Chess Life

[Lawrence S. Tamarkin]

NickleIron wrote:

> >Subject: CHESS LIFE
> >From: Bill Macdonald <bill.ma...@zetnet.co.uk>
> >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:55:49 +0100
> >Message-id: <199708290...@zetnet.co.uk>
> >
> >HOW CAN YOU OBTAIN CHESS LIFE MAGAZINE?
> >
> > PETER MACDONALD.
> >
>
> Don't do it! Get New In Chess or Inside Chess. Chess Life is the
> major
> cause of brain rot, obesity and/or impotence among chess players in
> the
> United States. If you don't think that this last statement is true,
> just
> take a look at the USCF Policy board.
>
> NickleIron - meteorite hunter and anti Chess Life activist.

This opinion seem a little extreme - Chess Life has many good articles
presented on time each month from some of the outstanding player/writers
of the game. It is true that if your a master New In Chess of Inside
Chess represent you well. But for everyone else, Chess Life has a very
good mix for players of different playing levels. - That said, I must
say that I was extremely infuriated by thier increasing their price from
$25 to $40 in just one year - A 60% increase! Also they doubled the
rating fees to oganizers by 100% in one swell swoop one year too! As if
that wasn't enough, I myself gave those guys one of the best ideas for
free the year that I was the most active player. (1983 with 495 rated
games) I suggested that the top 20 active players should recieve a
dollar per game played at the end of the year. An Idea that would have
easily created even more additional revenue for the fools then the
expense of the 2 or 3 thousand dollars such a 'Grand Prix' would have
cost them. It would have been very profitable and given odinary class
player another reason to play as much chess as they could get in.

As is often the case with USCF, my idea (as well as many other good
ideas by others) was quickly tabled at the US Open the following year,
so the policy board could go on to more important things. (Like who to
attack!) Still though the people who run things in the USCF seem to
fail to ever really truly represent us, they still manage to produce an
interesting magazine each month. Sorry for the lenght of this reply - I
simply had to vent!

Lawrence S. Tamarkin
the inkopitent chess software addict!

[Mark S. Hathaway]

>>> Subject: CHESS LIFE
>>> From: Bill Macdonald <bill.ma...@zetnet.co.uk>
>>> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:55:49 +0100
>>> Message-id: <199708290...@zetnet.co.uk>
>>>
>>> HOW CAN YOU OBTAIN CHESS LIFE MAGAZINE?
>>>
>>> PETER MACDONALD.

First, take off the caps lock key.

>> NickleIron wrote:

>> Don't do it! Get New In Chess or Inside Chess. Chess Life is the
>> major cause of brain rot, obesity and/or impotence among chess
>> players in the United States. If you don't think that this last
>> statement is true, just take a look at the USCF Policy board.
>>
>> NickleIron - meteorite hunter and anti Chess Life activist.

I prefer New_In_Chess because the games are annotated by one of the
people who played it. More and more I think that's very important.

I've tried Inside_Chess and at times it's very good, but all-in-all
I still like NIC better.

> In article <5vq7h3$pr1$1...@texas.nwlink.com>,

> "Lawrence S. Tamarkin" <mrs...@nwlink.com> writes:

> This opinion seem a little extreme - Chess Life has many good articles
> presented on time each month from some of the outstanding player/writers
> of the game.

Hmmm. If you count the number of GM-annotated GM-games in Chess_Life,
Inside_Chess or New_In_Chess you'll find that Chess_Life has pitifully
few.

I like GM Byrne's column and GM Rohde's column, but Karpov's tends to be
a lot of air. I like GM Benko's, but GM Evan's seems like a waste of space.
I occasionally enjoy GM Solit's column, but all too often it's not
interesting and the use of English Descriptive is getting really old.

All the other columns are, perhaps, fine for lower-rated players, but
how is one to get beyond Expert level in America if the magazine doesn't
promote anything more profound than Pandolfini's columns.

I'm simply amazed that they pay GM Schwartzman and GM Alburt to write
such drivel. Surely their talents could better be utilized.

IM Silman's column and GM Mednis's columns and GM Shamkovich's are
sometimes very good, but they'r instructional and that has it's
limitations. They don't allow us to hear "from the horse's mouth"
what a GM is thinking during his game. There's utility in their
columns, but IMO it's not as useful as something like GM Gligoric's
Game of the Month column from many years ago.

Gligoric's column created a standard of a sort. The New_In_Chess Yearbooks
continue that form with their theory articles.

Now that I've delineated what I like and don't care so much for I should
tell you I find the biggest problem is the lack of an international
reportage. It's all American chess. How can we expect to see how the best
in the world play if their games are never presented. This is unduly
limiting. It's myopic and ego-centric.

I'm amazed that there will be a series of terrific tournaments in Europe
with some of the top players and Chess_life doesn't report that they have
occurred and doesn't present any long articles with gamescores or annotated
games. It's simply incredible and impossible to take the magazine serious
when they simply aren't in the game.

> It is true that if your a master New In Chess of Inside
> Chess represent you well. But for everyone else, Chess Life has a very
> good mix for players of different playing levels.

A very good mix should include games from other parts of the world,
shouldn't it?

A very good mix should present games played by very good players against,
perhaps a varying strength of opponents, shouldn't it?

What's to be gained, except increased membership, by showing so many
juvenile and amateur games?

> That said, I must
> say that I was extremely infuriated by thier increasing their price from
> $25 to $40 in just one year - A 60% increase! Also they doubled the
> rating fees to oganizers by 100% in one swell swoop one year too! As if
> that wasn't enough, I myself gave those guys one of the best ideas for
> free the year that I was the most active player. (1983 with 495 rated
> games) I suggested that the top 20 active players should recieve a
> dollar per game played at the end of the year. An Idea that would have
> easily created even more additional revenue for the fools then the
> expense of the 2 or 3 thousand dollars such a 'Grand Prix' would have
> cost them. It would have been very profitable and given odinary class
> player another reason to play as much chess as they could get in.
>
> As is often the case with USCF, my idea (as well as many other good
> ideas by others) was quickly tabled at the US Open the following year,
> so the policy board could go on to more important things. (Like who to
> attack!) Still though the people who run things in the USCF seem to
> fail to ever really truly represent us, they still manage to produce an
> interesting magazine each month. Sorry for the lenght of this reply - I
> simply had to vent!
>
> Lawrence S. Tamarkin

Yes, USCF doesn't respond on this issue and you're upset.
Think how I feel when I see a big tournament in Europe (naturally
covered in TWIC) and USCF doesn't even mention it. It's sickening.

Mark S. Hathaway