In the current issue of Chess Life, the chess board/pieces shading has been changed for many of the articles. Not all. Some have the older display. So this issue provides a good comparison of the two. Personally, I prefer the higher contrast as used before. The new display is much more subdued and doesn’t stand out.
Your thoughts?
I don’t get the printed magazine any more but I downloaded the PDF and took a look. I’m guessing that what you call the “old” diagrams are the type on page 19, for example, with those beginning on page 20 being the “new” type. If I have that correct I agree with you, the higher contrast diagrams on page 19 are superior.
– Hal Terrie
infinite agreement 
Put me down for the old.
Yeah, those new diagrams are no good. The traditional chess diagram style exists because fine shadings don’t translate well to one-color printing, even with a high-quality halftone screen. The eye wants and needs high contrast to process information rapidly, which is why typefaces, to be readable, are balanced between stroke and counter. Publishers know better than to use 3-D effects in typography, because it would add nothing and detract from legibility. You can only get away with using colors other than black and white for game diagrams in four-color printing because the contrast can come from hue rather than value.
Nothing wrong with experimentation, but this particular experiment in diagram design is a failure. It ought not to last more than one issue – two, if the next one has already been sent to the printer.
We had a serious technical problem occur just days before the February issue’s deadline that affected the diagrams. We have solved the problem and the March issue diagrams will be back to normal.
Incidentally, in our efforts to recreate all the diagrams at the last minute for the February issue, one incorrect diagram has been discovered: On page 43, the diagram is missing black rooks on a8 and h8.
Regards,
Dan Lucas
Editor, Chess Life
Thanks for the explanation, Dan. You did much better under the circumstances than Simon & Schuster did!