Comments on: The Sorcerer’s Apprentice wins Guardian’s Chess Book of the Year Award http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/the-sorcerers-apprentice-wins-guardians-chess-book-of-the-year-award/ The latest chess news online Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:57:14 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Poek http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/the-sorcerers-apprentice-wins-guardians-chess-book-of-the-year-award/comment-page-1/#comment-101526 Poek Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:00:54 +0000 http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=18452#comment-101526 Agree with Arne. Also Marin is missing on the list, while in my opinion he is a candidate for book of the year. Anyway, we should not take this contest too seriously, I guess. Agree with Arne. Also Marin is missing on the list, while in my opinion he is a candidate for book of the year. Anyway, we should not take this contest too seriously, I guess.

]]> By: Arne Moll http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/the-sorcerers-apprentice-wins-guardians-chess-book-of-the-year-award/comment-page-1/#comment-101512 Arne Moll Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:53:27 +0000 http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=18452#comment-101512 Congratulations to New in Chess for winning this prestigious award. I have only now had the opportunity to read all the articles in the Guardian concerning this competition, so allow me to make a few remarks about the election. First of all, I should note that all 6 candidates (Nunn, Grooten, Sokolov, Botvinnik, Lipnitsky, Bronstein) were reviewed on ChessVibes before, and that I liked all of them. Apart from the somewhat obligatory inclusion of John Nunn (his endgame manual is good, but hardly original and contains much material that has been covered by other authors as well), all books definitely deserve to be shortlisted for any award. Still, I think I was not the only one who was surprised that an almost 15 year old book has won the award. For one, I wonder what kind of message this sends to new aspiring authors such as Herman Grooten and Ivan Sokolov, who have written excellent books and have not written them years ago, but very recently? Also, If 50% of your shortlist consists of material which was mainly written decades ago, especially when there are so many new authors around, I guess you run the risk of being accused of being a tiny little bit conservative. Actually, the inclusion of The Sorcerer's Apprentice is an even bigger mystery than Botvinnik's hitherto unpublished match diaries and Lipnitsky's 1956 chess manual (which had never been translated into English before.) Sure, there are some great additions to the original edition (though also a couple of less interesting ones!), but in the jury report we find nothing of how this has changed the original book. A more general problem is that the jury doesn't explain its preference of Bronstein over the other titles at all: they just state who the winner is, and then say: "This is an unusual, personal, inspirational and endearing book, a mix of anecdote, musing and insight." Well yes, but aren't Botvinnik's, Kasparov's, Grooten's and Sokolov's books 'unusual, personal, inspirational and endearing' as well? Aren't they, too, 'a mix of anecdote, musing and insight?' If they are (as I'm sure the jury will agree), then why did Bronstein's book get preference over these books? The least we should expect from a jury of such an influential newspaper is a couple of arguments. So far, I have seen none. Congratulations to New in Chess for winning this prestigious award. I have only now had the opportunity to read all the articles in the Guardian concerning this competition, so allow me to make a few remarks about the election.

First of all, I should note that all 6 candidates (Nunn, Grooten, Sokolov, Botvinnik, Lipnitsky, Bronstein) were reviewed on ChessVibes before, and that I liked all of them. Apart from the somewhat obligatory inclusion of John Nunn (his endgame manual is good, but hardly original and contains much material that has been covered by other authors as well), all books definitely deserve to be shortlisted for any award.

Still, I think I was not the only one who was surprised that an almost 15 year old book has won the award. For one, I wonder what kind of message this sends to new aspiring authors such as Herman Grooten and Ivan Sokolov, who have written excellent books and have not written them years ago, but very recently? Also, If 50% of your shortlist consists of material which was mainly written decades ago, especially when there are so many new authors around, I guess you run the risk of being accused of being a tiny little bit conservative.

Actually, the inclusion of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is an even bigger mystery than Botvinnik’s hitherto unpublished match diaries and Lipnitsky’s 1956 chess manual (which had never been translated into English before.) Sure, there are some great additions to the original edition (though also a couple of less interesting ones!), but in the jury report we find nothing of how this has changed the original book.

A more general problem is that the jury doesn’t explain its preference of Bronstein over the other titles at all: they just state who the winner is, and then say: “This is an unusual, personal, inspirational and endearing book, a mix of anecdote, musing and insight.”
Well yes, but aren’t Botvinnik’s, Kasparov’s, Grooten’s and Sokolov’s books ‘unusual, personal, inspirational and endearing’ as well? Aren’t they, too, ‘a mix of anecdote, musing and insight?’
If they are (as I’m sure the jury will agree), then why did Bronstein’s book get preference over these books?

The least we should expect from a jury of such an influential newspaper is a couple of arguments. So far, I have seen none.

]]>