Talk:Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151026103806/http://www.vnews.com/lifetimes/19141511-95/shelby-lyman-on-chess-a-world-class-teacher to http://www.vnews.com/lifetimes/19141511-95/shelby-lyman-on-chess-a-world-class-teacher

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK
Common everyday words like "best selling" and "publish" should not be wikilinked. They do nothing to add to the understanding of the subject of the article, and are just a distraction. The edit warring behaviour by also re-introduced false information into the article. It is easily verifiable that the book was first published in 1966, and the cited source (Shelby Lymon) supports the information that the book is written in the programmed learning style. In short, the reverts were completely unjustified, as was the uncivili accusation of "vandalism" in the edit summary. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The second reference does not support the claim that it is the best selling chess book – I have replaced it with one that does and which also supports the 1966 date. "Bestselling" means "highly popular" (i.e. "very well-selling") and is not a synonym for "best selling", that is, "having sold more copies than any other". I agree the wikilinks in the second sentence are a distraction and are unhelpful. User:IQ125, if you continue to revert other users' edits without engaging in discussion you will be blocked for edit warring. MaxBrowne's edits were made in good faith and are by definition not vandalism. Cobblet (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree on the overlinking. I added a bit more info about the publishing history - the Bantam edition did not come until 1972, but it did come out in 1966 with a different publisher.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Original publisher was a recently acquired Xerox subsidiary, part of their education division. Might be able to improve on my sourcing but a google book search shows multiple ads in publications like the New Yorker, Scientific American etc. $6.95 must have been quite expensive for a book back then. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It was probably the Bantam edition which became the bestseller, as it came out right when interest in chess was exploding because of the Fischer-Spassky match.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This link to the text of "The unknown Bobby Fischer" (Donaldson & Tanghorn, 1999) supports that statement. In that case the Bantam paperback edition and the sudden rise to the top of the best seller lists in 1972 should probably be mentioned. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note, Donaldson & Tanghorn's claim that BFTC was in the NYT best sellers list in 1972 does not appear to be correct. I checked the lists on this site and none of them include BFTC. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that website a reliable source? There is more than one "non-fiction" NYT list. The current NYT best seller list has subcategories for Hardback and Paperback Non-fiction, plus "Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous" which would seem to fit a chess puzzle book. Maybe they did back then too. I would be inclined to go with the "Unknown Fischer" source myself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No it isn't a reliable source, it's self-published. I'm using it in talk though, not in article space. Hypothetically, if anyone were to mention the New York Times best seller list in this article, Donaldson/Tanghorn would not be good enough. They'd need to find an actual NYT list which included the book. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would it not be good enough? I have the book and it's a reliable secondary source. John Donaldson is a respected published chess author.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the claim that the book was on the NYT best sellers list is dubious. Can NYT confirm it? MaxBrowne (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added some info on the book's sales, sourced from the Donaldson book, but have left out the NYT claim until I can corroborate it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the stubborn editor is MaxBrowne, he keeps deleting the optimum inter-wiki links in the article Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and either replacing them with inferior wiki-links or none at all.  The book noted in the article is the highest selling and most recognized chess book ever written and published.  Thank you IQ125 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:IQ125, whether wikilinks are "optimum" is not a matter for you to decide unilaterally. It is a matter to be decided through consensus. If someone says they don't like the wikilinks and removes them, you are edit-warring if you reinsert them without explaining why you think they're necessary (and what you've just written is not an explanation.) Continuing to do so may lead to loss of your editing privileges. That being said, I have no problem with the links you've reinserted in the first sentence. Cobblet (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think the description "chess puzzle book" is correct. "Chess puzzle" is a layman's term, chess players talk about chess "problems" or "studies". The salient feature of the book is not the use of "puzzles" as such but the then-new "programmed learning" approach, whereby the reader is quizzed and directed to different sections of the book depending on their answers, the idea being to ensure the reader has understood the information presented before proceeding to the next section. Sort of like a choose your own adventure book. And given that it's a beginner's book, the early questions are extremely simple, e.g. "can the pawn capture the knight?", which is hardly a "puzzle", simply a question to determine whether the reader understands how pawns move. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Puzzle" is not just a layman's term. Problems and studies have aesthetic value; puzzles have didactic value, whatever their complexity. It's good to point out that this book is more structured than your typical puzzle book, but calling it that doesn't seem wrong to me. Cobblet (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The linked Chess puzzle article does have a section on "Tactical puzzles," describing them as "regular positions from a game (with normal rules), usually meant as training positions," which seems to describe this book fairly accurately.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"checkmate chess puzzle book"
Sorry this just sounds ridiculous. "Chess book" is all that is needed, and the wiki links are not needed either. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Disagree: "checkmate chess puzzle book" provides more description about the book with inter-wiki links and reads smoothly.  IQ125 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm having deja vu here, as we had a very similar discussion a year ago. My preference is for chess puzzle book which is accurate and provides the right level of information- "checkmate chess puzzle book" is awkward and unnecessary, while "chess book" is a bit too vague.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, each chess puzzle leads to a checkmate, hence the better description: ""checkmate chess puzzle book". IQ125 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But virtually every chess puzzle ever composed requires you to checkmate - it's really not necessary to spell that out. I have never heard the phrase "checkmate puzzle book" anywhere else.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you do not use many chess puzzle books. There are many puzzle books with sections that do not require mates to solve the puzzle.  IQ125 (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Been years since I've seen that book (only really skim-read it) but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exclusively deal with checkmate puzzles, or even exclusively with puzzles, unless you consider "can white castle?" to be a "puzzle" rather than a simple check on whether the reader understands the material presented on the rules of chess. So just something like "chess book for beginners" would be perfectly accurate. That said I don't strongly object to the description "puzzle book", only to "checkmate chess puzzle book" which is a ridiculously awkward and clunky phrase. Also the wikilinks add nothing useful - MOS:OVERLINKing again. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * MaxBrowne obviously does not own the book and has never read the book. You do not even know the content of the book!  IQ125 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Written by Bobby Fischer"
Is this accurate? As I understand it, Mosenfelder and Marguiles wrote it and Fischer just allowed his name to be used.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fischer participated in the writing of the book, he even speaks in first-person in the book. IQ125 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how credible a source Soltis is, he's been heavily criticized by Edward Winter for example, but he has called into question the extent of Fischer's authorship so I included this. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just checked my copy of Profile of a Prodigy and Frank Brady says the above two players and Leslie Ault “helped (Fischer) in outlining and editing the work” but he doesn’t really say much about what Fischer did.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Article looks pretty good now imo. I would still prefer " chess book " to " chess puzzle book " but I'll yield to consensus. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Why not buy the book and read it before commenting on the talk page and editing the article! IQ125 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's a shitty book. I wouldn't even recommend it to beginners. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How would you know Patzer? You have never tried it. IQ125 (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Read it in a library years ago. Don't own it, don't need it, I'm not a beginner. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Aw. Fun & productive book for beginners. (Nearly "interactive"; learn how to mate w/o distraction of notation.) Good gift. Try you might like. --IHTS (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hehe, just giving him a well deserved trolling. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It says right in the introduction that Mosenfelder and Marguiles set out to write this book and needed a strong "collaborator who ... could develop and evaluate positions, refine themes, and contribute insights from actual games of Grand Master caliber." That it uses the first person doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't seem clear what the precise division of duties are -- it only seems to make sense to say that the three are co-authors (with Fischer as perhaps the "lead" coauthor).

FWIW, this looks pretty far from a GA to me. The sources are quite weak/primary, the sections not particularly well developed. It's one of the best known chess books of the past 50 years, for better or worse, and I would be shocked if this was a reasonably complete summary of what people have said about it. Did Chess Life or any of the other chess magazines not review it, for example? Of course, I say this based entirely on my own sense of the subject rather than on a diligent search for sources, so take that for what you will. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think a GA nom is premature. We’ve expanded it, yes, but it doesn’t look much beyond Start class to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)