| |
Main
Date: 24 Jan 2007 14:24:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Chessville Vignettes - All
|
Here is an idea to write 500 to 700 words on your favorite player, chess
anecdote or event. The subject needn't be American, and this need not be an
encyclopedic entry - but something to show the flavor of the life and times
of a chessplayer - or even of a chess idea, as below.
After recent criticisms here in these newsgroups - some of which are valid,
but some include preferences which do not increase the sense of anything
over anything else, and are merely personal preference, my opinion to
objectify a little of what might be included for any subject is to canvas a
few ideas here first. This at least demonstrates what is essential fact from
personal preference - and might help achieve some proportions.
Many websites provide small or large biographical extracts on players, often
written by just one or people - and necessarily their own view of things. By
opening up the subject of writing to the chess public, this allows more
variety of comment than of singular reviewers - and also can be attempted in
parts, without first having to write the whole thing - eg, a very active
player's career might be covered in 10 to 15 year periods, and a writer
could chose their own decade.
All work may be amended for errors, and all are subject to editorial audit.
[I am not the editor.]
I thought of a few possibilities and suggested that Koltanowski is certainly
one, but how about Hans Berliner?
I even think it would be even interesting to know about such
collaborationists as -just for example- Kampars and Tejler [who wrote an
early monograph spanning games from about 1950-1970 on the Black-Diemer
Gambit, which in some variations (4...B-B4) becomes the Vienna Defense].
Readership for such material is very large in terms of unique site hits, and
this is also a relatively secure means to establish player and event records
which can be adjusted, but not completely destroyed because people didn't
like parts of them [for good, and for bad reasons, but uncritically], as
recently witnessed on Wikipedia.
Chessville wishes to make sensible alterations which improve the worth of
each piece, and is not looking for perfect writing [which does not exist!]
but a solid essay, and will amend but otherwise protect your work from
vandalism.
Find the link at www.chessville.com to Chessville Vignettes, or perhaps run
a few ideas up the flagpole in these newsgroup if you want some reaction and
feedback.
Phil Innes
Business Manager, Chessville
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 17:30:49
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chessville Vignettes - All
|
Chess One <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here is an idea to write 500 to 700 words on your favorite player,
> chess anecdote or event. The subject needn't be American, and this
> need not be an encyclopedic entry - but something to show the flavor
> of the life and times of a chessplayer - or even of a chess idea, as
> below.
Why bother re-implementing Wikipedia? Any site designed along these
lines will have all of the disadvantages of Wikipedia (any idiot can
write any rubbish about anything) and none of the advantages (wide
coverage and a large readership that corrects the most egregious
errors).
Dave.
--
David Richerby Impossible Microsoft Beer (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing lager that's really
hard to use but it can't exist!
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2007 18:27:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chessville Vignettes - All
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:fL*[email protected]...
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Here is an idea to write 500 to 700 words on your favorite player,
>> chess anecdote or event. The subject needn't be American, and this
>> need not be an encyclopedic entry - but something to show the flavor
>> of the life and times of a chessplayer - or even of a chess idea, as
>> below.
>
> Why bother re-implementing Wikipedia?
Because, as mentioned some dozen times, Wiki is subject to vandalism and
destructive behaviors - and much chess material there has not been amended
to better sense, but simply eliminated.
This also happened by actions which were themselves uncivil, and lacking
respect for chess - to wit, some cove who is self-admittedly pointless,
circulated false-Slaon messages to scandalise Wiki activitsts, and all the
Sloan material was eliminated, rather than amended to any new and better
sense.
While I would agree that it is better to admit faults than wait for
perfectly 'cognet' writing or the second coming of the Perfect Ones, this is
in fact the editor's intent. But this is /not/ what happens at Wikipedia.
> Any site designed along these
> lines will have all of the disadvantages of Wikipedia (any idiot can
> write any rubbish about anything)
Even this? :)
But to take you seriously, true enough! Though why suppose material which
can be amended to be rubbish at all? That surely would include the majority
of chess writing. That is a key difference between Chessville Vignettes and
with Wiki, since factionalism threw out Wiki's baby with the mixed metaphor.
> and none of the advantages (wide
> coverage and a large readership that corrects the most egregious
> errors).
We have a widening gyre of chess fans, many of whom are quite vocal on our
egregiousness.
I don't personally know if the opinions of subfusc bi-sexual cross-dressing
southern Pacific purple mollusc curators, has a lot of reviviscent value to
the life and times of Paul Morphy. Not so many of them seem to offer their
opinions at chess sites.
Phil
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Impossible Microsoft Beer (TM):
> it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing lager that's
> really
> hard to use but it can't exist!
|
|
