Single Comment

At Harvard I sat in on graduate courses taught by Sheldon Glashow and did not really understand a full sentence of lectures then. Likewise to Physics, there are levels of appreciation of CVs developed or developing. Start with any CV and learn the rules, then graduate to articles about cvs. //// Gilman is cataloguing frantically to get credit for a 1000 p-ts, realizing they can be done en masse. Why M&Bxxs are a difficult ''read'' compared to the German and French glossaries Knappen has linked can be explained. Gilman through M&Bxxs is naming and listing specific p-ts numbering over 2000 without overmuch explanation.  One is left to figure out the piece-type definition from the suffixes and constructed name.  It's do-able but not very easily for the average reader, so you just take them one at a time as needed.  I search a M&Bxx just to find a sentence on a Hopper or what a Point as a Pawn means, as two small examples. The 21 M&Bxxs are a Reference like a Dictionary.  You don't read all the 'H' words to get clear on 'Heredity', just the one word or one or two piece-types.
Frankly Gilman's transitions from 2-d to 3-d and back, from Scout to Dueller, on and on and on, are confusing at best, unnecessary to read more than paragraph or sentence needed to answer an argument.  However, digging into any section or topic more than that, it is found to have incredible accuracy and consistency. Far more so than Betza's little effort of the past, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=614. Betza's work distracts differently by his constant sarcasm and dispersed diluted substance. In comprehensiveness, M&Bxxs including glossary and indexes, are unlikely to be surpassed any decade soon before year 2060.  Take it or leave it. Or be shamed it was done under your watch without recognition.