Talk:Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 23:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do tonight. Courcelles (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What’s here looks fine. But where is the critical commentary, the comparison to other books, basically anything beyond comments on the broad contents and publication history? I’m inclined to fail this, not because of what’s here, but because of what isn’t. Can you address this? Courcelles (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it difficult to find reviews in RS, Brady's book constitutes a review of sort I suppose. I'll see what I can find. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * &, a very quick search turned up citations for three (maybe four) reviews:


 * 1) Electronic Learning, 9/1/1995, ISSN: 0278-3258, Volume 15, Issue 1, p. 46
 * 2) Goldberg, Harold: Entertainment Weekly, 2/3/1995, ISSN: 1049-0434, Issue 260, p. 59
 * 3) Library Journal, 12/15/1966, ISSN: 0363-0277, p. 6218
 * 4) Library Journal, 11/15/1966, ISSN: 0363-0277, p. 5639 --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I knew there had to be things like that out there. Let me know if you can get a hold of them or not.  Thanks, Usernameunique! Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The first two references appear to be related to the software rather than the book, and the second of these is rather disparaging. Could note that the software received mixed reviews I suppose.
 * Found the Library Journal reference, it reads (reconstructing) "This is a programmed text that gives good instruction on how to play chess for the interested beginner. Chess notation is not used, thus making learning easier for the beginner. Also, a chess set is not essential although it does make the working of some problems easier. Should prove highly useful in libraries in spite of a format which encourages writing in the book.". Obviously LJ is a trade publication for librarians and the review is specifically related to its suitability for libraries, especially school libraries, so not sure if there's anything useful in that. A potentially useful reference which I don't have access to is by Walter Korn in a 1966 edition of "Chess Review", which is fairly critical judging by the excerpt "'Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess' stumbles and disappoints in this sense". The writer appears to question whether Xerox's "programmed learning" approach is suitable for teaching chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's another, TLS, March 30, 1973, p362. Unfortunately it's partially illegible. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can make out the first column if I zoom, but not the second. MaxBrowne, what would you do with this article?  My inclination is to say go, put it on the back burner away from a GA review, and see if you can ever get access to the original sources.  This might be one of those topics where a shitty combination of age and poor digitization means it can never be a GA without finding hardcopy sources. Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Found an "in popular culture" type reference in the novel "White Oleander" where one of the protagonist's foster parents teaches her chess using "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess". So it has a certain amount of popular culture penetration in the US at least. But yeah might as well withdraw it from GA nomination. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well, GA nomination withdrawn. Let me know if it ever comes back.  Meanwhile, I feel comfortable bumping it up to C-class. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)