Our esteemed colleague Dan Frean asked me recently about teaching
chess in Maths lessons. In the spirit of BBC's Any Answers, I
don't think ignorance should be any barrier to trumpeting my
ideas... I'll just dump the e-mail here, and add the links and
the examples in later when I've got a bit more time.
I'm anxious not to use chess in a way that emphasises existing
in chess ability...
is not what you put in them, but what you have to leave out.
I've written a series of chess books with Tim Onions, the latest of
which will be published next week. But oh, the pain I go through
when we decide to leave out important ideas and examples. Anyhow,
if you're curious about what we might have put in if the books were a
bit longer, we have some free extra
I've just come across two splendid swipes at Irving
Here is John Nunn, in the introduction to his [span style="font-style: italic;"]Grandmaster Chess, Move by Move[/b]. He
quotes a very illuminating annotation by Alekhin, and then goes on to
"[em]Lesser annotators are often fond of propounding grand
principles, but these are often totally misleading. A typical
example occurs in Logical Chess,
Move by Move (Simon and Schuster, 1957) by Irving Chernev (I
have converted the descriptive notation to algebraic). His Game 3