Talk:A History of Chess

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Chess Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

strange sentence

The article says "It is the first published source of the theory that chess originated in India; a theory that prevailed for most of the twentieth century." I know about the recent claims of chess originating in China, but isn't Murry's account still the most widely accepted one? Bubba73 (talk), 13:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, yes, it is. I recently got Chess: The History of a Game (1985) by Richard Eales. As it includes some critical examination of Murray's work, I'll take a look to see what Eales says. Quale 07:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

online?

Is the text available online somewhere? Being so old it should be legal should it not? If so, a link would be great. 84.128.217.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 5 March 2008.

I've been wondering about the same question. The book doesn't seem to be online yet, which is a shame. I once had access to a library which had this book (and I scanned a few pages from it); wish I had scanned the entire book. Google Books has a 1913 copy here which seems to be in 'snippet view' (which means they do have a scan of the book); they should be persuaded to make it full-view as it's public-domain. We can click on "Report an Issue" at the bottom. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, click on this link and choose the third option ("This book is in the public domain and should be displayed in Full View"), then click on Submit below. Shreevatsa (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did it - I hope that helps. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 11:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book is old, but Murray lived on until 1955 so the copyright expires in 2015 (70 years after the death of the author, not after publication). Bever (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

‌ No, pre-1923 books are public-domain. See Copyright Term Extension Act etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murray was a Briton and the book was first published in London, so I think British copyright law will apply, and even in the United States the British copyright term will apply, see Uruguay Round Agreements Act#. BTW I made an awful calculating error, I should have written 2025 of course. Bever (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the information. Looks like the absurd retrospective extension of copyright happened in the UK too. So indeed (as of now) the copyright will expire in 1955+70=2025, it looks like. Another 11-year wait, then, or more if some forces have their say again. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

I fail to see how either tag (unreferenced & notability) are appropriate for this article. A reference is provided (The Oxford Companion to Chess), and as for notability it was published by Oxford University, is held in numerous national libraries (http://www.worldcat.org/title/short-history-of-chess/oclc/1248317/editions?editionsView=true&referer=br) and is frequently cited in academic papers. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22A+History+of+Chess%22+Murray&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5). It is considered a landmark work in the field of chess history, and I see no justification for questioning its notability. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too think this is a landmark work, and I don't like to see those tags in the article, but I think the article must demonstrate its own notability -- maybe we can find references to someone saying it's a very important work, etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a quote from the first result I found on Google Books. :-) Should suffice for notability. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Could you just check you got the para spacing/indenting you intended? Looks a bit strange to me, but I would rather you change it, as I may be missing the reason it's as it is. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks strange, but that's intended: within the quote from Daniel E. O'Sullivan, there is a quote from Marilyn Yalom (i.e. we quote O'Sullivan who quotes Yalom), hence the two levels of nesting. Perhaps as we find more sources about the book, we won't have to quote so verbatim, and the block quote(s) can go away. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]