English Chess Forum

Andy Stoker wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:50 pm

Played in a tournament at the weekend - 12 months after my first since returning after a 35 year lay-off. Arrived early on the first day, so helped the bookstall guy unload. He had a large stock. He predicted he would take £200 - £300 over the weekend - not profit, just takings. I suggest that's why there are fewer stalls - if there are. [...]

Yes, but stallholders may be the ones hiring out the equipment as well, making money from that.

Fair point - don't think that was the case here, though - I think equipment was from the local county and similar associations

"Yes, but stallholders may be the ones hiring out the equipment as well, making money from that."

I have known stallholders lend the equipment free (or at very much reduced rates) in return for being allowed to run a bookstall.

Some events will require the prospective bookstalls to tender to pitch their stall.

It is clear that the business model (if there is one) is hugely variable.

I'm guessing the stalls must still make a bit of money - there are many players who still love them and collect avidly.

Even I have a pile of books I bought in the past collecting dust on shelves somewhere, not that I ever really got anything much from them, most of the time I'm lucky if the opening variations I play are even mentioned at all let alone given full chapters.

Still, I'll admit there are a scant few books that are really good and worth owning

Joey Stewart wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:50 am

Still, I'll admit there are a scant few books that are really good and worth owning

Is this your opinion or it is more likely to be am objective fact ?

It seems to me manifestly an objective fact that Joey has admitted there are a scant few books that are really good and worth owning. It may, of course not be an objective fact I suppose: perhaps someone has impersonated Joey and made the admission vicariously without him knowing. But I doubt it.

I definitely feel I am right in my assertion that a lot of books will not help a player improve: how many times have you read a book that leads you into a vaguely interesting position and then dumps you off saying it is +- to white, as if that is going to help you find any sort of objective plan, all books that do that are worthless.

Then there are all old books with dodgy "theory" which is flat out wrong - those are worthless too.

Everything with old style notation.... nobody got time to be learning that rubbish now, throw those in the fire too.

Any "book" which is full of stolen material, or the author has cut and pasted a bunch of engine lines without analysis can go.

Or even being more objective lets say I want to learn about the schliemann gambit in the ruy lopez. Already I would say more than 99% of books can be discounted, and even those that specialise in the ruy may not give much more than a few footnotes about it so those can be discounted as well.


But, like I also said, there are good authors and books with valuable information which is presented in such a way that they can be understood by beings other than computers or aliens - Lazlo Polgars tactics book, for example, put about 40 points onto my rating after I read it a couple of times.

Disagree about descriptive notation tbh - it really is NOT hard to learn, and opens a whole new world of chess interest.

Joey Stewart wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:21 am

Lazlo Polgars tactics book, for example, put about 40 points onto my rating after I read it a couple of times.

You solved all 5334 problems twice?

They are not all that hard, and that is the point of them - it is about pattern recognition rather then the "satisfaction" of solving some utterly absurd composed position that takes hours to find a king shuffle. That is what makes it a great book, I defy anybody to fully complete it and NOT see their playing strength increase rapidly.

I believe dvortoskis (or however you say his name, I cant be bothered to google it, you all know who I mean) endgame manual is similarly great - in fact Jonathan Hawkins mentioned it as one of his biggest means to getting so good.

Joey Stewart wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:39 pm

They are not all that hard, and that is the point of them - it is about pattern recognition rather then the "satisfaction" of solving some utterly absurd composed position that takes hours to find a king shuffle.

Still, to solve al the puzzles twice is 15 puzzles per day for 2 years. That's impressive self discipline.

Polgars puzzles drum pattern recognition into you, and should come before attempting endgame studies. They do though train different skills - calculation and imagination, many stronger players have made big leaps forward by working on them. I tend to find them too hard and so lose motivation to continue.

Conditions for bookstalls must be completely different to how they were in the heyday of English chess, and for that matter very different to how they were just a decade or so ago. I run a bookstall myself for a living - nothing to with chess, I sell children's books - and I can tell you that Amazon, and online ordering generally, have changed everything. It's not just that - there's ebooks, there's the availability of online materials (some of them free) and so on - but the huge, insuperable difference is that where you used to be people's first port of call, now they can find the books they want simply by logging on, and for that matter find a bigger range at better prices.

It's not quite so simple - sometimes bookstalls can do online sales, sometimes they have specialist knowledge which the customers need or appreciate, and browsing is almost always easier in person than online - but it's a very different world commercially, and a much tougher one.

"online ordering generally, have changed everything."

True - I was rather shocked that a work colleague went to his local bookshop to browse a book, then came back to work to order it online... Support your local bookshop.

Ultimately, though, if people can do that, they will do that, and exhortations to do the right thing are going to be marginal in their effect.