Re: Typesetting chess books
- From: Mihai Suba <gmsuba@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:10:59 -0000
On Oct 2, 3:03 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mihai Suba" <gms...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1191325755.375758.256530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 29, 4:40 pm, tOmmetje <tom.marc...@xxxxxxxxx> 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 margins 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 margin.
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.Algebraic is far superior, you can visualise the move you read
Thanks in advance
Tom
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 mark 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).
.
- References:
- Re: Typesetting chess books
- From: Mihai Suba
- Re: Typesetting chess books
- From: Chess One
- Re: Typesetting chess books
- Prev by Date: Re: Typesetting chess books
- Next by Date: Re: Chess pages that show chess moves and not notation
- Previous by thread: Re: Typesetting chess books
- Next by thread: Re: Typesetting chess books
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
