarded Capablanca's Chess
Fundamentals as the best chess book ever written.

This is a reprint of the original “Chess Fundamentals” by Capablanca,
as first published in 1921 and only a preface added by Capablanca in
1934.

The reader here can feel confident that this reprint contains the
exact, complete words of Capablanca. Not one word has been changed or
omitted. All 14 illustrative games plus another five games in the
initial text have been converted into algebraic notation in an
appendix added in the back of this book, with diagrams.

As Edward Winter points out in his “Chess Notes” article entitled
“Capablanca Goes Algebraic”, other modern reprints that have come out
after the death of his widow, Olga Capablanca, in 1994 have omitted or
re-written entire sections of the original book. One reprint has
omitted entirely the “illustrative Games” section from the last half
of the book, thus making it a much shorter book. Another reprint has
replaced some of Capablanca's games with games by Fischer and
Kasparov.

Edward Winter sums up his view of these reprints when he writes that
one reviser “has not supplemented Chess Fundamentals. He has destroyed
it.”

Capablanca would not have approved of these revisions. In this, the
1934 edition, in which he made no changes but only added a preface, he
wrote,

‘... Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was 13 years ago. It will
be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and
rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may
therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that
there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be
added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one
standard work of its kind 13 years ago and the author firmly believes
that it is the one standard work of its kind now.’

According to a study by Professor Arpad Elo in his book “The Rating of
Chess Players, Past and Present” ISBN 0923891277, Jose Raoul
Capablanca was the strongest chess player who ever lived, prior to the
arrival of Bobby Fischer.

José Raúl Capablanca was born November 19, 1888 in Havana, Cuba, but
lived most of his life in New York City, when he was not touring the
world playing in chess tournaments.

His first major chess tournament was the Grandmaster tournament at San
Sebastián, Spain in 1911. He was allowed to play at the insistence of
the American champion, Frank Marshall, in spite of complaints by the
other players that he did not meet the requirements. Capablanca
shocked the world by winning the tournament. It was then proposed that
he play a match for the World Chess Championship with Emanuel Lasker.
However, the requirements set by Lasker were too stringent and the
match did not take place.

Capablanca finally got to play a match for the world championship in
1921 in Havana Cuba. Lasker resigned the match when the score stood at
four wins for Capablanca and ten draws.

It was during this period that Capablanca went through an incredible
non-losing streak. For an eight year period from 1916 to 1924
Capablanca never lost a game of chess, a record that stands to this
day. It was also during this period that Capablanca wrote “Chess
Fundamentals”, first published in 1921.

The streak finally ended when Reti defeated him in New York 1924 when
Capablanca's queen was unexpectedly trapped.

Capablanca defended his world title against Alexander Alekhine in 1927
and unexpectedly lost the match by 6 losses to 3 wins to 25 draws. As
Capablanca was still considered to be the stronger player, there has
been controversy ever since as to why he lost the match.

After that, Alekhine famously refused to give Capablanca a re-match
and set other conditions so high that it was not until many years
later that Capablanca and Alekhine even played again in the same
tournament together.

Most authorities agree that Capablanca was always the stronger player
and would have defeated Alekhine in a rematch had it ever been played.
His loss of the 1927 match has been attributed to a lack of study and
preparation on the part of Capablanca, whereas Alekhine had prepared
thoroughly for the match.

A great article by Edward Winter provides a lot of new material about
the latter years of Capablanca's life.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5329
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablancaolga.html

Capablanca married his second wife, Olga, in 1939. They only spent
three and a half years together, as Capablanca died of a cerebral
hemorrhage on March 8, 1942.

Wherever Olga went with Capablanca, he was treated as a great
celebrity. She describes an event in Paris where they met the Duke and
Duchess of Windsor.

“Two more people arrived about this time through the same entrance: a
highly-decorated French General and then, shortly afterwards, a
pleasant-looking elderly lady in a black lace dress and several rows
of large pearls. These aroused in me a certain admiration: the courage
to wear so prominently such obviously false pearls at this event. I
liked her untouched silvery white hair; she too felt friendlily
disposed and soon we found some common friends in New York. Capa and
the old General became engrossed in each other, discussing the
Napoleonic wars.
“Meanwhile, elegant crowds started pouring in. I quickly noticed some
extra attentions bestowed on my lady with the pearls. And before long
I knew these pearls were real. And she was Mrs McL., of great wealth
and much decorated by the French Government.”

That “Mrs McL” was of course Evalyn Walsh McLean, one of the richest
women in the world and the owner of the Hope Diamond, about whom
“Father Struck It Rich and The Curse of the Hope Diamond” by Evalyn
Walsh McLean has recently been published by Ishi Press ISBN
0923891048.

From the time of his death in 1942 until the time of his widow's death
in 1994, no reprint of any books by Capablanca appeared. However,
immediately after her death several reprints appeared.

This many be related to the fact that all of his works were
copyrighted by Olga Capablanca Clark, his widow, who had married a man
named Clark after his death.

Also, about the time of her death, copyrights appeared in the names of
Olga Capablanca VonNeff, Olga Capablanca-Vo Neff, and Kenneth VonNeff
(Wr) (on original appl.: Olga Capablanca-VonNeff (A & PPW)). It is not
clear who these people are but it might be that Olga married a fifth
time to a man named VonNeff and he had a child by a previous marriage
named Kenneth VonNeff.

Edward Winter reports that Capablanca had married Gloria Simoni
Betancourt in 1921, eight months after becoming world champion, and
the couple had two children, born 1923 and 1925.

However, there is no record of what happened to these two children,
who might possibly still be alive today.

It is also said that the marriage was “not successful”. One wonders by
which standard the success of a marriage is being judged. By modern
standards, any marriage that lasted 13 years and produced two children
much be considered a success.

Another very minor mystery is that the original dust jacked of this
book says that it contains 18 complete games.

However, the book actually contains 19 complete games, all of which
are re-provided in algebraic notation in the back. One wonders why
that is.

Sam Sloan
August 1, 2009


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878414
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878414

ISBN 4-87187-841-4
978-4-87187-841-8

[RayGordon]

What a misleading subject header.

Did Sloan write the ORIGINAL foreword to one of the best chess books
ever written?

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
Chess Fundamentals
by José Raúl Capablanca
Foreword by Sam Sloan
World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik regarded Capablanca's Chess
Fundamentals as the best chess book ever written.
This is a reprint of the original “Chess Fundamentals” by Capablanca,
as first published in 1921 and only a preface added by Capablanca in
1934.
The reader here can feel confident that this reprint contains the
exact, complete words of Capablanca. Not one word has been changed or
omitted. All 14 illustrative games plus another five games in the
initial text have been converted into algebraic notation in an
appendix added in the back of this book, with diagrams.
As Edward Winter points out in his “Chess Notes” article entitled
“Capablanca Goes Algebraic”, other modern reprints that have come out
after the death of his widow, Olga Capablanca, in 1994 have omitted or
re-written entire sections of the original book. One reprint has
omitted entirely the “illustrative Games” section from the last half
of the book, thus making it a much shorter book. Another reprint has
replaced some of Capablanca's games with games by Fischer and
Kasparov.
Edward Winter sums up his view of these reprints when he writes that
one reviser “has not supplemented Chess Fundamentals. He has destroyed
it.”
Capablanca would not have approved of these revisions. In this, the
1934 edition, in which he made no changes but only added a preface, he
wrote,
‘... Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was 13 years ago. It will
be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and
rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may
therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that
there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be
added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one
standard work of its kind 13 years ago and the author firmly believes
that it is the one standard work of its kind now.’
According to a study by Professor Arpad Elo in his book “The Rating of
Chess Players, Past and Present” ISBN 0923891277, Jose Raoul
Capablanca was the strongest chess player who ever lived, prior to the
arrival of Bobby Fischer.
José Raúl Capablanca was born November 19, 1888 in Havana, Cuba, but
lived most of his life in New York City, when he was not touring the
world playing in chess tournaments.
His first major chess tournament was the Grandmaster tournament at San
Sebastián, Spain in 1911. He was allowed to play at the insistence of
the American champion, Frank Marshall, in spite of complaints by the
other players that he did not meet the requirements. Capablanca
shocked the world by winning the tournament. It was then proposed that
he play a match for the World Chess Championship with Emanuel Lasker.
However, the requirements set by Lasker were too stringent and the
match did not take place.
Capablanca finally got to play a match for the world championship in
1921 in Havana Cuba. Lasker resigned the match when the score stood at
four wins for Capablanca and ten draws.
It was during this period that Capablanca went through an incredible
non-losing streak. For an eight year period from 1916 to 1924
Capablanca never lost a game of chess, a record that stands to this
day. It was also during this period that Capablanca wrote “Chess
Fundamentals”, first published in 1921.
The streak finally ended when Reti defeated him in New York 1924 when
Capablanca's queen was unexpectedly trapped.
Capablanca defended his world title against Alexander Alekhine in 1927
and unexpectedly lost the match by 6 losses to 3 wins to 25 draws. As
Capablanca was still considered to be the stronger player, there has
been controversy ever since as to why he lost the match.
After that, Alekhine famously refused to give Capablanca a re-match
and set other conditions so high that it was not until many years
later that Capablanca and Alekhine even played again in the same
tournament together.
Most authorities agree that Capablanca was always the stronger player
and would have defeated Alekhine in a rematch had it ever been played.
His loss of the 1927 match has been attributed to a lack of study and
preparation on the part of Capablanca, whereas Alekhine had prepared
thoroughly for the match.
A great article by Edward Winter provides a lot of new material about
the latter years of Capablanca's life.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5329http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablancaolga.html
Capablanca married his second wife, Olga, in 1939. They only spent
three and a half years together, as Capablanca died of a cerebral
hemorrhage on March 8, 1942.
Wherever Olga went with Capablanca, he was treated as a great
celebrity. She describes an event in Paris where they met the Duke and
Duchess of Windsor.
“Two more people arrived about this time through the same entrance: a
highly-decorated French General and then, shortly afterwards, a
pleasant-looking elderly lady in a black lace dress and several rows
of large pearls. These aroused in me a certain admiration: the courage
to wear so prominently such obviously false pearls at this event. I
liked her untouched silvery white hair; she too felt friendlily
disposed and soon we found some common friends in New York. Capa and
the old General became engrossed in each other, discussing the
Napoleonic wars.
“Meanwhile, elegant crowds started pouring in. I quickly noticed some
extra attentions bestowed on my lady with the pearls. And before long
I knew these pearls were real. And she was Mrs McL., of great wealth
and much decorated by the French Government.”
That “Mrs McL” was of course Evalyn Walsh McLean, one of the richest
women in the world and the owner of the Hope Diamond, about whom
“Father Struck It Rich and The Curse of the Hope Diamond” by Evalyn
Walsh McLean has recently been published by Ishi Press ISBN
0923891048.
From the time of his death in 1942 until the time of his widow's death
in 1994, no reprint of any books by Capablanca appeared. However,
immediately after her death several reprints appeared.
This many be related to the fact that all of his works were
copyrighted by Olga Capablanca Clark, his widow, who had married a man
named Clark after his death.
Also, about the time of her death, copyrights appeared in the names of
Olga Capablanca VonNeff, Olga Capablanca-Vo Neff, and Kenneth VonNeff
(Wr) (on original appl.: Olga Capablanca-VonNeff (A & PPW)). It is not
clear who these people are but it might be that Olga married a fifth
time to a man named VonNeff and he had a child by a previous marriage
named Kenneth VonNeff.
Edward Winter reports that Capablanca had married Gloria Simoni
Betancourt in 1921, eight months after becoming world champion, and
the couple had two children, born 1923 and 1925.
However, there is no record of what happened to these two children,
who might possibly still be alive today.
It is also said that the marriage was “not successful”. One wonders by
which standard the success of a marriage is being judged. By modern
standards, any marriage that lasted 13 years and produced two children
much be considered a success.
Another very minor mystery is that the original dust jacked of this
book says that it contains 18 complete games.
However, the book actually contains 19 complete games, all of which
are re-provided in algebraic notation in the back. One wonders why
that is.
                                        Sam Sloan
                                        August 1, 2009
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871...http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878414
ISBN 4-87187-841-4
978-4-87187-841-8

Sam, is this the book in which Capa wrote "If that's chess, you can
keep it"?

[Offramp]

Post by samsloan
Chess Fundamentals
by José Raúl Capablanca
Foreword by Sam Sloan
World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik regarded Capablanca's Chess
Fundamentals as the best chess book ever written.
This is a reprint of the original “Chess Fundamentals” by Capablanca,
as first published in 1921 and only a preface added by Capablanca in
1934.
The reader here can feel confident that this reprint contains the
exact, complete words of Capablanca. Not one word has been changed or
omitted. All 14 illustrative games plus another five games in the
initial text have been converted into algebraic notation in an
appendix added in the back of this book, with diagrams.
As Edward Winter points out in his “Chess Notes” article entitled
“Capablanca Goes Algebraic”, other modern reprints that have come out
after the death of his widow, Olga Capablanca, in 1994 have omitted or
re-written entire sections of the original book. One reprint has
omitted entirely the “illustrative Games” section from the last half
of the book, thus making it a much shorter book. Another reprint has
replaced some of Capablanca's games with games by Fischer and
Kasparov.
Edward Winter sums up his view of these reprints when he writes that
one reviser “has not supplemented Chess Fundamentals. He has destroyed
it.”
Capablanca would not have approved of these revisions. In this, the
1934 edition, in which he made no changes but only added a preface, he
wrote,
‘... Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was 13 years ago. It will
be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and
rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may
therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that
there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be
added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one
standard work of its kind 13 years ago and the author firmly believes
that it is the one standard work of its kind now.’
According to a study by Professor Arpad Elo in his book “The Rating of
Chess Players, Past and Present” ISBN 0923891277, Jose Raoul
Capablanca was the strongest chess player who ever lived, prior to the
arrival of Bobby Fischer.
José Raúl Capablanca was born November 19, 1888 in Havana, Cuba, but
lived most of his life in New York City, when he was not touring the
world playing in chess tournaments.
His first major chess tournament was the Grandmaster tournament at San
Sebastián, Spain in 1911. He was allowed to play at the insistence of
the American champion, Frank Marshall, in spite of complaints by the
other players that he did not meet the requirements. Capablanca
shocked the world by winning the tournament. It was then proposed that
he play a match for the World Chess Championship with Emanuel Lasker.
However, the requirements set by Lasker were too stringent and the
match did not take place.
Capablanca finally got to play a match for the world championship in
1921 in Havana Cuba. Lasker resigned the match when the score stood at
four wins for Capablanca and ten draws.
It was during this period that Capablanca went through an incredible
non-losing streak. For an eight year period from 1916 to 1924
Capablanca never lost a game of chess, a record that stands to this
day. It was also during this period that Capablanca wrote “Chess
Fundamentals”, first published in 1921.
The streak finally ended when Reti defeated him in New York 1924 when
Capablanca's queen was unexpectedly trapped.
Capablanca defended his world title against Alexander Alekhine in 1927
and unexpectedly lost the match by 6 losses to 3 wins to 25 draws. As
Capablanca was still considered to be the stronger player, there has
been controversy ever since as to why he lost the match.
After that, Alekhine famously refused to give Capablanca a re-match
and set other conditions so high that it was not until many years
later that Capablanca and Alekhine even played again in the same
tournament together.
Most authorities agree that Capablanca was always the stronger player
and would have defeated Alekhine in a rematch had it ever been played.
His loss of the 1927 match has been attributed to a lack of study and
preparation on the part of Capablanca, whereas Alekhine had prepared
thoroughly for the match.
A great article by Edward Winter provides a lot of new material about
the latter years of Capablanca's life.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5329http://www.chesshi...
Capablanca married his second wife, Olga, in 1939. They only spent
three and a half years together, as Capablanca died of a cerebral
hemorrhage on March 8, 1942.
Wherever Olga went with Capablanca, he was treated as a great
celebrity. She describes an event in Paris where they met the Duke and
Duchess of Windsor.
“Two more people arrived about this time through the same entrance: a
highly-decorated French General and then, shortly afterwards, a
pleasant-looking elderly lady in a black lace dress and several rows
of large pearls. These aroused in me a certain admiration: the courage
to wear so prominently such obviously false pearls at this event. I
liked her untouched silvery white hair; she too felt friendlily
disposed and soon we found some common friends in New York. Capa and
the old General became engrossed in each other, discussing the
Napoleonic wars.
“Meanwhile, elegant crowds started pouring in. I quickly noticed some
extra attentions bestowed on my lady with the pearls. And before long
I knew these pearls were real. And she was Mrs McL., of great wealth
and much decorated by the French Government.”
That “Mrs McL” was of course Evalyn Walsh McLean, one of the richest
women in the world and the owner of the Hope Diamond, about whom
“Father Struck It Rich and The Curse of the Hope Diamond” by Evalyn
Walsh McLean has recently been published by Ishi Press ISBN
0923891048.
From the time of his death in 1942 until the time of his widow's death
in 1994, no reprint of any books by Capablanca appeared. However,
immediately after her death several reprints appeared.
This many be related to the fact that all of his works were
copyrighted by Olga Capablanca Clark, his widow, who had married a man
named Clark after his death.
Also, about the time of her death, copyrights appeared in the names of
Olga Capablanca VonNeff, Olga Capablanca-Vo Neff, and Kenneth VonNeff
(Wr) (on original appl.: Olga Capablanca-VonNeff (A & PPW)). It is not
clear who these people are but it might be that Olga married a fifth
time to a man named VonNeff and he had a child by a previous marriage
named Kenneth VonNeff.
Edward Winter reports that Capablanca had married Gloria Simoni
Betancourt in 1921, eight months after becoming world champion, and
the couple had two children, born 1923 and 1925.
However, there is no record of what happened to these two children,
who might possibly still be alive today.
It is also said that the marriage was “not successful”. One wonders by
which standard the success of a marriage is being judged. By modern
standards, any marriage that lasted 13 years and produced two children
much be considered a success.
Another very minor mystery is that the original dust jacked of this
book says that it contains 18 complete games.
However, the book actually contains 19 complete games, all of which
are re-provided in algebraic notation in the back. One wonders why
that is.
                                        Sam Sloan
                                        August 1, 2009
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871...
ISBN 4-87187-841-4
978-4-87187-841-8

  Sam, is this the book in which Capa wrote "If that's chess, you can
keep it"?

Capa wrote, "If you have bought this book, you can keep it."

[Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)]

Post by Offramp

Post by samsloan
Chess Fundamentals
by José Raúl Capablanca
Foreword by Sam Sloan

"If that's chess, you can keep it"?

Capa wrote, "If you have bought this book, you can keep it."

Actually, Capa wrote:

"Sam, if you have written an intro
then you and Phil may keep it".

Regards,

Wlod

[jkh001]

Give the guy a break. This is an excellent book, long out of print and
with no copyright problems. We should be happy that it's being
reprinted, no matter who the publisher is. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but
it's not like he's the Incarnation of Evil, incapable of doing
anything good.

[The Historian]

Post by jkh001
Give the guy a break. This is an excellent book, long out of print and
with no copyright problems. We should be happy that it's being
reprinted, no matter who the publisher is. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but
it's not like he's the Incarnation of Evil, incapable of doing
anything good.

I think other posters are mocking 'chess journalist' Phil Innes for
his claim that Capa wrote "If this is chess, you can keep it."

[help bot]

Post by The Historian
I think other posters are mocking 'chess journalist' Phil Innes for
his claim that Capa wrote "If this is chess, you can keep it."

That's not quite true...

What the Great Dr. IMnes actually wrote was
that he thought he had read somewhere that Mr.
Capablanca had said: "if that's chess, you can
keep it". (For some reason, Dr. IMnes has not
/yet/ claimed to have personally been there, and
personally heard Mr. Capablanca say this, and
then bested him in an offhand blitz match.)

The point is that in order for Dr. IMnes to be
considered vindicated, all that needs to be done
is to find the claim (no matter how ridiculous)
published somewhere-- anywhere. Then TK
must change his focus of attack to the writer,
publisher, and of course, to Dr. IMnes' strange
tendency to readily gobble up any and every
such claim he reads.

And if it happened that this claim were found,
but it refered not to Jose Capablanca, but say
to Chewbacca from Star Wars, then again, Dr.
IMnes would be vindicated in that his belief to
have read the words "somewhere" would be
shown to make partial sense. He merely got
the details wrong-- the identity of the speaker
in the story being Chewbacca, which /sounds
a bit like/ Capablanca.


-- help bot

[Detectorist]

Post by jkh001
Give the guy a break. This is an excellent book, long out of print and
with no copyright problems. We should be happy that it's being
reprinted, no matter who the publisher is. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but
it's not like he's the Incarnation of Evil, incapable of doing
anything goo

the book seems to not be out of print. Amazon has in stock various
recent editions. I'm sure the world needs another one.

[jkh001]

Post by Detectorist

Post by jkh001
with no copyright problems. We should be happy that it's being
reprinted, no matter who the publisher is. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but
it's not like he's the Incarnation of Evil, incapable of doing
anything goo

the book seems to not be out of print. Amazon has in stock various
recent editions. I'm sure the world needs another one.

There's a hardcover edition available from Kessinger at a very high
price. There's also a "revised" edition produced by de Firmian a few
years ago with substantial changes, which got quite negative reviews.
Fortunately, you and I don't get to decide whether the world "needs"
another one. The customers do.

[samsloan]

Post by jkh001

Post by Detectorist

Post by jkh001
with no copyright problems. We should be happy that it's being
reprinted, no matter who the publisher is. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but
it's not like he's the Incarnation of Evil, incapable of doing
anything goo

the book seems to not be out of print. Amazon has in stock various
recent editions. I'm sure the world needs another one.

There's a hardcover edition available from Kessinger at a very high
price. There's also a "revised" edition produced by de Firmian a few
years ago with substantial changes, which got quite negative reviews.
Fortunately, you and I don't get to decide whether the world "needs"
another one. The customers do.

Kessinger Publishing is a print-on-demand company Located near Glacier
National Park in Montana. It claims to have more than 100,000 books in
print. Since it would be virtually impossible to have 100,000 books in
a place like Glacier National Park, Montana, I assume that they must
be making low quality scans of these books as they receive orders for
for them. All of their books have the same generic cover. All of their
titles are public domain books whose authors died more than 50 years
ago.

They probably have people located in cities who scan their books in
libraries when they receive orders for them.

I consider them to be a nuisance rather than a serious competitor.

Sam Sloan

[jkh001]

Post by samsloan

Post by jkh001

Post by Detectorist

Post by jkh001
with no copyright problems. We should be happy that it's being
reprinted, no matter who the publisher is. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but
it's not like he's the Incarnation of Evil, incapable of doing
anything goo

the book seems to not be out of print. Amazon has in stock various
recent editions. I'm sure the world needs another one.

There's a hardcover edition available from Kessinger at a very high
price. There's also a "revised" edition produced by de Firmian a few
years ago with substantial changes, which got quite negative reviews.
Fortunately, you and I don't get to decide whether the world "needs"
another one. The customers do.

Kessinger Publishing is a print-on-demand company Located near Glacier
National Park in Montana. It claims to have more than 100,000 books in
print. Since it would be virtually impossible to have 100,000 books in
a place like Glacier National Park, Montana, I assume that they must
be making low quality scans of these books as they receive orders for
for them. All of their books have the same generic cover. All of their
titles are public domain books whose authors died more than 50 years
ago.
They probably have people located in cities who scan their books in
libraries when they receive orders for them.
I consider them to be a nuisance rather than a serious competitor.
Sam Sloan

No sooner do I say something mildly favorable about the Sloon than he
starts honking again.

Kessinger is a well-known and reputable publisher, with a backlist
which I would estimate at roughly 1000 times that of Ishi Press. They
specialize in rare and out-of-print items, which have low demand and
hence fairly high prices. If Sloan can sell the Capa book at a lower
price, good for him. But for poor little Sam to consider himself a
"competitor" to a real publisher like Kessinger is a bit like a ferret
competing with a bear.

And, while it's not relevant here, Kessinger, like most _legitimate_
publishers, is a lot more scrupulous about copyright than the judgment-
proof Sloan.

[j***@googlemail.com]

Post by jkh001

Post by samsloan

Post by jkh001

Post by Detectorist

Post by jkh001
with no copyright problems. We should be happy that it's being
reprinted, no matter who the publisher is. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but
it's not like he's the Incarnation of Evil, incapable of doing
anything goo

the book seems to not be out of print. Amazon has in stock various
recent editions. I'm sure the world needs another one.

There's a hardcover edition available from Kessinger at a very high
price. There's also a "revised" edition produced by de Firmian a few
years ago with substantial changes, which got quite negative reviews.
Fortunately, you and I don't get to decide whether the world "needs"
another one. The customers do.

Kessinger Publishing is a print-on-demand company Located near Glacier
National Park in Montana. It claims to have more than 100,000 books in
print. Since it would be virtually impossible to have 100,000 books in
a place like Glacier National Park, Montana, I assume that they must
be making low quality scans of these books as they receive orders for
for them. All of their books have the same generic cover. All of their
titles are public domain books whose authors died more than 50 years
ago.
They probably have people located in cities who scan their books in
libraries when they receive orders for them.
I consider them to be a nuisance rather than a serious competitor.
Sam Sloan

No sooner do I say something mildly favorable about the Sloon than he
starts honking again.
Kessinger is a well-known and reputable publisher, with a backlist
which I would estimate at roughly 1000 times that of Ishi Press. They
specialize in rare and out-of-print items, which have low demand and
hence fairly high prices. If Sloan can sell the Capa book at a lower
price, good for him. But for poor little Sam to consider himself a
"competitor" to a real publisher like Kessinger is a bit like a ferret
competing with a bear.
And, while it's not relevant here, Kessinger, like most _legitimate_
publishers, is a lot more scrupulous about copyright than the judgment-
proof Sloan.

Chess Fundamentals is a good book. But if a child of ten was learning
chess, would it be the /first/ book you would recommend?

[help bot]

Post by j***@googlemail.com
Chess Fundamentals is a good book. But if a child of ten was learning
chess, would it be the /first/ book you would recommend?

I didn't like the book much, and would instead
recommend something by say, Yasser Seirawan
or Bruce Pandolfini. While I have not been at all
impressed by Mr. Pandolfini's "work" in Chess
Life, his book tittled the ABCs of Chess was
very good.

In my experience, some world-class players
(such as Mr. Capablanca) make for poor chess
teachers for the masses. One notes that the
reviewers themselves are afraid to criticize the
work of such greats, and almost automatically
churn out mindless praise en masse, just as
they did (and still do) for such slop as Basic
Chess Endings, a work chock-full of errors.

Yasser Seirawan now has an entire series of
books -- thick books, not the thin potboiler stuff
in Andy Soltis style with gigantic diagrams to fill
the empty pages up -- which are quite good.
I have found a couple of things which lend the
impression that the problems were not Fritz-
checked, and upon checking, discovered that
a few of his solutions were a tad less than
perfect; I would guess he did this all without
using a chess engine, and was strong enough
to manage the job well anyway.

There is a Web site by Jeremy Silman in
which a huge number of chess books are
reviewed, and many have numerical ratings
which allow one to see at a glance the books
that stand out. Unfortunately, most of the
books do not have these rating numbers, and
of those that do, the reviewers appear to be
suffering from a severe case of group-think.

Often as not, the numbers will be identical
--even down to the fractions of a point; for
instance, a book rated 1.5 by one reviewer
might very well be rated 1.5 by the other
(which is statistically almost impossible
since no other book on the site has that
exact rating and the scale goes all the way
up to 10). Clearly, one reviewer reads the
other review(s) and then pretends he is an
ape, if not a parrot.

Almost these "famous" books are written
by FIDE-titled players, and as such, it is
difficult to believe their expertise in prepping
for the opening translates well into writing
good material for beginners, especially kids.
Personally, I see the opening-preparation/
memorization approach as /anything but/
wise. While at the U.S. Open a few days
ago, I listened as a small child was being
coached while he basically memorized by
rote the best line of the Fried Liver Attack--
what a terrible way to try and learn chess!

I could beat this kid six ways from Sunday,
and all that rote memorization would be
wasted. After the game, his coach would
undoubtedly show the kid one improvement
in the early opening, and then I would beat
him again... and again, using different
moves each time. Chess is a pool in which
an elephant can bathe, and in which the
gnats are simply drowned.


-- help bot

[Mike Murray]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 03:40:42 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

.

Post by samsloan
Kessinger Publishing is a print-on-demand company Located near Glacier
National Park in Montana. It claims to have more than 100,000 books in
print. Since it would be virtually impossible to have 100,000 books in
a place like Glacier National Park, Montana, I assume that they must
be making low quality scans of these books as they receive orders for
for them. All of their books have the same generic cover. All of their
titles are public domain books whose authors died more than 50 years
ago.

They're not located in the Park. Their mailing address is Whitefish,
which has become a *very* affluent resort community. A few miles
South is Kalispell, population about 14,000. I don't know anything
about this particular company, but there's no reason they couldn't
have a large warehouse and their own publishing facility somewhere in
the region -- the owners may like living there and labor's relatively
cheap.

BTW, I've visited a bookstore in Alberton (population 420), Montana,
which has well over 100,000 books in stock:
http://www.montanavalleybookstore.com/

[samsloan]

Post by Mike Murray
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 03:40:42 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
.

Post by samsloan
Kessinger Publishing is a print-on-demand company Located near Glacier
National Park in Montana. It claims to have more than 100,000 books in
print. Since it would be virtually impossible to have 100,000 books in
a place like Glacier National Park, Montana, I assume that they must
be making low quality scans of these books as they receive orders for
for them. All of their books have the same generic cover. All of their
titles are public domain books whose authors died more than 50 years
ago.

They're not located in the Park.  Their mailing address is Whitefish,
which has become  a *very* affluent resort community.  A few miles
South is Kalispell, population about 14,000.  I don't know anything
about this particular company, but there's no reason they couldn't
have a large warehouse and their own publishing facility somewhere in
the region -- the owners may like living there and labor's relatively
cheap.
BTW, I've visited a bookstore in Alberton (population 420), Montana,
which has well over 100,000 books in stock:http://www.montanavalleybookstore.com/

I think it is very unlikely that they have a large warehouse with
100,000 books in it, especially since they do not provide a street
address or how to find them. They provide only a PO Box.

They also provide a curious note to those who want to claim violations
of copyright. It seems that they receive a lot of such complaints.

http://www.kessinger.net/copyright-questions.php

However, if they have all the books they claim to have they are
providing a great public service. For example one of their listings
is:

Chess Studies: Comprising One Thousand Games, Actually Played During
The Last Half Century (1844) by George Walker.

http://www.kessinger.net/searchresults-orderthebook.php?ISBN=1436803489

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

I started this out as a project to publish a Spanish Language edition
of Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca, an idea suggested to me by David
Brummer, a Spanish speaking player at the World Open.

I now have 114 books in print and I have a stack of 15 books sitting
next to my desk that I am working on.

I originally planned to publish just a Spanish Language edition of
Chess Fundamentals which is called Fundamentos Del Ajedrez. I assumed
that a good English Language version of Chess Fundamentals would be
readily available.

I was shocked to learn that a good English Language edition of Chess
Fundamentals is hard to find. According to Edward Winter, all the
current English Language editions are Bowdlerized.

Meanwhile there is a Spanish Language translation of Chess
Fundamentals. (The original Chess Fundamentals was published in
English.) I ordered a copy from a bookseller in Venezuela, but all I
received from him was an empty envelope. He claims a postal clerk must
have stolen it. This I interpret as a good sign showing a high demand
for the book.

I am still working on publishing a Spanish Language edition.

Sam Sloan

Post by samsloan
Chess Fundamentals
by José Raúl Capablanca
Foreword by Sam Sloan
World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik regarded Capablanca's Chess
Fundamentals as the best chess book ever written.
This is a reprint of the original “Chess Fundamentals” by Capablanca,
as first published in 1921 and only a preface added by Capablanca in
1934.
The reader here can feel confident that this reprint contains the
exact, complete words of Capablanca. Not one word has been changed or
omitted. All 14 illustrative games plus another five games in the
initial text have been converted into algebraic notation in an
appendix added in the back of this book, with diagrams.
As Edward Winter points out in his “Chess Notes” article entitled
“Capablanca Goes Algebraic”, other modern reprints that have come out
after the death of his widow, Olga Capablanca, in 1994 have omitted or
re-written entire sections of the original book. One reprint has
omitted entirely the “illustrative Games” section from the last half
of the book, thus making it a much shorter book. Another reprint has
replaced some of Capablanca's games with games by Fischer and
Kasparov.
Edward Winter sums up his view of these reprints when he writes that
one reviser “has not supplemented Chess Fundamentals. He has destroyed
it.”
Capablanca would not have approved of these revisions. In this, the
1934 edition, in which he made no changes but only added a preface, he
wrote,
‘... Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was 13 years ago. It will
be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and
rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may
therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that
there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be
added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one
standard work of its kind 13 years ago and the author firmly believes
that it is the one standard work of its kind now.’
According to a study by Professor Arpad Elo in his book “The Rating of
Chess Players, Past and Present” ISBN 0923891277, Jose Raoul
Capablanca was the strongest chess player who ever lived, prior to the
arrival of Bobby Fischer.
José Raúl Capablanca was born November 19, 1888 in Havana, Cuba, but
lived most of his life in New York City, when he was not touring the
world playing in chess tournaments.
His first major chess tournament was the Grandmaster tournament at San
Sebastián, Spain in 1911. He was allowed to play at the insistence of
the American champion, Frank Marshall, in spite of complaints by the
other players that he did not meet the requirements. Capablanca
shocked the world by winning the tournament. It was then proposed that
he play a match for the World Chess Championship with Emanuel Lasker.
However, the requirements set by Lasker were too stringent and the
match did not take place.
Capablanca finally got to play a match for the world championship in
1921 in Havana Cuba. Lasker resigned the match when the score stood at
four wins for Capablanca and ten draws.
It was during this period that Capablanca went through an incredible
non-losing streak. For an eight year period from 1916 to 1924
Capablanca never lost a game of chess, a record that stands to this
day. It was also during this period that Capablanca wrote “Chess
Fundamentals”, first published in 1921.
The streak finally ended when Reti defeated him in New York 1924 when
Capablanca's queen was unexpectedly trapped.
Capablanca defended his world title against Alexander Alekhine in 1927
and unexpectedly lost the match by 6 losses to 3 wins to 25 draws. As
Capablanca was still considered to be the stronger player, there has
been controversy ever since as to why he lost the match.
After that, Alekhine famously refused to give Capablanca a re-match
and set other conditions so high that it was not until many years
later that Capablanca and Alekhine even played again in the same
tournament together.
Most authorities agree that Capablanca was always the stronger player
and would have defeated Alekhine in a rematch had it ever been played.
His loss of the 1927 match has been attributed to a lack of study and
preparation on the part of Capablanca, whereas Alekhine had prepared
thoroughly for the match.
A great article by Edward Winter provides a lot of new material about
the latter years of Capablanca's life.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5329http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablancaolga.html
Capablanca married his second wife, Olga, in 1939. They only spent
three and a half years together, as Capablanca died of a cerebral
hemorrhage on March 8, 1942.
Wherever Olga went with Capablanca, he was treated as a great
celebrity. She describes an event in Paris where they met the Duke and
Duchess of Windsor.
“Two more people arrived about this time through the same entrance: a
highly-decorated French General and then, shortly afterwards, a
pleasant-looking elderly lady in a black lace dress and several rows
of large pearls. These aroused in me a certain admiration: the courage
to wear so prominently such obviously false pearls at this event. I
liked her untouched silvery white hair; she too felt friendlily
disposed and soon we found some common friends in New York. Capa and
the old General became engrossed in each other, discussing the
Napoleonic wars.
“Meanwhile, elegant crowds started pouring in. I quickly noticed some
extra attentions bestowed on my lady with the pearls. And before long
I knew these pearls were real. And she was Mrs McL., of great wealth
and much decorated by the French Government.”
That “Mrs McL” was of course Evalyn Walsh McLean, one of the richest
women in the world and the owner of the Hope Diamond, about whom
“Father Struck It Rich and The Curse of the Hope Diamond” by Evalyn
Walsh McLean has recently been published by Ishi Press ISBN
0923891048.
From the time of his death in 1942 until the time of his widow's death
in 1994, no reprint of any books by Capablanca appeared. However,
immediately after her death several reprints appeared.
This many be related to the fact that all of his works were
copyrighted by Olga Capablanca Clark, his widow, who had married a man
named Clark after his death.
Also, about the time of her death, copyrights appeared in the names of
Olga Capablanca VonNeff, Olga Capablanca-Vo Neff, and Kenneth VonNeff
(Wr) (on original appl.: Olga Capablanca-VonNeff (A & PPW)). It is not
clear who these people are but it might be that Olga married a fifth
time to a man named VonNeff and he had a child by a previous marriage
named Kenneth VonNeff.
Edward Winter reports that Capablanca had married Gloria Simoni
Betancourt in 1921, eight months after becoming world champion, and
the couple had two children, born 1923 and 1925.
However, there is no record of what happened to these two children,
who might possibly still be alive today.
It is also said that the marriage was “not successful”. One wonders by
which standard the success of a marriage is being judged. By modern
standards, any marriage that lasted 13 years and produced two children
much be considered a success.
Another very minor mystery is that the original dust jacked of this
book says that it contains 18 complete games.
However, the book actually contains 19 complete games, all of which
are re-provided in algebraic notation in the back. One wonders why
that is.
                                        Sam Sloan
                                        August 1, 2009
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871...http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878414
ISBN 4-87187-841-4
978-4-87187-841-8

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
I was shocked to learn that a good English Language edition of Chess
Fundamentals is hard to find. According to Edward Winter, all the
current English Language editions are Bowdlerized.

Where do you see Winter saying this, Sam? To "bowdlerize" means to
expurgate or change words or passages deemed immoral or improper.
Winter's main article on Capablanca's books, here:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablanca.html

praises the 1994 Cadogan edition of Chess Fundamentals, and says
nothing about any bowdlerization.
As I recall, Winter's wrath has been directed only at the 2006
Random House edition, ill-advisedly and badly revised by Nick de
Firmian. And as you can read here:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/defirmian.html

his objections have nothing to do with "bowdlerizing." Rather, Winter
objects to such wholesale changes as removing nine of the original 14
illustrative games annotated by Capablanca. This is not
bowdlerization, this is disembowelment.
So tell us, Sam, where does Winter say any edition of Fundamentals
has been bowdlerized? Given that Capa's prose is among the most spare
and proper of any chess writer, such a thing hardly seems possible; it
would be like trying to remove the alcohol from distilled water.

[samsloan]

I have ordered both editions online. When I receive them, I will tell
you what I think.

Meanwhile, my edition of Chess Fundamentals has just been printed. It
should be available for order on amazon.com and bn.com tomorrow or the
next day.

Sam Sloan

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan
I have ordered both editions online. When I receive them, I will tell
you what I think.

Only if it's been properly bowdlerized, Sam.

[samsloan]

Post by samsloan
I have ordered both editions online. When I receive them, I will tell
you what I think.

  Only if it's been properly  bowdlerized, Sam.

Depends on what you mean by Bowdlerized.

My definition turns on the fact that Bowdler was also a strong chess
player who often lost to Philador.

I have received the DeFirmian revision of Chess Fundamentals.

DeFirmian has removed from the book nine annotated games by Capablanca
and replaced them with nine games by Fischer, Kasparov and DeFirmian
himself, all annotated by DeFirmian.

If I wanted to but a book of games by Fischer, Kasparov and DeFirmian,
there are a lot of books I could buy.

However, I wanted a book of games played and annotated by Capablanca.
Thus, I have been ripped off.

Fortunately, that White Knight Sam Sloan has come to the rescue with a
reprint of the original Capablanca book with no changes or deletions
in the text:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871878414
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878414

ISBN 4-87187-841-4
978-4-87187-841-8

So, in my view, DeFirmian has Bowdlerized the Capablanca book.

Sam Sloan

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
I have ordered both editions online. When I receive them, I will tell
you what I think.

  Only if it's been properly  bowdlerized, Sam.

Depends on what you mean by Bowdlerized.

No, Sam, I was referring to your thoughts. Some of your thoughts
should be bowdlerized before they are presented here. ;-)

Post by samsloan
I have received the DeFirmian revision of Chess Fundamentals.
DeFirmian has removed from the book nine annotated games by Capablanca
and replaced them with nine games by Fischer, Kasparov and DeFirmian
himself, all annotated by DeFirmian.
If I wanted to but a book of games by Fischer, Kasparov and DeFirmian,
there are a lot of books I could buy.
However, I wanted a book of games played and annotated by Capablanca.
Thus, I have been ripped off.

I quite agree.

Post by samsloan
So, in my view, DeFirmian has Bowdlerized the Capablanca book.

That commits semantic mayhem. "Bowdlerization" refers to a specific
kind of literary alteration, not to alterations in general. DeFirmian
has grievously altered the book, but not in the sense "bowdlerization"
means, which would involve removing or changing words considered
obscene, immoral or indelicate. Examples of bowdlerization (from
Bowdler himself) include eliminating references to prostitutes, and
changing Lady Macbeth's famous line "Out, damned spot!" to "Out,
crimson spot!".
Since there was nothing of that sort in Chess Fundamentals to begin
with, it cannot be bowdlerized. Contrary to your earlier post, Edward
Winter never said Chess Fundamentals had been bowdlerized by
DeFirmian; he said it had been destroyed.

[DannyPurvis]

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
I have ordered both editions online. When I receive them, I will tell
you what I think.

  Only if it's been properly  bowdlerized, Sam.

Depends on what you mean by Bowdlerized.

  No, Sam, I was referring to your thoughts. Some of your thoughts
should be bowdlerized before they are presented here. ;-)

Post by samsloan
I have received the DeFirmian revision of Chess Fundamentals.
DeFirmian has removed from the book nine annotated games by Capablanca
and replaced them with nine games by Fischer, Kasparov and DeFirmian
himself, all annotated by DeFirmian.
If I wanted to but a book of games by Fischer, Kasparov and DeFirmian,
there are a lot of books I could buy.
However, I wanted a book of games played and annotated by Capablanca.
Thus, I have been ripped off.

  I quite agree.

Post by samsloan
So, in my view, DeFirmian has Bowdlerized the Capablanca book.

  That commits semantic mayhem. "Bowdlerization" refers to a specific
kind of literary alteration, not to alterations in general. DeFirmian
has grievously altered the book, but not in the sense "bowdlerization"
means, which would involve removing or changing words considered
obscene, immoral or indelicate. Examples of bowdlerization (from
Bowdler himself) include eliminating references to prostitutes, and
changing Lady Macbeth's famous line "Out, damned spot!" to "Out,
crimson spot!".
  Since there was nothing of that sort in Chess Fundamentals to begin
with, it cannot be bowdlerized. Contrary to your earlier post, Edward
Winter never said Chess Fundamentals  had been bowdlerized by
DeFirmian; he said it had been destroyed.

Right. A metaphor is semantic mayhem, but it is semantic mayhem
committed for the purposes of expressiveness. A metaphor uses a word
in a new way to make a comparison that picks out or emphasizes some
feature, often previously unnoticed, of an object of interest. Here a
comparison was made between literal bowdlerization and the decisions
made by DeFirmian. DeFirmian was no doubt well intentioned, but he
made changes that harmed the original. The comparison to Bowdler
subtly casts DeFirmian as presumptuous and culturally arrogant, or
thereabouts.

I don't think you are going to be able to banish metaphor from the
English (or any natural) language. So I suggest you read Colin M.
Turybayne's _The Myth of Metaphor_.

[DannyPurvis]

Post by DannyPurvis

Post by samsloan

Post by samsloan
I have ordered both editions online. When I receive them, I will tell
you what I think.

  Only if it's been properly  bowdlerized, Sam.

Depends on what you mean by Bowdlerized.

  No, Sam, I was referring to your thoughts. Some of your thoughts
should be bowdlerized before they are presented here. ;-)

Post by samsloan
I have received the DeFirmian revision of Chess Fundamentals.
DeFirmian has removed from the book nine annotated games by Capablanca
and replaced them with nine games by Fischer, Kasparov and DeFirmian
himself, all annotated by DeFirmian.
If I wanted to but a book of games by Fischer, Kasparov and DeFirmian,
there are a lot of books I could buy.
However, I wanted a book of games played and annotated by Capablanca.
Thus, I have been ripped off.

  I quite agree.

Post by samsloan
So, in my view, DeFirmian has Bowdlerized the Capablanca book.

  That commits semantic mayhem. "Bowdlerization" refers to a specific
kind of literary alteration, not to alterations in general. DeFirmian
has grievously altered the book, but not in the sense "bowdlerization"
means, which would involve removing or changing words considered
obscene, immoral or indelicate. Examples of bowdlerization (from
Bowdler himself) include eliminating references to prostitutes, and
changing Lady Macbeth's famous line "Out, damned spot!" to "Out,
crimson spot!".
  Since there was nothing of that sort in Chess Fundamentals to begin
with, it cannot be bowdlerized. Contrary to your earlier post, Edward
Winter never said Chess Fundamentals  had been bowdlerized by
DeFirmian; he said it had been destroyed.

Right. A metaphor is semantic mayhem, but it is semantic mayhem
committed for the purposes of expressiveness. A metaphor uses a word
in a new way to make a comparison that picks out or emphasizes some
feature, often previously unnoticed, of an object of interest. Here a
comparison was made between literal bowdlerization and the decisions
made by DeFirmian. DeFirmian was no doubt well intentioned, but he
made changes that harmed the original. The comparison to Bowdler
subtly casts DeFirmian as presumptuous and culturally arrogant, or
thereabouts.
I don't think you are going to be able to banish metaphor from the
English (or any natural) language. So I suggest you read Colin M.
Turybayne's _The Myth of Metaphor_.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I meant Colin M. Turbayne, not Turybane. This is really a fabulous
book, especially the 1970 edition, which has two wonderful forewords
and also a splendid appendix. I really wish Sam Sloan could reprint
this book.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by DannyPurvis

  That commits semantic mayhem. "Bowdlerization" refers to a specific
kind of literary alteration, not to alterations in general. DeFirmian
has grievously altered the book, but not in the sense "bowdlerization"
means, which would involve removing or changing words considered
obscene, immoral or indelicate. Examples of bowdlerization (from
Bowdler himself) include eliminating references to prostitutes, and
changing Lady Macbeth's famous line "Out, damned spot!" to "Out,
crimson spot!".
  Since there was nothing of that sort in Chess Fundamentals to begin
with, it cannot be bowdlerized. Contrary to your earlier post, Edward
Winter never said Chess Fundamentals  had been bowdlerized by
DeFirmian; he said it had been destroyed.

Right. A metaphor is semantic mayhem, but it is semantic mayhem
committed for the purposes of expressiveness.

I don't understand your point, Dan. I was referring to Sloan's
misuse of the term "bowdlerize." No metaphor was involved. It's simply
a terminological error, like calling any kind of surgery a
tonsillectomy whether it involves tonsils or not.

Post by DannyPurvis
I don't think you are going to be able to banish metaphor from the
English (or any natural) language.

Wouldn't dream of it.

Post by DannyPurvis
So I suggest you read Colin M.
Turybayne's _The Myth of Metaphor_.

Thanks; I may look into it.

[Mike Murray]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:01:16 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by DannyPurvis
I don't think you are going to be able to banish metaphor from the
English (or any natural) language.

Wouldn't dream of it.

That would be simile to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[DannyPurvis]

  I don't understand your point, Dan. I was referring to Sloan's
misuse of the term "bowdlerize." No metaphor was involved. It's simply
a terminological error, like calling any kind of surgery a
tonsillectomy whether it involves tonsils or not.

I have trouble believing that you don't understand my point, but I
will repeat it. You misinterpreted Sam's metaphorical use of the word
"bowdlerize" as a literal use of the word "bowdlerize."

Your misinterpretation is an example is what Turbayne describes as
being used by a metaphor, as opposed to using a metaphor. An
equivalent mistake would be a pedantic rebuke of the assertion that
man is a wolf: "Man is not a wolf. A wolf has four legs and is covered
with fur."

Any word can be used as a metaphor. If my surgeon notes my trepidation
at an upcoming heart surgery, he might exclaim, "There's nothing to
it, old boy. It's a mere tonsillectomy."

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by DannyPurvis

  I don't understand your point, Dan. I was referring to Sloan's
misuse of the term "bowdlerize." No metaphor was involved. It's simply
a terminological error, like calling any kind of surgery a
tonsillectomy whether it involves tonsils or not.

I have trouble believing that you don't understand my point, but I
will repeat it. You misinterpreted Sam's metaphorical use of the word
"bowdlerize" as a literal use of the word "bowdlerize."

I don't believe I misinterpreted anything; I think Sam simply made a
poor choice of words. But it's hardly worth wasting any more time on
it.

[DannyPurvis]

Post by DannyPurvis

  I don't understand your point, Dan. I was referring to Sloan's
misuse of the term "bowdlerize." No metaphor was involved. It's simply
a terminological error, like calling any kind of surgery a
tonsillectomy whether it involves tonsils or not.

I have trouble believing that you don't understand my point, but I
will repeat it. You misinterpreted Sam's metaphorical use of the word
"bowdlerize" as a literal use of the word "bowdlerize."

  I don't believe I misinterpreted anything; I think Sam simply made a
poor choice of words. But it's hardly worth wasting any more time on
it.

Clarity of thought is worth an investment of time. We might still
disagree, but I hope that now you at least understand the issue.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by DannyPurvis

Post by DannyPurvis

  I don't understand your point, Dan. I was referring to Sloan's
misuse of the term "bowdlerize." No metaphor was involved. It's simply
a terminological error, like calling any kind of surgery a
tonsillectomy whether it involves tonsils or not.

I have trouble believing that you don't understand my point, but I
will repeat it. You misinterpreted Sam's metaphorical use of the word
"bowdlerize" as a literal use of the word "bowdlerize."

  I don't believe I misinterpreted anything; I think Sam simply made a
poor choice of words. But it's hardly worth wasting any more time on
it.

Clarity of thought is worth an investment of time. We might still
disagree, but I hope that now you at least understand the issue.

Yes, I do understand your point now, Dan. You explained it quite
clearly. Which is more than I can say for our resident self-
encryptionist, Phil Innes.

[a***@gmail.com]

Could you explain it to me?

[DannyPurvis]

Post by samsloan
I have ordered both editions online. When I receive them, I will tell
you what I think.

  Only if it's been properly  bowdlerized, Sam.

You continue to believe that your criticism of Sam's use of
"bowdlerized" was astute, but the opposite the case. Sam used the word
as an artful metaphor to describe an editing job that was done with
good intentions but that actually disserved the original. Don't be
naive. Sam understood the literal meaning of "bowdlerized" perfectly
well. My God, he has published a Thomas Bowdler edition of
Shakespeare! The problem with most of Sam's critics is that they are
much less sophisticated than their target.

[Detectorist]

Post by samsloan
I started this out as a project to publish a Spanish Language edition
of Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca, an idea suggested to me by David
Brummer, a Spanish speaking player at the World Open.
I now have 114 books in print and I have a stack of 15 books sitting
next to my desk that I am working on.
I originally planned to publish just a Spanish Language edition of
Chess Fundamentals which is called Fundamentos Del Ajedrez. I assumed
that a good English Language version of Chess Fundamentals would be
readily available.
I was shocked to learn that a good English Language edition of Chess
Fundamentals is hard to find. According to Edward Winter, all the
current English Language editions are Bowdlerized.
Meanwhile there is a Spanish Language translation of Chess
Fundamentals. (The original Chess Fundamentals was published in
English.) I ordered a copy from a bookseller in Venezuela, but all I
received from him was an empty envelope. He claims a postal clerk must
have stolen it. This I interpret as a good sign showing a high demand
for the book.
I am still working on publishing a Spanish Language edition.
Sam Sloan

Post by samsloan
Chess Fundamentals
by José Raúl Capablanca
Foreword by Sam Sloan
World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik regarded Capablanca's Chess
Fundamentals as the best chess book ever written.
This is a reprint of the original “Chess Fundamentals” by Capablanca,
as first published in 1921 and only a preface added by Capablanca in
1934.
The reader here can feel confident that this reprint contains the
exact, complete words of Capablanca. Not one word has been changed or
omitted. All 14 illustrative games plus another five games in the
initial text have been converted into algebraic notation in an
appendix added in the back of this book, with diagrams.
As Edward Winter points out in his “Chess Notes” article entitled
“Capablanca Goes Algebraic”, other modern reprints that have come out
after the death of his widow, Olga Capablanca, in 1994 have omitted or
re-written entire sections of the original book. One reprint has
omitted entirely the “illustrative Games” section from the last half
of the book, thus making it a much shorter book. Another reprint has
replaced some of Capablanca's games with games by Fischer and
Kasparov.
Edward Winter sums up his view of these reprints when he writes that
one reviser “has not supplemented Chess Fundamentals. He has destroyed
it.”
Capablanca would not have approved of these revisions. In this, the
1934 edition, in which he made no changes but only added a preface, he
wrote,
‘... Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was 13 years ago. It will
be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and
rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may
therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that
there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be
added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one
standard work of its kind 13 years ago and the author firmly believes
that it is the one standard work of its kind now.’
According to a study by Professor Arpad Elo in his book “The Rating of
Chess Players, Past and Present” ISBN 0923891277, Jose Raoul
Capablanca was the strongest chess player who ever lived, prior to the
arrival of Bobby Fischer.
José Raúl Capablanca was born November 19, 1888 in Havana, Cuba, but
lived most of his life in New York City, when he was not touring the
world playing in chess tournaments.
His first major chess tournament was the Grandmaster tournament at San
Sebastián, Spain in 1911. He was allowed to play at the insistence of
the American champion, Frank Marshall, in spite of complaints by the
other players that he did not meet the requirements. Capablanca
shocked the world by winning the tournament. It was then proposed that
he play a match for the World Chess Championship with Emanuel Lasker.
However, the requirements set by Lasker were too stringent and the
match did not take place.
Capablanca finally got to play a match for the world championship in
1921 in Havana Cuba. Lasker resigned the match when the score stood at
four wins for Capablanca and ten draws.
It was during this period that Capablanca went through an incredible
non-losing streak. For an eight year period from 1916 to 1924
Capablanca never lost a game of chess, a record that stands to this
day. It was also during this period that Capablanca wrote “Chess
Fundamentals”, first published in 1921.
The streak finally ended when Reti defeated him in New York 1924 when
Capablanca's queen was unexpectedly trapped.
Capablanca defended his world title against Alexander Alekhine in 1927
and unexpectedly lost the match by 6 losses to 3 wins to 25 draws. As
Capablanca was still considered to be the stronger player, there has
been controversy ever since as to why he lost the match.
After that, Alekhine famously refused to give Capablanca a re-match
and set other conditions so high that it was not until many years
later that Capablanca and Alekhine even played again in the same
tournament together.
Most authorities agree that Capablanca was always the stronger player
and would have defeated Alekhine in a rematch had it ever been played.
His loss of the 1927 match has been attributed to a lack of study and
preparation on the part of Capablanca, whereas Alekhine had prepared
thoroughly for the match.
A great article by Edward Winter provides a lot of new material about
the latter years of Capablanca's life.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5329http://www.chesshi...
Capablanca married his second wife, Olga, in 1939. They only spent
three and a half years together, as Capablanca died of a cerebral
hemorrhage on March 8, 1942.
Wherever Olga went with Capablanca, he was treated as a great
celebrity. She describes an event in Paris where they met the Duke and
Duchess of Windsor.
“Two more people arrived about this time through the same entrance: a
highly-decorated French General and then, shortly afterwards, a
pleasant-looking elderly lady in a black lace dress and several rows
of large pearls. These aroused in me a certain admiration: the courage
to wear so prominently such obviously false pearls at this event. I
liked her untouched silvery white hair; she too felt friendlily
disposed and soon we found some common friends in New York. Capa and
the old General became engrossed in each other, discussing the
Napoleonic wars.
“Meanwhile, elegant crowds started pouring in. I quickly noticed some
extra attentions bestowed on my lady with the pearls. And before long
I knew these pearls were real. And she was Mrs McL., of great wealth
and much decorated by the French Government.”
That “Mrs McL” was of course Evalyn Walsh McLean, one of the richest
women in the world and the owner of the Hope Diamond, about whom
“Father Struck It Rich and The Curse of the Hope Diamond” by Evalyn
Walsh McLean has recently been published by Ishi Press ISBN
0923891048.
From the time of his death in 1942 until the time of his widow's death
in 1994, no reprint of any books by Capablanca appeared. However,
immediately after her death several reprints appeared.
This many be related to the fact that all of his works were
copyrighted by Olga Capablanca Clark, his widow, who had married a man
named Clark after his death.
Also, about the time of her death, copyrights appeared in the names of
Olga Capablanca VonNeff, Olga Capablanca-Vo Neff, and Kenneth VonNeff
(Wr) (on original appl.: Olga Capablanca-VonNeff (A & PPW)). It is not
clear who these people are but it might be that Olga married a fifth
time to a man named VonNeff and he had a child by a previous marriage
named Kenneth VonNeff.
Edward Winter reports that Capablanca had married Gloria Simoni
Betancourt in 1921, eight months after becoming world champion, and
the couple had two children, born 1923 and 1925.
However, there is no record of what happened to these two children,
who might possibly still be alive today.
It is also said that the marriage was “not successful”. One wonders by
which standard the success of a marriage is being judged. By modern
standards, any marriage that lasted 13 years and produced two children
much be considered a success.
Another very minor mystery is that the original dust jacked of this
book says that it contains 18 complete games.
However, the book actually contains 19 complete games, all of which
are re-provided in algebraic notation in the back. One wonders why
that is.
                                        Sam Sloan
                                        August 1, 2009
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=4871...
ISBN 4-87187-841-4
978-4-87187-841-8- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Many years ago I purchased a Spanish edition of Chess Fundamentals. I
believe it was published in Spain or Argentina. Unfortunately, I don't
have it any more. Most of the great classic chess books are available
in Spanish in Argentina at greatly reduced prices compared to the
English language versions.