Talk:Basic Chess Endings

Editions
The article gives the impression that there were two editions of the book: the original 1941 edition and the 2003 revised edition. I know that other Wikipedia articles cite the latter as the "second edition". That is not exactly accurate. I own four copies of BCE. The most recent is the 2003 algebraic edition. That book does not refer to itself as the "second edition". The copyright page indicates that the book was first copyrighted in 1941 by Fine, a "Revision" was copyrighted in 1969 by Fine, and another "Revision" was copyrighted in 2003 by Random House, Inc. But Benko in the "Reviser's Preface" (unnumbered page corresponding to page vii) to the 2003 version says that, prior to his revision, the book was "first published in 1941 and had never been revised".

In addition to the algebraic edition, I own two hardcover copies reflecting the 1941 copyright, which indicate that they are the "SECOND EDITION" and "FOURTH EDITION". I also own a copy of the Tartan paperback. The latter does not call itself a revised edition or give an edition number. It just says that the book was copyrighted in 1941 and the copyright was renewed in 1969. My copy has an ISBN, which presumably means that at least that copy was published some time after 1969 (the ISBN standard was first promulgated in 1970, and not all publishers immediately began using it even then). A quick examination of random pages of the three non-algebraic editions shows those pages to be identical in all three versions. The only apparent difference is the cover art that appears on the Tartan paperback version. I believe that the "first edition" of BCE (which I don't have) was a numbered, limited edition of 500 copies, each of which was signed by Fine. One occasionally sees those for sale on eBay.

To summarize: BCE was first published in 1941. It evidently was reprinted on multiple occasions. Fine renewed the copyright in 1969. At some point (after 1969?), the Tartan paperback was published. As best I can tell all of the pre-2003 editions were identical except for the cover art on the Tartan paperback; there was no substantive change until Benko's 2003 algebraic edition. Probably none of this matters much, but it does indicate that calling the 2003 edition the "second edition" is formally incorrect, although the 2003 edition does indeed appear to be the first that is substantively different from the original 1941 edition. Krakatoa (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I put that in there. I have an old hardback (1960) and two of the DN Tartan paperbacks from different time periods (1971 and about 1980).  As far as I can tell, they are identical as far as the text.  They list several printings.  I thought that if there was no substantial change, it was not a new edition.   A new printing may make some minor changes.  It would probably be better to say "revised" edition rather than second edition.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have: Note that it was not actually revised in 1969. In those days a copyright was for 29 years and could be renewed for 29 more, I think. The first paperback may have come out in 1969. Bubba73 (talk), 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) hardback, copyright 1941, reprinted Sept 1960, nothing stated about edition
 * 2) paperback, (C) 1941, (c) renewed 1969, reprinted August 1971, nothing about edition, no ISBN
 * 3) paperback, (c) 1941, (c) 1969, 10th printing, no date or edition, ISBN 0-679-14002-6.  (Bought in 1981. Very similar to the other paperback except higher price and thicker paper.)
 * 4) paperback "revised by Pal Banko", (c) 1941, revision (c) 1969, revision (c) 2003, no edition info, first printing ISBN 0-8129-3493-8.
 * Probably 28 and 28 (1969-1941=28)? Krakatoa (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right, it used to be 28 years, see Copyright. Bubba73 (talk), 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Edition (book) says "The bibliographical definition of an edition includes all copies of a book printed “from substantially the same setting of type,” including all minor typographical variants." As far as I can tell, all of the Fine/DN versions are exactly the same except for minor changes in the page that tells the copyright and publishing info.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is considered the first systematic book on the endgame phase of the game of chess.
Surely not - The *second* edition of Berger's "Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele" was published in 1922. This book covers much the same ground as Basic Chess Endings, though with a different flavour. Fine acknowledges Berger's book in the bibliography in BCE, just before chapter 1. Did the writer of this sentence perhaps mean "the first systematic book written in English"? AMackenzie (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Probably "in English" was meant. Bubba73 (talk), 14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)