Think I've found the joker responsible for the Kmoch book...this is just before the preface:
"We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Walter Meiden of the Department of Romance Languages of the Ohio State University for his careful reading of the English manuscript and for his numerous suggestions both as to subject matter and to style"
It also says this is an English treatment of the same subject rather than a direct translation of Die Kunst der Bauernfuehrung - which makes me wonder if the German original is any better.
Originally posted by MahoutYou may have a point, if for no other reason than the fact that German is NOT a Romance language, though German is a very simple language to invent new words in by virtue of the extensive use of compound words. It might even be possible that Dr. Meiden simplified the original by substituting simple English words for unwieldly compound German words of great length -- though as we know, he also added some equally unwieldly Latinisms.
Think I've found the joker responsible for the Kmoch book...this is just before the preface:
"We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Walter Meiden of the Department of Romance Languages of the Ohio State University for his careful reading of the English manuscript and for his numerous suggestions both as to subject matter and to style"
It also says thi ...[text shortened]... of Die Kunst der Bauernfuehrung - which makes me wonder if the German original is any better.
Mahout said "Think I've found the joker responsible for the Kmoch book...this is just before the preface:
"We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Walter Meiden of the Department of Romance Languages of the Ohio State University for his careful reading of the English manuscript and for his numerous suggestions both as to subject matter and to style"
It also says this is an English treatment of the same subject rather than a direct translation of Die Kunst der Bauernfuehrung - which makes me wonder if the German original is any better."
-----------------------------------------------------
and violinpatrick said "It sounds like the publisher got a translator who didn't know any chess terminology. Oopsie!"
-----------------------------------------------------
Although not a great chess player, Walter Meiden was familiar with chess terminology at the time of the writing of "Pawn Power...". Meiden collaborated with GM Max Euwe on a few books of which I can personally attest that at least one of them ( "Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur" ) is very good reading for the intermediate level player. My guess is that the bad terminology in "Pawn Power..." is due to the author, Kmoch, and that Meiden created new terms in English that best matched the new terms in the original manuscript.
Originally posted by RagnorakThat book is worth another attempt. It suffers a little from being an old book translated long ago into what reads today as archaic, unnecessarily verbose English. Its still excellent though.
The Art of Chess Combination by Znosko-Borovsky had me similarly addled by it's verbosity.
In the chapter to define what a combination is, 10 pages long.
"The maneuvre is fine, ingenious and decisive, and every move is almost forced. But the element of surprise is lacking, and it is better not to classify this maneuvre among combinations, for otherwise ...[text shortened]... n the street-organs loses thereby much of it's charm"
I gave up about 3 pages later.
D
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerI found Znosko-Borovsky's The Middle Game in Chess to be well written and easy to read.
[b]Mahout said "Think I've found the joker responsible for the Kmoch book...this is just before the preface:
"We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Walter Meiden of the Department of Romance Languages of the Ohio State University for his careful reading of the English manuscript and for his numerous suggestions both as to subject matter a ...[text shortened]... d new terms in English that best matched the new terms in the original manuscript.[/b]
I have both of these books. I would much rather read hans kmoch's book than andrew soltis's book. They are both boring as hell sorry guys. However they both are precious jewls in the chess realm. Every player that is above 1900 has suggested hans kmoch's book before anything else!! Pawn structure in chess is an ok book for getting the basics but I don't think it is very up to date anymore so some of the openings used in that book are either refuted or just weaker than the ones played today. I also did not like the fact that there were few games on the most important openings of today. There is NO SECTION ON THE RUY LOPEZ!!! A heavily played game and not one comment on that type of e4 e5 game!! Very frustrating. Pawn structure is made for the middle game play only in chess while pawn power in chess explains how to use pawns and piecese extensivly.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsThe book called "Weapons of Chess" by Bruce Pandolfini can be found in book stores. It's about 280 pages and covers most aspects of pawn play
I once came across this title in a used bookstore. I very much wanted to get it because the idea of a book devoted to pawn play -- a subtle but very important aspect of chess -- is something that I need to improve in my own play (like so many things).
The problem was that the author has invented his own nomenclature, which is eccentric, sesquipedal ...[text shortened]... zed book dealing with this subject, as good or better in its insights (whatever those may be)?