Best annotator ever?

[Gordon Cadden]

Franklin Young lived in Boston, U.S. According to Edward Winter, he defeated Steinitz, Zukertort, and Pillsbury. He published a series of instruction books from 1892, in several editions.
His military approach to chess instruction, must have been popular during this period.

[stevencarr]

For worst annotator I propose Franklin Young, who wrote The Grand Tactics of Chess. A typical passage:

In the language of chess strategetics White occupies the logistic horizon, thus opening communication with the kindred hypothetical force, and enabling a portion of the latter to enter the topographical zone and effect a junction with the kindred determinate force, the united forces being the greater force as compared to the adverse determinate force.

Anybody care to guess the Informator symbol for that?

[Chris Rice]

For worst annotator I propose Franklin Young, who wrote The Grand Tactics of Chess. A typical passage:

In the language of chess strategetics White occupies the logistic horizon, thus opening communication with the kindred hypothetical force, and enabling a portion of the latter to enter the topographical zone and effect a junction with the kindred determinate force, the united forces being the greater force as compared to the adverse determinate force.

It is interesting to compare the above to the superb marketing in the preface to the book:

"In this volume is presented a complete system of chess-play. This system is deduced from the play of the greater Masters ; and those processes by which they gained their renown are herein formulated and put into language for the first time.

The principles which govern these processes are simple and clearly stated. These comprehend every situation possible on the chess-board, and, given the points occupied by the opposing kings, then the proper positions for the remaining pieces are readily depicted by the student who has mastered this theory.

The chess-player will find this volume a compass, which at every move points the true course. The theorist will find it a touchstone whereby the most subtle sophistry may be detected, and the " analyst " may come to understand from its pages why the house of cards he so laboriously constructs is invariably and with ease demolished by the " player across the board."

Boston, 1897.

[Gordon Cadden]

Frank Young was a Lawyer by profession. In his youth, he studied Military Science. He sent regular reports on the Boer War, to various newspapers.
His hardback volumes would have looked very impressive on the bookshop shelves. Anyone thinking of learning the game of chess 100 plus years ago, would have been none the wiser after wading through his gobbledegook. Never one to call a spade, a spade, even the simple chess board, he describes as a "Typographical Zone".
He gets the Gold Medal, beating Wilf Holloway's "Winning Chess Psychology" by a wide margin.

[David Robertson]

This is a little gem of a thread. So much I didn't know! Congratulations, guys. Makes a nice departure from endless squabbles

[Arshad Ali]

Young's was an ornate style of writing typical of the Victorian era (Was there anyone who wrote succinctly then?). Today we use "N" for knight or the FAN symbol of a horse's head; some 19th century annotator -- maybe Young, I don't remember -- refers to it as "that noble steed." Some of the annotations of that era have me in stitches.

[stevencarr]

Oh yes Marin. I agree absolutely. Lakdawala somewhat less so. I guess he’s marmite.

Just look at the two Judit Polgar books published by Quality Chess. It's a dead cert that all the notes were written by Marin. This is the best annotated game collection I've ever seen in my life (and I think I've seen 'em all). Tears of gratitude emanate copiously as I flick through the pages of these two tomes.

According to the publisher, a lot of material was written by Judit Polgar. The book was not 'ghosted', although Marin had a large input.

[Niall Doran]

Are (m)any of the game collections of top players (Anand, Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov etc.) actually written by those players? Financially it doesn't really seem to make sense, as a well-written book probably takes in the region of 500-1000 hours to write (my guesstimate), and in that time a top player could make more money, and more easily, by playing in a tournament, giving simuls and lectures, flogging milk/computers/banking services or whatever.

Unless of course they actually are writing the books, in which case they're probably doing it to give something back to chess/leave a monument to themselves behind.

[Jonathan Bryant]

According to the publisher, a lot of material was written by Judit Polgar.

May well be true in this case for all I know. In general, though, it would be unwise to rely too much on what the publishers tell you, to say the least. They’re hardly likely to say, "Judit Polgar didn’t actually write this" are they?

[Jonathan Rogers]

The other side to the coin is that publishers are not often very honest about how much work a non-GM has done on the book. Beware co-authored books by players of markedly different standards, if the truth of authorship matters to you. One of the many abortive attempts to persuade me to write a follow-up book on the Elephant Gambit (after the 1994 booklet actually sold out) involved a suggestion that I would write the book but appear on the front cover along with a GM, preferably Julian Hodgson, who would be offered £500 or £750 for the use of his name, "though he might want to flick through it, you know". (No idea whether Julian was actually asked, because I myself was uninterested. I guess Julian's name was suggested because people might believe he had an interest. It would ideally have been Hebden, who did play it briefly, but unfortunately he is also known as the one GM never to have written or published anything at all!)

[Gordon Cadden]

Nothing unusual about Chess Masters using their name for commercial exploitation.
Most chess players believe that Howard Staunton was somehow involved in the design of the Staunton Chess Set. Not so, he reached an agreement with Jacques & Company, who would use his name to promote their chess sets.

[Arshad Ali]

Are (m)any of the game collections of top players (Anand, Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov etc.) actually written by those players? Financially it doesn't really seem to make sense, as a well-written book probably takes in the region of 500-1000 hours to write (my guesstimate), and in that time a top player could make more money, and more easily, by playing in a tournament, giving simuls and lectures, flogging milk/computers/banking services or whatever.

Unless of course they actually are writing the books, in which case they're probably doing it to give something back to chess/leave a monument to themselves behind.

Writing well takes a lot of practice. Like chess. But these are chess professionals who probably send all their time on chess. Maybe their contribution is the ideas and variations, while the glue of words, sentences, paragraphs, and narrative sequence comes from skilled writers (like Mihail Marin). Or from writers who are not so skilled at writing about chess -- which is why so many game collections of strong GMs are not really very interesting.