Soviet School of Chess, looking for the complete games
samsloan
by Kotov and Yudovich
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871878198
I am planning to publish a revised version of The Soviet School of
Chess. Actually, I have been planning this for the last two years
since June 2009 when I assigned an ISBN number to it before the book
was ready.
It is still not ready. The reason is I plan to provide every game
referenced in this book in Algebraic Notation in PGN Format in the
appendix in the book. So I have been going through the book and then
searching for the same games in the chess databases.
This is a big job because Kotov often includes only part of the game
such as the opening, middle game or the end game. He does not include
the entire game, only the part that he finds interesting or
noteworthy. However, I am trying to find the entire game.
Also, the book contains a lot of mistakes, such as the wrong year or
the wrong opponent. For example, on page 34 he cites Tarrasch-Chigorin
1906. However, there is no such game. The correct game is Marshall-
Chigorin 1906.
After going through the entire book, I have found 172 games in the
standard chess databases, but there are 14 games that I have not
found. So, I am calling for volunteers. If anybody here can find any
of these 14 games please post the complete game here in PGN notation.
Here are the 14 games I am searching for. Here is the name of the
player of white and black, the year that the game was played and the
page in the book where the game is referenced.
White Black Year Page Number
Kogan Tolush 1937 44
Zubarev Riumin 1931 50
Em. Lasker Nenarokov 1924 63
Konstantinopolsky Lilienthal 1936 85
Bondarevsky Ufimtsev 1936 169
Bondarevsky Anderson 1954 176
Ragozin Bondarevsky 1946 247
Rovner Tolush 1946 269
Dubinin Novotelnov 1948 282
Bykova Kogan 1954 359
Ignatieva Baine 1952 372
Zhelyandinov Voitsik 1953 374
Volpert Malinova 1953 376
Zvorykina Heemskerk 1952 377
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
> The Soviet School of Chess
> by Kotov and Yudovich
>
>
> I am planning to publish a revised version of The Soviet School of
> Chess.
> the wrong opponent. For example, on page 34 he cites Tarrasch-Chigorin
> 1906. However, there is no such game.
Not true, unless you just mean there is no such game on that page.
Chigorin did play Tarrasch in 1906, at Nuremberg.
> The correct game is Marshall-Chigorin 1906.
Chigorin played Marshall twice in 1906, at Ostend and Nuremberg.
Kotov gives part of both games on page 34. His mistake is in labeling
the Ostend game as being against Tarrasch at Nuremberg. The Marshall
and Tarrasch games are the same up through White's 6th move.
The bigger mistake on page 34 is that Kotov claims Chigorin was the
"founder" of the King's Indian Defense, based on his three games using
that line at Nuremberg 1906. This overlooks (or deliberately
disregards) the fact that Louis Paulsen was playing the KID long
before then. Just one example of how this book is an exercise in
propaganda, trying to portray the Russian/Soviet school as the sum of
all chess virtues and greatness.
David Ames
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871878198
>
> I am planning to publish a revised version of TheSovietSchoolofChess. Actually, I have been planning this for the last two years
> since June 2009 when I assigned an ISBN number to it before the book
> was ready.
>
> It is still not ready. The reason is I plan to provide every game
> referenced in this book in Algebraic Notation in PGN Format in the
> appendix in the book. So I have been going through the book and then
> searching for the same games in thechessdatabases.
>
> This is a big job because Kotov often includes only part of the game
> such as the opening, middle game or the end game. He does not include
> the entire game, only the part that he finds interesting or
> noteworthy. However, I am trying to find the entire game.
>
> Also, the book contains a lot of mistakes, such as the wrong year or
> the wrong opponent. For example, on page 34 he cites Tarrasch-Chigorin
> 1906. However, there is no such game. The correct game is Marshall-
> Chigorin 1906.
>
> After going through the entire book, I have found 172 games in the
> found. So, I am calling for volunteers. If anybody here can find any
> of these 14 games please post the complete game here in PGN notation.
>
> Here are the 14 games I am searching for. Here is the name of the
> player of white and black, the year that the game was played and the
> page in the book where the game is referenced.
>
> White Black Year Page Number
>
> Kogan Tolush 1937 44
> Zubarev Riumin 1931 50
> Em. Lasker Nenarokov 1924 63
> Konstantinopolsky Lilienthal 1936 85
> Bondarevsky Ufimtsev 1936 169
> Bondarevsky Anderson 1954 176
> Ragozin Bondarevsky 1946 247
> Rovner Tolush 1946 269
> Dubinin Novotelnov 1948 282
> Bykova Kogan 1954 359
> Ignatieva Baine 1952 372
> Zhelyandinov Voitsik 1953 374
> Volpert Malinova 1953 376
> Zvorykina Heemskerk 1952 377
>
> Sam Sloan
Have you combed through the Soviet yearbooks? Shakhmaty v ____ g.
Louis Blair
7 The Soviet School of Chess
7 by Kotov and Yudovich
7_
7 http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198
7 http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871878198
7_
7 I am planning to publish a revised
7 version of The Soviet School of Chess.
7 Actually, I have been planning this for
7 the last two years since June 2009
7 when I assigned an ISBN number to it
7 before the book was ready.
7_
7 It is still not ready. The reason is I
7 plan to provide every game referenced
7 in this book in Algebraic Notation in
7 PGN Format in the appendix in the
7 book. So I have been going through
7 the book and then searching for the
7 same games in the chess databases.
7
7 This is a big job because Kotov often
7 includes only part of the game such
7 as the opening, middle game or the
7 end game. He does not include the
7 entire game, only the part that he
7 finds interesting or noteworthy.
7 However, I am trying to find the
7 entire game.
7_
7 Also, the book contains a lot of
7 mistakes, such as the wrong year
7 or the wrong opponent. For example,
7 on page 34 he cites Tarrasch
7 -Chigorin 1906. However, there is no
7 such game. The correct game is
7 Marshall-Chigorin 1906.
7_
7 After going through the entire book,
7 I have found 172 games in the
7 standard chess databases, but
7 there are 14 games that I have not
7 found. So, I am calling for volunteers.
7 If anybody here can find any of
7 these 14 games please post the
7 complete game here in PGN
7 notation.
7_
7 Here are the 14 games I am
7 searching for. Here is the name of
7 the player of white and black, the
7 year that the game was played and
7 the page in the book where the
7 game is referenced.
7_
7 White Black Year Page Number
7 Kogan Tolush 1937 44
7 Zubarev Riumin 1931 50
7 Em. Lasker Nenarokov 1924 63
7 Konstantinopolsky Lilienthal 1936 85
7 Bondarevsky Ufimtsev 1936 169
7 Bondarevsky Anderson 1954 176
7 Ragozin Bondarevsky 1946 247
7 Rovner Tolush 1946 269
7 Dubinin Novotelnov 1948 282
7 Bykova Kogan 1954 359
7 Ignatieva Baine 1952 372
7 Zhelyandinov Voitsik 1953 374
7 Volpert Malinova 1953 376
7 Zvorykina Heemskerk 1952 377
7_
7 Sam Sloan
_
_
I may have found one of your games.
Since I am not sure, and I do not want
to cause confusion if I have the wrong
game, I have sent it to your USCF
mailbox. I guess you can let people
know here if you want to cross the
game off of your list.
None
> 7 The Soviet School of Chess
> 7 by Kotov and Yudovich
> 7 Sam Sloan
> _
> _
> I may have found one of your games.
> Since I am not sure, and I do not want
> to cause confusion if I have the wrong
> game, I have sent it to your USCF
> mailbox. I guess you can let people
> know here if you want to cross the
> game off of your list.
Louis, must you encourage him. And what's with those annoying 7s?
Louis Blair
7 The Soviet School of Chess
7 by Kotov and Yudovich
7 Sam Sloan
_
On Sep 3, 4:03 pm, Louis Blair
<lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote
7 I may have found one of your games.
7 Since I am not sure, and I do not want
7 to cause confusion if I have the wrong
7 game, I have sent it to your USCF
7 mailbox. I guess you can let people
7 know here if you want to cross the
7 game off of your list.
_
_
On Sep 3, 4:16 pm, None
<joesc...@gmail.com> wrote
7 Louis, must you encourage him.
7 And what's with those annoying 7s?
_
_
I find it hard to resist a request
for help if I think there is a chance
that I can be helpful.
_
I post using Google, but their
software seems to have some
quirks that modify how a message
looks. I have a number of
strategies (such as using 7
instead of >) in order to try to
avoid triggering the Google
message-modifying software.
That way, my posts come out
looking somewhat close to the
way I would want them to look.
Chvsanchez
> The Soviet School of Chess
> by Kotov and Yudovich
>
>
> I am planning to publish a revised version of The Soviet School of
> Chess. Actually, I have been planning this for the last two years
> since June 2009 when I assigned an ISBN number to it before the book
> was ready.
>
> It is still not ready. The reason is I plan to provide every game
> referenced in this book in Algebraic Notation in PGN Format in the
> appendix in the book. So I have been going through the book and then
> searching for the same games in the chess databases.
>
> This is a big job because Kotov often includes only part of the game
> such as the opening, middle game or the end game. He does not include
> the entire game, only the part that he finds interesting or
> noteworthy. However, I am trying to find the entire game.
But Kotov gives the entire game! Why you don't just input the moves?!
(as I have done time ago...)
samsloan
White has a king on f4, a knight on g6, a rook on h1 and a bishop on
b5 and pawns on e4 and d5.
Black has a king on g8, a knight on f6, a bishop on h3, a rook on c2
and pawns on a7, b6, d6, and g7.
It is Black to move and according to the book, White wins as follows:
1. .... Bg2 2. Rh8+ Kf7 3. Be8+ Nxe8 4. Kg5 followed by Rf8# mate.
I have searched all the databases and no such game is recorded. I am
beginning to wonder if this might be a fake game.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
1. Kotov, who played in this same 1936 tournament himself, is
reporting factually on a game he actually saw. But the game, from a
minor tournament, was little seen outside the USSR and has escaped the
attention of 21st-century database compilers, who concentrate on
recent games.
2. Kotov chose to praise Bondarevsky with a game Bondarevsky never
played, knowing that this embarrassing lie was likely to be
contradicted by Ufimtsev, Bondarevsky, and the other players at that
tournament.
Christian
I am beginning to wonder if you check the Winterpedia...
Taylor Kingston
discussed in a book by Bondarevsky himself:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter57.html#6098._Bondarevsky_v_Ufimtsev_C.N.s
samsloan
Thank you for pointing this out.
I have another question. There were two chess players named M.
Yudovich, presumably father and son.
According to chessgames.com, Mikhail M Yudovich Sr. was born
Jun-08-1911 and died Sep-19-1987. Mikhail M Yudovich Jr. was born
Feb-26-1932. No date of death is given but his last published game was
in 1972.
Does anybody know which Yudovich was the collaborator in "The Soviet
School of Chess" first published in 1958.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
According to Divinsky's "Batsford Chess Encyclopedia" the Russian
edition came out in 1951, and the elder Yudovich was Kotov's co-
author.
samsloan
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871878198
Introduction by Sam Sloan
“The Soviet School of Chess” is one of the most important books ever
written on chess. It starts with the pre-Soviet Era with the beginning
of the 19th century and recounts not only the histories of their
greatest players up to the modern times but also the history of their
ideas. A biography is provided for each of the greatest players plus
examples from their games and their contributions to chess knowledge
and opening theory.
All of this huge storehouse of information is crammed into a small
space in this book.
I have been planning for the last two years since June 2009 to publish
a revised version of The Soviet School of Chess including the complete
scores to all of the games cited. This is because the authors often
only provide the part of the game they deem to be significant, such as
a position from the middle game or the end game or occasionally from
the opening. With nearly two hundred games cited in the book and
incomplete scores provided for most of them, this has been a difficult
task.
After working on this project and then postponing it for two years, I
finally I decided to put all other work aside and get it done.
Most of the games are to be found in the standard databases,
especially when both of the players are famous. I was able to collect
most of those games by creating a “Game Collection” using
chessgames.com This utility enables the user not only to pick out the
games but also to put them in the order he wants them. Here, I wanted
to put the games in the order they appear in the Soviet School of
Chess, which starts with games by Chigorin and then progresses through
games by lesser known players and ends with games by (very weak)
female players.
There are questions involving the spelling of the names of some of the
players. For example, on page 185 of the book there is a game by a
player named Porrek. I was able to establish that this is the same
person as a player named Porreca in the databases.
This book cites seven games played by Chigorin and Tarrasch against
each other. However, these two players played at least 35 games
against each other, so I had to be careful to make sure that the game
I was including in the collection was the same game that was cited in
the book.
Since in most cases only part of each game is provided in the book, I
had to use the position search features of chesslab.com and ChessBase
to find the complete moves of the game in which that position was
reached.
The authors sometimes describe what happened in a game without
identifying the players or giving any of the moves. For example, on
page 45 it says that Alekhine introduced the “Kecskemet Variation”,
but does not provide the name of the player he played it against.
After my search of the databases, I found that the game was Znosko-
Borovsky vs Alekhine, 1933.
There are also a few mistakes in the book. On page 34, it cites a game
“Tarrasch vs. Chigorin, Nuremberg 1906”. That game was actually played
between Marshall and Chigorin in Ostende in 1906.
After searching as thoroughly as I could, there were still 14 games
that could not be found in any database. Five of those games involved
very weak women players. One game was found for me by chess researcher
Louis Blair. Several more games had the complete game score in the
book, so I merely typed them in by hand.
That left two games where a search of all available databases failed
to reveal a complete game score. Both of them involved a spectacular
combination which undoubtedly is why they are preserved in this book.
Here they are:
XABCDEFGHY
8-+-+-+k+(
7zp-+-+-zp-'
6-zp-zp-snN+&
5+L+P+-+-%
4-+-+PmK-+$
3+-+-+-+l#
2-+r+-+-+"
1+-+-+-+R!
xabcdefghy
Bondarevsky vs. Ufimtsev.
Here Black blundered with the natural-looking 1. .... Bg2, intending
to follow it with Bxe4 and Black wins easily.
However, instead White played 2. Rh8+ Kf7 3. Be8+ Nxe8 4. Kg5 and now
Rf8# mate cannot be prevented.
XABCDEFGHY
8-tR-+-+-+(
7+-zP-sn-mkp'
6-+-+-+-+&
5+N+p+-zp-%
4-+-zPpzp-+$
3+-+-zP-zP-#
2-+q+-zP-zP"
1+-+-+LmK-!
xabcdefghy
Bondarevsky vs. Ragozin
Here, White, Bondarevsky, won with 42. Re8 fxe3 43. fxe3 Kf6 44.
Nd6 !! Qxc7 45. Rf8+ Kg6 46. Rf6+ Kh5 47. Ne8 Qc2 48. Ng7+ Kg4 49. Rf2
1-0 and White wins because of 40. Kg2 followed by either 51. h2# or
41. Be2# mate.
It is a curious fact that both games were won by Grandmaster
Bondarevsky, one of the strongest players in the world, yet the
original scoresheets have not been found. This is discussed in
Winter's Chess Notes:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter57.html#6098._Bondarevsky_v_Ufimtsev_C.N.s
Kotov makes a few mistakes. On page 51 he cites Vidmar-Alekhine, San
Remo 1930. On page 83 he cites Vidmar-Alekhine, San Remo 1931.
Although it is possible that the same players played the same opening
in successive years, I have checked carefully and there was only one
game. It was played in 1930.
There are controversies surrounding this book. One concerns the title
“The Soviet School of Chess”. Detractors say that there was no such
thing as the Soviet School of Chess. There was just a lot of strong
players all of whom happened to live in the Soviet Union, where chess
was popular.
It is not true that the book claims that these players became strong
by contemplating the works of The Great Lenin. The book does suggest
however that the players became strong by thinking about Chigorin who,
by the way, died in 1908 and did not live long enough to see the
Soviet Union.
The book says: “The Soviet style of play is characterized by creative
scope, boldness and energy in attack, plus tenacity and
resourcefulness in defense.”
This was before Karpov came along, who specialized in trading down and
squeezing a win out of drawish looking positions.
One disturbing aspect of this book concerns the short life spans of
some of the strongest and most talented players. Kotov only gives
their dates and does not tell what happened to them. This was a
difficult time for the Soviet Union, with World War One, followed by
the Civil War (that is frankly mentioned in the book), followed by the
Great Purges and then World War Two and the Siege of Leningrad where
many chess players died, sometimes of starvation.
Kotov complains starting on page 14 that certain openings are given
non-Soviet names whereas they were first developed by a Russian. For
example, he complains that the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 is
called “The Berlin Defense”. He says that it should have been named
after Jaenisch.
This complaint is not valid. The Berlin Defense is so named because it
was played by World Champion Emanuel Lasker, who lived in Berlin. It
could not be named after Lasker because there are so many other
openings named after Lasker.
In the West, we have the opposite complaint. Whereas the names of
certain openings were well established, the Soviets would find some
Russian player and re-name the opening after him.
An example is the Pirc Defense, 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6, named after
a Yugoslav grandmaster, Vasja Pirc. The Soviets insisted on calling it
the Ufimtsev Defense, even though there is no proof that Ufimtsev ever
played it.
In the book, Kotov characterizes Ufimtsev as the Champion of
Kazakhstan, but only gives the position where he lost to Bondarevsky
above.
When I first visited the Soviet Union in 1977, I found that it was a
running joke there that everything of value in the world had been
invented by a Russian. For example, they knew that the electric light
bulb had actually been invented by Thomas Edison, an American, but the
Soviet authorities had found some Russian who supposedly had done some
important work and they claimed that that man had invented the light
bulb. “Everything was invented by a Russian” was a running joke there,
“Ah, yes, and that too was invented by a Russian”. They knew it was
all propaganda, and yet one Russian lectured to me in all seriousness
that the Benko Gambit, by a Hungarian, should be renamed the Volga
Gambit, after a place in Russia. They picked a place because they
could not find any Russian who they could say had invented it.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Eastern Open in Washington DC when I beat three Russians in a chess
tournament. I had never beaten a Russian before in my life and here I
suddenly beat three of them, one after the other.
I knew that the Russians were better than we were. I thought that they
could never be beaten and here I beat three of them.
In the book, Kotov complains that we in the West do not give the
Soviets credit for being better than we are. This complaint was not
valid. We knew all along that they were better than we were. We did
not know the reason. Was it because they contemplated the Great Lenin,
or was it because they thought about Chigorin, or was it because they
ate Wheaties, or was it because they neglected their wives and played
chess all the time, or was it because they were just plain smarter
than we were?
Whatever the reason was, we knew that they were better, a lot better,
than we were.
Sam Sloan
None
samsloan
Chess" which I cannot find in any database. If anybody can find the
complete scores of these games please let me know. Not only can I not
find such a game by these players but I cannot find a game with these
opening moves by Anybody.
They are Kogan vs Tolush 1937 cited on page 44 and Zubarev vs Riumin
1931 cited on page 50. Here are the partial move provided by the book
for these two games:
[Event "Moscow-Leningrad Match"]
[Date "1937"]
[White "Kogan"]
[Black "Tolush, Alexander"]
[ECO "C78"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Bc5 6. c3 Ba7 7. d4 b5
8. Bb3 Qe7 9. a4 O-O 10. Re1 d6 11. h3 Bd7 12. a5 Kh8 13. Be3 Nh5 *
[Date "1931"]
[White "Zubarev"]
[Black "Riumin"]
[ECO "D51"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. Nf3 c6 6. e4 dxe4 7. Nxe4
h6 8. Bxf6 Nxf6 9. Nc3 b6
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
samsloan
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871878198
Sam Sloan
None
your research.
Taylor Kingston
thing, too, because I already spent them on lunch at Taco Bell
yesterday. ;-)
raylopez99
window washing beggar boys who do stuff to your windscreen (usually
half ass) for free then expect a tip. Annoying more than helpful.
Here is an example of TK's groveling for attention: "And how can
British players be so heavily represented? Were 3 moves played in
Emms' own games (all losses, reflecting his customary modesty) really
among the top 200 in chess history? Or 3 in Miles' games, 4 in
Short's, and 5 in Hodgson's? (Thanks to Taylor Kingston for those
counts--the book has no indices!)." -
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_most_amazing_moves_all.html
(a pretty decent book too, btw).
RL
Taylor Kingston
>
> Here is an example of TK's groveling for attention: "And how can
> British players be so heavily represented? Were 3 moves played in
> Emms' own games (all losses, reflecting his customary modesty) really
> among the top 200 in chess history? Or 3 in Miles' games, 4 in
> Short's, and 5 in Hodgson's? (Thanks to Taylor Kingston for those
A comment bizarre even by our Ray's usual standards. The reviewer
there, IM John Watson, had merely read my review of the book in
question (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/amazing.pdf) and was citing
the counts I had made. The relevant passage:
A mildly annoying omission is an index of players, if only because it
would be interesting to see at a glance who the "most amazing" players
are. Out of curiosity, I did a rough tabulation of Emms' selections.
The top scorer, as might be expected, is Kasparov, with eleven amazing
moves, followed by Fischer and Alekhine with seven each, and Karpov
with six. Next are Vishy
Anand and, perhaps unexpectedly, Julian Hodgson at five, then Tal and
Rubinstein at four, and a large group at three: Botvinnik, Bronstein,
Geller, Keres, Miles, Nimzowitsch, Short, and Spassky. Some very
famous players are little seen: Morphy, Lasker (both of them), and
Euwe each made only one move that qualified for the Top 200. Emanuel
Lasker also appears twice as a
victim. The most frequent victim? Karpov, four times (three by
Kasparov), followed by Ivanchuk, Shirov, Spassky, Topalov, and Emms
himself at three. Make of this what you will. An interesting oddity is
that Rashid Nezhmetdinov, who had an outrageous disregard for
material, appears only twice, the same as Capablanca and Petrosian,
exemplars of soundness. Some names one might expect are absent; e.g.,
Adolf Anderssen, while many littleknown "one-move wonders" are to be
found, showing this is not the sole province of the great.
> (a pretty decent book too, btw).
material was lifted (without proper credit) from Tim Krabbé's "Chess
Curiosities" web-site. Krabbé considered Emms' actions roughly
equivalent to pillaging an art museum. Watson, unlike Emms, was kind
and conscientious enough to acknowledge and thank me when he used my
data.
raylopez99
> On Sep 20, 11:07 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is an example of TK's groveling for attention: "And how can
> > British players be so heavily represented? Were 3 moves played in
> > Emms' own games (all losses, reflecting his customary modesty) really
> > among the top 200 in chess history? Or 3 in Miles' games, 4 in
> > Short's, and 5 in Hodgson's? (Thanks to Taylor Kingston for those
> > counts--the book has no indices!)." -http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_most_amazing_moves_all...
>
> A comment bizarre even by our Ray's usual standards. The reviewer
> there, IM John Watson, had merely read my review of the book in
> question (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/amazing.pdf) and was citing
> the counts I had made. The relevant passage:
>
'relevant passage', which is not relevant at all, after I specifically
cited it twice the first time around, even giving the URL for those
interested in more information! All just to see your name mentioned
again. Wow. That's a clear example of Vanity, one of the original 7
Deadly Sins*.
> > (a pretty decent book too, btw).
>
> Actually, it's quite indecent in a very important way: much of its
> material was lifted (without proper credit) from Tim Krabbé's "Chess
> Curiosities" web-site. Krabbé considered Emms' actions roughly
> equivalent to pillaging an art museum. Watson, unlike Emms, was kind
> and conscientious enough to acknowledge and thank me when he used my
> data.
that the moves selected by Emms were not really that significant from
a chess history point of view, and called out in his review examples
of where Emms apparently used minor games or his own losses as
material for the moves. As for your slanderous libel that Emms is a
plagiarist, again Watson states Emms is a modest man (citing how Emms
used games in which he lost as material to show amazing moves). By
definition modest men are incapable of committing crimes of passion,
omission or plagiarism.
Are you ever right?
RL
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
samsloan
ChessFire
> The Soviet School of Chess
> by Kotov and Yudovich
>
>
> I am planning to publish a revised version of The Soviet School of
> Chess. Actually, I have been planning this for the last two years
> since June 2009 when I assigned an ISBN number to it before the book
> was ready.
>
> It is still not ready. The reason is I plan to provide every game
> referenced in this book in Algebraic Notation in PGN Format in the
> appendix in the book. So I have been going through the book and then
> searching for the same games in the chess databases.
>
> This is a big job because Kotov often includes only part of the game
> such as the opening, middle game or the end game. He does not include
> the entire game, only the part that he finds interesting or
> noteworthy. However, I am trying to find the entire game.
But this partial score situation is not innocent on Kotov's behalf.
Soviet School is the most propagandist chess title ever published, and
many of the lines claimed as 'current theory' were far from that, in
fact deliberated deceits. While I applaud remaking the title in
algebraic, take a good look at what the [anonymous] Dover chess
editors wrote about the title in their preface. Phil Innes
samsloan
> On Aug 31, 4:06 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Soviet School of Chess
> > by Kotov and Yudovich
>
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198
>
>
> But this partial score situation is not innocent on Kotov's behalf.
> Soviet School is the most propagandist chess title ever published, and
> many of the lines claimed as 'current theory' were far from that, in
> fact deliberated deceits. While I applaud remaking the title in
> algebraic, take a good look at what the [anonymous] Dover chess
> editors wrote about the title in their preface. Phil Innes
>
I respectfully disagree.
The Dover version says: "Therefore, his works tended to be rather
critical of (and occasionally somewhat dismissive toward) American
players. Russian players, on the other hand, were presented and
described in a particularly favorable light."
However the anonymous author of the Dover version was simply wrong.
The American players were simply much weaker than the Soviet players.
With the exception of Reshevsky, none of the top American players
could compete against the Soviets at the time this book was written.
Sam Sloan
ChessFire
> On Sep 28, 7:46 am, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Aug 31, 4:06 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Soviet School of Chess
> > > by Kotov and Yudovich
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198
>
>
>
> > But this partial score situation is not innocent on Kotov's behalf.
> > Soviet School is the most propagandist chess title ever published, and
> > many of the lines claimed as 'current theory' were far from that, in
> > fact deliberated deceits. While I applaud remaking the title in
> > algebraic, take a good look at what the [anonymous] Dover chess
> > editors wrote about the title in their preface. Phil Innes
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> The Dover version says: "Therefore, his works tended to be rather
> critical of (and occasionally somewhat dismissive toward) American
> players. Russian players, on the other hand, were presented and
> described in a particularly favorable light."
>
> However the anonymous author of the Dover version was simply wrong.
respectfully disagree, since the American authors [and who are
they?!!] spoke in an extraordinary way about the title they address to
which I have never seen the equal.
They do say: "It is stated, for example, that the growth of the
Soviet School took place immediately after the October revolution in
1917; in actual fact it was not until 1934, when the leading Soviet
players began venturing to tournaments in other countries, that the
USSR was recognised as any sort of chess power at all. As late as 1940
there were only 5 international grandmasters in the Soviet Union."
Which is to say that the statement by Kotov and Yudovich is an
entirely political one, reinventing history, and an Orwellianism,
conducted by revisionist communist polity.
and
" ... the authors of would have us believe that without Chigorin as
the founder of the Soviet chess school ... while his contributions to
chess theory have indeed been valuable... the game of chess would have
remained at the level it was one hundred years ago."
the commentary of these anonymous authors for Dover, continue —
" in this far they are unfair to such great teachers of the past as
Tarrasch and others. They refer, for instance, on page 19 to the
seventeenth game of the famous Tarrasch-Chigorin match, criticising
Tarrasch's play [and here you will remember my note in the previous
post to why some games are 'not available'] but omitting the fact that
he ultimately won the game."
and then you have the absurd — really absurd claims, which the editors
note:
" one needs to recall that the Lettish [or Latvian or Greco] counter
gambit was not, as stated here, invented by a group of players from
Riga but was actually originated by Giachino Greco, an Italian master,
in the early seventeenth century."
> The American players were simply much weaker than the Soviet players.
"Nowhere in his writing do we find any indication that he was 'keenly
aware of his separation from his native land.' The author's refer to
him however, as Russia's greatest player' whereas this 'adoption of
Alekhine appears even stranger when one considers that Nicolai Grekhov
in his appraisal of the Soviet school, //Soviet Chess, 1948// barely
mentions the existence of Alekhine, representing him with only one
game, a loss to Botvinnik.'
These comments are in the introduction to the Dover edition, grand
prize to Jerry or Taylor if they can find out who [plural?] wrote it.
> With the exception of Reshevsky, none of the top American players
> could compete against the Soviets at the time this book was written.
proved themselves by winning Olympiads throughout the 1930s. After the
war we have Soviet non-amateurs supported by the state as [undeclared]
professionals competing with the amateur West, until Fischer broke
their confidence in what a lone wolf could accomplish.
At the time the book was published, there were 10,000 players in the
US and 1,000,000 in the USSR. Upon this the editors of the Dover title
say, "we must take issue with the comment that 'the rise of the Soviet
school to the summit of world chess is a logical result of socialistic
cultural development."
It was obviously pure capitalism! Pay for professionals, get results.
These things are in the Introduction to the Dover Edition and I wonder
only if Sam Sloan does not represent them here for some political
orientation, as is often the case, socialists and libertarians
mistaking communism as the same thing as if enacted. The editors of
the Dover edition raise in their introduction huge red flags [so to
speak] about the propaganda, in this case 'lying mudder' nature of the
source, and in the text too warn against top lines as being actual
best lines, such as I mentioned in my previous message.
It is one thing to republish this work in algebraic format, but to not
notice the thunder and lightning introduction, as if you should duck
your head from Kotiv's rhetoric, is another.
This title achieves the simultaneous status of being most politically
and most chessically skewed of any title in chess history.
Phil Innes
>
> Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/brady.htm
it was written by Frank Brady. Considering that this is said by Bill
Wall, a grain or two of salt may be in order, but it sounds plausible.
As for the rest, I must agree on the whole with Innes and disagree
with Sloan on the propaganda content of "The Soviet School of Chess,"
and the essential correctness of the Dover introduction.
Chvsanchez
> On Sep 28, 3:16 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > These comments are in the introduction to the Dover edition, grand
> > prize to Jerry or Taylor if they can find out who [plural?] wrote it.
>
> According to this:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/brady.htm
>
> it was written by Frank Brady. Considering that this is said by Bill
> Wall, a grain or two of salt may be in order, but it sounds plausible.
KOTOV, A. The Soviet school of chess, by A. Kotov & M. Yudovich.
(Dover, T26) Appl. author: Frank Brady. NM: introd. © Dover
Publications, Inc.; 90ct6l; A52925I.
None
>
> Sam Sloan
None
> On Sep 28, 2:55 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I plagarize books and sell them to suckers because I can.
>
Taylor Kingston
> On Sep 28, 3:16 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > These comments are in the introduction to the Dover edition, grand
> > prize to Jerry or Taylor if they can find out who [plural?] wrote it.
>
> According to this:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/brady.htm
>
> it was written by Frank Brady.
None
>
> >http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/brady.htm
>
> > it was written by Frank Brady.
>
> So, Phil, what's my "grand prize"?
ChessFire
> So, Phil, what's my "grand prize"?
Sorry, my post didn't show up. But here is an analysis of opening
theory, where Adorjan is conducting a conversation on the real origins
of the Queen's Indian, correcting impressions by others, it is both
technical [not shown here] and historical. As you will see, and
similar to the claims we currently investigate in 'Soviet Chess'
origins are not as first published or now thought:—
Dear Peter [Boel],René
A few remarks concerning "Who is the Author?" First: the so - called
Botvinnik System was played first and some
more games (avaliable) by Klaus Junge, who died young in World War
II.
There is the 'Hubner Variation" in the Nimzo.But it was employed by
Lajos Portisch earlier in 7 games! (Hell knows where did I mispaced
the scoresheets) Moreover there is an excellent game Johner -
Nimzovitch (1926)
as the very first game of Nimzo (Hübner) Defence.
Even this is NOT true. To my knowledge already the move 3....Bb4 is a
brainchild of the great Russian writer Turgeniev. (game avaliable)
To be continued - AA -Greetings
==
Dear Friends,
You are receiving our Queen's Indian article (1 -2) titled ' Two
Forefathers ' who are H.Dobosz and me. The text
comes soon.It is remarkable that Carlsen played it against Aronian
(Botvinnik memorial) in 2011!
Regards: András, Endre
Taylor Kingston
>
> here is an analysis of opening
> theory, where Adorjan is conducting a conversation on the real origins
> of the Queen's Indian, correcting impressions by others, it is both
> technical [not shown here] and historical. As you will see, and
> similar to the claims we currently investigate in 'Soviet Chess'
> origins are not as first published or now thought:—
> Dear Peter [Boel],René
>
> A few remarks concerning "Who is the Author?" First: the so - called
> Botvinnik System was played first and some
> more games (avaliable) by Klaus Junge, who died young in World War
> II.
>
> There is the 'Hubner Variation" in the Nimzo.But it was employed by
> Lajos Portisch earlier in 7 games! (Hell knows where did I mispaced
> the scoresheets) Moreover there is an excellent game Johner -
> Nimzovitch (1926)
> as the very first game of Nimzo (Hübner) Defence.
>
> Even this is NOT true. To my knowledge already the move 3....Bb4 is a
> brainchild of the great Russian writer Turgeniev. (game avaliable)
Just offhand, the earliest example I can find of 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6
3.Nf3 b6 is Blackburne-Noa, Frankfurt 1887:
Blackburne,Joseph Henry - Noa,Josef [E12]
DSB–05.Kongress Frankfurt (3), 1887
1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 b6 4.Bg5 Bb7 5.Nbd2 h6 6.Bh4 Be7 7.Qc2 Nc6 8.a3
g5 9.Bg3 g4 10.Ne5 Nxd4 11.Qc3 Nf5 12.Nxg4 Rg8 13.Bxc7 Qxc7 14.Nxf6+
Bxf6 15.Qxf6 Rg6 16.Qc3 Rc8 17.e4 Nd6 18.f3 Qc5 19.Nb3 Qg5 20.Rd1 e5
21.g3 f5 22.exf5 Qxf5 23.Be2 h5 24.0–0 Qf4 25.Rxd6 Rxg3+ 26.Kf2 Rh3
27.Ke1 Rxh2 28.Qd3 Bc6 29.Rg6 Qf7 30.Rfg1 time 1–0
And for 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6, it's Schiffers-Chigorin, Cologne 1898:
Schiffers,Emanuel Stepanovich - Chigorin,Mikhail [A50]
DSB–11.Kongress Cologne (11), 1898
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6 3.c4 Bb7 4.e3 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Bd3 d6 7.0–0 0–0 8.e4
Nbd7 9.Be3 e5 10.d5 Ng4 11.Bc1 Nc5 12.Bc2 Bc8 13.b4 Nb7 14.h3 Nh6
15.Rb1 Kh8 16.Ba4 Qe7 17.Bc6 Rb8 18.Rb3 Nd8 19.b5 a5 20.bxa6 Nxc6
21.dxc6 Bxa6 22.Nd5 Qd8 23.Qc2 Ng8 24.Ra3 Bc8 25.Ra7 Ne7 26.Qa4 Nxd5
27.cxd5 Qe7 28.Re1 f5 29.exf5 Bxf5 30.Qh4 Qxh4 31.Nxh4 Rfc8 32.Nxf5
gxf5 33.g4 fxg4 34.Re4 Ra8 35.Rea4 Rxa7 36.Rxa7 gxh3 37.Kh2 h6 38.Kxh3
Kh7 39.a4 Kg6 40.f3 h5 41.Bd2 Bf6 42.a5 bxa5 43.Bxa5 Bd8 44.Be1 Kf5
45.Ra4 Bg5 46.Bf2 Bf4 47.Rb4 Bg5 48.Ba7 Rg8 49.Rb7 Bf4 50.Bf2 Rg7
51.Rb4 Bg5 52.Rb8 e4 53.Bd4 Rf7 54.Kg3 h4+ 55.Kf2 Kg6 56.Rg8+ Kf5
57.Rh8 exf3 58.Kxf3 Bf6 59.Bxf6 Rxf6 60.Re8 Rf7 61.Kg2 Kg4 62.Rg8+ Kf4
63.Re8 Rf5 64.Re7 Rxd5 65.Rxc7 Rc5 66.Kh3 Ke5 67.Rc8 Kd5 68.c7 Rc4
69.Rh8 Rxc7 70.Rh5+ Kc6 71.Rxh4 Rg7 72.Rc4+ Kb5 73.Rc1 d5 74.Rb1+ Kc5
75.Rc1+ Kd4 76.Rd1+ Ke4 77.Re1+ Kf3 78.Rf1+ Ke2 79.Rf8 d4 80.Re8+ Kd2
81.Re4 d3 82.Re8 Kd1 83.Re5 d2 84.Re8 Rc7 0–1
However, the real development of the QID is usually attributed to
Nimzovitch by historians. Others with an early liking for it included
Alekhine and Janowski. Anyway, I'd be interested to see what Adorjan
has to say.
Andrew B.
> They do say: "It is stated, for example, that the growth of the
> Soviet School took place immediately after the October revolution in
> 1917; in actual fact it was not until 1934, when the leading Soviet
> players began venturing to tournaments in other countries, that the
> USSR was recognised as any sort of chess power at all. As late as 1940
> there were only 5 international grandmasters in the Soviet Union."
And "it started to grow in 1917" and "it was first recognised as a
power in 1934" are hardly contradictory statements.
samsloan
states that it states that the growth of the Soviet School took place
immediately after the October Revolution.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871878198
The USA victories in the World Chess Olympiads in the 1920s and 1930s
took place because the Soviet Union did not play in those events and
because they were "amateur events" and professional chess players did
not play. That is the reason you do not see the best players in the
world, like Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine playing.
Nobody knows how good the Russian were during those times because
except for occasionally letting a few players out, the Soviet players
were not allowed to compete in the West.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
>
> > They do say: "It is stated, for example, that the growth of the
> > Soviet School took place immediately after the October revolution in
> > 1917; in actual fact it was not until 1934, when the leading Soviet
> > players began venturing to tournaments in other countries, that the
> > USSR was recognised as any sort of chess power at all. As late as 1940
> > there were only 5 international grandmasters in the Soviet Union."
>
> Did "international grandmaster" even mean anything before 1950?
1950. I supposed the writer meant that in 1940 there were only five
Soviet masters playing at a GM level. But even that doesn't fit, as at
that time Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Levenfish,
Bondarevsky, Lilienthal, Kotov and probably others were GM strength.
samsloan
You are overlooking the many very strong players in the Soviet Union
that we do not know about because they never got out of the Soviet
Union to play against us.
Most are unknown in the West or are only known because they have
openings named after them.
Also, many died at early ages in the wars and purges in the Soviet
Union. Riumin, for example, was considered equal to Botvinnik.
Here are a few names:
Ilyin-Zhenevsky
S Belavenets
Rabinovich
V Kirilov
Verlinsky
Veresov
Riumin
Rauzer
Sam Sloan
ChessFire
> > > The Soviet School of Chess
> > > by Kotov and Yudovich
>
> The American players were simply much weaker than the Soviet players.
> With the exception of Reshevsky, none of the top American players
> could compete against the Soviets at the time this book was written.
>
> Sam Sloan
if Taylor Kingston was correct in suggesting the author of the Dover
edition, May 1961, and he was. To substantiate this I wrote to ask him
if it were okay to say so, and what other influences if any there
were?
Here is a reply from Dr. Frank Brady: "I wrote the Preface, but since
it was in the 1950s, I was afraid to append my name, with the
implication that someone might think I was a Red. I wrote to Hayward
Cirker, then publisher and owner of Dover and asked him to remove my
name before the book was printed. Cirker did that and sent me a
cordial letter (I still have it!) agreeing to our "deep, dark secret"
that I wrote it. I don't care anymore, of course."
There are still some questions of, for example, if the last paragraph
is not actually from the publisher, even if in Frank's words.
So, that seems clear, except for one other anecdote by my old team
captain in England who advised that the chess was better than anything
else then being published in English language [this was intended as an
export book] but not to trust the lines too deeply since they were, in
his words 'distracting', as if to say, you young tigers better look a
bit further. His name was P. H. Clarke. In England there was no 'red
menace' atmosphere in the fifties as there was here with McCarthy, and
so cheap [important!] Russian oriented chess texts were welcome.
And finally, it was more difficult for American players to contest the
Soviets, since both countries limited access to each other, but as for
'only Reschevsky', who knows? There was simply not enough opportunity
to play Soviets over enough games to get psyched up for the few
encounters there were.
In the thirties the USA were world dominant in depth, 4 Olympiad gold
medals in 4 tries!
Naturally the Soviets in the late 50s were all government sponsored
professionals, even having other strong-players as researchers for
them, thus the playing field was no level one. Additionally, and I
asked Taimanov this directly, there was the 'habit' of spending most
of your energy against western players, rather than stress your own
champion, when in mixed competitions. He not only didn't deny the
fact, but admitted it, as if, so what?
A real contest didn't get going until the advent of Larsen and Fischer
15 years after WWII and who reinvigorated the west, especially my
country England where before there were no GMs, after we had Keene,
then Adams and Short and so on.
Hope that clears a few things up.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> On Oct 3, 8:46 am, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 1:33 am, "Andrew B." <bull...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 11:16 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > They do say: "It is stated, for example, that the growth of the
> > > > Soviet School took place immediately after the October revolution in
> > > > 1917; in actual fact it was not until 1934, when the leading Soviet
> > > > players began venturing to tournaments in other countries, that the
> > > > USSR was recognised as any sort of chess power at all. As late as 1940
> > > > there were only 5 international grandmasters in the Soviet Union."
>
> > > Did "international grandmaster" even mean anything before 1950?
>
> > Technically, no, since the title was first officially awarded in
> > 1950. I supposed the writer meant that in 1940 there were only five
> > Soviet masters playing at a GM level. But even that doesn't fit, as at
> > that time Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Levenfish,
> > Bondarevsky, Lilienthal, Kotov and probably others were GM strength.
>
> You are overlooking the many very strong players in the Soviet Union
> that we do not know about
overlook them. However, any deserving GM-level player I did not
mention can be considered as included in "and probably others were GM
strength."
Chvsanchez
was Botvinnik.
Soviet grandmasters:
Botvinnik: 1935
Levenfish: 1937
Kotov:1939
Bondarevsky: 1940
Lilienthal: 1940
Keres: 1941
Smyslov: 1941
Flohr: 1942
Boleslavsky: 1945
Ragozin: 1946
Bronstein: 1948
Averbakh: 1952 (=IGM)
Geller: 1952 (=IGM)
Petrosian: 1952 (=IGM)
Taimanov: 1952 (=IGM)
Tolush: 1953 (=IGM)
Korchnoi: 1956 (=IGM)
Spassky: 1956 (=IGM)
Tal: 1957 (=IGM)
Polugaevsky: 1960
Kholmov: 1960 (=IGM)
Vasiukov: 1961 (=IGM)
Then FIDE copied the title system.
The rest of the names mentioned are not grandmasters but have a
different title:
Ilyin-Zhenevsky: Master of Sport, 1925
Belavenets: Master of Sport, 1933
Abram Rabinovich: Master of Sport, 1909
Ilya Rabinovich: Master of Sport, 1914
Kirillov: Master of Sport, 1958
Verlinsky: Master of Sport, 1924
Veresov: Master of Sport, 1937
Riumin: Master of Sport, 1931
Rauzer: Master of Sport, 1929
Taylor Kingston
> On 3 oct, 12:46, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 1:33 am, "Andrew B." <bull...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 11:16 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > They do say: "It is stated, for example, that the growth of the
> > > > Soviet School took place immediately after the October revolution in
> > > > 1917; in actual fact it was not until 1934, when the leading Soviet
> > > > players began venturing to tournaments in other countries, that the
> > > > USSR was recognised as any sort of chess power at all. As late as 1940
> > > > there were only 5 international grandmasters in the Soviet Union."
>
> > > Did "international grandmaster" even mean anything before 1950?
>
> > Technically, no, since the title was first officially awarded in
> > 1950. I supposed the writer meant that in 1940 there were only five
> > Soviet masters playing at a GM level. But even that doesn't fit, as at
> > that time Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Levenfish,
> > Bondarevsky, Lilienthal, Kotov and probably others were GM strength.
>
> As you know the USSR created the grandmaster title in 1935,
international/ grandmaster.
> the first
> was Botvinnik.
According to Bronstein ("The Sorcerer's Apprentice," 1995) the first
to get that title was actually Boris Verlinsky. Bronstein claims it
was taken away from Verlinsky on some pretext just to further glorify
Botvinnik by making him "the first."
> Soviet grandmasters:
>
> Botvinnik: 1935
> Levenfish: 1937
> Kotov:1939
> Bondarevsky: 1940
> Lilienthal: 1940
Soviet School of Chess."
>
> - Show quoted text -
samsloan
overlook the fact that the book is out now, with complete game scores
in Algebraic notation of all 200 games referenced in the book.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871878198
On Aug 31, 1:06 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Soviet School of Chess
> by Kotov and Yudovich
>
Taylor Kingston
> While you are arguing over the benefits of Communism, kindly do not
> overlook the fact that the book is out now, with complete game scores
> in Algebraic notation of all 200 games referenced in the book.
I suspect you just gathered up the game scores from databases and
appended them after the book proper. You did not actually change the
notation within the body of the book, right? That would be actual
work.
samsloan
many of them obscure or not in the databases at all you are mistaken.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
that is, changing all the notation in the book, both actual game moves
and annotations, from descriptive to algebraic, interweaving the full
text in the right places. Having done it several times, I can tell you
it takes months. But since the main problem with descriptive is that
few players can read it any more, that's the whole point of producing
an algebraic version.
What you're doing is simply appending a database dump at the end of
the unchanged Dover edition, right?
MikeMurray
whole mass of classic chess literature isn't available to you. A
student of mine was having trouble with descriptive -- we just played
a few clock games where he HAD to record his moves in descriptive --
no problem anymore.
One can argue the merits of algebraic versus descriptive, but the fact
is that learning either takes minutes, and getting comfortable with
either shouldn't take more than an hour or so.
The Masked Bishop
be hard to write...just make sure all ood moves are for white, evens
for black, etc.
As for not being able to read it...it's nice to know it, and Andy
Soltis held the line in Chess Rag for years, but we aren't learning
Greek in elementary school anymore either. All things must pass.
MikeMurray
let you go back and forth. They seem to have disappeared.
There are a lot of good books that haven't yet been converted, or, as
in the case of Fischer's book, were poorly converted, so it's still
useful, just as some knowledge of Greek and Latin gives a deeper
insight into English usage.
Greek in elementary school? I remember reading of John Adams tutoring
John Quincy in Greek, Latin, and calculus when they were in France,
and pondering the likelyhood of Bush senior similarly tutoring the
Shrub. Heh, heh, heh.
Taylor Kingston
> Is there a descriptive to algebraic converter? Seems like it wouldn't
> be hard to write...just make sure all ood moves are for white, evens
> for black, etc.
I've done two descriptive-to-algebraic book conversions (e.g.
http://shop.chesscafe.com/Laskers_Manual_of_Chess.asp) and am working
on a third. There's no magic wand I know of. I use ChessBase. If a
game is in a database that's a big help, but you usually have to enter
the note variations manually. If a game is not in a database, you have
to enter the whole thing, moves and notes.
And of course the verbal text has to be hand-typed. Or in some cases
it can be scanned into a pdf or Word doc with character-recognition
software, which allows you to cut-and-paste, but the conversion is
often unreliable and creates a lot of typos, unlike ChessBase which
never makes notational errors.
> As for not being able to read it...it's nice to know it, and Andy
> Soltis held the line in Chess Rag for years, but we aren't learning
> Greek in elementary school anymore either. All things must pass.
I agree with Mike that it's just about as easy to read descriptive
as algebraic, and any serious chess player should know both. But in
terms of the market, most players just don't want to bother with
descriptive any more, so if you want to sell books, it must be
algebraic.
The Masked Bishop
> as algebraic, and any serious chess player should know both. But in
> terms of the market, most players just don't want to bother with
> descriptive any more, so if you want to sell books, it must be
> algebraic.
Well, it's KIND OF just as easy. Actually, it isn't...you have to keep
flipping the board in your head and it's hopelessly
illogical...algebraic gives every square a distinct reference
point...descriptive is cooler sounding, that's about it.
I waited for years for My 60 Memorable Games to come out in algebraic
(the new version, not the bowdlerized one), before finally reading it.
MikeMurray
On the other hand, as you note, it's pretty labor intensive to convert
the games and the notes and this probably leads to repagination which
may be a problem with indexes, etc.
I think Sam's approach is a reasonable compromise, although I think
he'd add a lot of value if he'd either include a CD with the algebraic
game database, or at least, provide a link so someone purchasing the
book could download the games. A reader could 'tap' through the
games with the book in hand, and the on-screen presentation would
provide a return reference point when going through the annotations.
MikeMurray
<tmb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Mike that it's just about as easy to read descriptive
>> as algebraic, and any serious chess player should know both. But in
>> terms of the market, most players just don't want to bother with
>> descriptive any more, so if you want to sell books, it must be
>> algebraic.
>
>Well, it's KIND OF just as easy. Actually, it isn't...you have to keep
>flipping the board in your head
pedal, the steering wheel, the brakes, the shift lever and the turn
signals when driving. Soon, it all becomes automatic.
To me, the biggest advantage of algebraic is it's more succinct and it
make it harder to record an ambiguous move.
>and it's hopelessly
>illogical...algebraic gives every square a distinct reference
>point...descriptive is cooler sounding, that's about it.
recording error with algebraic is "descriptivizing" it, treating the
square designations as if they were different for white and balck.
Taylor Kingston
> I agree with Mike that it's just about as easy to read descriptive
>
> > as algebraic, and any serious chess player should know both. But in
> > terms of the market, most players just don't want to bother with
> > descriptive any more, so if you want to sell books, it must be
> > algebraic.
>
> Well, it's KIND OF just as easy. Actually, it isn't...you have to keep
> flipping the board in your head and it's hopelessly
> illogical...algebraic gives every square a distinct reference
> point...descriptive is cooler sounding, that's about it.
teeth on descriptive in my mid-teens, and it seemed completely
natural. Didn't even know any other kind of notation existed. When I
finally saw a book in algebraic it looked like gobbledygook. I didn't
buy any books in algebraic or start using algebraic for my own games
until years later.
> I waited for years for My 60 Memorable Games to come out in algebraic
> (the new version, not the bowdlerized one), before finally reading it.
algebraic recently. Besides Lasker's "Manual of Chess" and "Common
Sense in Chess," both of which I worked on, the tournament books for
St. Petersburg 1909, London 1922, New York 1924, New York 1927, and
Nottingham 1936 have all been reissued in algebraic. Other classics
are in the works.
raylopez99
>
> That's kind of like saying you have to keep thinking about the gas
> pedal, the steering wheel, the brakes, the shift lever and the turn
> signals when driving. Soon, it all becomes automatic.
>
manual transmission.
RL
Martin Brown
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:58:31 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
> <ttk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 4:50 pm, samsloan<samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> since the main problem with descriptive is that
>> few players can read it any more, that's the whole point of producing
>> an algebraic version.
>
> It's idiotic not be able to read descriptive notation -- it means a
> whole mass of classic chess literature isn't available to you. A
It also seems like it should not take long to learn as you say.
> student of mine was having trouble with descriptive -- we just played
> a few clock games where he HAD to record his moves in descriptive --
> no problem anymore.
Whilst I am inclined to agree it seems to me like converting important
games and annotation into modern notation is potentially worthwhile. It
is interesting to set modern engines loose on ancient expert analysis.
Once it is in machine readable form you can show it either way and
engine based analysis can spot things that expert humans will miss.
>
> One can argue the merits of algebraic versus descriptive, but the fact
> is that learning either takes minutes, and getting comfortable with
> either shouldn't take more than an hour or so.
Perhaps a couple of hours but I tend to agree. The main difference is
how you count the squares and K vs Q side disambiguation.
It is also amusing when the games are not in English abbreviations.
ISTR The transition to algebraic was somewhere in the mid 70's.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Taylor Kingston
wrote:
>
> It is interesting to set modern engines loose on ancient expert analysis.
Indeed it is. In each of the four book conversions I've done so far,
I've added an appendix, detailing analytical errors. In some cases
long-held verdicts have been overturned.
None
I've done two descriptive-to-algebraic book conversions (e.g.
http://shop.chesscafe.com/Laskers_Manual_of_Chess.asp) and am working
on a third. There's no magic wand I know of.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Indeed it is. In each of the four book conversions I've done so far,
> I've added an appendix, detailing analytical errors. In some cases
> long-held verdicts have been overturned.
Can't be too hard. In less than 24 hours you went from two finished
conversions to four. Way to go Sam
Taylor Kingston
> On Oct 11, 3:39 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> on a third. There's no magic wand I know of.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> > Indeed it is. In each of the four book conversions I've done so far,
> > I've added an appendix, detailing analytical errors. In some cases
> > long-held verdicts have been overturned.
>
> Can't be too hard. In less than 24 hours you went from two finished
> conversions to four. Way to go Sam
To be specific, Stan: two conversions I worked on have been
published ("Common Sense In Chess" and "Lasker's Manual of Chess").
Another is finished but not yet in print, and another is nearing
completion. I am not at liberty to divulge those titles yet.
MikeMurray
For example, older cars (e.g, '49 Packard) often had hybrid type
shifting, where you could shift like a manual but didn't need the
clutch unless you had to shift quickly. And in new cars, you can
always manually control the shift points rather than just plopping it
in "drive" and leaving it there. One can even wear driving gloves and
a sporty hat while doing so.
Anyway, I doubt that the average stick shift user thinks about
shifting in normal situations -- just does it automatically.
Taylor Kingston
the first was "The Life and Games of Carlos Torre." That was
especially tricky because it was in Spanish descriptive.
Besides the fact that R stands for king and not rook, and except for
the pawn the other symbols are all different (A=bishop, C=knight,
D=queen, T=rook) the Spanish convention of putting adjectives after
nouns adds another difficulty. For example Rf8-c8 would be rendered as
TR1AD, short for "El torre del rey a la casilla una del alfil de
dama," i.e. "The tower of the king to square one of the bishop of
queen."
Jürgen R.
"Taylor Kingston" <ttk...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7842b8f0-beeb-4ccc...@v38g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> Is there a descriptive to algebraic converter? Seems like it wouldn't
>> be hard to write...just make sure all ood moves are for white, evens
>> for black, etc.
>
> I've done two descriptive-to-algebraic book conversions (e.g.
> http://shop.chesscafe.com/Laskers_Manual_of_Chess.asp) and am working
> on a third. There's no magic wand I know of.
It seems slightly absurd that all of the books mentioned here,
including Kotov/Yudovich, were originally published with
algebraic, then tediously converted into descriptive notation, and
finally Sloanified back into algebraic.
None
bubbles up another macabre mix of mismatched metaphors musing
mercenary merchants of minutiae minus meaninful movement of major
bowels.
None
>
> For example, older cars (e.g, '49 Packard) often had hybrid type
> shifting, where you could shift like a manual but didn't need the
> clutch unless you had to shift quickly.
The Masked Bishop
speeders that Botvinnik played in the nude, in late 1959 at a now-
defunct, members-only club called Moszna, just outside of Krakow,
Poland.
Apparently Mischa won them all, and he won them convincingly, only
playing flank openings with speculative combinations that should have
lost. Rumor has it that he didn't even wear a robe when entering the
room, which may have contributed to a psychological edge against his
opponent, an unknown clubber who was rumored to be female.
These are VERY hard to find, since the game scores were pulled from
Shakhmatny at the last minute by a meddling politico from the Kremlin.
Good luck.
None
> Just remembered, it's actually five converted books I've worked on:
available on E-Bay, Amazon, and published by Sloan's IshitU Press.
Taylor Kingston
> On Oct 11, 7:06 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just remembered, it's actually five converted books I've worked on:
>
> Will the lie never end my friend.
raylopez99
your typical chess book, hobo.
RL
None
>
> > > On Oct 11, 7:06 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Just remembered, it's actually five converted books I've worked on:
>
> > > Will the lie never end my friend.
>
> > Well, you can call it a lie, Stan, but I'm counting royalties. :-)
>
> Yeah you can go far on the $199 in royalties that you get from editing
> your typical chess book, hobo. > RL
better to have money and no smoke then the other way around. It's the
only place in the country you can say that.
samsloan
This had nothing to do with the Dover Edition. I did not even see it.
I used the original book published in the Soviet Union.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
As far as I know, all attempts to write a program that will convert
Descriptive to Algebraic notation have been unsuccessful.
Grandmaster and programmer John Nunn tried to do it and failed.
Sam Sloan
raylopez99
>
> As far as I know, all attempts to write a program that will convert
> Descriptive to Algebraic notation have been unsuccessful.
>
> Grandmaster and programmer John Nunn tried to do it and failed.
>
> Sam Sloan
That's trivial. You must be mistaken, he must be an incompetent
programmer, or both. I could do it easily in probably a week's time.
Convert a page using OCR, then replace text such as 1. P-K4 with 1.
e4, using lookup tables. The only complication I see is if
descriptive is not "conventional" in that you can represent the same
move sequence different ways.
RL
samsloan
OK. Go ahead and do it. I will give you a week !
I will even give you a break. Do it in ten days.
Programmers have worked on this for years and have not been able to
solve it.
For example, in P-K4, on what square did the pawn move start?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871878198
I just discovered that they put my book on Amazon with an interactive
feature where you can click on a link and it takes you to that page in
the book.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871878198#reader_4871878198
I have never seen this before.
However, they did not include a link to the last part of the book
where I converted all the games to Algebraic Notation
Sam Sloan
samsloan
MikeMurray
<samh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 7:41�am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 10:03�pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > As far as I know, all attempts to write a program that will convert
>> > Descriptive to Algebraic notation have been unsuccessful.
>>
>> > Grandmaster and programmer John Nunn tried to do it and failed.
>>
>> > Sam Sloan
>>
>> That's trivial. �You must be mistaken, he must be an incompetent
>> programmer, or both. �I could do it easily in probably a week's time.
>> Convert a page using OCR, then replace text such as 1. P-K4 with 1.
>> e4, using lookup tables. �The only complication I see is if
>> descriptive is not "conventional" in that you can represent the same
>> move sequence different ways.
You're wrong, Sam. I had a cheap shareware program in the late 1990s
that did it easily. As Ray says, the programming to do so is
relatively simple -- evidently, there's simply no demand for this
functionality.
samsloan
If you ever find this program please let me know as it would be
useful.
The problems in writing such a program would be significant. For
example, if the move is P-K4, the program could be taught that K4
equals e4 and then search for a pawn that can move there.
But what if the move is R-Kt4. There are four possible squares that
could be Kt4. They are b4, b5, g4 and g5. Then the program would have
to find a rook that can move there.
Sam
MikeMurray
<samh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The problems in writing such a program would be significant. For
>example, if the move is P-K4, the program could be taught that K4
>equals e4 and then search for a pawn that can move there.
>
>But what if the move is R-Kt4. There are four possible squares that
>could be Kt4. They are b4, b5, g4 and g5. Then the program would have
>to find a rook that can move there.
Assuming that the program has been given a valid starting position
with sufficient context (castling status, etc.) and that the move, as
recorded, was not ambiguous, this would be a relatively trivial
programming problem.
But your question underscores a deeper problem with the older
descriptive literature, namely that moves often WERE ambiguous, but
human insight could disambiguate. On some of the small scale
tournament bulletins, the games wouldn't even play. In fact, I
remember an ad by Jack Spence, claiming that in his bulletins, the
games all played.
The shareware program I used enabled clicking on a board
representation to record one's own games, one at a time, and keeping
them in a file (technically, a database, but the program lacked most
of what we normally associate with db functions). I can't remember if
it even supported a paste function. I don't think it did, so the
software could always count on a clean game score. It ran on Windows
3.1, long before there was much question of it being linked to a
playing engine.
For larger conversions, you'd probably need a facility which enabled
human intervention somewhere in the process to correct faulty game
scores.
Taylor Kingston
> >> On Oct 13, 10:03 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > As far as I know, all attempts to write a program that will convert
> >> > Descriptive to Algebraic notation have been unsuccessful.
>
> that did it easily. As Ray says, the programming to do so is
> relatively simple -- evidently, there's simply no demand for this
> functionality.
Mike, how did one enter moves into this conversion program?
MikeMurray
You clicked on a board representation. You may have been able to
enter a move textually from a command line -- don't remember.
You could switch from descriptive to algebraic (short or long) at
will. The score was always visible in one segment of the panel.
I can't remember all that much about the program -- it was like $5
shareware -- as I mentioned to Sam, I can't remember if it even
supported a paste function.
raylopez99
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:43:16 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
Yes, good points made by a fellow programmer. Like you say, if you
start from a legal position then the program can "track" the moves as
they are played, so Sam's question about "which square was the piece
on before the current move?" is easily solved. For ambiguous moves of
course you need some sort of expert function to take a guess, or
simply to reject the game and let a human manually edit it.
RL
raylopez99
Link did not work for me. Book at $24.32 is overpriced for a
reprint. $10 would be more reasonable. You seem to like the $24
figure as I see this quoted for your other reprints. Like a tourist
trap, you depend on the occasional sucker buying your book, and you
keep some in inventory just for that reason. Nice strategy assuming
the mice, rats and silverfish don't eat up your stock.
More books by American authors below, at $21 and $15. Better value?
Hard to say. You can get (and I've gotten) an e-book from
PirateBay.org of Eade's book. It's OK as a beginner's text.
RL
Chess For Dummies James Eade
$20.96 BN.com Price
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess by Patrick Wolff The Complete
Idiot's Guide to Chess Patrick Wolff
Taylor Kingston
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
>
>
>
> You clicked on a board representation.
In that case it sounds useless for converting old books, or more
precisely, no more useful than Fritz or ChessBase. You still have to
enter all the moves manually, unless of course you already have the
game score from a databse, in which case the old software is not
needed at all.
It seems to me the only way such software would be useful is if one
could scan an old book using character-recognition software to put the
games into Word doc or pdf format, and then cut-and-paste the game
score into the program. That would expedite conversion of games found
in a book but not on database.
> You may have been able to
> enter a move textually from a command line -- don't remember.
>
> You could switch from descriptive to algebraic (short or long) at
> will. The score was always visible in one segment of the panel.
That would be useful if you wanted to convert from algebraic to
descriptive then, but there's no demand for that.
None
>
> But what if the move is R-Kt4. There are four possible squares that
> could be Kt4. They are b4, b5, g4 and g5. Then the program would have
> to find a rook that can move there.
>
Nonsense, there is no descriptive move R-Kt4. There is only R-KKt4 or
R-QKt4 and if it was blacks move then the algerbraic would be Rg5 and
Rb5.
MikeMurray
I wasn't implying the old program itself was useful for larger batch
conversions., just that software to switch from descriptive to
algebraic and the reverse has been around a long time, and involves
no particular problems when the game scores are correct. Sam claimed
this itself to be problematic.
So most of the building blocks are all there, or not particularly
difficult to construct.
Scan+character recognition --> recognize the instances of game scores
--> convert to algebraic and replace
The jokers in the deck are incorrect or ambiguous game scores. As Ray
has noted, more problematic software (or human intervention) is
required to attempt correction (or to decide when correction is
hopeless).
Taylor Kingston
> On Oct 13, 12:43 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But what if the move is R-Kt4. There are four possible squares that
> > could be Kt4. They are b4, b5, g4 and g5. Then the program would have
> > to find a rook that can move there.
>
> Nonsense, there is no descriptive move R-Kt4.
Sure there is. Imagine, say, a position where there is a white rook
on b1, and it can move anywhere on that file. It's the only rook on
the board. In that case, Rb1-b4 would be R-Kt4 or R-N4 in descriptive.
Or if the rook was on a4, with the whole 4th rank open except for a
white pawn on g4. In that case Ra4-b4 would again be R-Kt4 or R-N4.
> There is only R-KKt4 or
> R-QKt4 and if it was blacks move then the algerbraic would be Rg5 and
> Rb5.
The convention in descriptive is always to record the move as
briefly as possible without incurring ambiguity. Thus in the
situations I described R-Kt4 would suffice. Or after 1.P-K4 P-K4 you
can write 2.B-B4 instead of B-QB4.
samsloan
My book is 512 pages, about 30% larger than the original book, plus
the pages are bigger.
You are forgetting that I have added 200 games in figurine algebraic
notation with diagrams that the original book did not have.
You cannot compare my books with the low-grade re-prints that Dover
puts out.
I am competing on quality, not price. It would be nearly impossible to
produce a quality product for less than I am charging now.
I am surprised that you are comparing my book, "The Soviet School of
Chess" to beginners books like Chess for Dummies and An Idiot's Guide
to Chess. Do you think those Soviet players were beginners?
Sam Sloan
Martin Brown
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:43:16 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
> <samh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The problems in writing such a program would be significant. For
>> example, if the move is P-K4, the program could be taught that K4
>> equals e4 and then search for a pawn that can move there.
>>
>> But what if the move is R-Kt4. There are four possible squares that
>> could be Kt4. They are b4, b5, g4 and g5. Then the program would have
>> to find a rook that can move there.
For a known colour or rook there are only two N4 squares and if there
was a rook able to reach both of them it would be normal to resolve the
ambiguity in descriptive notation. Mistakes were made though.
>
> Assuming that the program has been given a valid starting position
> with sufficient context (castling status, etc.) and that the move, as
> recorded, was not ambiguous, this would be a relatively trivial
> programming problem.
If it is dealing with a scanned game text (and a known alphabet of
characters used for the pieces and squares) then the problem is a lot
more constrained than general OCR text recognition.
The next move must always be legal from the current board position.
Plenty of heuristics exist to help an engine decide on the right path:
The king must always move out of check (or be mated).
Pieces are not often left en prise in GM level games etc.
>
> But your question underscores a deeper problem with the older
> descriptive literature, namely that moves often WERE ambiguous, but
> human insight could disambiguate. On some of the small scale
> tournament bulletins, the games wouldn't even play. In fact, I
> remember an ad by Jack Spence, claiming that in his bulletins, the
> games all played.
Simplest method is to generate all possible moves from the position and
if there is an unresolved ambiguity tag it with the original notation as
a comment for human intervention. Select only those with the right piece
and destination square and see if it is in fact unique.
Most books do get it right, and a computer analysis can easily track
forwards or backwards and spot that some later moves are impossible and
so infer where the error was made go back and retry.
> For larger conversions, you'd probably need a facility which enabled
> human intervention somewhere in the process to correct faulty game
> scores.
I think an engine could make a pretty good job of this provided that the
game score only contained a modest number of ambiguities.
I am sure you could construct a horror game that was unparsable with
ambiguities, but most games would be reconstructable by OCR and engine
guided analysis (even basic move generation would get most of them).
Regards,
Martin Brown
MikeMurray
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If it is dealing with a scanned game text (and a known alphabet of
>characters used for the pieces and squares) then the problem is a lot
>more constrained than general OCR text recognition.
I believe Sam was concerned with games embedded in general text, so
the first problem identifying the beginning and end of the annotated
score.
>Simplest method is to generate all possible moves from the position and
>if there is an unresolved ambiguity tag it with the original notation as
>a comment for human intervention.
Yup. Seems as if we're in a similar ballpark to a style analyzer.
None
> I am surprised that you are comparing my book, "The Soviet School of
> Chess" to
It's not your book. You stole it.
Martin Brown
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:30:35 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> If it is dealing with a scanned game text (and a known alphabet of
>> characters used for the pieces and squares) then the problem is a lot
>> more constrained than general OCR text recognition.
>
> I believe Sam was concerned with games embedded in general text, so
> the first problem identifying the beginning and end of the annotated
> score.
Even for that the grammar for descriptive notation is actually more
regular than that of algebraic (which uses abbreviations for pawn moves)
so looking for consecutive move numbers followed by "x" and "-" with
plausible syntax around them would probably be good enough.
>> Simplest method is to generate all possible moves from the position and
>> if there is an unresolved ambiguity tag it with the original notation as
>> a comment for human intervention.
>
> Yup. Seems as if we're in a similar ballpark to a style analyzer.
That was how the engines did it when descriptive notation was common.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Chvsanchez
wrote:
> On 13/10/2011 23:46, MikeMurray wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:30:35 +0100, Martin Brown
How can programs convert "Black should capture the Rook Pawn and then
the Queen Rook"?
Martin Brown
They don't need to. The associated textual annotations around the game
should stay as annotations unless they explicitly spell out an
alternative line in valid syntax.
I can't recall ever seeing a game described entirely in free form
sentences without move numbers. Some of the explanatory text will need
clearly alteration since algebraic consistently counts ranks from Whites
bottom left corner whereas descriptive is from side to move.
OTOH we still talk of a having rook on the seventh rank (even when in
practice it is on the second rank when we are playing as black).
It should be sufficient for a first pass to translate into algebraic
anything that matches the general syntax of a classic descriptive move.
I have assumed at least one tab or space before a valid move for
simplicity but the following Regex should match English descriptive
moves (subject to typos and failure on special cases like promotions O-O
& O-O-O). Some other languages are a lot more cryptic.
[KQ\s][BNPR*]-[KQ*][BNR*][1-8]
[KQ\s][BNPR*]x[KQ*][BNR*]
And then permutations to distinguish ambiguous cases with qualifications
eg
/[1-8]
/[KQ*][BNR*]
/[KQ*][BNR*][1-8]
Regards,
Martin Brown