As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for
initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning
course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners
course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which
should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For
high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full academic
credit.

The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in
several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS.

With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to a
hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a
couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries.

TOPIC 1

Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his
definitions below, then ask my questions:

MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns.

PIECE:
(1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag."
(2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces."
(3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece."

My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? If it is, is Dan's
definition to your liking?

My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we
have 3 contradictions! These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss
PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's
limited sense of piece in #3?

Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS?

Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece, as
in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp.

TOPIC 2

Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between
move" which is uncontroversial.

Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have seen
the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word
Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding?

Thank you!

Phil Innes

To respond to an immediate e-mail, most of this business of answering
questions about the course can be conducted in public, which saves me
answering lots of individual e-mails.

Yes - Dan's title is the one published by HR at Chesscafe, and Yes, Dan
retains full copyright, and normal royalty structure for payment.

The only changes to the book were that we [actually, Dan did all this]
decided to first check all the hyper-links in the book to ensure they were
still valid, and also added some new ones to the printed version of 5 years
ago. [naturally, also changing USCF's physical address, telephone numbers,
too]

For other changes, and as supplements I will likely use a MOOGLE resource.

About half of Dan's book centers around USCF, tournaments, ratings,
membership categories esp for youth, arbitrators, spectator behavior, and
essentially the 'official' side of chess.

In initial discussions with Dan we compared his title to the only other
known one to me in the English language, which is Survival Guide for Chess
Parents, by Tania Jones, and I had to conclude with Dan that that title was
a bit too skewed to Tania's son who was a prodigy, and also English rather
than American oriented. Dan's book is a bit more down too earth and normal,
besides, it is American-specific.

To the remaining half dozen questions, plus I add some notes:

a) The CD ROM is Advanced Chess School by Convekta, the people who publish
Rybka. It is also handily bi-lingual English/Spanish.

b) yes, I have been canvassing for future chess teachers who will , btw,
need a minimum rating to qualify to teach both courses, as well as pass a
background check! yes, re-imbursement for teaching will be 'normative',
which varies state-to-state, but a fair average.

c) initial mailing to about 10,000 home-schoolers, then 100,000. If 100
students sign up from the initial mailing I will be very pleased indeed!
There were in 2001, 1,100,000 home schooled children in the USA.

d) yes, if a student is enrolled in a US HS they can elect to take the
course, and the law says that if they pass it, they get academic credit.

e) for the beginner's course, I am using Todd Bardwick's material, which is
strongly linked to a math curriculum by a useful rubric he has provided, and
provides both a chess workbook for the student, and also a guide to teaching
it for the parent. This is a bit complicated with very young children, since
they can't yet necessarily read textbooks! Todd's approach seemed best to
me - especially since he is at great pains to explain to the parent the
pedagogical aspects of learning, and to be able to make a very strong
academic comment; teach chess, measure in math.

f) the main differences between beginner course and intermediate are that
for beginner the parent or home-school teacher is the primary contact for
the student, with chess teacher as back-up via e-mail, but for the
intermediate the distance-learning teacher is prime contact, and a variety
of media are used as well as appealing to normative VAK distributions.

Phil Innes


"Chess One" wrote in message
...
As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for
initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning
course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners
course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which
should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For
high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full
academic credit.

The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in
several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS.

With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to
a hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a
couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries.

TOPIC 1

Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his
definitions below, then ask my questions:

MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns.

PIECE:
(1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag."
(2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces."
(3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece."

My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? If it is, is
Dan's definition to your liking?

My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we
have 3 contradictions! These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss
PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's
limited sense of piece in #3?

Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS?

Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece,
as in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp.

TOPIC 2

Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between
move" which is uncontroversial.

Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have
seen the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word
Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding?

Thank you!

Phil Innes

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:49:07 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? If it is, is Dan's
definition to your liking?

Sounds too checker-esque IMO.

Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS?

Yes

Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between
move" which is uncontroversial.

Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have seen
the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word
Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding?

I don't think so. Everyone I know uses "zwischenzug". I can't
remember anybody using "intermezzo", although most would probably
understand it's usage.

On Aug 14, 12:49*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for
initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning
course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners
course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which
should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For
high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full academic
credit.

The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in
several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS.

With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to a
hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a
couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries.

Since I edited that book, and wrote some of the glossary entries, I
may be able to answer.

TOPIC 1

Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his
definitions below, then ask my questions:

MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns.

PIECE:
(1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag."
(2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces."
(3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece."

My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use?

Probably not used much by average chess players, but it's still
often seen in books. It's useful for a young student of chess to
understand terms he's going to see often in his studies.

If it is, is Dan's
definition to your liking?

That definition is correct.

My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we
have 3 contradictions!

Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes
clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece."

These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss
PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's
limited sense of piece in #3?

That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first
encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I
think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when
no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece, a
bishop or knight only, in all chess literature I have ever read. If
it's a queen or rook, one always says queen or rook.

Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS?

Certainly one must distinquish between them as appropriate.

Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece, as
in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp.

Yes, that is correct -- though among chess set collectors, "major
piece" is often used to mean everything but pawns. But that's a non-
standard usage within a small chess sub-culture, and so I did not
include it in the glossary.

TOPIC 2

Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between
move" which is uncontroversial.

Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have seen
the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word
Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding?

I have never seen "intermezzo" used in a chess context in any
English-language book or magazine, ever, nor have I ever heard any
English-speaking person use it in a chess context.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for
initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning
course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners
course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which
should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For
high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full
academic
credit.

The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in
several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS.

With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to
a
hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a
couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries.

Since I edited that book, and wrote some of the glossary entries, I
may be able to answer.

TOPIC 1

Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his
definitions below, then ask my questions:

MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns.

From this small survey so far, a difference there from Mike's response

PIECE:
(1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag."
(2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces."
(3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece."

My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use?

Probably not used much by average chess players, but it's still
often seen in books. It's useful for a young student of chess to
understand terms he's going to see often in his studies.

I think the boat is still out on that one too - people do say 'chess-men'
but doesn't sound like chess players do, and its a recent archaism?

If it is, is Dan's
definition to your liking?

That definition is correct.

My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we
have 3 contradictions!

Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes
clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece."

**They have internal contradictions. I suppose what I would most like to do
is to talk of pawns distinct from other men, or pieces, as the main
emphasis.

These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss
PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's
limited sense of piece in #3?

That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first
encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I
think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when
no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece,

**um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, but what do people understand
by the term now? I personally wouldn't 'invariably' think it was a minor
piece, but hey! you guys are the Yanks!

a
bishop or knight only, in all chess literature I have ever read. If
it's a queen or rook, one always says queen or rook.

**let's leave that one up the flag-pole and see if others agree.

Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS?

Certainly one must distinquish between them as appropriate.

Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece,
as
in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp.

Yes, that is correct -- though among chess set collectors, "major
piece" is often used to mean everything but pawns. But that's a non-
standard usage within a small chess sub-culture, and so I did not
include it in the glossary.

TOPIC 2

Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between
move" which is uncontroversial.

Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have
seen
the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word
Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding?

I have never seen "intermezzo" used in a chess context in any
English-language book or magazine, ever, nor have I ever heard any
English-speaking person use it in a chess context.

**Sounds like you and Mike agree its not necessary, and that knowledge of
the German and English words are sufficient.

To finish: one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing, which I also
level at Chessville's efforts. Its to do with annotation. This particular
book sometimes illustrates the term by citing a move, but not always, as in
Castling, it doesn't mention 0-0 or 0-0-0, or even if those are zeros or
capital 'o' s.

There was a slight embarrassement I discovered in a trial with 2 beginners
in the Bardwick books, so that Brad explains chess annotation in chapter 3,
but uses it in Chapter one. Both trial student and trial teacher had to ask
me about it.

I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an
on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short
algebraic will do] that anyone knows?

Cordially, and thanks for info so far, Phil Innes

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:49:07 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for
initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning
course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners
course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which
should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For
high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full academic
credit.

The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in
several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS.

With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to a
hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a
couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries.

TOPIC 1

Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his
definitions below, then ask my questions:


I haven't been an active player since the late 1950s, but I'll answer
your questions with the perspective I had back then, with a note that
as far as I know, none of the answers have changed at all.



MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns.

PIECE:
(1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag."
(2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces."
(3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece."

My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? If it is, is Dan's
definition to your liking?


It was never in common use, other than by children or beginners
unfamiliar with the standard terminology.


My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we
have 3 contradictions! These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss
PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's
limited sense of piece in #3?


Yes. That usage is very common. In fact, all three usages are common.
The context normally makes it very clear which definition you are
using.


Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS?


Yes.


Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece, as
in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp.

TOPIC 2

Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between
move" which is uncontroversial.

Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have seen
the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word
Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding?


I have never seen or heard the word "intermezzo" used for this. It has
always been "zwischenzug," in my experience. As a matter of fact, if I
were to hear a zwischenzug described as an "intermezzo," I would
likely take it as an attempt at humor.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:38:54 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


To finish: one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing, which I also
level at Chessville's efforts. Its to do with annotation. This particular
book sometimes illustrates the term by citing a move, but not always, as in
Castling, it doesn't mention 0-0 or 0-0-0, or even if those are zeros or
capital 'o' s.

There was a slight embarrassement I discovered in a trial with 2 beginners
in the Bardwick books, so that Brad explains chess annotation in chapter 3,
but uses it in Chapter one. Both trial student and trial teacher had to ask
me about it.

I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an
on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short
algebraic will do] that anyone knows?

I've always distinguished between chess "notation" which describes the
moves themselves and "annotation" which discusses the moves, strategy
behind them, alternatives, etc.

If you're referring to what I'm calling "notation", I think an
appendix might be the appropriate place to define the various forms of
chess notation, emphasizing which ever form you're using in your book,
with a reference to that appendix fairly early in the body of the
work.

On Aug 14, 2:38*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" wrote:





As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for
initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning
course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners
course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which
should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For
high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full
academic
credit.

The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in
several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS.

With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to
a
hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a
couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries.

* Since I edited that book, and wrote some of the glossary entries, I
may be able to answer.

TOPIC 1

Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his
definitions below, then ask my questions:

MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns.

From this small survey so far, a difference there from Mike's response

PIECE:
(1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag."
(2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces."
(3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece."

My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use?

* Probably not used much by average chess players, but it's still
often seen in books. It's useful for a young student of chess to
understand terms he's going to see often in his studies.

I think the boat is still out on that one too - people do say 'chess-men'
but doesn't sound like chess players do, and its a recent archaism?

The man/piece distinction is one that beginners should learn, if
only because they will encounter it in chess literature. It doesn't
matter whether it comes up in conversation.

If it is, is Dan's
definition to your liking?

* That definition is correct.

My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we
have 3 contradictions!

* Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes
clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece."

**They have internal contradictions.

I doubt that few readers will agree.

I suppose what I would most like to do
is to talk of pawns distinct from other men, or pieces, as the main
emphasis.

Feel free.

These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss
PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's
limited sense of piece in #3?

* That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first
encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I
think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when
no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece,

**um, well, don't know who translated Chernev,

Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to
the USA at about age 4.

but what do people understand
by the term now? I personally wouldn't 'invariably' think it was a minor
piece, but hey! you guys are the Yanks! *

That's right. We saved your bacon in the war, so be appropriately
grateful.

*a
bishop or knight only, in all chess literature I have ever read. If
it's a queen or rook, one always says queen or rook.

**let's leave that one up the flag-pole and see if others agree.

Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS?

* Certainly one must distinquish between them as appropriate.

Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece,
as
in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp.

* Yes, that is correct -- though among chess set collectors, "major
piece" is often used to mean everything but pawns. But that's a non-
standard usage within a small chess sub-culture, and so I did not
include it in the glossary.

TOPIC 2

Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between
move" which is uncontroversial.

Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have
seen
the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word
Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding?

* I have never seen "intermezzo" used in a chess context in any
English-language book or magazine, ever, nor have I ever heard any
English-speaking person use it in a chess context.

**Sounds like you and Mike agree its not necessary, and that knowledge of
the German and English words are sufficient.

To finish: one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing, which I also
level at Chessville's efforts. Its to do with annotation. This particular
book sometimes illustrates the term by citing a move, but not always, as in
Castling, it doesn't mention 0-0 or 0-0-0, or even if those are zeros or
capital 'o' s.

???? The relevance of this to "A Parent's Guide to Chess" is nil.
That book does not attempt to teach one how to play chess, nor much of
anything about chess notation, and certainly nothing about annotation.
The one brief mention of notation is on pages 75-76, the gist of it
being that one should learn algebraic notation, which is taught in
almost any beginner's book.
The glossary entry "Castle" is merely intended to explain the
mechanics of the castling move, and to differentiate the verb from the
noun, not to teach anything about notation.


There was a slight embarrassement I discovered in a trial with 2 beginners
in the Bardwick books, so that Brad explains chess annotation in chapter 3,

Phil, I think you mean notation, not annotation. Annotation is the
writing of explanatory and analytical notes to a game.

but uses it in Chapter one. Both trial student and trial teacher had to ask
me about it.

I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an
on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short
algebraic will do] that anyone knows?

An online search for, say, "algebraic chess notation" will turn up
dozens of sites. Take your pick.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:38:54 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an
on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short
algebraic will do] that anyone knows?

I've always distinguished between chess "notation" which describes the
moves themselves and "annotation" which discusses the moves, strategy
behind them, alternatives, etc.

Yeah, I think that is also a US distinction. I should use it. After all, I
write Chess notation, not chess annotation, yet one is merely a cod of the
other.

If you're referring to what I'm calling "notation", I think an
appendix might be the appropriate place to define the various forms of
chess notation, emphasizing which ever form you're using in your book,
with a reference to that appendix fairly early in the body of the
work.

Of the course material I am using, no such index entry is available. But the
problem is greater because you cannot constantly ask the reader to consult
an index merely in order to say 1. e4 d5 2. ed.

Since sufficient annotation is not in the course books, I want to make a
hyper-text document and still a source for it.

Phil Innes

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:28:21 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Of the course material I am using, no such index entry is available. But the
problem is greater because you cannot constantly ask the reader to consult
an index merely in order to say 1. e4 d5 2. ed.

When I learned chess long ago from an article in the Encyclopedia
Americana, I believe they just supplied an 8X8 matrix or chart
describing the names of the squares, along with a paragraph or two of
explanation. They probably had one matrix for algebraic, one for
descriptive, but I don't remember.

Most of Reinfeld's books included a such a page.

Anyway, it's not that hard to pick up. Might have taken me all of
five minutes and I was in the sixth grade.

And you could just add a parenthetical expression saying something
like, "The moves are described by what we call 'chess notation'. If
you're unfamiliar with it, refer to Appendix A". With hypertext,
should be even simpler.