| |
Main
Date: 29 Sep 2007 14:40:06
From: tOmmetje
Subject: Typesetting chess books
|
Wow, this is something completely different from all the other forum
posts here. When you read a chess book, do you prefer small (like A5)
or bigger (more towards A4) pages, do you prefer one-column text or
two-column text. And, in case of a two-column layout, do you prefer
the textmoves (the real game moves) to be typeset as this:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 exd4
Or like this:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
And, do you prefer the book to use symbols, or just the letters like I
did above?
And last but not least, as in many science books, they have pages that
are wider than normal and extra width outside gins in which they
place figures or pictures or stuff. What about that method? Just one-
column text, moves next to each other (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3...) instead of in
a "list" type order and the diagrams in the gin.
I'm asking about these questions because I've seen a lot of books and
many books use different types of layout. And since I want to write an
article or two in pdf format (mostly for myself, but still... it has
to look nice )
So anyway... any comments are welcome.
Thanks in advance
Tom
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 10:52:08
From: tOmmetje
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On 3 okt, 20:04, Mihai Suba <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2:34 am, tOmmetje <[email protected]> wrote:> Mikai, thanks=
for the tip on the fonts, but I use LaTeX (http://www.latex-project.org/) =
and it has its own chess fonts for diagrams
> > and figurines (bold, normal, italics ...) and they look superb, so I
> > wont be needing a different font.
>
> In a quick search I couldn't see any figurine notation. Please give a
> more explicit link.
> Only a standard diagram font B/W. One day I might take Latex into
> consideration and design (or adapt) fonts in adobe Format, but I found
> the macro for Diagrams quite time consuming.
> Anyway, if you consider the look of that font "superb", I'll never
> show you mine - You might faint!
Okay Mikai, let's just be honest here. I installed your fonts and
downloaded your e-book (in executable form *shudders*). I looked at
the e-book (demo) briefly and then opened up the font in Word and
tried to type in some variations and mainlines.
First of all, take a look at this pdf file:
http://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/texmate/texmate2manual=
.pdf
and scroll to the last pages. There you will find a list of chess
symbols. The OFFICIAL chess symbols. You are re=EFnventing the chess
wheel with symbols like { and } for better and worse moves. That is
INSANE. No decent chess player will understand your e-book and no one
having bought your e-book will be able to understand other chess books
they buy after yours. Use the official symbols!
Secondly, yes. Your figurine knight, queen and king look good. Your
rook looks absolutely sexy, but your bishop looks awfull. You need to
work on that piece.
Also, why do the mainline symbol differ when you use bold or normal
weight? That's really not convenient at all.
And I also suggest you start producing pdf e-books instead of those
executables. Many people don't trust downloading and opening
executable files from some possibly-lunatic guy from a usenet-group.
Including me, but oh well... I thought I'ld be polite and just give it
a shot, having faith in your good will and such.
About those figurines you couldn't find on the website I gave you.
LaTeX is a huge project. It was a main "compiler" to convert the main
tex(t) or "source" file into something printable (pdf, ps, ...).
You need to download and install packaged to gain different
functionalities. The texmate manual link above is the manual of such a
package named texmate. Another package (the one I use at the moment)
is skak, you can search for these and other (chess) packages on the
ctan.org website.
Yes, I admit, LaTeX is something very complex and daunting in the
beginning, but it pays off. For example, in skak, you can type:
\mainline{1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4!}
\showboard
and have the moves typeset in bold with figurines (horizontal or in
column, depending on your wishes) and by typing \showboard, latex
prints a diagram with those moves made on the board. Easy, no?
Using texmate, it would become:
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 21:10:59
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On Oct 2, 3:03 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mihai Suba" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 4:40 pm, tOmmetje <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Wow, this is something completely different from all the other forum
> >> posts here. When you read a chess book, do you prefer small (like A5)
> >> or bigger (more towards A4) pages, do you prefer one-column text or
> >> two-column text. And, in case of a two-column layout, do you prefer
> >> the textmoves (the real game moves) to be typeset as this:
>
> >> 1. e4 e5
> >> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> >> 3. d4 exd4
>
> >> Or like this:
> >> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
>
> >> And, do you prefer the book to use symbols, or just the letters like I
> >> did above?
>
> >> And last but not least, as in many science books, they have pages that
> >> are wider than normal and extra width outside gins in which they
> >> place figures or pictures or stuff. What about that method? Just one-
> >> column text, moves next to each other (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3...) instead of in
> >> a "list" type order and the diagrams in the gin.
>
> >> I'm asking about these questions because I've seen a lot of books and
> >> many books use different types of layout. And since I want to write an
> >> article or two in pdf format (mostly for myself, but still... it has
> >> to look nice )
>
> >> So anyway... any comments are welcome.
> >> Thanks in advance
> >> Tom
> > Algebraic is far superior, you can visualise the move you read
> > immediately with no need to recall the whole game to understand which
> > bloody "BB4" they are talking about.
>
> Mihai, I have 2 questions for you:
>
> (1) I find it easier to read a column of moves written in /icon/ algebraic.
> You know, instead of a Kt or a N, there is a picture of a little horsey! Do
> you find icon algebraic easier than Alpha-Algebraic?
>
> Of course, when you have to write moves, its more difficult to transcribe
> the Icon back to Kt or N. But that's writing about, not reading through the
> game.
>
> I also don't know what people who use other alphabets think of this - maybe
> they prefer Icon-algebraic because what is a N? And I can learn that the
> German N is an S, but... yuk!
>
> Must be tough to be Chinese!
>
> (2) I have one other point: I have a Hastings 1895 book in Russian, and it
> uses long-icon-algraic, [Icon = I] so the move looks like IRe8-c8, or for
> pawns, f4-f3.
>
> What do you think should be a standard?
>
> Coridally, Phil Innes
(1) Yes! you said it, it has the advantage to be international. If you
had download my fonts and ran the demo book you could appreciate that.
Also, opening a font with charmap.exe (or better, with a font editor
if you are up to such things) you could have seen my secrets. The
notation symbols are in the Bold variation of the font, so practically
use a standard PGN or just type the game in English, leave the text as
it is and k moves as Bold. For any N you will get a nice "horsey" a
"w" you will get a "White is slightly better symbol" and a "D" will
produce "1/2-1/2" Going back to text you will only have to change the
qualifying symbols for words, or PGN "nags". There are freeware
programs which "translate" notation between various languages, and I
think Chinese just use English.
As they are, my fonts there won't give the best results on
typesetting, they have "cheats" for "unkerned" screen display. You
need a "pure" version with kerning (if that's not Hebrew to you!)
(2) Depends on readership, if it's a manual for children/beginners,
the long algebraic is helpful. The number of columns (1, 2) should
also depend on readership. Raising the lath a little bit, the long
notation becomes futile and upsetting. The letter + diagram size is
not so important in a program with zoom facility (PDF reader, Word)
but for print or for full screen viewers, it is, e.g, my ebook has
versions with bigger letter and board for partially sighted. I'm
thinking on a zoom facility for future ebooks.
The typesetting model presented by Offramp is the most suggestive and
it was quite used by editors; now, with ecologic excuses, many revamp
their chess book towards the hardcoverless Holy Writ for 3rd World.
Of course not all is that simple in typesetting, e.g, you cannot cut a
diagram in two halves (like King Solomon!) When I sent my book "The
Hedgehog" to Batsford, I did my own typesetting and fonts (in Word, 2
columns, their page size) similar to Offramp's model, but they've
changed the format, gaining 14 pages (~8%). They were also uneager to
adopt all my chess typesetting novelties (just admitted the "sequel"
idea and the "%" and "(T)" as symbols for "frequency order" and "by
transposition" respectively. Being an opening book, only the first
moves (a dozen or so) were on vertical format (in my version).
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 18:04:08
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On Oct 3, 2:34 am, tOmmetje <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mikai, thanks for the tip on the fonts, but I use LaTeX (http://www.latex-project.org/) and it has its own chess fonts for diagrams
> and figurines (bold, normal, italics ...) and they look superb, so I
> wont be needing a different font.
In a quick search I couldn't see any figurine notation. Please give a
more explicit link.
Only a standard diagram font B/W. One day I might take Latex into
consideration and design (or adapt) fonts in adobe Format, but I found
the macro for Diagrams quite time consuming.
Anyway, if you consider the look of that font "superb", I'll never
show you mine - You might faint!
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 00:34:53
From: tOmmetje
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
First of all, I wont be using letter or A4 paper, and a discussion
which one the two is best is out of place here. I'll be using a custom
format, print the pages on A4 format (I live in Europe), cut them and
bind them. Simple as that.
Secondly, Offramp, I think your method will work best. I'm now trying
to apply that one on the first chapter and it doesn't look all that
bad :-)
Mikai, thanks for the tip on the fonts, but I use LaTeX (http://
www.latex-project.org/) and it has its own chess fonts for diagrams
and figurines (bold, normal, italics ...) and they look superb, so I
wont be needing a different font.
Anders Thulin, I'll go ask in the local library if they can get it
from a different library. But I honestly doubt any library in the
country would have that book. Chess isn't popular enough to have lots
and lots of books about them in the libraries.
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 10:31:19
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On Sep 29, 3:40 pm, tOmmetje <[email protected] > wrote:
I prefer about A5, double columns, with figurine standard notation and
the main moves in bold and variations in normal. I do like to have a
lot of white space around the text; it's a bit wasreful if you print
off but I think it looks great. As for running or columnar text, well,
here's what I think:
[White "Emanuel Lasker"]
[Black "Akiba Rubinstein"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5
8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 O-O
Up to about here I would have it in running text. Now I would have a
diagram and continue with columnar text.
11.Bc2 Nxd2
12.Qxd2 f6
13.exf6 Rxf6
14.Nd4 Nxd4
15.cxd4 Bb6
16.a4 Rb8
17.axb5 axb5
18.Qc3 Qd6
19.Be3 Bf5
20.Rfc1 Bxc2
21.Rxc2 Re8
22.Rac1 Rfe6
23.h3 Re4
24.Qd2 R8e6
25.Rc6 Qd7
26.Rxe6 Qxe6
27.Qd3 Qe8
28.Qc3 Kf7
29.Qd3 Kg8
But then when the game gets very repetitious I'd put in another
diagram and switch to running text. Then when the dull bit was about
to end I'd put in another diag, so that a reader without a board could
see that he had missed nothing.
30.Qc3 Qe6 31.Ra1 Qe8 32.Kf1 h6 33.Qd3 Kf7 34.Rc1 Kg8 35.Qb3 Qf7
36.Rd1 c6 37.f3 Qf6 38.Qd3 Re7 39.Bf2 Qd6 40.Qc2 Kf7 41.Rc1 Re6
42.Qf5+ Rf6 43.Qe5 Re6
And about now back to columnar, which I have not bothered to
demonstrate.
44.Qxd6 Rxd6 45.Ke2 Ke7 46.Kd3 Rg6 47.g3 Rf6 48.f4 Kd7 49.Re1 Rf8
50.Ra1 h5 51.Be3 g6 52.Rf1 Kd6 53.g4 hxg4 54.hxg4 c5 55.dxc5+ Bxc5
56.Bxc5+ Kxc5 57.f5 gxf5 58.gxf5 Rf6 59.Rf4 b4
60.b3 Rf7 61.f6 Kd6 62.Kd4 Ke6 63.Rf2 Kd6 64.Ra2 Rc7 65.Ra6+ Kd7
66.Rb6 1-0
I don't like the Times new roman-syle diagtams that Pergamon and
Penguin used to use; they look a biy old fashioned now.
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 14:24:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
With a little care, you can typeset such that a page will print nearly
equally well on both A4 and letter sizes. Just don't make the page
too long (full A4 length) or the columns too wide (full letter width)
and it will work out for everyone. The amount of difference is not
large enough to cause objectionable imbalances.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 10:07:42
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
[email protected] wrote:
> With a little care, you can typeset such that a page will print nearly
> equally well on both A4 and letter sizes. Just don't make the page
> too long (full A4 length) or the columns too wide (full letter width)
> and it will work out for everyone. The amount of difference is not
> large enough to cause objectionable imbalances.
>
Aha! There's at least one other person in the world who understands this.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 11:49:15
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On Sep 29, 4:40 pm, tOmmetje <[email protected] > wrote:
> Wow, this is something completely different from all the other forum
> posts here. When you read a chess book, do you prefer small (like A5)
> or bigger (more towards A4) pages, do you prefer one-column text or
> two-column text. And, in case of a two-column layout, do you prefer
> the textmoves (the real game moves) to be typeset as this:
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. d4 exd4
>
> Or like this:
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
>
> And, do you prefer the book to use symbols, or just the letters like I
> did above?
>
> And last but not least, as in many science books, they have pages that
> are wider than normal and extra width outside gins in which they
> place figures or pictures or stuff. What about that method? Just one-
> column text, moves next to each other (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3...) instead of in
> a "list" type order and the diagrams in the gin.
>
> I'm asking about these questions because I've seen a lot of books and
> many books use different types of layout. And since I want to write an
> article or two in pdf format (mostly for myself, but still... it has
> to look nice )
>
> So anyway... any comments are welcome.
> Thanks in advance
> Tom
Algebraic is far superior, you can visualise the move you read
immediately with no need to recall the whole game to understand which
bloody "BB4" they are talking about. Of course there are always dynos
who think of "good old times" with steam trains and piano cine. For a
printable book 2 columns seem best, with diagrams to fit 1 column
width, main line vertical and variations or annotations horizontal.
For other designs you may get inspiration looking at a "Dynamic Chess
Strategy Ebook" demo: http://menssana.co.uk (use IE for best result)
In the fonts file there is one "MainLine Bold" with easy type for
Figurine Chess Notation which has all chess symbols and more
ideographs.
"Variations Bold" will do the same (it's just semi-italic and a bit
thinner). These fonts are free for non-commercial use.
For diagrams, it depends of the use. If you want a printable B/W
document just send me an email and I'll come back with a free font for
it (assorted with the notation font above). I also have a gorgeous,
unseen version for fine printing, but that's commercial. For colour
diagrams I have other fonts and easy to use Word templates to fit
them. In colour each piece is a 2 key strike result, first is a
"blind" or null-advance symbol (setting the background) and the second
gives the piece contour. That's the technique used by many chess
programs. Converting from Word to Adobe pdf or to HTML does not give
the expected result, they don't respect the 0-advance, one can use
other techniques. For HTML is quite easy to overcome, just set 2
layers over the board (a table); you can also set .GIF images with
transparent background to get a static diagram as in the 3rd page of
the demo ebook. That is tedious, but there are programs to do it for
you. I'm sure you are not contemplating a HTML document (otherwise you
just use an applet and replay the whole game), you are interested in a
format for printing. is that true?
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 13:03:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
"Mihai Suba" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 29, 4:40 pm, tOmmetje <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wow, this is something completely different from all the other forum
>> posts here. When you read a chess book, do you prefer small (like A5)
>> or bigger (more towards A4) pages, do you prefer one-column text or
>> two-column text. And, in case of a two-column layout, do you prefer
>> the textmoves (the real game moves) to be typeset as this:
>>
>> 1. e4 e5
>> 2. Nf3 Nc6
>> 3. d4 exd4
>>
>> Or like this:
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
>>
>> And, do you prefer the book to use symbols, or just the letters like I
>> did above?
>>
>> And last but not least, as in many science books, they have pages that
>> are wider than normal and extra width outside gins in which they
>> place figures or pictures or stuff. What about that method? Just one-
>> column text, moves next to each other (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3...) instead of in
>> a "list" type order and the diagrams in the gin.
>>
>> I'm asking about these questions because I've seen a lot of books and
>> many books use different types of layout. And since I want to write an
>> article or two in pdf format (mostly for myself, but still... it has
>> to look nice )
>>
>> So anyway... any comments are welcome.
>> Thanks in advance
>> Tom
> Algebraic is far superior, you can visualise the move you read
> immediately with no need to recall the whole game to understand which
> bloody "BB4" they are talking about.
Mihai, I have 2 questions for you:
(1) I find it easier to read a column of moves written in /icon/ algebraic.
You know, instead of a Kt or a N, there is a picture of a little horsey! Do
you find icon algebraic easier than Alpha-Algebraic?
Of course, when you have to write moves, its more difficult to transcribe
the Icon back to Kt or N. But that's writing about, not reading through the
game.
I also don't know what people who use other alphabets think of this - maybe
they prefer Icon-algebraic because what is a N? And I can learn that the
German N is an S, but... yuk!
Must be tough to be Chinese!
(2) I have one other point: I have a Hastings 1895 book in Russian, and it
uses long-icon-algraic, [Icon = I] so the move looks like IRe8-c8, or for
pawns, f4-f3.
What do you think should be a standard?
Coridally, Phil Innes
> Of course there are always dynos
> who think of "good old times" with steam trains and piano cine. For a
> printable book 2 columns seem best, with diagrams to fit 1 column
> width, main line vertical and variations or annotations horizontal.
> For other designs you may get inspiration looking at a "Dynamic Chess
> Strategy Ebook" demo: http://menssana.co.uk (use IE for best result)
> In the fonts file there is one "MainLine Bold" with easy type for
> Figurine Chess Notation which has all chess symbols and more
> ideographs.
> "Variations Bold" will do the same (it's just semi-italic and a bit
> thinner). These fonts are free for non-commercial use.
> For diagrams, it depends of the use. If you want a printable B/W
> document just send me an email and I'll come back with a free font for
> it (assorted with the notation font above). I also have a gorgeous,
> unseen version for fine printing, but that's commercial. For colour
> diagrams I have other fonts and easy to use Word templates to fit
> them. In colour each piece is a 2 key strike result, first is a
> "blind" or null-advance symbol (setting the background) and the second
> gives the piece contour. That's the technique used by many chess
> programs. Converting from Word to Adobe pdf or to HTML does not give
> the expected result, they don't respect the 0-advance, one can use
> other techniques. For HTML is quite easy to overcome, just set 2
> layers over the board (a table); you can also set .GIF images with
> transparent background to get a static diagram as in the 3rd page of
> the demo ebook. That is tedious, but there are programs to do it for
> you. I'm sure you are not contemplating a HTML document (otherwise you
> just use an applet and replay the whole game), you are interested in a
> format for printing. is that true?
>
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 17:57:16
From: tOmmetje
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On 1 okt, 17:59, Anders Thulin <[email protected] > wrote:
> tOmmetje wrote:
> > Wow, this is something completely different from all the other forum
> > posts here. When you read a chess book, do you prefer small (like A5)
> > or bigger (more towards A4) pages, do you prefer one-column text or
> > two-column text. And, in case of a two-column layout, do you prefer
> > the textmoves (the real game moves) to be typeset as this:
>
> > 1. e4 e5
> > 2. Nf3 Nc6
> > 3. d4 exd4
>
> > Or like this:
> > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
>
> It's not what any individuals prefer, it's what makes it easy for
> the majority of readers to understand. So ... what reader are you writing for?
> Advanced players, who can read and understand short notation without
> lifting a piece, or the beginner, who usually prefers a clearer structure
> to the score, and who needs to go from the score to the board and back again
> with a minimum of fuss?
Good thinking. Since it'll be more for beginners than advanced
players, I better
use the column type.
>
> > And last but not least, as in many science books, they have pages that
> > are wider than normal and extra width outside gins in which they
> > place figures or pictures or stuff. What about that method? Just one-
> > column text, moves next to each other (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3...) instead of in
> > a "list" type order and the diagrams in the gin.
>
> I know of only one chess book designed and typeset by a professional
> book designer. Look for C.H.O'D. Alexander's 'Fischer v. Spassky Reykjavik 1972'
> publisher by Penguin books. The designer is Derek Birdsall.
I doubt I'll be able to find that book anywhere in a (second-hand)
book store. And I'm
not too fond of ordering things from e-bay or amazon or a similar
site... Thus that
creates a bit of a problem.
I do know about a book written by Ulrich Dirr which is typeset using
PDFLaTeX and looks
very good. But buying that German book (a language I don't understand,
thus I can't read it)
for only the design... no thanks.
>
> Start from a design you know and like. If it doesn't work for you, either
> improve it, or modify your design goals accordingly. When you've finished you
> probably will understand what book designers do, and why they are such important
> people to have around when it matters.
I think I'll do just that. Start designing it, and improving it bit by
bit.
>
> --
> Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 14:27:44
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
tOmmetje wrote:
> I doubt I'll be able to find that book anywhere in a (second-hand)
> book store. And I'm
> not too fond of ordering things from e-bay or amazon or a similar
> site... Thus that
> creates a bit of a problem.
No public libraries nearby? They can usually get a copy from another
library if they don't have it themselves.
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 15:59:09
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
tOmmetje wrote:
> Wow, this is something completely different from all the other forum
> posts here. When you read a chess book, do you prefer small (like A5)
> or bigger (more towards A4) pages, do you prefer one-column text or
> two-column text. And, in case of a two-column layout, do you prefer
> the textmoves (the real game moves) to be typeset as this:
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. d4 exd4
>
> Or like this:
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
It's not what any individuals prefer, it's what makes it easy for
the majority of readers to understand. So ... what reader are you writing for?
Advanced players, who can read and understand short notation without
lifting a piece, or the beginner, who usually prefers a clearer structure
to the score, and who needs to go from the score to the board and back again
with a minimum of fuss?
> And last but not least, as in many science books, they have pages that
> are wider than normal and extra width outside gins in which they
> place figures or pictures or stuff. What about that method? Just one-
> column text, moves next to each other (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3...) instead of in
> a "list" type order and the diagrams in the gin.
I know of only one chess book designed and typeset by a professional
book designer. Look for C.H.O'D. Alexander's 'Fischer v. Spassky Reykjavik 1972'
publisher by Penguin books. The designer is Derek Birdsall.
Start from a design you know and like. If it doesn't work for you, either
improve it, or modify your design goals accordingly. When you've finished you
probably will understand what book designers do, and why they are such important
people to have around when it matters.
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 16:01:17
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
> If you want to take the trouble to learn it, LaTeX with the "schach"
This should have been "skak" actually :( Not sure what I was
thinking...
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 15:27:46
From: tOmmetje
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On 30 sep, 04:40, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:40:06 -0000, tOmmetje <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Wow, this is something completely different from all the other forum
> >posts here. When you read a chess book, do you prefer small (like A5)
> >or bigger (more towards A4) pages, do you prefer one-column text or
> >two-column text. And, in case of a two-column layout, do you prefer
> >the textmoves (the real game moves) to be typeset as this:
>
> > 1. e4 e5
> > 2. Nf3 Nc6
> > 3. d4 exd4
>
> I prefer this style, with annotations as separate in-line paragraphs.
>
I prefer this style as well, but it's not used that much anymore. But
it easily gives cramped page layouts when used with A5 paper sizes, so
now i'm trying to use something letter-stylish (the page size used in
Silman's new endgame book). A bigger book, yes, but it also gives me
the chance to add plenty of whitespace and don't get hyphened words
everywhere and terribly looking columns.
> >Or like this:
> >1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
>
> But this is OK too, given that it's much more economical on space,and
> presumably you can give us much more material for the price. However,
> it sometimes gets pretty tedious to follow if there are detailed
> annotations.
>
I detest such economical reasoning. A book should be pleasatn and easy
to read. I happily pay a bit more to get a 500-pages easy-to-read and
pleasant-to-read book, then to pay less and get the same book in 300
pages but getting frustrated at the bad and cramped layout. But maybe
that's just me....
> >And, do you prefer the book to use symbols, or just the letters like I
> >did above?
>
> Makes little difference. A few minutes with either and one adjusts.
> BTW, I like descriptive notation -- I'm a geezer.
>
I asked this question to a friend of mine who owns loads of chess
books and he prefers using just letters. So that's why I asked about
figurines or letters. Letters also make clear the book is "poorly"
typeset while figurines just make the book look so much more
prefessional, in my opinion.
>
>
> >And last but not least, as in many science books, they have pages that
> >are wider than normal and extra width outside gins in which they
> >place figures or pictures or stuff. What about that method? Just one-
> >column text, moves next to each other (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3...) instead of in
> >a "list" type order and the diagrams in the gin.
>
> That sounds extra expensive. Probably not worth it.
Hmmm, that might be true. But it's something I haven't seen in chess
books.. ever. But i see it all the times in good science books (though
those books tend to cost 75--100 euros -- i guess about 100-125 US
dollars) which is far more expensive than the average chess book. But
the science books are full color, hard cover, and art paper or the
like... In black/white or just 2 colors and normal paper, the price
will drop significally.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 22:33:27
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
tOmmetje <[email protected] > wrote:
> But it easily gives cramped page layouts when used with A5 paper
> sizes, so now i'm trying to use something letter-stylish (the page
> size used in Silman's new endgame book).
Nobody outside the USA uses letter. If you want your material to be
easily printed by anyone outside the US, use A4 instead.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Atom Bomb (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a weapon of mass destruction but it's
twice as fast!
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 22:05:06
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
David Richerby wrote:
> tOmmetje <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But it easily gives cramped page layouts when used with A5 paper
>> sizes, so now i'm trying to use something letter-stylish (the page
>> size used in Silman's new endgame book).
>
> Nobody outside the USA uses letter. If you want your material to be
> easily printed by anyone outside the US, use A4 instead.
>
>
> Dave.
>
Nobody inside the USA uses A4. If you want your material to be easily
printed by anyone inside the US, use letter instead.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 14:57:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> tOmmetje <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> But it easily gives cramped page layouts when used with A5 paper
>>> sizes, so now i'm trying to use something letter-stylish (the page
>>> size used in Silman's new endgame book).
>>
>> Nobody outside the USA uses letter. If you want your material to be
>> easily printed by anyone outside the US, use A4 instead.
>
> Nobody inside the USA uses A4. If you want your material to be easily
> printed by anyone inside the US, use letter instead.
Well, whether you want to optimize for the 300 million people using
letter or the six billion using A4 is up to you.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Aluminium Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ screwdriver that's really light!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 09:15:00
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>> tOmmetje <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> But it easily gives cramped page layouts when used with A5 paper
>>>> sizes, so now i'm trying to use something letter-stylish (the page
>>>> size used in Silman's new endgame book).
>>> Nobody outside the USA uses letter. If you want your material to be
>>> easily printed by anyone outside the US, use A4 instead.
>> Nobody inside the USA uses A4. If you want your material to be easily
>> printed by anyone inside the US, use letter instead.
>
> Well, whether you want to optimize for the 300 million people using
> letter or the six billion using A4 is up to you.
>
>
> Dave.
>
My audience is largely made up of people with enough technological savvy
to handle either format - and transformations both ways.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2007 19:40:36
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:40:06 -0000, tOmmetje <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Wow, this is something completely different from all the other forum
>posts here. When you read a chess book, do you prefer small (like A5)
>or bigger (more towards A4) pages, do you prefer one-column text or
>two-column text. And, in case of a two-column layout, do you prefer
>the textmoves (the real game moves) to be typeset as this:
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. d4 exd4
I prefer this style, with annotations as separate in-line paragraphs.
>Or like this:
>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4
But this is OK too, given that it's much more economical on space,and
presumably you can give us much more material for the price. However,
it sometimes gets pretty tedious to follow if there are detailed
annotations.
>And, do you prefer the book to use symbols, or just the letters like I
>did above?
Makes little difference. A few minutes with either and one adjusts.
BTW, I like descriptive notation -- I'm a geezer.
>
>And last but not least, as in many science books, they have pages that
>are wider than normal and extra width outside gins in which they
>place figures or pictures or stuff. What about that method? Just one-
>column text, moves next to each other (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3...) instead of in
>a "list" type order and the diagrams in the gin.
That sounds extra expensive. Probably not worth it.
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 01:47:17
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
Typesetting is something I find interesting, and I've had a fair
amount of practice typesetting checker books but not chess books.
Still, basic principles apply. A5 size is nice and book-like, but for
internet publication, A4 or letter is easier for the average person to
print if they are so inclined. Lots of white space in the gins and
even in the interior seem to make the book easy to read and attractive
as well as facilitating adding study notes in pencil. I prefer
columnar lists of moves rather than rows of moves, as they are easier
to follow. Of course, they take up a lot more space--- which is why
they are easier to follow.
Figurine notation is very pleasant to look at and seems to impart a
certain extra chesslike "feel" to the typeset page.
If you want to take the trouble to learn it, LaTeX with the "schach"
add-on package typesets chess in a beautiful manner, far nicer than
you will ever do with a word processor. There is a fairly long
learning curve, but if you are going to do typesetting for years to
come, it is worth the effort.
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2007 20:45:30
From: tOmmetje
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On 29 sep, 22:33, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 7:40 am, tOmmetje <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And, do you prefer the book to use symbols, or just the letters like I
> > did above?
>
> I prefer figurine symbols with descriptive text, but in long form,
> such as:
>
> "[figure of pawn here] from White King square two to White King
> square four" would be 1. e4.
>
Descriptive notation? Books aren't typeset in that notation anymore.
It's a pity
for you. I like the algreba=EFc notation better though. I grew up with
it and such.
Though I can read descriptive notation, I find it harder to read
(however it might
be easyer to write down when notation your chess game).
> But one thing I can't stand: problem books that give away the problem
> on the same page! Outrageous. You have to blur your eyes and cover
> up half the page to avoid seeing the answer. There ought to be a law
> against that.
>
> RL
Yeah, you're right on that one. Though I have some books at home for
studying
french and the answers are there typeset in red text and with the book
comes
a sheet of red see-through plastic. If you put that on a page of the
book, you can't
read the red lines, so you can't see the solutions to the problems.
Then again, that requires a sheet of plastic to be given with the book
and to print
to book in 2 colours, so it gets more expensive...
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2007 13:33:28
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Typesetting chess books
|
On Sep 29, 7:40 am, tOmmetje <[email protected] > wrote:
> And, do you prefer the book to use symbols, or just the letters like I
> did above?
>
I prefer figurine symbols with descriptive text, but in long form,
such as:
"[figure of pawn here] from White King square two to White King
square four" would be 1. e4.
But one thing I can't stand: problem books that give away the problem
on the same page! Outrageous. You have to blur your eyes and cover
up half the page to avoid seeing the answer. There ought to be a law
against that.
RL
|
|
