Another Schiller Gaffe

[Taylor Kingston]

In the rgcp thread "Schiller, Westerinen and Myers" I examined
Eric Schiller's excuses for recommending a book that does not exist
as the "best" on the Nimzovich Defense, presenting testimony from
GM Heikki Westerinen and NM Hugh Myers. In my recent correspondence
with Myers, he pointed out another gaffe by Schiller that can only be
characterized as bare-faced mendacity or utter ineptitude.
In the 1987 edition of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (the same book
in which Schiller recommended the non-existent book), there is a
discussion of the Myers Gambit in the English Opening: 1.c4 g5 2.d4
Bg7. For the rest of the story, I quote from Myers' book "A Chess
Explorer" page 102:

Then resurrecting the dispute about 1.c4 g5 2.d4 Bg7, [Schiller and
Benjamin] ... dared to call a move "stupid" which "Myers gives"
-- without saying that in Myers Openings Bulletin #27, in an article
that I didn't write, it was clearly stated that the move which they
called 'stupid' was in analysis by *_Schiller_*!

So we have an interesting situation: either Schiller lied in UCO
trying to make Myers look bad, or Schiller has such a poor memory that
he does not remember what he himself has written, and calls his own
analysis "stupid" while blaming someone else. This from the man
Cardoza publishing calls "the world's leading writer on chess
openings." And so it goes.

[Duncan Oxley]

Dear Taylor,

I hate to say this because I respect your writing however aren't
you beating a dead horse here? I mean everyone knows Schiller
writes crappy books. Very crappy books. (I sometimes wonder
if he even writes them himself.) So why belabor us with all the trivial
mistakes? Common man isn't it time to let this one die out?

Best regards,
Duncan

Post by Taylor Kingston
In the rgcp thread "Schiller, Westerinen and Myers" I examined
Eric Schiller's excuses for recommending a book that does not exist
as the "best" on the Nimzovich Defense, presenting testimony from
GM Heikki Westerinen and NM Hugh Myers. In my recent correspondence
with Myers, he pointed out another gaffe by Schiller that can only be
characterized as bare-faced mendacity or utter ineptitude.
In the 1987 edition of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (the same book
in which Schiller recommended the non-existent book), there is a
discussion of the Myers Gambit in the English Opening: 1.c4 g5 2.d4
Bg7. For the rest of the story, I quote from Myers' book "A Chess
Then resurrecting the dispute about 1.c4 g5 2.d4 Bg7, [Schiller and
Benjamin] ... dared to call a move "stupid" which "Myers gives"
-- without saying that in Myers Openings Bulletin #27, in an article
that I didn't write, it was clearly stated that the move which they
called 'stupid' was in analysis by *_Schiller_*!
So we have an interesting situation: either Schiller lied in UCO
trying to make Myers look bad, or Schiller has such a poor memory that
he does not remember what he himself has written, and calls his own
analysis "stupid" while blaming someone else. This from the man
Cardoza publishing calls "the world's leading writer on chess
openings." And so it goes.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by Duncan Oxley
Dear Taylor,
I hate to say this because I respect your writing however aren't
you beating a dead horse here? I mean everyone knows Schiller
writes crappy books. Very crappy books.

A fair point, Duncan, but quite evidently some people on these
newsgroups haven't gotten the word. Several here seem to be trying to
portray Schiller as a fine writer who is the innocent victim of a
conspiracy to ban his books.
So I posted this to show that Schiller's work is not only poor
quality, but to demonstrate that he is either ludicrously incompetent,
or highly dishonest. Considering his evasive and inconsistent answers
about the non-existent Westerinen book, the latter looks more likely.
Also, in his recent letters Hugh Myers indicated this particular
incident was particularly noteworthy; in fact in "A Chess Explorer" he
describes it as "a new low for ignoring the truth in a chess book."
Myers is not a computer-user, and I felt his point deserved to be
posted here.

Post by Duncan Oxley
So why belabor us with all the trivial
mistakes? Common man isn't it time to let this one die out?

Believe me, I have posted only a small percentage of Schiller's
"mistakes," and in the current situation I don't consider them trivial.
I want the public to be aware that those "crusading" on Schiller's
behalf are either ignorant or dishonest. As I said in another post,
Schiller's advocates are like someone pretending to be a nutritionist,
and asking "Should we not examine whether dirt is a food? Why does this
grocery not sell dirt? What sinister cabal is denying us our right to
eat dirt?"
But no, I will not post every Schiller gaffe here. Life is too short,
and Google may not have enough disk space.

[p***@cs.com]

PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES

We note that NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated
but self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO electrode, could not
recollect his own rating within 500 points, which was
one of the sleaziest episodes on this site in recent
years. NM Kingston told us a lot about himself with
that ego-driven lie.

Then NM Kingston told us that we was leaving "indefinitely."
But he hung around and around and around. He was just gasifying.

Now NM Kingston blames Eric
Schiller, the author of dozens of books, for having
forgotten analysis. Keres forgot adjournment
analysis, and Gligoric played into a line of the
Exchange Ruy against Fischer, having recommended
Fischer's line himself in earlier analysis! Botvinnik
overlooked a one-mover in analysis of a Gruenfeld that
gave Bobby a pawn in their 1962 game at Varna. Mieses
overlooked mate in one in some of his analysis.
Zukertort played into the same opening trap twice!
Rubinstein, too, if memory serves.

How refreshing a Ray Keene is when compared
with a NM Kingston or an Edward Winter. In his Chess Life
coverage of the second Spassky-Korchnoi match, Keene condemned a
French line for white, which Spassky then improved
upon dramatically later on. He wrote, if memory
serves, that his earlier note looked "pretty sick" at
this point. It was honest, and the reader appreciated
watching the dialectic within a grandmaster's mind as
he searched for truth. Yes, Keene should not have
been so categorical earlier, but he was speaking his mind.

So, too, with Eric Schiller. If he does not
feel able to evaluate a position, he says so. If he
has an idea, he gives it to us. And yes, he cannot
remember everything he has written, any more than a
much less prolific Gligoric could do.

On the subject of honesty, Eric Schiller may
once have been an 1800-rated player, but I doubt that
he ever lied in the ratty style of NM Kingston at that
time that he was a 2300+ ELO powerhouse. True,
Eric later reached 2300+ or thereabouts in his ELO.

Knowing Eric, however, he has a puckish sense
of humor. Perhaps he will appear here and tell us
that he is only an 1800-rated player.

Second thought, no. "Sandbagger!" the likes of
a NM Kingston would then holler.

And so it goes.

[p***@cs.com]

THE WAR AGAINST SCHILLER

The most recent error alleged against Eric
Schiller is that he forgot analysis that he himself
had written. NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated guy
who lied about being 2300+ ELO, is banking on most
of you having little knowledge of just how difficult
most grandmasters, let alone others, find chess to be.

NM Kingston figures that most of you are unaware
that the errors alleged against Eric Schiller, a true
2300-region ELO master, occur across 100 or so books
-- an enormous body of work.

He figures most of you are unaware that, say, a Gligoric
forgot his own analysis and so have grandmasters playing
only ONE game, their own after adjournment. Keres, one of the
greatest of all adjournment analysts, forgot what he
analyzed. Botvinnik in pregame analysis overlooked a
one-mover that Bobby saw instantly. Portisch could
not see the stock Bxh7+ sacrifice and lost to
Donner. Mieses published analysis missing a mate on
the move, and he wrote only a handful of books.

The war against Eric Schiller is in defense of
ChessCafe, which publishes Taylor Kingston and bans
Mr. Schiller's work, just as it banned books by Keene
and Evans until recently. The memoir that Arnold Denker
and I wrote, though in print and though winning the ACF
and Cramer book of the year award in 1996, is also banned.
So are the two instructional volumes that I penned with Lev Alburt.

The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must. Chess is not yet
susceptible to full mastery. The issue is the
incidence of analytical error as opposed to other
authors, and no study has been presented here to
indicate that Schiller is much better or worse than others.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by p***@cs.com
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

And apparently he must fabricate as well:

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
discussion were:
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?

I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.

1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."
2. This Westerinen book does *NOT* exist. Doubts were first raised by
Hugh Myers. In the April-May 1988 issue of "The Myers Openings
Bulletin" he wrote: "Hard to find! I should say so. I've never seen
it, and other theoreticians have told me they don't know of it."
Despite this and other evidence, Larry Parr insisted that the book
might exist. To remove all doubt, I contacted Westerinen through Esko
Nutilainen, an official of the Finnish Chess Federation. On 22
September 2005, Nutilainen wrote to me: "I just phoned to Heikki
Westerinen and he confirmed that he has not written anythung [sic]
about 1 e4 Nc6." Westerinen did write a book titled "Sc6!",
published in Swedish in 1972, but it dealt only with the King's
Indian line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6.
3. Schiller and Myers had a brief correspondence about the
non-existent book in 1988. Myers wrote to Schiller, then in Hawaii,
asking about it. Myers reports that Schiller replied by postcard,
insisting that a book on 1.e4 Nc6 by Westerinen did exist, and that a
copy was in his library in Chicago. Schiller promised to give Myers
further information upon his return home. Here is Schiller's account,
from an e-mail to me dated 16 September 2005:
"[T]his was a response to an informal letter from Myers, I was in
Hawaii with no chess library ... I answered off the top of my head, and
simply got it wrong. I recalled the cover with the big bold Nc6! on it
and assumed for some reason that it was a book on 1.e4 Nc6. Somehow the
exchange found its way into the book, entirely my fault ... I corrected
the information in a letter to Myers after I returned home and was
confronted with the error."
There are several problems with Schiller's response:
1) "Unorthodox Openings" was published in 1987, before Schiller's
1988 exchange with Myers, not after. Therefore it's impossible that
"the exchange found its way into the book." Schiller's erroneous claim
was made first in the book, then repeated to Myers.
2) While Schiller might at first assume that a book titled "Sc6!"
was about the Nimzovich Defense, that cannot explain how he came to
call it "the best" on that subject. To know a book is best, one
must read it thoroughly. If he had read it, he would know it was not
about 1.e4 Nc6. Despite repeated queries, Schiller has never explained
how he came to say it was "the best." In an e-mail to me dated
9/17, Schiller said he might have been "confusing it with a German
book, probably." However, he has never explained what German book
that might have been.
3) On Schiller's claim that he "corrected the information in a
letter to Myers" after returning to Chicago, Myers told me in a
letter dated 28 September 2005: "I never received such a letter. The
only thing I received from him in 1988 was a postcard from Hawaii
saying the Westerinen book was in his library in Chicago."

I leave it to readers to decide for themselves on this matter. I hope
this added information is helpful.

[Chess One]

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by p***@cs.com
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

This response is not quite grasping the nettle - instead, and in the absense
of references to other players which would make any criticism actually
useful, a continued dossier is compiled against one person. When asked if
other author's made the same level of errors, the reply was 'don't know'.

This is why this affaire smells. Especially when it is written by a book
reviewer whose website now bans all the titles from the author in question.

Can anyone reading this think that there is nothing else going on? ;)

When the subject is different, and other authors raised to some level near
sainthood, there is no 'apparently fabricate' even though the subject is
actually a serious one about the repression of a player because of
ethnicity.

Can anyone reading this think there is any attempt to be fair? Or what we
are reading is a standard evenly applied?

References to 'fabrications', lapses and ommissions by other authors go
unnoticed! I accept that chesscafe as a business is not obliged, as a
business, to sell all products and must make commercial decisions based on
sales turnover.

I do not understand what business it has to block numerous writers for any
other reasons, especially since it now represents USCF's sales. If USCF asks
for an ostensibly popular book [in a commercial sense] to appear in its
lists via Chesscafe, would it appear? Would anyone even ask? What if the
'boat was rocked' at this stage of the proceedings - the usually claimed
delicate and secret negotiations?

Pointing out errors in one author's books without a comparsion to other
titles, by someone who does not seem to be on good personal terms with at
least 3 of the banned writers, cannot even pretend to be an objective
standard of what the public wants to buy, nor of the quality of the books in
question.

Phil Innes

Post by Taylor Kingston
Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?
I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.
1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."
2. This Westerinen book does *NOT* exist. Doubts were first raised by
Hugh Myers. In the April-May 1988 issue of "The Myers Openings
Bulletin" he wrote: "Hard to find! I should say so. I've never seen
it, and other theoreticians have told me they don't know of it."
Despite this and other evidence, Larry Parr insisted that the book
might exist. To remove all doubt, I contacted Westerinen through Esko
Nutilainen, an official of the Finnish Chess Federation. On 22
September 2005, Nutilainen wrote to me: "I just phoned to Heikki
Westerinen and he confirmed that he has not written anythung [sic]
about 1 e4 Nc6." Westerinen did write a book titled "Sc6!",
published in Swedish in 1972, but it dealt only with the King's
Indian line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6.
3. Schiller and Myers had a brief correspondence about the
non-existent book in 1988. Myers wrote to Schiller, then in Hawaii,
asking about it. Myers reports that Schiller replied by postcard,
insisting that a book on 1.e4 Nc6 by Westerinen did exist, and that a
copy was in his library in Chicago. Schiller promised to give Myers
further information upon his return home. Here is Schiller's account,
"[T]his was a response to an informal letter from Myers, I was in
Hawaii with no chess library ... I answered off the top of my head, and
simply got it wrong. I recalled the cover with the big bold Nc6! on it
and assumed for some reason that it was a book on 1.e4 Nc6. Somehow the
exchange found its way into the book, entirely my fault ... I corrected
the information in a letter to Myers after I returned home and was
confronted with the error."
1) "Unorthodox Openings" was published in 1987, before Schiller's
1988 exchange with Myers, not after. Therefore it's impossible that
"the exchange found its way into the book." Schiller's erroneous claim
was made first in the book, then repeated to Myers.
2) While Schiller might at first assume that a book titled "Sc6!"
was about the Nimzovich Defense, that cannot explain how he came to
call it "the best" on that subject. To know a book is best, one
must read it thoroughly. If he had read it, he would know it was not
about 1.e4 Nc6. Despite repeated queries, Schiller has never explained
how he came to say it was "the best." In an e-mail to me dated
9/17, Schiller said he might have been "confusing it with a German
book, probably." However, he has never explained what German book
that might have been.
3) On Schiller's claim that he "corrected the information in a
letter to Myers" after returning to Chicago, Myers told me in a
letter dated 28 September 2005: "I never received such a letter. The
only thing I received from him in 1988 was a postcard from Hawaii
saying the Westerinen book was in his library in Chicago."
I leave it to readers to decide for themselves on this matter. I hope
this added information is helpful.

[Sam Sloan]

On 17 Oct 2005 06:03:35 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by p***@cs.com
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?
I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.
1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."

See how Taylor Kingston keeps repeating the same lies. Tim Harding is
not an IM, a fact that can easily be established by looking at
http://www.fide.com

Yet, Taylor Kingston asks us to believe his version of a private
exchange that took place in 1988 about which none of us could ever
know the truth.

Post by Taylor Kingston
2. This Westerinen book does *NOT* exist.

In fact, the Westerinin book does exist. There is such a book entitled
Nc6! Nc6 is the key move in the Nimzovitch Defense. However, the
Westerinin book is about the Kings Indian Defense. So, the book
exists. Just the subject is different.

Post by Taylor Kingston
Doubts were first raised by
Hugh Myers. In the April-May 1988 issue of "The Myers Openings
Bulletin" he wrote: "Hard to find! I should say so. I've never seen
it, and other theoreticians have told me they don't know of it."
Despite this and other evidence, Larry Parr insisted that the book
might exist. To remove all doubt, I contacted Westerinen through Esko
Nutilainen, an official of the Finnish Chess Federation. On 22
September 2005, Nutilainen wrote to me: "I just phoned to Heikki
Westerinen and he confirmed that he has not written anythung [sic]
about 1 e4 Nc6." Westerinen did write a book titled "Sc6!",
published in Swedish in 1972, but it dealt only with the King's
Indian line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6.
3. Schiller and Myers had a brief correspondence about the
non-existent book in 1988. Myers wrote to Schiller, then in Hawaii,
asking about it. Myers reports that Schiller replied by postcard,
insisting that a book on 1.e4 Nc6 by Westerinen did exist, and that a
copy was in his library in Chicago. Schiller promised to give Myers
further information upon his return home. Here is Schiller's account,
"[T]his was a response to an informal letter from Myers, I was in
Hawaii with no chess library ... I answered off the top of my head, and
simply got it wrong. I recalled the cover with the big bold Nc6! on it
and assumed for some reason that it was a book on 1.e4 Nc6. Somehow the
exchange found its way into the book, entirely my fault ... I corrected
the information in a letter to Myers after I returned home and was
confronted with the error."

Hugh Myers has a legitimate interest in this subject, because the
Nimzovitch Defense with 1. ... Nc6! is his baby.

Therefore, Myers has a right to raise this issue.

However, Taylor Kingston just wants to attack Eric Schiller, and the
issue over Nc6 is just a vehicle to attack Schiller.

By the way, while you are corresponding with Myers. Why do not you ask
him why he never publishes the game where he played 1. ... Nc6 against
Sam Sloan in the 1969 World Open Chess Championship in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, and Sam Sloan beat him.

Just curious. Actually, I have lost the scoresheet and would like to
have the game back.

Sam Sloan

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Sam Sloan
On 17 Oct 2005 06:03:35 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by p***@cs.com
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?
I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.
1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."

See how Taylor Kingston keeps repeating the same lies. Tim Harding is
not an IM, a fact that can easily be established by looking at
http://www.fide.com

Isn't Tim a Correspondence player?

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Sam Sloan
On 17 Oct 2005 06:03:35 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by p***@cs.com
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?
I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.
1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."

See how Taylor Kingston keeps repeating the same lies. Tim Harding is
not an IM, a fact that can easily be established by looking at
http://www.fide.com
Yet, Taylor Kingston asks us to believe his version of a private
exchange that took place in 1988 about which none of us could ever
know the truth.

http://www.chessmail.com/timsite/
Tim Harding is a Senior IM in correspondence

[Vince Hart]

Post by p***@cs.com
THE WAR AGAINST SCHILLER
NM Kingston figures that most of you are unaware
that the errors alleged against Eric Schiller, a true
2300-region ELO master, occur across 100 or so books
-- an enormous body of work.

Everyone knows that Schiller couldn't churn out as many crappy books as
he does if he took the time to do any actual work on them.

Post by p***@cs.com
He figures most of you are unaware that, say, a Gligoric
forgot his own analysis and so have grandmasters playing
only ONE game, their own after adjournment. Keres, one of the
greatest of all adjournment analysts, forgot what he
analyzed. Botvinnik in pregame analysis overlooked a
one-mover that Bobby saw instantly. Portisch could
not see the stock Bxh7+ sacrifice and lost to
Donner. Mieses published analysis missing a mate on
the move, and he wrote only a handful of books.

Everyone also knows that you cannot compare a grandmaster who forgets a
piece of analysis under game conditions to an author who does not
bother to verify the validity of his work with materials he has at
hand.

Vince Hart

[s***@ishipress.com]

Post by Vince Hart
Everyone also knows that you cannot compare a grandmaster who forgets a
piece of analysis under game conditions to an author who does not
bother to verify the validity of his work with materials he has at
hand.
Vince Hart

Like for example, Taylor Kingston repeatedly stating that Tim Harding
is an International Master, whereas in reality Tim Harding has no
international title.

Sam Sloan

[p***@cs.com]

MORE KINGSTON TWADDLE

<Some of us think that Larry Parr knows full well that Schiller's books
are mostly
worthless, but he supports them only to attack ChessCafe. That, or Parr
is much more ignorant than even his strongest detractors thought.> --
Taylor Kingston

The war against Eric Schiller by NM Kingston,
who lied so outrageously on this site when claiming a
false rating strength, is part of the defense of
ChessCafe which publishes his book reviews.

As for my defending Eric as part of a war
against the Cafe, I will remind readers that I favored
the current deal with the Cafe editorially and that I
have not called for its abrogation, though I favor
competitive bidding. I have REPEATEDLY written that
the deal may still be made to work.

Further, many months back, perhaps over a year
ago, I offered criticism of the Cafe's print
advertising, noting that it needed to be enlivened to
improve sales. This criticism had as its only
possible object to warn the proprietor that he was
likely cutting his own throat.

NM Kingston, a party-line type, literally
cannot conceive of nuanced approaches to issues and
people. He cannot imagine why I would note the Cafe's
sleazy blacklisting or boycotting while also
supporting a USCF-Cafe deal and, perhaps, still
believing it can be adequately fixed.

For someone such as NM Kingston, every issue
must come down to EGO, his own rating, defense of
the Cafe and the like.

And so it goes.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by p***@cs.com
NM Kingston figures that most of you are unaware
that ... Keres, one of the
greatest of all adjournment analysts, forgot what he
analyzed.

Larry Parr figures most of you are dumb enough to think this
analogous to what Schiller did. It is not. Had, say, Keres written in a
book that "This analysis by Botvinnik is stupid," when in fact the
analysis was by Keres, then we would have the same thing as Schiller
did, described in the first post of this thread.

Post by p***@cs.com
The war against Eric Schiller is in defense of
ChessCafe

Funny. Some of us think that Larry Parr knows full well that
Schiller's books are mostly worthless, but he supports them only to
attack ChessCafe. That, or Parr is much more ignorant than even his
strongest detractors thought.

[jr]

I marked dozens of corrections in my copy of Fine's "Basic Chess
Endings" but it's still a masterpiece. What's all this fuss about
Schiller's errors?

I find blacklisting abhorrent and fail to understand the animus against
Schiller. He's not my favorite author (Chernev, Evans and Fine are) but
some of his books have taught me a lot about chess. If ChessCafe
carries Pandolfini, why not Schiller? It just doesn't make any sense.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by jr
I marked dozens of corrections in my copy of Fine's "Basic Chess
Endings" but it's still a masterpiece. What's all this fuss about
Schiller's errors?

Fair question!

Fortunately to Schiller's detractors--and unfortunately to
Schiller--there is an excellent answer.

First of all, both Fine and Keres--mentioned in this thread as other
writers who made errors--were so superior to Schiller and Pandolfini in
playing strengh it isn't even funny. As Steinitz wrote about authors
like Schiller and Pandolfini, the question of "who is he among
chessplayers?" and "what did he learn before he determined to teach?"
is rather important.

That aside, Fine's book, even with the errors, has a very great amount
of material that is valuable and (at least when originally published)
hard to find elsewhere. Fine put in one book virtually all the material
the average club player is likely to need about the endings, arranged
it logically, checked the analysis, etc.; this was not done before.
That it also includes errors, therefore, does not negate the book's
value (though it does, of course, detract from it.) Similarly with
Keres' books: undoubtebly they contain errors, but this does not stop
them from being excellent books due to the great quality and quantity
of original material they add.

But Schiller's books add nothing that cannot be found in a million
other places--often simply copied (or paraphrased) not only from
others' works (like the MCO or, as in his recent book about Fisher,
from earlier books about Fisher), but often from Schiller's own
previous books. So virtually the ONLY thing that is new in a Schiller
book is the typos, unreliably analysis, and historical gaffes. Is it
any wonder they figure prominently in the criticism of Schiller?

The old joke about a bad writer is that "his books are good and
original--but the good part isn't original and the original part isn't
good." Schiller is not quite as good a writer as that: he usually
doesn't even manage to copy correctly the good parts from other
writers, but adds his own typos and mistakes in the process. What he
calls "writing" others term "incorrect copying".

Post by jr
carries Pandolfini, why not Schiller? It just doesn't make any sense.

Good question!

Yes, I agree that Pandolfini is only marginally better than Schiller.
They are both awful hacks.

But just because the poor bookseller carries one meretricious writer,
does he have to carry all of them? If I robbed one little old lady,
that'll be bad enough, but I would not be required to rob all little
old ladies just to "make sense" and "be fair"...

[p***@cs.com]

THE CHESSCAFE BLACKLIST

But Schiller's books add nothing that cannot be found in a million other places--often simply copied (or paraphrased) not only from others' works (like the MCO or, as in his recent book about Fisher, from earlier books about Fisher), but often from Schiller 's own previous books. So virtually the ONLY thing that is new in a Schiller book is the typos, unreliably analysis, and historical gaffes. Is it any wonder they figure prominently in the criticism of Schiller?> -- avital.pil

Eric Schiller is compared with Reuben Fine and
Paul Keres and ... found wanting. Mr. Schiller, we
are told, copies and collates and makes errors. Of
course he does.

Many of Eric's books are explicitly works meant
to provide plenty of information at a low price. He
does not spend years on an ending volume as Fine did
(though Fine made plenty of errors) or produce the
kind of original analysis that Keres might work out
over a number of years and then reproduce in, say, his
fine and fascinating Dreispringspiel bis Koenigsgambit.

Eric Schiller is a popular writer who has made a
lot of information available at a fraction of the prices
that one will pay for German editions of Keres' work.
Does he have a market? Evidently so. He has been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets, and
they do not give up shelf space lightly.

In any event, ChessCafe does not blacklist Eric
Schiller because of the quality of his books. Eric is
blacklisted for the same reason as this writer (my
well received works with Arnold Denker and Lev
Alburt) Ray Keene and Larry Evans: we are loathed by
the proprietor. Such is the man's undoubted right --
to prevent the discussion from yet again commencing
with the dreary, "but it's the proprietor's right ...,"
etc. -- and it is our right to hold the man's
reputation to the flame.

I have seen no study showing that Eric's works
are unusually filled with errors when compared with
the work of other popularizers. What I have read are
long rants about his poor work, accompanied in the
case of Taylor Kingston, with a half dozen tired
examples of mistakes spread over 100 or more books.

In Mr. Avital's case, no examples of errors are
adduced, simply paragraphs of abuse. And on the
subject of typos in a short post, that's Fischer, not "Fisher."

[Jeremy Spinrad]

Let us limit the discussion. Do you feel that it is appropriate to not stock the
work of a writer because the writer's output is consistently of poor quality?

Hopefully, that will allow the real disagreement to be clarified, which is
muddied in the discussion. Are we arguing about whether Schiller's work is
substandard, or are we arguing about whether the USCF should be in the business
of assessing quality of work before associating its name with the item?

Of course, I realize that these issues are not black-and-white. One can argue
that a rehashed opening book is bad, but not so bad that we don't want to stock
it; that doesn't mean that we must sell plagiarized works as well. You can argue
that putting our names on bad books is OK, but not putting our name on supposed
performance enhancing additives. Still, I would like to figure out what the core
principles are, in Larry's and Sam's opinion (since these are the people who seem
to have the main grudge with the current policy).

Jerry Spinrad




In article <***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "***@cs.com" <***@cs.com> writes:
|> THE CHESSCAFE BLACKLIST
|>
|> >But Schiller's books add nothing that cannot be found in a million other places--often simply copied (or paraphrased) not only from others' works (like the MCO or, as in his recent book about Fisher, from earlier books about Fisher), but often from Schil|> ler 's own previous books. So virtually the ONLY thing that is new in a Schiller book is the typos, unreliably analysis, and historical gaffes. Is it any wonder they figure prominently in the criticism of Schiller?> -- avital.pil
|>
|> Eric Schiller is compared with Reuben Fine and
|> Paul Keres and ... found wanting. Mr. Schiller, we
|> are told, copies and collates and makes errors. Of
|> course he does.
|>
|> Many of Eric's books are explicitly works meant
|> to provide plenty of information at a low price. He
|> does not spend years on an ending volume as Fine did
|> (though Fine made plenty of errors) or produce the
|> kind of original analysis that Keres might work out
|> over a number of years and then reproduce in, say, his
|> fine and fascinating Dreispringspiel bis Koenigsgambit.
|>
|> Eric Schiller is a popular writer who has made a
|> lot of information available at a fraction of the prices
|> that one will pay for German editions of Keres' work.
|> Does he have a market? Evidently so. He has been
|> stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets, and
|> they do not give up shelf space lightly.
|>
|> In any event, ChessCafe does not blacklist Eric
|> Schiller because of the quality of his books. Eric is
|> blacklisted for the same reason as this writer (my
|> well received works with Arnold Denker and Lev
|> Alburt) Ray Keene and Larry Evans: we are loathed by
|> the proprietor. Such is the man's undoubted right --
|> to prevent the discussion from yet again commencing
|> with the dreary, "but it's the proprietor's right ...,"
|> etc. -- and it is our right to hold the man's
|> reputation to the flame.
|>
|> I have seen no study showing that Eric's works
|> are unusually filled with errors when compared with
|> the work of other popularizers. What I have read are
|> long rants about his poor work, accompanied in the
|> case of Taylor Kingston, with a half dozen tired
|> examples of mistakes spread over 100 or more books.
|>
|> In Mr. Avital's case, no examples of errors are
|> adduced, simply paragraphs of abuse. And on the
|> subject of typos in a short post, that's Fischer, not "Fisher."
|>

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by p***@cs.com
In any event, ChessCafe does not blacklist Eric
Schiller because of the quality of his books.

Quite true, since ChessCafe has never "blacklisted" Schiller. On the
rare occasion that he has written something worthwhile, it has been on
the catalog. However, such occasions are rare indeed.
As for "blacklisting" Schiller's bad books, you might as well say
that classical music radio stations blacklist the Monkees.

Post by p***@cs.com
I have seen no study showing that Eric's works
are unusually filled with errors when compared with
the work of other popularizers.

Neither have you seen any study showing that Paris Hilton can't act,
Ja Rule can't sing, Ed Wood made terrible movies, and that the Red
Sox's pitching wasn't as good this year compared to last. Some things
are rather obvious, at least to those who are not blind or
disingenuous.

Post by p***@cs.com
What I have read are
long rants about his poor work, accompanied in the
case of Taylor Kingston, with a half dozen tired
examples of mistakes spread over 100 or more books.

Then like an ostrich with its head in the sand, you are refusing to
look at the facts. And apparently you think that rgcp/rgcm readers
suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and expect they've forgotten the many
examples shown here by myself and others over the past few weeks. While
on many other subjects you frequently boast of your broad and deep
erudition, and insult those whose knowledge or research you deem
inadequate, here you display gross ignorance on a matter that is
basically common knowledge. As I said before, Larry, you're either
amazingly uninformed or amazingly dishonest.

[David Kane]

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by p***@cs.com
In any event, ChessCafe does not blacklist Eric
Schiller because of the quality of his books.

Quite true, since ChessCafe has never "blacklisted" Schiller. On the
rare occasion that he has written something worthwhile, it has been on
the catalog. However, such occasions are rare indeed.
As for "blacklisting" Schiller's bad books, you might as well say
that classical music radio stations blacklist the Monkees.

And there is about as much as the
Monkees becoming the premier
producers of classical music as
there is of you *fairly* assessing
whether a Schiller work is "worthwhile".

[Taylor Kingston]

And there is about as much [chance] as the
Monkees becoming the premier
producers of classical music as
there is of you *fairly* assessing
whether a Schiller work is "worthwhile".

If you are correct, we can expect the Monkees to come out with a
complete set of Beethoven's symphonies any day now.

[David Kane]

Post by Taylor Kingston

And there is about as much [chance] as the
Monkees becoming the premier
producers of classical music as
there is of you *fairly* assessing
whether a Schiller work is "worthwhile".

If you are correct, we can expect the Monkees to come out with a
complete set of Beethoven's symphonies any day now.

There have been credible criticisms
of Schiller in this thread, but yours
are not among them. Even though
I would say that you are generally
credible, you need to understand
your own prejudices better in this
instance.

[Matt Nemmers]

<***@cs.com> wrote in message news:***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP>

Ah, yes. The "quantity, not quality" defense. Larry employs that all the
time when defending many of Sloan's ludicrous claims on these forums.
Surely, no one is surprised.

[Louis Blair]

He has been stocked on bookshelves for years
by major outlets, and they do not give up shelf
space lightly.

_
"We are told on the front and back covers [of 'World
Champion Openings' by Eric Schiller] that the author
is '...the world's leading authority on chess openings!'
We are told this THREE times, no doubt so that we
do not forget! Of course, what this preposterous claim
is based on is never revealed. Experienced players
will howl if they read that claim, but unfortunately
inexperienced players or beginners may in fact be
misled but such nonsense."
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/wco.txt

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@cs.com
Eric Schiller is compared with Reuben Fine and
Paul Keres and ... found wanting. Mr. Schiller, we
are told, copies and collates and makes errors. Of
course he does.

That's not the point; the point is that this is virtually the only
thing he does.

Post by p***@cs.com
Many of Eric's books are explicitly works meant
to provide plenty of information at a low price.

So does the phone book; but I wouldn't rely on it to improve my
rook-and-pawn endings. The question is not the amount of information,
but the reliablity and usefulness of the information.

Post by p***@cs.com
He
does not spend years on an ending volume as Fine did
(though Fine made plenty of errors) or produce the
kind of original analysis that Keres might work out
over a number of years and then reproduce in, say, his
fine and fascinating Dreispringspiel bis Koenigsgambit.

Indeed he doesn't.

Post by p***@cs.com
Eric Schiller is a popular writer who has made a
lot of information available at a fraction of the prices
that one will pay for German editions of Keres' work.

Yes, indeed; but I would rather own Keres' four or five
books--excellent ones, one and all--than own Schiller's complete
collection of works--90+ books, that is true, but ranging in quality
from the mediocre to the atrocious. Contrary to what Stalin said, in
chess, quantity does not have a quality all of its own.

That is the flaw in your reasoning. That you can get five Schiller
books for the price of one Keres book is hardly an advantage for
Schiller when it is far better for the chessplayer to own any of Keres'
books over any five of Schiller's books anyway.

Post by p***@cs.com
Does he have a market? Evidently so.

(Shrug) well, of course he does. So do pornographic books, but that's
no recommendation.

Post by p***@cs.com
He has been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets, and
they do not give up shelf space lightly.

True, true.

Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount of shelf space devoted to:

1). "How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually Attractive"-type books
("self-help");
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts ("sex education");
3). "Why Politician X is worse than Hitler" / "The World will Explode
Tomorrow" ("Politics and Current Events")
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a popular television show
("Best-Sellers").

So what?

Post by p***@cs.com
In any event, ChessCafe does not blacklist Eric
Schiller because of the quality of his books. Eric is
blacklisted for the same reason as this writer (my
well received works with Arnold Denker and Lev
Alburt) Ray Keene and Larry Evans: we are loathed by
the proprietor.

A quick search for "Evans" found three of Evans' best-selling books, as
well as Benko and Silman's "Pal Benko" which has quite a bit of
interviews and additions by Evans. Similarly, "Keene" gives us "Aaron
Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal", which not-so-coincidentally is considered
Keene's one good book.

I couldn't find your books, but (according to Amazon) you only wrote
two books (one in two volumes). Surely more evidence of "blacklisting"
is needed than "they don't carry either of my books"? For example, I
also couldn't find Richard Forster's "Amos Burn: A Chess Bibliography"
(one of the best chess books ever in my view) or a single book by
Keres. Is chesscafe "blacklisting" Forster and Keres? Highly unlikely.

Post by p***@cs.com
Such is the man's undoubted right --
to prevent the discussion from yet again commencing
with the dreary, "but it's the proprietor's right ...,"
etc. -- and it is our right to hold the man's
reputation to the flame.

Go ahead--just remember to add Keres, Forster, and quite a few other
chess authors to this list of those "blacklisted" by the chesscafe.
Isn't it simply more likely that they, simply, have a more limited
selection than amazon.com?

[Chess One]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by p***@cs.com
Does he have a market? Evidently so.

(Shrug) well, of course he does. So do pornographic books, but that's
no recommendation.

This seems to be the nub of it. Recommendations are resources yo potential
buyers provided by book reviewers.

What we have here is not recommendation! We have removed the choice from the
consumer to buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

I see the balance of this thread continues by analogy only - invoking
pornography and Hitler, subject the author himself appears not to have
addressed in his chess books.

What we read below is not a book review, it is a commentary on what [other]
people /should/ be allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by p***@cs.com
He has been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets, and
they do not give up shelf space lightly.

True, true.
1). "How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually Attractive"-type books
("self-help");
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts ("sex education");
3). "Why Politician X is worse than Hitler" / "The World will Explode
Tomorrow" ("Politics and Current Events")
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a popular television show
("Best-Sellers").
So what?

So - if you don't like someone's book don't buy it.

And if you don't want other people to make exactly the same choice that you
did, do as chesscafe have done.

That's what. Phil Innes

[Chess One]

Post by Chess One

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by p***@cs.com
Does he have a market? Evidently so.

(Shrug) well, of course he does. So do pornographic books, but that's
no recommendation.

This seems to be the nub of it. Recommendations are resources yo potential
buyers provided by book reviewers.

Yo! everbody. Make that "resources /for/ potential buyers..."

Post by Chess One
What we have here is not recommendation! We have removed the choice from
the consumer to buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.
I see the balance of this thread continues by analogy only - invoking
pornography and Hitler, subject the author himself appears not to have
addressed in his chess books.
What we read below is not a book review, it is a commentary on what
[other] people /should/ be allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

I might have made the additional note that chesscafe are purportedly
supplying USCF members with books to their own taste - what are they? What
are the previous year sales figures for (a) Dvoretsky, and (b) Schiller.

Phil

Post by Chess One

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by p***@cs.com
He has been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets, and
they do not give up shelf space lightly.

True, true.
1). "How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually Attractive"-type books
("self-help");
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts ("sex education");
3). "Why Politician X is worse than Hitler" / "The World will Explode
Tomorrow" ("Politics and Current Events")
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a popular television show
("Best-Sellers").
So what?

So - if you don't like someone's book don't buy it.
And if you don't want other people to make exactly the same choice that
you did, do as chesscafe have done.
That's what. Phil Innes

[Louis Blair]

We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

_
Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

_

What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

_
I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.
_
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly.
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
of shelf space devoted to:
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)

[Chess One]

Post by Louis Blair

We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

_
Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

Yes you could. But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess into mainstream
culture. Isn't this somewhat strange, if mainstream culture seem to be
wanting a Schiller title from the outfit who purportedly would also want to
promote the game?

Its not a question of commerical viability - nothing particular has been
established here for or against the commercial worth/liability of the
titles.

_

Post by Louis Blair

What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

_
I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.

Really - try reading it again? Or even quoting avital's comments themselves
[I did!] so we could assess if indeed it suggested what might be on public
offer, and what not. Why not show his comments? That's rhetorical. Perhaps I
mean to indicate, why cut the comment and then say 'I see nothing'?

Restore the comment and then we could all see what I respond to, and if it
is a recommendation not to represent a popular series to the populace.

Phil
_

Post by Louis Blair
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly.
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)

[Louis Blair]

We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

_

Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

_

Yes you could.

_
Then it is incorrect to assert that we have removed
the choice from the consumer to buy the book or not.

_

But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess
into mainstream culture. Isn't this somewhat strange,
...

_
Strange or not, it does not change the lack of truth in
the assertion that we have removed the choice from
the consumer to buy the book or not.

_

What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

_

I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.

_

Really - try reading it again? Or even quoting avital's
comments themselves [I did!] so we could assess if
indeed it suggested what might be on public offer, and
what not. Why not show his comments? That's
rhetorical. Perhaps I mean to indicate, why cut the
comment and then say 'I see nothing'?
_
Restore the comment and then we could all see
what I respond to, and if it is a recommendation
not to represent a popular series to the populace.

_
The Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT Phil Innes
comment referred to "what we read below". My
19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700 note reproduced the
avital.pilpel comment that was "below". Here it
is again:
_
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly.
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
of shelf space devoted to:
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)

[Chess One]

Post by Louis Blair

We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

_

Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

_

Yes you could.

_
Then it is incorrect to assert that we have removed
the choice from the consumer to buy the book or not.
_

But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess
into mainstream culture. Isn't this somewhat strange,
...

_
Strange or not, it does not change the lack of truth in
the assertion that we have removed the choice from
the consumer to buy the book or not.

But since we are talking about USCF and Chesscafe, we have removed the
choice from the consumer to buy it from them. And since this is the context
of all this writing, it interest me to read the great variety of reasons why
people suggest it in the first place.

We have tried 'quality' of the book, but without comparing it to the quality
of other books - and we have tried 'quantity' by looking at commercial sales
elsewhere. I haven't personally read anything on either acccount which would
have me removing Schiller titles alone, from the book list.

I see below that the original comment has been restored. This compared the
titles to porn, popular writing and Hitler-ite referrences, even though it
is admitted that these maintained their own shelf-space, because they were
popular, and though perhaps he didn't like the books himself, he regretted
that other people wanted to read them.

Does anyone else want to remove Schiller books from USCF's/Chesscafe's
booklist so that other people can't read them?

Phil Innes

Post by Louis Blair
_

What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

_

I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.

_

Really - try reading it again? Or even quoting avital's
comments themselves [I did!] so we could assess if
indeed it suggested what might be on public offer, and
what not. Why not show his comments? That's
rhetorical. Perhaps I mean to indicate, why cut the
comment and then say 'I see nothing'?
_
Restore the comment and then we could all see
what I respond to, and if it is a recommendation
not to represent a popular series to the populace.

_
The Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT Phil Innes
comment referred to "what we read below". My
19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700 note reproduced the
avital.pilpel comment that was "below". Here it
_
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly.
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)

[Louis Blair]

We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

_

Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

_

Yes you could.

_
Then it is incorrect to assert that we have removed
the choice from the consumer to buy the book or not.

_

But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess
into mainstream culture. Isn't this somewhat strange,
...

_
Strange or not, it does not change the lack of truth in
the assertion that we have removed the choice from
the consumer to buy the book or not.

_

What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

_

I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.

_

Really - try reading it again? Or even quoting avital's
comments themselves [I did!] so we could assess if
indeed it suggested what might be on public offer, and
what not. Why not show his comments? That's
rhetorical. Perhaps I mean to indicate, why cut the
comment and then say 'I see nothing'?
_
Restore the comment and then we could all see
what I respond to, and if it is a recommendation
not to represent a popular series to the populace.

_
The Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT Phil Innes
comment referred to "what we read below". My
19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700 note reproduced the
avital.pilpel comment that was "below". Here it
is again:
_
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly].
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
of shelf space devoted to:
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)

[Skeptic]

Post by Chess One
Yes you could. But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess into mainstream
culture. Isn't this somewhat strange, if mainstream culture seem to be
wanting a Schiller title from the outfit who purportedly would also want to
promote the game?

Not any more strange than the fact you won't find the American Medical
Association selling "Garlic: the Miracle Cure for Cancer" on its web
site, despite its popularity with the public and the vast amount of
shelf space Barnes and Noble gives to similar books.

Like the AMA, part of the USCF's goal is to give the public RELIABLE
and GOOD information about chess (or medicine). This implies, among
other things, shunning knowingly worthless books, no matter how popular
with the public they are.

Post by Chess One
Its not a question of commerical viability - nothing particular has been
established here for or against the commercial worth/liability of the
titles.

I would go further than that. I would say the USCF is probably losing
money not selling Schiller junk. But it still shouldn't, since it would
be betraying its public mandate--to give reliable information about
chess to the public--if it did so.

Simiarly, the AMA should not sell "Carlic: the Miracle Cure for Cancer"
(or similar books) despite the fact that it would no doubt sell much
better than, say, "Gray's Anatomy" or other reliable medical works.

You were the editor of CHESS LIFE. Suppose I wanted to run a full-page
ad for my book, "Chess Solved! A Simple System for Beating Anybody in
Five Minutes." Would you take the money and run the ad, letting the
public decide if the book is worthwhile?

Or suppose president Bush came to you and said: "I am a C-level player
at best, but I want to write a regular column analyzing chess games in
your magazine." Such a column, regardless of its chess level, would
surely be very popular (at least initially), for reasons having little
to do with its quality. Would you agree?

You should not! In both cases, taking the offer would be a betrayal of
the public trust--that what the USCF promotes is good for chess. You
might be tempted, I can see; but would you say that as a matter of
principle, you MUST take such offers, because they would make chess
more popular among the general public--regardless of the damage it
would do to chess itself and the reputation of the USCF? Becuase doing
otherwise would be "censorship"??

[David Kane]

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
Yes you could. But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess into mainstream
culture. Isn't this somewhat strange, if mainstream culture seem to be
wanting a Schiller title from the outfit who purportedly would also want to
promote the game?

Not any more strange than the fact you won't find the American

Medical

Post by Skeptic
Association selling "Garlic: the Miracle Cure for Cancer" on its web
site, despite its popularity with the public and the vast amount of
shelf space Barnes and Noble gives to similar books.
Like the AMA, part of the USCF's goal is to give the public RELIABLE
and GOOD information about chess (or medicine). This implies, among
other things, shunning knowingly worthless books, no matter how popular
with the public they are.

The analogy is flawed, of course, because
people playing chess, EVEN if they are playing
moves that Schiller has recommended, further
the stated objective of the USCF.

Do you believe the USCF should hold
an official position on the quality of various
moves that chessplayers might play?
That seems to be the inevitable consequence
of a plan to give "GOOD information about
chess" at the move level.

[Louis Blair]

Post by David Kane
Do you believe the USCF should hold
an official position on the quality of various
moves that chessplayers might play?

_
What is under consideration here is the possibility
of a position on the quality of various moves that
the USCF promotes. I have not seen anyone
disagree with the idea that chessplayers might
play whatever they want.

[David Kane]

Post by Louis Blair

Post by David Kane
Do you believe the USCF should hold
an official position on the quality of various
moves that chessplayers might play?

_
What is under consideration here is the possibility
of a position on the quality of various moves that
the USCF promotes. I have not seen anyone
disagree with the idea that chessplayers might
play whatever they want.

The question was asked rhetorically
because it illustrates the consequences
of taking "chess writing orthodoxy"
to a ridiculous limit. As far as I can
tell, with the single rule book exception
(the source of your own prejudice),
Schiller's books contain advice
about *playing the game of
chess*. That is, they discuss what
moves to make in various positions.
(a fact Taylor Kingston apparently
overlooked in his irrelevant expose
of various trivia errors)

Attacking the quality of the
books is essentially attackng
the quality of the moves in
them. Leaving aside the fact
that many of us play moves
far worse than appear
in his books, there is a legitimate
question as to whether it is
appropriate for the USCF to
strive to micromanage
how chessplayers play.

[p***@cs.com]

WHO CLAIMED KINGSTON IS FAIR?

<I also have the impression that Taylor Kingston has not always been
completely
fair to Eric Schiller as a chess writer or as a human being.> --- Nick

Wow! It just goes to show you.

I was assuming NM Taylor Kingston was telling the truth that
Eric somehow wrote that Euwe was never world champion.

If Eric wrote that Euwe was a contendah or a
long-time contendah, then he is correct. In fact,
Denker and I in our work wrote quite a bit about
Euwe's contendah-dom, noting that Euwe's place in the
chess world in 1934 or 1935 was roughly what
Alekhine's was in 1924. Moreover, both took about the
same amount of time to reach their respective
positions. They reached those positions very
differently, though.

I have not seen the quoted remark by Eric, but
one now assumes he was speaking about an earlier
moment in Euwe's career. If Euwe is mentioned as a
titleholder elsewhere in the book, then even NM
Kingston's inventive attack (the ignorant needed more
information) which can be used in nearly every
instance, falls flat.

[Chess One]

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
Yes you could. But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess into mainstream
culture. Isn't this somewhat strange, if mainstream culture seem to be
wanting a Schiller title from the outfit who purportedly would also want to
promote the game?

Not any more strange than the fact you won't find the American Medical
Association selling "Garlic: the Miracle Cure for Cancer" on its web
site, despite its popularity with the public and the vast amount of
shelf space Barnes and Noble gives to similar books.

I was not aware that any Schiller titles claimed: The GIZMO, Miracle Opening
Reptoire solves Chess, sort of title. But I am aware that USCF has had a go
itself with,

"take this brain-pill and Natrolly you... "

so, unless you want to go into actual care and attention paid to
endorsements... ? <yikes> !

Your posting assumes that USCF/Chesscafe endorses the content of the book.
Or rather, the inverse. Therefore doesn't sell it based on the author's
perceived treatment of teaching the KID - even though this method is popular
with buyers at Barnes and Noble.

Post by Skeptic
Like the AMA, part of the USCF's goal is to give the public RELIABLE
and GOOD information about chess (or medicine). This implies, among
other things, shunning knowingly worthless books, no matter how popular
with the public they are.

Which would be okay! So what are the standards for 'worthless books', and
just so that there is nothing personal in it, can independent people make
the assessment?

Its interesting, but I just reviewed a book which seem very slight value to
me, but the cover quite openly LIES about the content, suggesting
'comprehensive' instead of 'sketch' which is the author's term. It is
advertised by the publisher at 144 pages, but only has 125 pages.

I have written this 3 times here, and no one has asked me a single question
about it, or suggested that this book should be banned.

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
Its not a question of commerical viability - nothing particular has been
established here for or against the commercial worth/liability of the
titles.

I would go further than that. I would say the USCF is probably losing
money not selling Schiller junk. But it still shouldn't, since it would
be betraying its public mandate--to give reliable information about
chess to the public--if it did so.
Simiarly, the AMA should not sell "Carlic: the Miracle Cure for Cancer"
(or similar books) despite the fact that it would no doubt sell much
better than, say, "Gray's Anatomy" or other reliable medical works.
You were the editor of CHESS LIFE. Suppose I wanted to run a full-page
ad for my book, "Chess Solved! A Simple System for Beating Anybody in
Five Minutes." Would you take the money and run the ad, letting the
public decide if the book is worthwhile?

You reply to my comments instead of Larry Parr, who the editor of Chess
Life.

I would not publish your advertisement if I thought it was a lie. But you
are referring to what USCF should do, and they have other standards. They
allowed just such a specious idea into practice at a tournament for kids,
pushing the Natrol product.

So USCF do not have these standards - if we want to impose them - so that
the public doesn't get lied to, we should attempt to make some minimum
standards - and apply them equally to all titles. Then we are no longer
arguing about Eric Schiller's books, but every writers books.

And I don't have to defend Eric Schiller, but the standard of mis-shapen
criticism which attacks him alone [well, and Parr, Keene, and a few other
selective targets]

Post by Skeptic
Or suppose president Bush came to you and said: "I am a C-level player
at best, but I want to write a regular column analyzing chess games in
your magazine." Such a column, regardless of its chess level, would
surely be very popular (at least initially), for reasons having little
to do with its quality. Would you agree?

Yes, i would agree that it would be vastly amusing, especially in this case
:))

Post by Skeptic
You should not! In both cases, taking the offer would be a betrayal of
the public trust--that what the USCF promotes is good for chess.

Your question related ot the popularity of the article, not whether it would
be accepted from a qualitative basis. I am a little leary of making
comparisons in this case, since the dreaded bug-aboos have already appeared;
mentions of Hitler, porn, how-to-do-your-own-brian-surgery humour, and now
George Jr to cap it all!

But we must remind ourselves that this is an IM, not a C player. Cirticism
comes from sub-C players, as well as praise - and as they say, money is the
sincerest form of praise. So if you want a simple book on playing some
opening, maybe you'll buy a Schiller one, instead of the tournament version
aimed at 2100+ players.

Post by Skeptic
You
might be tempted, I can see; but would you say that as a matter of
principle, you MUST take such offers, because they would make chess
more popular among the general public--regardless of the damage it
would do to chess itself and the reputation of the USCF?

ROFL! You can't damage the reputation of chess - chess is not a person, its
jsut a game. And USCF proposed Natrol to us just this year! Where was the
fuss about that?

Post by Skeptic
Becuase doing
otherwise would be "censorship"??

No, for all the reasons I have offered above.

Cordially, Phil Innes

[David Ames]

Post by Chess One
Your posting assumes that USCF/Chesscafe endorses the content of the book.
Or rather, the inverse. Therefore doesn't sell it based on the author's
perceived treatment of teaching the KID - even though this method is popular
with buyers at Barnes and Noble.

Or, rather, the converse. The inverse, according to my understanding,
would be "The content of this book endorses USCF/Chesscafe.

David Ames

[Skeptic]

Post by Chess One
Which would be okay!

(For the AMA to sell "Garlic: The Miracle Cure for Cancer" type books).

Would it?

It would be OK (morally--legally, the AMA can sell "Mein Kampf" if they
want to) for B&N or Amazon to sell such books. But not for the AMA. The
AMA has a moral responsibility to not sell books it knows to be
worthless.

Post by Chess One
So what are the standards for 'worthless books', and
just so that there is nothing personal in it, can independent people make
the assessment?

The standards are that of the medical--or chess--expert opinion.

If virtually all physicians who offered an opinion agreed that "Garlic:
The Miracle Cure for Cancer" is worthless, it is worthless. If
virtually all grandmasters and chess book reviewers who offered an
opinion agree that Schiller's books are worthless (and they do), they
are.

It is one thing if a book recieves mixed reviews, or has both defenders
and detractors among the experts. It is quite another if virtually
EVERYBODY who is a). good at chess and/or reviewing chess books, and
b). offered an opinion agreed the book is worthless, as it is with
Schiller.

Popularity has nothing to do with it. The USCF should uphold standards,
not just go with what is popular. It should FIGHT the popularity of
atrocious books with bad reviews and the promotion of good books, not
pander to it.

Post by Chess One
Its interesting, but I just reviewed a book which seem very slight value to
me, but the cover quite openly LIES about the content, suggesting
'comprehensive' instead of 'sketch' which is the author's term. It is
advertised by the publisher at 144 pages, but only has 125 pages.
I have written this 3 times here, and no one has asked me a single question
about it, or suggested that this book should be banned.

First, make sure that there is really a unfair description here. For
example, many books have introductions, prefaces, or appendixes that
are numbered seperately from the main sections of the books, so perhaps
they account for the "missing" 19 pages; or perhaps the publisher's
blurb refers to a different edition, etc.

Second, clearly suggest here that it isn't the author who is
misdescribing the book, but the unscrupolous publisher: it is not the
author who is claiming his book is comprehensive, but the publisher.
You should not punish an author for a publisher's lies, unless there is
good reason to believe the author goes along with them, or unless the
lies are so outrageous as to constitute false advertising. (In which
case, when describing it on your web site, you can add a cavet to
correct the publisher's lies.)

So I think we are dealing with a different situation here: with your
example, we are dealing with a PUBLISHER (possibly) "puffing" and
misidentifying a book. This tells us nothing about the book itself: is
it any good? Does it cover what the author says it covers? Is the
typsetting good? The material original? And so on. If the book stinks,
don't sell it. If it book is good, or at least interesting, I would
sell it despite the publisher's lies--again, up to a point.

With Schiller, things are different. True, his books usually carry
misleading back cover blurbs and titles (i.e., "A Complete defense to
King's Pawn Openings" that deals only with the Caro-Kann.) Maybe that
is due to the publisher without Schiller's knowledge--I doubt that very
much, since such a prolific and best-selling author would know better.
But in any case, that is the least of Schiller's problems: the main
problem, the central issue, is that the BOOKS THEMSELVES are crap.

Post by Chess One
You reply to my comments instead of Larry Parr, who the editor of Chess
Life.

Well, you both disagreed with me, so there is no difference between
you: you are both EVIL AND WORTHLESS. This is usenet, after all :-)

Post by Chess One
I would not publish your advertisement if I thought it was a lie. But you
are referring to what USCF should do, and they have other standards. They
allowed just such a specious idea into practice at a tournament for kids,
pushing the Natrol product.

I am not aware of the Natrol product. Alas, pressed for money, they
might have knowingly accepted funding from a worthless product. But
surely this is no argument: "why do you not sell Schiller's books, when
you already shown you will sell / accept sponsorship from other
worthless products!".

Post by Chess One
So USCF do not have these standards - if we want to impose them - so that
the public doesn't get lied to, we should attempt to make some minimum
standards - and apply them equally to all titles.

We should have minimum standards and apply them fairly, true. But it is
surely a far lesser evil to apply the minimum standards unfairly than
to refuse to apply them at all for fairness' sake? If the USCF accepted
one worthless product, must it now, for "fairness'" sake, sell ALL
worthless products?

Surely, the thing the USCF SHOULD do to rectify the situaiton is to
refuse to sell any worthless product, not add more worthless products
to its list. That the USCF sells, say, Pandolfini's crap and not
Schiller's is at most an argument against selling Pandolfini, not for
selling Schiller.

Post by Chess One
Yes, i would agree that it would be vastly amusing, especially in this case
:))

Actually I can see your point here... but you wouldn't describe him as
"the world's leading chess analyst", and you would at least have
somebody go over and revise that "white horsey jumps over and eats
black pawn" comment at move 13 before publication. With Schiller's
books (especially for kids) equally painful passages and style remain
intact.

Post by Chess One
Your question related ot the popularity of the article, not whether it would
be accepted from a qualitative basis. I am a little leary of making
comparisons in this case, since the dreaded bug-aboos have already appeared;
mentions of Hitler, porn, how-to-do-your-own-brian-surgery humour, and now
George Jr to cap it all!

Yes, we are getting close to the "50 posts law", a.k.a. the
"draw-by-mention-of-Hitler" usenet situation. But I'll try to stay out
of it :-)

Post by Chess One
ROFL! You can't damage the reputation of chess - chess is not a person, its
jsut a game.

You most certainly can. Chess has a reputation with the larger public,
in the same way that science or abstract painting or medicine as a
whole does. It is vague and inaccurate, that's true, but it's still
quite reasonable to think about the reputation of chess as a whole.
Schiller's stuff is hurting it, as do Bobby Fischer's paranoia.
Capablanca's charm and good writing helped it. Examples could be
multiplied.

[David Kane]

Post by Skeptic
Popularity has nothing to do with it. The USCF should uphold

standards,

Post by Skeptic
not just go with what is popular. It should FIGHT the popularity of
atrocious books with bad reviews and the promotion of good books, not
pander to it.

What standard? The standard consistent
with the USCF mission statement is whether
the books "extend the role of chess in America".


snipped

Post by Skeptic
You most certainly can. Chess has a reputation with the larger

public,

Post by Skeptic
in the same way that science or abstract painting or medicine as a
whole does. It is vague and inaccurate, that's true, but it's still
quite reasonable to think about the reputation of chess as a whole.
Schiller's stuff is hurting it,

Evidence please.

as do Bobby Fischer's paranoia.

Post by Skeptic
Capablanca's charm and good writing helped it. Examples could be
multiplied.

What has been established in this thread is
that some combination of Schiller the person
and Schiller's books are *unpopular* with
chess insiders. Take out comments from
the clearly malicious, and you're left with
a mixture of customer (dis)satisfaction
that doesn't appear out of the ordinary.

[Chess One]

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
Which would be okay!

(For the AMA to sell "Garlic: The Miracle Cure for Cancer" type books).
Would it?
It would be OK (morally--legally, the AMA can sell "Mein Kampf" if they
want to) for B&N or Amazon to sell such books. But not for the AMA. The
AMA has a moral responsibility to not sell books it knows to be
worthless.

God! Having had comparisons with Hitler, porn and How to ...Brain surgery,
we actually go to Mein Kampf as an apt comparison!!!

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
So what are the standards for 'worthless books',

or commentary?

Post by Skeptic
and

Post by Chess One
just so that there is nothing personal in it, can independent people make
the assessment?

What is the role of the independent reviewer?

Post by Skeptic
The standards are that of the medical--or chess--expert opinion.
The Miracle Cure for Cancer" is worthless, it is worthless. If
virtually all grandmasters and chess book reviewers who offered an
opinion agree that Schiller's books are worthless (and they do), they
are.

But do they? Worthless to them as Grandmasters? - I write with a number of
them, and several say something on the order of, I write for this rating
range - and often is approxiamtely Expert A to master level, which is their
design for the compexity of material, which the publisher thinks it can
sell.

I do not read anyone's opinion here who admits to being a typical rated
player [in the USCF typical = less than 1000 rated] who offers any objection
to simply presented material.

I also don't understand what higher rated players consider the problem EVEN
IF the writer misses a mate in eight. What is the reader to do? Memorise
that line?

Further, I don't know why Schiller's titles are singled out particularly,
and since there were all sorts of commentary on bahalf of higher rated
palyers, I thought it worthwhile to actually quote Timman and Adorjan on the
subject.

95% of opening work is trash, so they say. So why are we not collecting the
other 50 'popular' authors who write trash, and recommend to USCF that they
too are banned from their list as appearing at Chesscafe?

Post by Skeptic
It is one thing if a book recieves mixed reviews, or has both defenders
and detractors among the experts. It is quite another if virtually
EVERYBODY who is a). good at chess and/or reviewing chess books, and
b). offered an opinion agreed the book is worthless, as it is with
Schiller.

We must seperate those people who write reviews based on their opinion of a
title's worth to a skill-range, but the actual purchasers of the book. If it
sells then is this not some sort of recommendation?

What we have read here is that the buyer should not even have the choice to
[in the words of Schiller's critics] make a bad choice. That Schiller alone
should be expunged from the lists. [Well, and a few other people too, but
for other reasons]

Post by Skeptic
Popularity has nothing to do with it. The USCF should uphold standards,
not just go with what is popular.

Natrolly!

Post by Skeptic
It should FIGHT the popularity of
atrocious books with bad reviews and the promotion of good books, not
pander to it.

Does USCF review books? If it thinks a title bad, why not say so? Does it
actually make you chess worse than before? If not, then buying book A over
book B will be a /relative/ decision on worth.

I have plenty to say about not authors - but publishing houses who doi not
indicate the skill range of certain titles - or write such misleading trash
about what's between the covers as to be actually lies. Should we ban the
publisher?

From reading here I would think so.

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
Its interesting, but I just reviewed a book which seem very slight value to
me, but the cover quite openly LIES about the content, suggesting
'comprehensive' instead of 'sketch' which is the author's term. It is
advertised by the publisher at 144 pages, but only has 125 pages.
I have written this 3 times here, and no one has asked me a single question
about it, or suggested that this book should be banned.

First, make sure that there is really a unfair description here.

Even famous players accuse me of reading their books in order to review
them. And they do not say this because it is common!

Post by Skeptic
For
example, many books have introductions, prefaces, or appendixes that
are numbered seperately from the main sections of the books, so perhaps
they account for the "missing" 19 pages; or perhaps the publisher's
blurb refers to a different edition, etc.

But that example isn't the sort I was referring to, and is still not a
question!

Post by Skeptic
Second, clearly suggest here that it isn't the author who is

Ban them?

Post by Skeptic
it is not the
author who is claiming his book is comprehensive, but the publisher.
You should not punish an author for a publisher's lies,

How should I recommend a book to its potential purchaser? I should say it
lies on the cover, and on their website, which I did.

Post by Skeptic
unless there is
good reason to believe the author goes along with them, or unless the
lies are so outrageous as to constitute false advertising. (In which
case, when describing it on your web site, you can add a cavet to
correct the publisher's lies.)

Yes. this is what I did. But so what? Even after ending the publisher the
review [standard practice] nothing has changed - so shall we ban all
Batsford books?

Post by Skeptic
So I think we are dealing with a different situation here: with your
example, we are dealing with a PUBLISHER (possibly) "puffing" and
misidentifying a book.

Well - outright misrepresenting it.

Post by Skeptic
This tells us nothing about the book itself: is
it any good? Does it cover what the author says it covers? Is the
typsetting good? The material original? And so on. If the book stinks,
don't sell it. If it book is good, or at least interesting, I would
sell it despite the publisher's lies--again, up to a point.

Which is the role of reviewers to discern, no? Or you think a national chess
federation can allow its B&E department's reviewer, who is in open conflict
with the writer, to make this decision? this is what is happening here.

Post by Skeptic
With Schiller, things are different. True, his books usually carry
misleading back cover blurbs and titles (i.e., "A Complete defense to
King's Pawn Openings" that deals only with the Caro-Kann.) Maybe that
is due to the publisher without Schiller's knowledge--

Writers have little to no control about what goes on eiother front or back
cover, true.

Post by Skeptic
I doubt that very
much, since such a prolific and best-selling author would know better.

It is absolutely the case even with best selling authors - always has been.
A book's covers are advertising material, and standard publishing contracts
emphasise that this is the norm, for any title on any subject no matter who
is the author.

Post by Skeptic
But in any case, that is the least of Schiller's problems: the main
problem, the central issue, is that the BOOKS THEMSELVES are crap.

The books themselves sell in the market place with all the other 'crap'. And
if you are 2000+ rated then you are in the 2 percentile range of skills and
also purchasing habit for chess books. You will also discard the other 94%
of crap. That is your effective vote in the market. Why other 'crap' should
be ignored entirely in these threads in the question!

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
You reply to my comments instead of Larry Parr, who the editor of Chess
Life.

Well, you both disagreed with me, so there is no difference between
you: you are both EVIL AND WORTHLESS. This is usenet, after all :-)

Agree with the later, disagree with the former. We are asking that if a book
is truely awful that normal conditions apply to it - that by the basis of
review that book [not only Schiller's book] be not recommended to
purchasers. But we are also saying something else, that we do not agree that
the book is crap more than others are, and that this concentration on
Schiller's works is a special one.

If you don't like this opinion you can continue to not buy Schiller's books
or anything else you consider crap. We are asking that everyone else can
make the same choice as you do.

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
I would not publish your advertisement if I thought it was a lie. But you
are referring to what USCF should do, and they have other standards. They
allowed just such a specious idea into practice at a tournament for kids,
pushing the Natrol product.

I am not aware of the Natrol product.

It suggested that by taking this pill wonderful things might happen to your
chess.

Post by Skeptic
Alas, pressed for money, they
might have knowingly accepted funding from a worthless product. But
surely this is no argument: "why do you not sell Schiller's books, when
you already shown you will sell / accept sponsorship from other
worthless products!".

If you already acccept money from worthless products [? - useful as a
placebo? ] why pretend to have any standards at all? And why return to the
subject of Schiller's books rather than 'bad' books?

You are not making sense Bill. Do you want a standard for ALL books or not?
Who should set it? How? [The process is already in place by the review
process - a normative procedure in publishing these past 600 years]

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
So USCF do not have these standards - if we want to impose them - so that
the public doesn't get lied to, we should attempt to make some minimum
standards - and apply them equally to all titles.

We should have minimum standards and apply them fairly, true. But it is
surely a far lesser evil to apply the minimum standards

Which are?

Post by Skeptic
unfairly

Even if by proxy, via Chesscafe's '2300' rated author, who is a bit prone to
certain prejudices? While Schiller receives - what is it now - 50 [?] shitty
remarks, the heros Winter and Wylde receive none? Even though these guys are
a bit silent about screwing Jews and other 'hot' topics which actually make
a difference to real people's lives in our times? ROFL!!!!

One guy and his publisher can influence a whole continent of people on
behalf of USCF. You have argued nothing here that is not an applied
generality about the worth of chess books, fathering all ills onto ONLY ONE
AUTHOR!

Post by Skeptic
than
to refuse to apply them at all for fairness' sake? If the USCF accepted
one worthless product, must it now, for "fairness'" sake, sell ALL
worthless products?

Or the other way around - if it denies one 'worthless' author, should we
prefer the comments of a Taylor Kingston [who doesn't seem to have written
any books] to a Jan Timman about the worth of the rest? You already appeared
to make your choice.

Post by Skeptic
Surely, the thing the USCF SHOULD do to rectify the situaiton is to
refuse to sell any worthless product, not add more worthless products
to its list. That the USCF sells, say, Pandolfini's crap and not
Schiller's is at most an argument against selling Pandolfini, not for
selling Schiller.

Agree - this would be logical. But it is not any logic that is in place - I
wonder why not?

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
Yes, i would agree that it would be vastly amusing, especially in this case
:))

Actually I can see your point here... but you wouldn't describe him as
"the world's leading chess analyst", and you would at least have
somebody go over and revise that "white horsey jumps over and eats
black pawn" comment at move 13 before publication. With Schiller's
books (especially for kids) equally painful passages and style remain
intact.

Sure! I agree. But unless we get carried away with the analogy, we should
also admit that it is false, and Eric Schiller does not talk about
'horsies'. So we would need to raise the standard of rhetoricism to what
standard we actually feel is reprehensible to a rating range - and then
apply it to all authors who fall beneath it, eh?

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
Your question related ot the popularity of the article, not whether it would
be accepted from a qualitative basis. I am a little leary of making
comparisons in this case, since the dreaded bug-aboos have already appeared;
mentions of Hitler, porn, how-to-do-your-own-brian-surgery humour, and now
George Jr to cap it all!

Yes, we are getting close to the "50 posts law", a.k.a. the
"draw-by-mention-of-Hitler" usenet situation. But I'll try to stay out
of it :-)

But you failed by actually citing Mein Kampf :(((

Post by Skeptic

Post by Chess One
ROFL! You can't damage the reputation of chess - chess is not a person, its
jsut a game.

You most certainly can. Chess has a reputation with the larger public,
in the same way that science or abstract painting or medicine as a
whole does.

Does it? I don't think so. I have never read any public appraisal of chess
books which regretted their quality nor the reputation of their authors.
have you?

Post by Skeptic
It is vague and inaccurate, that's true, but it's still
quite reasonable to think about the reputation of chess as a whole.
Schiller's stuff is hurting it, as do Bobby Fischer's paranoia.

Really? I doubt that too. How would you establish your point to an effective
one for the genral public?

Post by Skeptic
Capablanca's charm and good writing helped it. Examples could be
multiplied.

I am charming Bill. My trouble is that I like to slay Saxons and their
mealy-mouthed wurds. Freedom is largely wasted on them, since they were more
oppressors than oppressed.

But you won't listen to me, and that won't make any difference either.

Cordially, Phil Innes

[Larry Tapper]

***@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

Post by a***@gmail.com
A quick search for "Evans" found three of Evans' best-selling books, as
well as Benko and Silman's "Pal Benko" which has quite a bit of
interviews and additions by Evans. Similarly, "Keene" gives us "Aaron
Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal", which not-so-coincidentally is considered
Keene's one good book.
two books (one in two volumes). Surely more evidence of "blacklisting"
is needed than "they don't carry either of my books"? For example, I
also couldn't find Richard Forster's "Amos Burn: A Chess Bibliography"
(one of the best chess books ever in my view) or a single book by
Keres. Is chesscafe "blacklisting" Forster and Keres? Highly unlikely.

Post by p***@cs.com
Such is the man's undoubted right --
to prevent the discussion from yet again commencing
with the dreary, "but it's the proprietor's right ...,"
etc. -- and it is our right to hold the man's
reputation to the flame.

Go ahead--just remember to add Keres, Forster, and quite a few other
chess authors to this list of those "blacklisted" by the chesscafe.
Isn't it simply more likely that they, simply, have a more limited
selection than amazon.com?

Avital's researches led me to check out a few more authors.

I see that another popular chess author who doesn't seem to be in stock
on the USCF Sales site is NM Bill Robertie, whose books I often see in
general book stores such as Barnes and Noble. I doubt that Bill (who is
an old college teammate of mine) is losing much sleep over this
omission, because he must be doing very well as the co-author with Dan
Harrington of an immensely popular poker book. But is Bill the target
of some sinister personal animus here? I doubt it.

My own opinion about the selectivity issue is: Assuming that USCF Sales
is not trying to be comprehensive like Amazon, its target consumers
will be reasonably well served by almost any well-informed proprietor
who cares about quality, even though his personal selection may seem
idiosyncratic at times. If, for example, Larry Parr were in Hanon
Russell's shoes, I imagine that Parr would be hawking his own book and
those of his friends, and conceivably there would be some grumbling
about that. But my feeling is that the customers of USCF Sales would
be, on the whole, better off with Parr in charge than they would if the
proprietor were an ignorant number-cruncher who made decisions on sales
volume alone.

Larry T.

[David Ames]

Post by p***@cs.com
He
does not spend years on an ending volume as Fine did
(though Fine made plenty of errors) or produce the
kind of original analysis that Keres might work out
over a number of years and then reproduce in, say, his
fine and fascinating Dreispringspiel bis Koenigsgambit.

I would appreciate knowing where it is written that Fine spent years on
an ending volume. Although I recall reading differently, I can no
longer find a source.

Fine's BCE is, I believe, modeled after Berger's German-language
endgame book. A player active as Fine was during the 'thirties and up
to the U.S. entry into WWII was familiar with all the important things
that had happened since Berger. It would not have taken him long at
all to rewrite and insert new material into the Berger template. Fine
was a GM when GM was truly a distinction.

David Ames

[p***@cs.com]

AVITAL'S SMEARS

Avital states that he could find only two books
of mine at Amazon. I just checked. The Denker-Parr
work on Bobby Fischer is also there as well as my work
on Viktors Pupols. Plus two instructional works by
Alburt -- and another work that does not concern us here.

Avital offers this argument: The Denker-Parr
work is not at the ChessCafe but neither is a
biography on Amos Burn. Another reader mentions other
works not at the Cafe. Pretty soon we are informed
that much of the chess world is not at the Cafe, which means ...

What?

The argument amounts to this: The Soviet Union
did not ban Solzhenitsyn because one could also find
no works on say Memphis knitting designs in Moscow or,
for that matter, say, on the related subject of the
Purges by Albert Kahn.

The absence of other writers becomes, thereby,
proof or probative evidence that there is not a boycott.

The Keene and Evans books are recent additions to
the Cafe stock, which occurred after many complaints
began last year. Denker-Parr was a work serialized in
Chess Life and that sold well in the American market
-- for a chess book. To compare it with a huge
biography of Amos Burn is a bit much.

Eric Schiller is an American chess writer, who
has a high profile in the United States. The absence
of his works and the "coincidental" absence of works
by those known to be banned from the Cafe, is to be
excused by the logic that you will also not find the
works of other writers at the Cafe. As for Ray Keene
writing only one good book, that is a blatant smear
withhout, as usual, evidence.

Concerning other comments by Avital, see below.
My latest comments appear in multiple brackets.

Post by p***@cs.com
Eric Schiller is compared with Reuben Fine and
Paul Keres and ... found wanting. Mr. Schiller, we
are told, copies and collates and makes errors. Of
course he does.

That's not the point; the point is that this is virtually the only thing he does.

[[[[[The reader will notice that this statement is
a pure smear: no evidence to back it up. Just an attack.]]]]]

Post by p***@cs.com
Many of Eric's books are explicitly works meant
to provide plenty of information at a low price.

So does the phone book; but I wouldn't rely on it to
improve my rook-and-pawn endings. The question is not the
amount of information, but the reliablity and usefulness of the
information.

[[[[[The issue is the amount of information -- and
reliability and usefulness -- at a market price that
people will pay and come back for more.]]]]]

Post by p***@cs.com
He does not spend years on an ending volume as Fine

did (though Fine made plenty of errors) or produce the

Post by p***@cs.com
kind of original analysis that Keres might work out
over a number of years and then reproduce in, say,
his fine and fascinating Dreispringspiel bis Koenigsgambit.

Indeed he doesn't.

[[[[[This is called a gratuitous slap. In many circles it is regarded
as unfair.]]]]]

Post by p***@cs.com
Eric Schiller is a popular writer who has made a
lot of information available at a fraction of the prices
that one will pay for German editions of Keres' work.

Yes, indeed; but I would rather own Keres' four or
five books--excellent ones, one and all--than own
Schiller's complete collection of works--90+ books, that is true, but
ranging in quality from the mediocre to the atrocious. Contrary to what
Stalin said, in chess, quantity does not have a quality all of its own.
That is the flaw in your reasoning. That you can get five Schiller
books for the price of one Keres book is hardly an advantage for
Schiller when it is far better for the chessplayer to own any of Keres'
books over any five of Schiller's books anyway.

[[[[[We have here yet another smear without evidence
to back it up. It is just an attack. Nothing more.
As for Avital preferring to own one book by Keres to
five by Schiller, that is fine, though he would do
well to supplement the opening analysis with newer
stuff. Perhaps stuff written by Schiller, who
presents massive amounts of information.

In any event, many in the market evidently prefer
Eric's less expensive works, which meet their needs or
a portion thereof.]]]]]

Post by p***@cs.com
Does he have a market? Evidently so.

(Shrug) well, of course he does. So do pornographic
books, but that's no recommendation.

[[[[[A smear. No evidence. Just another slap.]]]]]

Post by p***@cs.com
He has been stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets,
and they do not give up shelf space lightly.

True, true.
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount of
1). "How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive"-type books
("self-help");
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts ("sex
education");
3). "Why Politician X is worse than Hitler" / "The
World will Explode
Tomorrow" ("Politics and Current Events")
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a popular
television show
("Best-Sellers").

[[[[[One is unclear about the point here. Eric
Schiller's work is condemned because the local Barnes
and Noble or Borders has works that offend Avital's
sensibilities? That does not strike me as an argument.]]]]]

So what?

Post by p***@cs.com
In any event, ChessCafe does not blacklist Eric
Schiller because of the quality of his books. Eric is
blacklisted for the same reason as this writer (my
well received works with Arnold Denker and Lev
Alburt) Ray Keene and Larry Evans: we are loathed by
the proprietor.

A quick search for "Evans" found three of Evans'
best-selling books, as well as Benko and Silman's
"Pal Benko" which has quite a bit of interviews and
additions by Evans. Similarly, "Keene" gives us "Aaron
Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal", which not-so-coincidentally
is considered Keene's one good book.
I couldn't find your books, but (according to
two books (one in two volumes). Surely more evidence
of "blacklisting" is needed than "they don't carry either of my
books"? For example, I also couldn't find Richard Forster's "Amos Burn: A
Chess Bibliography" (one of the best chess books ever in my view) or a
single book by Keres. Is chesscafe "blacklisting" Forster and
Keres? Highly unlikely.

[[[[[I dealt with the above paragraph in the
introduction to this message.]]]]]

Post by p***@cs.com
Such is the man's undoubted right --
to prevent the discussion from yet again commencing
with the dreary, "but it's the proprietor's right

...," etc. -- and it is our right to hold the man's

Post by p***@cs.com
reputation to the flame.

Go ahead--just remember to add Keres, Forster, and
quite a few other chess authors to this list of those "blacklisted" by
the chesscafe. Isn't it simply more likely that they, simply, have
a more limited selection than amazon.com?

[[[[[I dealt with this logic in the introduction to this message.]]]]]

[Louis Blair]

Commenting on a criticism of Eric Schiller,

Post by p***@cs.com
We have here yet another smear without evidence
to back it up.

_
These words bring to mind many past experiences
with Larry Parr. For example:
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Of course, Larry Parr gave no evidence at all.
_
On 14 Jun 2005 12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that
I had not contributed any quotes to the discussion
that involved 'as' or 'like' words.
_
Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence". Still wrong.

[p***@cs.com]

A REAL SHOCKER

<[Schiller is] not my favorite author (Chernev, Evans and Fine are) but
some of his books have taught me a lot about chess...Can "jr" give us
some specifics about what he learned and from which Schiller books he
learned "a lot"?> -- Louis Blair

Nick Bourbaki's dynamite posting on what Eric
Schiller may actually have written as opposed to what
NM Taylor Kingston, the man who went from 1800 to 2300
in his own estimation, is a real shocker.

A real shocker -- in the sense that the lie is
stupid even by NM Kingston's standard.

Taylor Kingston wrote about the "things" he had
learned from Eric Schiller. He then continued, "Max
Euwe was never world champion."

That's piebald stuff. Straight out. No room
to argue what NM Kingston claims Eric Schiller, a real
chess master, wrote.

Did NM Kingston lie right through those teeth
of his? If Eric wrote that Euwe was a contender, then
he is absolutely correct.

In Denker-Parr "The Bobby Fischer I Knew, And Other Stories"
here is how we expressed Euwe's contendah-dom, which was in truth the
most interesting element in the man's career:

"Although Max competed in some 60 tournaments
and contested 20 matches during the 1920s, most of
these competitions were small, local affairs. He
averaged only one strong tournament a year, and he did
not garner a major first prize until Hastings 1930-31,
when he finished ahead of Jose Capablana. Instead,
Max made it into the pantheon of great masters via the
novel route of LOSING [italics in our text] and
occasionally drawing matches.

"Max's ploy was to select famous opponents,
lose narrowly, and not become a defeatist. Over his
Christmas and New Year's holiday of 1926-27, he lost
an exhibition match to Alexander Alekhine (+2 -3 =5);
during the Easter break of 1928 and the Christmas-New
Year's vacation of 1928-29, he lost two 10-game
matches to Efim Bogolyubov by a single point each.
Then, in 1931, he continued his merry ways by dropping
a hard-fought match to Capablanca (+0 -2 =8), but the
following year he beat Rudolf Spielmann and drew with
Salo Flohr.

"In adversity, Max flourished. He began to
make a mark in top-flight tournament play, thereby
becoming a living advertisement for Capablanca's claim
that one learns more through defeat than victory....

"As the eventful year of 1935 dawned, and after
some 15 years in the international arena, Max enjoyed
a status among masters roughly equal to that possessed
by Alekhine in 1924, after that immortal had also
spent a decade and a lustrum in top competition. But
there the similarity ended. For Alekhine was a
professional and Euwe an amateur. Max's victory in
the Olympic Amateur Championship at The Hague in 1928
was emblematic of the fact that this world amateur
champion was also an amateur world champion -- the
last player who was able to scale the Everest of chess
in his spare time."

If Eric chose for some reason to emphasize
Euwe's contendah-dom, then he was perfectly justified
in doing so.

One wonders now whether Eric did not write of
the 1966 Petrosian-Spassky match that the former won
and held the title for three years in the context of
meaning three MORE years, which would also be
accurate. One wonders whether Eric was quoted out of
context when said to confound resignation and
forfeiture. The two have this much in common, after
all: one player gets zero points. Finally, one
begins to think that Eric wrote something like
Stockholm 1958, when meaning to write Portoroz.

One point is clear: nothing alleged against
Eric Schiller rises to the level of deliberately
misrepresenting a possible error in order to
humiliate. If Eric did NOT write that Euwe was never
world champion, then NM Kingston, a liar about his own
rating, committed a morally corrupt act.

Could someone please reproduce the precise text from Eric?

[Curious George]

Dynamite? Get a life.

C. George

Post by p***@cs.com
A REAL SHOCKER
<[Schiller is] not my favorite author (Chernev, Evans and Fine are) but
some of his books have taught me a lot about chess...Can "jr" give us
some specifics about what he learned and from which Schiller books he
learned "a lot"?> -- Louis Blair
Nick Bourbaki's dynamite posting on what Eric
Schiller may actually have written as opposed to what
NM Taylor Kingston, the man who went from 1800 to 2300
in his own estimation, is a real shocker.
A real shocker -- in the sense that the lie is
stupid even by NM Kingston's standard.
Taylor Kingston wrote about the "things" he had
learned from Eric Schiller. He then continued, "Max
Euwe was never world champion."
That's piebald stuff. Straight out. No room
to argue what NM Kingston claims Eric Schiller, a real
chess master, wrote.
Did NM Kingston lie right through those teeth
of his? If Eric wrote that Euwe was a contender, then
he is absolutely correct.
In Denker-Parr "The Bobby Fischer I Knew, And Other Stories"
here is how we expressed Euwe's contendah-dom, which was in truth the
"Although Max competed in some 60 tournaments
and contested 20 matches during the 1920s, most of
these competitions were small, local affairs. He
averaged only one strong tournament a year, and he did
not garner a major first prize until Hastings 1930-31,
when he finished ahead of Jose Capablana. Instead,
Max made it into the pantheon of great masters via the
novel route of LOSING [italics in our text] and
occasionally drawing matches.
"Max's ploy was to select famous opponents,
lose narrowly, and not become a defeatist. Over his
Christmas and New Year's holiday of 1926-27, he lost
an exhibition match to Alexander Alekhine (+2 -3 =5);
during the Easter break of 1928 and the Christmas-New
Year's vacation of 1928-29, he lost two 10-game
matches to Efim Bogolyubov by a single point each.
Then, in 1931, he continued his merry ways by dropping
a hard-fought match to Capablanca (+0 -2 =8), but the
following year he beat Rudolf Spielmann and drew with
Salo Flohr.
"In adversity, Max flourished. He began to
make a mark in top-flight tournament play, thereby
becoming a living advertisement for Capablanca's claim
that one learns more through defeat than victory....
"As the eventful year of 1935 dawned, and after
some 15 years in the international arena, Max enjoyed
a status among masters roughly equal to that possessed
by Alekhine in 1924, after that immortal had also
spent a decade and a lustrum in top competition. But
there the similarity ended. For Alekhine was a
professional and Euwe an amateur. Max's victory in
the Olympic Amateur Championship at The Hague in 1928
was emblematic of the fact that this world amateur
champion was also an amateur world champion -- the
last player who was able to scale the Everest of chess
in his spare time."
If Eric chose for some reason to emphasize
Euwe's contendah-dom, then he was perfectly justified
in doing so.
One wonders now whether Eric did not write of
the 1966 Petrosian-Spassky match that the former won
and held the title for three years in the context of
meaning three MORE years, which would also be
accurate. One wonders whether Eric was quoted out of
context when said to confound resignation and
forfeiture. The two have this much in common, after
all: one player gets zero points. Finally, one
begins to think that Eric wrote something like
Stockholm 1958, when meaning to write Portoroz.
One point is clear: nothing alleged against
Eric Schiller rises to the level of deliberately
misrepresenting a possible error in order to
humiliate. If Eric did NOT write that Euwe was never
world champion, then NM Kingston, a liar about his own
rating, committed a morally corrupt act.
Could someone please reproduce the precise text from Eric?

[p***@cs.com]

COME HITHER

Dynamite? Get a life.> -- Curious George to Larry Parr

A short note to Bill Brock. I know it is B for
bo-o-o-o-ring out in Nolanland, and I cannot promise
that like Hector, your body will not be dragged around
the Walls of Tinytown, though while you are still
alive. But I can promise that it only hurts for the
first two or three years.

Come hither.

[Curious George]

I'm not Bill Brock, moron.

C. George

Post by p***@cs.com
COME HITHER

Dynamite? Get a life.> -- Curious George to Larry Parr

A short note to Bill Brock. I know it is B for
bo-o-o-o-ring out in Nolanland, and I cannot promise
that like Hector, your body will not be dragged around
the Walls of Tinytown, though while you are still
alive. But I can promise that it only hurts for the
first two or three years.
Come hither.

[Chess One]

Post by Curious George
Dynamite? Get a life.
C. George

I thought it was a good piece by Nick, too. I mean, if the author were
really sooooo bad, how come its necessary to invent things about him?

And if you are a chess writer, book sales are your life.

Phil Innes


------------

Post by Curious George

Post by p***@cs.com
One point is clear: nothing alleged against
Eric Schiller rises to the level of deliberately
misrepresenting a possible error in order to
humiliate. If Eric did NOT write that Euwe was never
world champion, then NM Kingston, a liar about his own
rating, committed a morally corrupt act.
Could someone please reproduce the precise text from Eric?

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by p***@cs.com
Could someone please reproduce the precise text from Eric?

Gladly, Larry. On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest
Games," after the game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told
"Bobby must have taken great pleasure from this first win over the
veteran Grandmaster who was once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship." Period. End of chapter.
The statement is literally true, but *nowhere* in the book does
Schiller mention that Euwe actually *was* World Champion 1935-1937.
That is a *serious* omission that gives the clear impression that Euwe,
like Rubinstein or Keres, was a close-but-no-cigar player, never world
champion. Especially bad in a book intended for beginners, who would
not know chess history.
Imagine an obituary for Richard Nixon that said he nearly won the
presidency in 1960, but said nothing about winning it in 1968 and 1972?

Or let's put this even more clearly: How would Larry Parr feel if,
say, The Oxford Companion to Chess said that Smyslov or Tal were
"legitimate contenders" but said nothing to indicate either ever was
world champion? We would no doubt be reading Larry rant about Hooper &
Whyld's Soviet-influenced deliberate mendacity.

[jr]

*I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller: Max Euwe was never chess
world champion.* Taylor Kingston

*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston

What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by jr
What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

The selective blindness and inconsistency of Parr's supporters is an
unceasing source of wonder. Any far-fetched, Rube-Goldberg-style
inference by Parr is treated as gospel, while a reasonable, even
obvious inference by a Parr opponent is "quite a stretch."

[Vince Hart]

Post by jr
*I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller: Max Euwe was never chess
world champion.* Taylor Kingston
*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston
What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Actually, as you quoted, Kingston did not claim that Schiller said that
Euwe was never world champion. He said is that this is something you
would learn from Schiller and this is not a stretch at all since it is
the logical inference from Schiller's statement. Fischer's great
pleasure would have been a result of the fact that Euwe had actually
won the world championship rather than just contending. The fact that
Schiller identifies him merely as a "legitimate contender" clearly
suggests to the reader that this was the pinnacle of Euwe's career.

Vince Hart

[Nick]

Post by Vince Hart

Post by jr
*I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller: Max Euwe was never chess
world champion.* Taylor Kingston
*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston
What Schiller wrote is misleading,

As I wrote earlier, Eric Schiller's statement is true
*as far it goes*, but it has a misleading implication.

By the way, I don't think much of psychological speculation
such as 'Bobby *must* have taken great pleasure'. That may
be true, but did Eric Schiller ever ask Bobby Fischer?

Post by Vince Hart

Post by jr
but I don't see evidence for Kingston's initial claim
about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never chess world
champion." That's quite a stretch.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and
drew twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Actually, as you quoted, Kingston did not claim that
Schiller said that Euwe was never world champion.

But a plausible interpretation of Taylor Kingston's statement
is that Eric Schiller *directly asserted rather than misleadingly
implied* that "Max Euwe was never chess world champion".

Post by Vince Hart
He said is that this is something you would learn from Schiller

Actually, I would *not* have 'learned' that from Eric Schiller
because I already knew enough about chess history to know that
Max Euwe was a world champion. But some ignorant readers could
have been misled, and that's why I criticised Eric Schiller.

Post by Vince Hart
and this is not a stretch at all since it is
the logical inference from Schiller's statement.

It's a plausible inference. Strictly speaking about 'logic',
I cannot think of any reason why having been 'a legitimate
contender for the World Championship' and having been 'chess
world champion' *must* be mutually exclusive possibilities.

Post by Vince Hart
Fischer's great pleasure would have been a result of the fact
that Euwe had actually won the world championship rather than
just contending. The fact that Schiller identifies him merely
as a "legitimate contender" clearly suggests to the reader that
this was the pinnacle of Euwe's career.

Eric Schiller wrote a statement with a misleading implication,
and he should be criticised for it. Unfortunately, Taylor
Kingston's statement (above at the top) could be plausibly
interpreted that Eric Schiller wrote as *a direct assertion
rather than as a misleading implication* that "Max Euwe was
never chess world champion". It's true that Taylor Kingston
did *not quote* Eric Schiller to that effect, but a reader
could readily assume from Taylor Kingston's statement that
Eric Schiller had written that false direct assertion in
somewhat different words.

In my view, if Taylor Kingston were more careful and scrupulous
in criticising Eric Schiller, then he should have made it clearer
that what Eric Schiller wrote about Max Euwe was a misleading
implication rather than a false direct assertion.

--Nick

[p***@cs.com]

KINGSTON'S MALIGNANT INTENT

NM Taylor Kingston, the man who promoted himself
from 1800 to 2300+ ELO, did indeed lie about what
Eric Schiller wrote.

Now, please notice. NM Kingston writes
something that IS true: Eric ought to have explained
more about Max Euwe's career. It is not enough to
note that the Dutch great was a contender, though the
statement is true as written.

Having said that, Eric did not write, as
viciously alleged by NM Kingston, that Euwe was
NEVER world champion. The point of that posting,
written with evident glee, was to humiliate.

NM Kingston took an INCOMPLETE statement by Eric and
transmogrified it into an absurdity, supposedly but
not actually written by Eric.

Please note: this lousy, low lie exceeds
anything in moral terms that has been alleged by NM
Kingston and his like against NM Schiller. Malignant
intent aforethought is worse than carelessness or, as
was argued, lying by Eric.

NM Kingston has revealed his canker. It is a
character weakness on our part that we are not unhappy
he has done so.

NM Kingston attempts to excuse his lying -- for
that is what he quite deliberately did, knowing full
well what Eric really wrote -- by arguing that I might
accuse the authors of the Oxford Companion To Chess of
truckling to the Soviets if Smyslov and Tal were cited
only as contenders.

I might indeed IF the context so warranted, such
as these same authors deliberately failing to mention
Boris Gulko's status as a refusenik in a reference
book entry! However, in the case of Smyslov and Tal,
I might conclude monumental incompetence instead, if
there were no evident political angle as in the cases
of Gulko, Alburt, Korchnoi, Petrov, Levenfish and
several other entries in the Companion that our NM
Kingston dares not discuss.

To be sure, Eric was not writing a reference
work entry when mentioning Euwe in passing in a
sentence. NM Kingston knows that, and his allusion to
the Companion is a dishonestly false analogy. Eric
was, it appears, writing a brief intro to a game, and
he did not make the egregious error NM Kingston claimed.

Moreover, NM Kingston knew the text of what Eric
wrote, and he deliberately misrepresented it. Our 2300+
Elo man is quite a bill of goods. Quite a leeetle man indeed.

Give me a bumptious, overly excited Sam Sloan any day compared
with a cold, ego-driven bit of cancer such as our NM Kingston, who
apparently has terminated his "indefinite" vacation from this forum.

[p***@cs.com]

MORE SCABROUS CHARGES

Popularity has nothing to do with it. The USCF should uphold standards, not just

go with what is popular. It should FIGHT the popularity of atrocious
books with bad reviews and the promotion of good books, not pander to
it.> Avital on Schiller

More scabrous charges from Avital (Skeptic) which he
chooses not to back up. He simply asserts with vivid
language that Eric Schiller does not provide value for
money, though he does not frame the question quite
that way, for the obvious reason that the marketplace
appears to suggest differently.

[Taylor Kingston]

Lord, Larry, but you have become a virtual self-parody, and a study
in absolute hypocrisy. If I had a dollar for every far-fetched or
clearly false inference you have made based on little or no evidence,
I'd have a down payment on a house, if not the full price. And yet when
I note the obvious implication of a statement by one of the hacks you
cherish, someone who doesn't know a world champion from whirled
champignons, it's a "malignant lie."
And of course all of Sam's pornography and racist obscenities get a
pass, but when I note Schiller's obvious implication, it's a "morally
corrupt act."
It is just disgusting, not to mention incredible, that you have
chosen to champion some of the worst elements in American chess, such
as Schiller, Sloan, and Schroeder, while making contrived, baseless
charges against truly excellent authors such as Hooper, Whyld, and
Winter. Your sleaze rating is off the scale, and I think most or all of
rgcp/rgcm's fair-minded readers know it.
I resolved a while ago to ignore you, then rejoined the fray when you
started spouting new nonsense. Obviously that resolution was correct:
you are beyond hope of redemption. Time to ignore you again.

[p***@cs.com]

IGNORED AGAIN

Seriously, Larry, what a joke you have become... I resolved a while ago to ignore you, then rejoined the fray when you started spouting new nonsense. Obviously that resolution was correct: you are beyond hope of redemption. Time to ignore you again..> -- Taylor Kingston

NM Taylor Kingston writes that it's "time to ignore you again."
I am always being ignored "again." The process is ongoing. I love it.

One also enjoys being "a joke," in NM Kingston's phrase. The fact
that I am being ignored "again" -- and again and again -- might
indicate otherwise. But our self-proclaimed 2300+ thunderbolt
obviously disagrees.

NM Kingston would have you believe that I confound a major
psychological blow with a minor tremor. I do not. There is evidence
that the Soviet leadership took small things quite seriously because,
given their own perceived illegitimacy, a small thing could become
important. The issue becomes HOW seriously. I think Spassky's defeat
caused, at most, a couple of sleepless nights for this or that
Politburo member, if even that.

There is a distinction between this kind of argument and, say, the
authors of the Oxford Companion stating that Krylenko was "widely held
to be responsible for Stalin's purges." This claim is an utter joke in
a way that Eric's evaluation is not.

All kinds of people have imagined that Bobby had a big influence,
but Krylenko? His name hardly figures in Robert Conquest's
unsuperseded history of the purges, The Great Terror. There is an
enormous difference between Eric's hooha, which has too much steam in
it, and that ridiculous claim about Krylenko, grabbed from the supernal
ether.

The truth is that our NM Kingston attributed to Eric a statement
-- Max Euwe never became world champion -- that Eric never wrote. The
point was to deride Eric once again by telling a lie.

I don't consider our NM Kingston to be a joke. I think he is a
bad man.

[Chess One]

Post by p***@cs.com
IGNORED AGAIN
NM Kingston would have you believe that I confound a major
psychological blow with a minor tremor. I do not. There is evidence
that the Soviet leadership took small things quite seriously because,
given their own perceived illegitimacy, a small thing could become
important. The issue becomes HOW seriously. I think Spassky's defeat
caused, at most, a couple of sleepless nights for this or that
Politburo member, if even that.

Of the 3 USSR supported cultural showpieces, ballet, circus and chess, you
can hardly have your ballerinas go overseas and directly /compete/ with
other ballerinas,

(maybe giving a foreign dancer a Jackie Chan style kick up the tutu in mid
leap? )

and getting elephants & clowns to have a barny is equally problematic and
insufficiently serious [which one is 'our' clown, 'our' hefalump?]

But in chess there can be a test of the trained model-citizen Hero against a
foreign Barbarian [not his own fault, he is just a pawn in their system].

And there was an enormous decades-long effort to support the model citizen
Hero [literally, one became a 'Hero of the Soviet Union'] with tight control
to any 'affront' to his status - replete with Western journalists in place
who would make the first complaint!

The degree of tremor apres-Spassky may had small surface effect, hardly
enough to ripple one's vodka, but as an indicator of a deep systemic fault
and of future earthquake, it was as ominous as the compositions of
Shostakovitch.

Phil Innes

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by Chess One
But in chess there can be a test of the trained model-citizen Hero against a
foreign Barbarian [not his own fault, he is just a pawn in their system].
And there was an enormous decades-long effort to support the model citizen
Hero [literally, one became a 'Hero of the Soviet Union'] with tight control
to any 'affront' to his status - replete with Western journalists in place
who would make the first complaint!

All very true, Phil. However, this does nothing to support Schiller's
claim that Fischer-Spassky 1972 was "a major psychological blow to the
Soviet government." Certainly it was an embarrassment, and it certainly
was a blow to the likes of Taimanov, Petrosian and Spassky, but for it
to qualify as a MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL BLOW TO THE GOVERNMENT, I think it
would have to be shown that it caused the Soviet government to lose its
resolve or change its mind in some important way. What domestic or
foreign policy decisions were affected by the match? Did anyone in the
Politburo or Central Committee say "Well, now that Spassky's lost, we'd
better not invade Afghanistan, and stop funding those African rebels"?
Did Brezhnev say to himself "Shoot, now I'll have to make some major
concessions at the next summit with Nixon"? Did any pro-Soviet or
non-aligned nations change to pro-American as a result of the match? of
course not. Were Gorbachev's later glasnost and perestroika in any way
byproducts of the match? One seriously doubts it.
It certainly did not cause the Soviets to lose their resolve on the
chess front -- they redoubled their efforts to get the title back by
whatever means, and Fischer only helped them by resigning it.

Post by Chess One
The degree of tremor apres-Spassky may had small surface effect, hardly
enough to ripple one's vodka, but as an indicator of a deep systemic fault
and of future earthquake, it was as ominous as the compositions of
Shostakovitch.

Flowery persiflage. It's hard to see Spassky's failure as an
indicator of any "deep systemic fault" in the Soviet system. The real
faults in that system of government were all too obvious, eventually
even to the Soviets themselves, and hardly require explanation in the
metaphorical terms of a chess player as ideological symbol (for which
Spassky is a poor fit anyway). The Soviet *chess* sytem had shown its
worth by dominating world chess for a quarter-century, and had it not
been for the country's terrible losses in WW II and the peculiar genius
of a uniquely obsessed and driven lone American, that domination would
likely have continued without the 1972 interruption.
To sum up, I don't consider Schiller's "major blow" remark to be a
major error, and certainly not a falsehood. However, it's the sort of
glib carelessness that so thoroughly permeates his work, and so in my
review I included it with other examples of carelessness, such as his
saying 1962 was 1958, and his ludicrous garbling of the Fischer notes
he was so liberally borrowing from.
Another glaring example was his description of Euwe as a title
contender, without mentioning that Euwe actually was World Champion
1935-1937. The double standard of those who so glibly excuse this,
while attacking lesser omissions by better authors, is glaringly
obvious, a clear case of "whose ox is gored." It inspired me to write a
list of comparable "true but false" statements:

For a time, Albert Einstein had an interest in mathematics.
In her youth, Marilyn Monroe contemplated a career as a movie
actress.
At one time, Mickey Mantle considered becoming a major league
baseball player.
Jesse Owens once tried out for the Olympics.
For a while, Viktor Korchnoi thought about defecting from the USSR.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Larry Evans was considered a contender for
the US Championship.
Larry Parr was once considered for the post of Chess Life editor.

[jr]

"Larry Parr was once considered for the post of Chess Life editor."
Kingston (again ignoring his nemesis)

That's still a far cry from claiming that Parr was NEVER Chess Life
editor.

Can't this guy ever admit when he's wrong?

[Curious George]

Larry Parr did not sleep with his daughter this week.

C. George

Post by jr
"Larry Parr was once considered for the post of Chess Life editor."
Kingston (again ignoring his nemesis)
That's still a far cry from claiming that Parr was NEVER Chess Life
editor.
Can't this guy ever admit when he's wrong?

[Larry Tapper]

Post by jr
"Larry Parr was once considered for the post of Chess Life editor."
Kingston (again ignoring his nemesis)
That's still a far cry from claiming that Parr was NEVER Chess Life
editor.
Can't this guy ever admit when he's wrong?

Look, the point here is very simple: just about any one of us would be
acutely embarrassed to see in print that he had actually written the
words "Euwe ... once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship". Isn't this obvious? If someone posted such a remark to
rgcp, he'd be mercilessly ridiculed for weeks. It doesn't matter that
this description of Euwe is technically true --- what matters is that
it would be a bizarre thing for any knowledgeable chess writer to say.

A striking quality that Schiller has (much of the time) is an amazingly
high embarrassment threshold. Even his better books (and there are
some) are replete with strange sentences that no half-awake editor
would let pass. I don't think the root cause here is really mendacity
or even cynicism, and it's certainly not stupidity --- it's more like
being in such a mad rush to go to print, there's apparently no time or
motivation to do even the most cursory checking.

Actually I think that some of Schiller's detractors here may be giving
the misleading impresssion that his books are totally devoid of useful
chess content. They aren't --- sometimes they're all right, especially
when they're on opening topics he knows something about.

Here for example is a review by IM John Watson of two Schiller books
which Watson recommends, albeit with several qualifications:

http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatson9.html

Watson writes:

"...While Schiller probably deserves some of the criticism he gets, a
consequence of writing too many books too quickly, he should also get
credit when he does a good job. I think that on balance, these two
books are excellent introductions to openings about which, importantly,
the author has real understanding."

On the other hand there is always the dark side. Watson writes about
Schiller's King Pawn Openings book:

"...And the prose occasionally falls apart completely (there doesn't
seem to be a proofreader or editor for these books). Just for example,
when Eric discusses the Advance Variation pawn structure, he talks
about the role of each piece: "King: The King stays in the center for a
while, but must inevitably castle to coordinate the rooks. Kingside
castling is normal. Sometimes the king sits comfortably on d7, and
Black should consider this possibility before castling. In the endgame,
the king may wish to operate on the queenside." "Queen: White doesn't
have any useful role for the queen, so often both queens are developed
at b6." "Bishops: ...The dark-squared bishop operates in the center,
where all of the dark squares are important...", and so forth. (It's
not just the writing; some of this isn't even true!) Well, clearly it
was just too late that night and a deadline loomed; I've experienced
this problem myself. But where is the proofreading and/or editing?"

Here Watson is kind and generous; but the sort of reader who is the
least bit punctilious about detail may not be so kind, and I can't say
as I'd blame him.

Larry T.

[Louis Blair]

Post by Larry Tapper
I don't think the root cause here is really mendacity
or even cynicism, and it's certainly not stupidity ---
it's more like being in such a mad rush to go to print,
there's apparently no time or motivation to do even
the most cursory checking.

_
"I have some new publications in need of proofing,
so once again I ask Chessgames members who
are interested to email me at ..." Eric Schiller
(Oct-21-05)
_
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=27484
_

[Louis Blair]

Post by Larry Tapper
I don't think the root cause here is really mendacity
or even cynicism, and it's certainly not stupidity ---
it's more like being in such a mad rush to go to print,
there's apparently no time or motivation to do even
the most cursory checking.

_
"I have some new publications in need of proofing,
so once again I ask Chessgames members who
are interested to email me at ..." - Eric Schiller
(Oct-21-05)
_
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=27484
_

[David Kane]

Post by Larry Tapper
Look, the point here is very simple: just about any one of us would be
acutely embarrassed to see in print that he had actually written the
words "Euwe ... once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship". Isn't this obvious? If someone posted such a remark to
rgcp, he'd be mercilessly ridiculed for weeks. It doesn't matter that
this description of Euwe is technically true --- what matters is that
it would be a bizarre thing for any knowledgeable chess writer to say.
A striking quality that Schiller has (much of the time) is an

amazingly

Post by Larry Tapper
high embarrassment threshold. Even his better books (and there are
some) are replete with strange sentences that no half-awake editor
would let pass. I don't think the root cause here is really

mendacity

Post by Larry Tapper
or even cynicism, and it's certainly not stupidity --- it's more like
being in such a mad rush to go to print, there's apparently no time or
motivation to do even the most cursory checking.
Actually I think that some of Schiller's detractors here may be

giving

Post by Larry Tapper
the misleading impresssion that his books are totally devoid of useful
chess content. They aren't --- sometimes they're all right,

especially

Post by Larry Tapper
when they're on opening topics he knows something about.

I'd go further and say that the detractor's
obsession with Schiller's gaffes suggest
that they really don't even care about the
chess content of the books.

Of course Schiller deserves to be
mocked for recommending as "best"
a book that doesn't exist or for writing
that Euwe contended for the WC.
But these errors are really of a different
type than a book reviewer being unable
to grasp the significance of the errors
that he is writing about.

[Nick]

Post by Larry Tapper

Post by jr
"Larry Parr was once considered for the post of Chess Life editor."
Kingston (again ignoring his nemesis)
That's still a far cry from claiming that Parr
was NEVER Chess Life editor.
Can't this guy ever admit when he's wrong?

Look, the point here is very simple: just about any one of us would
be acutely embarrassed to see in print that he had actually written
the words "Euwe ... once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship".

Eric Schiller seems to have a different sense of embarrassment.

Eric Schiller wrote a true statement, as far as it goes, with
a misleading implication. Was he carelessly misleading or
intentionally misleading? I cannot think of anything that
Eric Schiller would have to gain by being intentionally
misleading in this case, so I attribute his statement to
nothing worse than his usual sloppiness as a writer
(which is bad enough).

Post by Larry Tapper
Isn't this obvious?

Let's suppose that someone had written: "Virginia Wade was
once a legitimate contender to win the ladies' singles at
Wimbledon." In fact, Virginia Wade did once win at Wimbledon
(in 1977). On the other hand, her popular reputation in the
UK was largely that of being a gallant competitor who, 'being
British', tended to come up a bit short in major tournaments.

Post by Larry Tapper
If someone posted such a remark to rgcp, he'd be
mercilessly ridiculed for weeks.

He probably would not be 'mercilessly ridiculed' by his
friends and allies, if any, in rec.games.chess.politics,
who might well write some excuses on his behalf.

Post by Larry Tapper
It doesn't matter that this description of Euwe is technically
true --- what matters is that it would be a bizarre thing for
any knowledgeable chess writer to say.

Eric Schiller wrote a true statement, as far as it goes, with
a misleading implication. That's different from writing a false
direct assertion that "Max Euwe was never chess world champion".
I regard that distinction as significant enough to warrant
mention; some other readers may disagree.

Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston's statement does *not* make
that distinction clear enough or, really, clear at all.
Instead, Taylor Kingston's statement invites the reader to
assume the worst about Eric Schiller, namely, that Eric
Schiller wrote a false direct assertion that "Max Euwe was
never chess world champion" (or in comparable words).

*If* I had been ignorant of Taylor Kingston's previous
comments about Eric Schiller, then I likely would have
assumed--mistakenly--that Eric Schiller *did* make a false
direct assertion that "Max Euwe was never chess world champion".
In short, *if* I had been more ignorant, then I likely
would have been misled by Taylor Kingston's statement.

So I have to regard what Taylor Kingston wrote as misleading.
If Taylor Kingston were more careful and scrupulous in
criticising Eric Schiller, then he *could* have written
something like: "Eric Schiller has written a statement
that misleadingly implies that Max Euwe was never chess
world champion". I would regard that criticism as fair.

I have no general objection to Taylor Kingston criticising
factual errors in Eric Schiller's chess books. Indeed,
I can concur with many of Taylor Kingston's criticisms
of Eric Schiller's chess writing. But I have to take
exception to some cases in which Taylor Kingston evidently
has practised 'overkill', apparently exaggerating Eric
Schiller's faults, and not writing fairly enough about
Eric Schiller.

Post by Larry Tapper
A striking quality that Schiller has (much of the time) is
an amazingly high embarrassment threshold. Even his better
books (and there are some) are replete with strange sentences
that no half-awake editor would let pass. I don't think the
root cause here is really mendacity or even cynicism, and it's
certainly not stupidity --- it's more like being in such a mad
rush to go to print, there's apparently no time or motivation
to do even the most cursory checking.

I concur with Larry Tapper. Given what I know so far about
Eric Schiller's chess writing, I regard him as an extremely
sloppy writer rather than as a pathological liar (which is
*not* to endorse Eric Schiller's supposed honesty in all
cases of dispute).

Post by Larry Tapper
Actually I think that some of Schiller's detractors here
may be giving the misleading impresssion that his books
are totally devoid of useful chess content.

Larry Tapper's not the only reader with that impression.

Post by Larry Tapper
They aren't --- sometimes they're all right, especially
when they're on opening topics he knows something about.

As I recall, William Hyde has written that he (when he was
rated about 2100 USCF) found one Eric Schiller book somewhat
useful to him. I respect William Hyde's judgment on that.

Post by Larry Tapper
Here for example is a review by IM John Watson of two Schiller
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatson9.html
"...While Schiller probably deserves some of the criticism he gets, a
consequence of writing too many books too quickly, he should also get
credit when he does a good job. I think that on balance, these two
books are excellent introductions to openings about which, importantly,
the author has real understanding."
On the other hand there is always the dark side.
"...And the prose occasionally falls apart completely (there doesn't
seem to be a proofreader or editor for these books). Just for example,
when Eric discusses the Advance Variation pawn structure, he talks
about the role of each piece: "King: The King stays in the center for
a while, but must inevitably castle to coordinate the rooks. Kingside
castling is normal. Sometimes the king sits comfortably on d7, and
Black should consider this possibility before castling. In the endgame,
the king may wish to operate on the queenside." "Queen: White doesn't
have any useful role for the queen, so often both queens are developed
at b6." "Bishops: ...The dark-squared bishop operates in the center,
where all of the dark squares are important...", and so forth. (It's
not just the writing; some of this isn't even true!) Well, clearly it
was just too late that night and a deadline loomed; I've experienced
this problem myself. But where is the proofreading and/or editing?"
Here Watson is kind and generous; but the sort of reader who is the
least bit punctilious about detail may not be so kind, and I can't
say as I'd blame him.

I can easily write first drafts that are written better
than much of Eric Schiller's published English prose.

--Nick

[Louis Blair]

Post by Nick
As I recall, William Hyde has written that he (when
he was rated about 2100 USCF) found one Eric
Schiller book somewhat useful to him.

_
"I suppose it would be nice to buy from a supplier
which refuses to list bad books - provided your
definition of bad and their definition agree. I prefer
to make my own mistakes (I own two books by
Schiller, of which one was actually modestly
useful as a reference). Sometimes a 'bad' book
turns out to be very good indeed (I admit that I'm
not expecting such from Schiller)." - William Hyde
(11 Oct 2005 14:18:08 -0400)
_
"One of my two Schiller books was not worthless.
Not great, but for $3.95 it gave reasonable value."
- William Hyde (13 Oct 2005 13:11:21 -0400)
_
"I own about a dozen books on the opening.
Only the two by Schiller would be called rubbish,
so at worst 17% of the opening books I have are
crap." - William Hyde (18 Oct 2005 13:02:36 -0400)
_
"Typo. I meant to say 'could' there, as at least
one of my books by Schiller isn't, I think, rubbish.
...
I was rated about 2100 when I read the Schiller
books, and I did get some use out of one. I
wouldn't call it crap, and really, for $3.95 how
much could I reasonably expect?" - William Hyde
(18 Oct 2005 14:40:21 -0400)

[Chess One]

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by Chess One
But in chess there can be a test of the trained model-citizen Hero against a
foreign Barbarian [not his own fault, he is just a pawn in their system].
And there was an enormous decades-long effort to support the model citizen
Hero [literally, one became a 'Hero of the Soviet Union'] with tight control
to any 'affront' to his status - replete with Western journalists in place
who would make the first complaint!

All very true, Phil. However, this does nothing to support Schiller's
claim that Fischer-Spassky 1972 was "a major psychological blow to the
Soviet government."

It has to do with contextual basis that the government was vulnerable to
just such an 'affront' to its system

Post by Taylor Kingston
Certainly it was an embarrassment, and it certainly
was a blow to the likes of Taimanov, Petrosian and Spassky, but for it
to qualify as a MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL BLOW TO THE GOVERNMENT, I think it
would have to be shown that it caused the Soviet government to lose its
resolve or change its mind in some important way.

According to Taimanov and Spassky they suffered from more than
'embarrassment'. In fact Taimanov was arrested on reentry to the Soviet
Union for possessing a book in his luggage you could buy pretty openly on
the street [it was a Solzhenitsyn title].

You might also consider the way psychological blows operate, that the
surface is only cracked a bit, but underneath there is a great erm Fischer,
fissure :))

To the extent that previous triumphalism about Stalinism as process could no
longer be avowed. When you are a dictator there is only one way - and it has
to be your way. There is no other route to troumph about. So, isince we are
discussing psychological impacts, there was a considerable disruption uin
the force, and no relief valve for it.

Post by Taylor Kingston
What domestic or
foreign policy decisions were affected by the match?

I refer you to the original statement, which spoke of a psychological blow -
an inner thing, not immediately external manifestations.

Post by Taylor Kingston
Did anyone in the
Politburo or Central Committee say "Well, now that Spassky's lost, we'd
better not invade Afghanistan, and stop funding those African rebels"?
Did Brezhnev say to himself "Shoot, now I'll have to make some major
concessions at the next summit with Nixon"? Did any pro-Soviet or
non-aligned nations change to pro-American as a result of the match? of
course not. Were Gorbachev's later glasnost and perestroika in any way
byproducts of the match? One seriously doubts it.

I am unclear about your sense of what a psychological blow might be, as
evidenced by these manifestations. What happened from the SU had nothing
much to do with external events - it rotted to death, from the inside.

A corrolary is that winning the match did not adjust American adventurism
either. America didn't rot from the inside, it took drugs.

Post by Taylor Kingston
It certainly did not cause the Soviets to lose their resolve on the
chess front -- they redoubled their efforts to get the title back by
whatever means,

whatever means?

Post by Taylor Kingston
and Fischer only helped them by resigning it.

Post by Chess One
The degree of tremor apres-Spassky may had small surface effect, hardly
enough to ripple one's vodka, but as an indicator of a deep systemic fault
and of future earthquake, it was as ominous as the compositions of
Shostakovitch.

Flowery persiflage. It's hard to see Spassky's failure as an
indicator of any "deep systemic fault" in the Soviet system.

I don't think you have much knowledge of conditions in the Soviet System,
and have even changed the tenor of my remark about Spassky from a result to
a cause.

Post by Taylor Kingston
The real
faults in that system of government were all too obvious, eventually
even to the Soviets themselves, and hardly require explanation in the
metaphorical terms of a chess player as ideological symbol (for which
Spassky is a poor fit anyway). The Soviet *chess* sytem had shown its
worth by dominating world chess for a quarter-century, and had it not
been for the country's terrible losses in WW II and the peculiar genius
of a uniquely obsessed and driven lone American, that domination would
likely have continued without the 1972 interruption.

This is interesting. You don't credit paying its grandmasters out of the
state's pocket to be a significant factor? All the while denying they were
professionals?

Post by Taylor Kingston
To sum up, I don't consider Schiller's "major blow" remark to be a
major error, and certainly not a falsehood. However, it's the sort of
glib carelessness that so thoroughly permeates his work,

I frankly do not see it as an error at all.

I see it as an insight - a pyschological insight. I believe you have
suggested varieties of socio-economic measurement which are something of a
different subject! Whether you yourself are being glib is uncertain, but
what your writing has to do with psychological impact is all to seek.

Post by Taylor Kingston
and so in my
review I included it with other examples of carelessness, such as his
saying 1962 was 1958, and his ludicrous garbling of the Fischer notes
he was so liberally borrowing from.
Another glaring example

I have top go out - Perhaps I can return to this later.

Post by Taylor Kingston
was his description of Euwe as a title
contender, without mentioning that Euwe actually was World Champion

Yes. I think its a very loose way to write about poor dead Euwe. You think
its as bad an ommission as failing to ask Averbakh about screwing poor live
Gulko?

Phil Innes

Post by Taylor Kingston
1935-1937. The double standard of those who so glibly excuse this,
while attacking lesser omissions by better authors, is glaringly
obvious, a clear case of "whose ox is gored." It inspired me to write a
For a time, Albert Einstein had an interest in mathematics.
In her youth, Marilyn Monroe contemplated a career as a movie
actress.
At one time, Mickey Mantle considered becoming a major league
baseball player.
Jesse Owens once tried out for the Olympics.
For a while, Viktor Korchnoi thought about defecting from the USSR.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Larry Evans was considered a contender for
the US Championship.
Larry Parr was once considered for the post of Chess Life editor.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by Chess One

Post by Taylor Kingston
Certainly it was an embarrassment, and it certainly
was a blow to the likes of Taimanov, Petrosian and Spassky, but for it
to qualify as a MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL BLOW TO THE GOVERNMENT, I think it
would have to be shown that it caused the Soviet government to lose its
resolve or change its mind in some important way.

According to Taimanov and Spassky they suffered from more than
'embarrassment'.

Exactly what I said.

Post by Chess One
In fact Taimanov was arrested on reentry to the Soviet
Union for possessing a book in his luggage you could buy pretty openly on
the street [it was a Solzhenitsyn title].

A perfect example of the kind of blow (and more than psychological)
that I said Taimanov et al suffered.

Post by Chess One

Post by Taylor Kingston
What domestic or
foreign policy decisions were affected by the match?

I refer you to the original statement, which spoke of a psychological blow -
an inner thing, not immediately external manifestations.

In the absence of empirical evidence, talk about internal
psychological states (other than one's own) is airy nothing.

Post by Chess One

Post by Taylor Kingston
Did anyone in the
Politburo or Central Committee say "Well, now that Spassky's lost, we'd
better not invade Afghanistan, and stop funding those African rebels"?
Did Brezhnev say to himself "Shoot, now I'll have to make some major
concessions at the next summit with Nixon"? Did any pro-Soviet or
non-aligned nations change to pro-American as a result of the match? of
course not. Were Gorbachev's later glasnost and perestroika in any way
byproducts of the match? One seriously doubts it.

I am unclear about your sense of what a psychological blow might be, as
evidenced by these manifestations.

It could manifest itself as a reversal of previous policy, a change
in propaganda lines, a crackdown on various kinds of activity (or
conversely greater leniency), the resignation or removal of certain
officials -- but to qualify as a "major blow" the resultant changes
would, IMO, have to be major -- more than, say, sacking a few chess
officials.

Post by Chess One
What happened from the SU had nothing
much to do with external events - it rotted to death, from the inside.

I tend to agree at least partly, though Reaganites assert that SDI
(aka "Star Wars) was the final raise that made them fold their hand.

Post by Chess One
A corrolary is that winning the match did not adjust American adventurism
either.

Since America had no governmental investment in chess comparable to
the Soviets', one would not expect any such effect.

Post by Chess One
America didn't rot from the inside, it took drugs.

That had been going on long before 1972.

Post by Chess One

Post by Taylor Kingston
Flowery persiflage. It's hard to see Spassky's failure as an
indicator of any "deep systemic fault" in the Soviet system.

I don't think you have much knowledge of conditions in the Soviet System,
and have even changed the tenor of my remark about Spassky from a result to
a cause.

Haven't changed anything, Phil. An indicator is a measurement or a
signal, not a cause.

Post by Chess One
This is interesting. You don't credit paying its grandmasters out of the
state's pocket to be a significant factor? All the while denying they were
professionals?

Of course that was a very important part of the Soviet chess system,
that the GMs were paid to study and play chess. By "Soviet chess
system" I mean the whole apparatus set up to develop, train, and
support their chess talent, monetarily and otherwise.

Post by Chess One

Post by Taylor Kingston
To sum up, I don't consider Schiller's "major blow" remark to be a
major error, and certainly not a falsehood. However, it's the sort of
glib carelessness that so thoroughly permeates his work,

I frankly do not see it as an error at all.
I see it as an insight - a pyschological insight.

I consider "insights" that run counter to the empirical evidence to
be of little or no value.

Post by Chess One

Post by Taylor Kingston
Another glaring example
was his description of Euwe as a title
contender, without mentioning that Euwe actually was World Champion

Yes. I think its a very loose way to write about poor dead Euwe.

Glad we agree.

Post by Chess One
You think
its as bad an ommission as failing to ask Averbakh about screwing poor live
Gulko?

I was not aware that they had any erotic relationship, and would not
have asked about it even if I was.
Seriously, in retrospect Gulko would have been a good topic to bring
up in the Averbakh interview. Frankly, though, in the short time I had
to prepare for the interview, it did not even occur to me. I doubt I
could have gathered sufficient information about Gulko to feel
adequately prepared to discuss him meaningfully. And certainly not
enough that I could take the accusatory tack you suggest. Thus my
questions dealt with subjects about which I was better informed, such
as Keres and Botvinnik, Curaçao 1962, Euwe and FIDE, etc.
The complete absence of a topic is not at all comparable to partial,
misleading information such as Schiller gave about Euwe. I recall a
story about an officer who didn't like a certain sailor. Every few days
he would write in his log "Seaman So-and-so was sober today." This was
literally true, because in fact, the sailor never drank at all. But the
captain made the natural inference from the log, that the sailor was
usually drunk, and had the poor guy severely disciplined. Schiller's
partial information is similarly misleading.

[Chess One]

Post by Chess One
You think
its as bad an ommission as failing to ask Averbakh about screwing poor live
Gulko?

I was not aware that they had any erotic relationship, and would not
have asked about it even if I was.
Seriously, in retrospect Gulko would have been a good topic to bring
up in the Averbakh interview. Frankly, though, in the short time I had
to prepare for the interview, it did not even occur to me. I doubt I
could have gathered sufficient information about Gulko to feel
adequately prepared to discuss him meaningfully. And certainly not
enough that I could take the accusatory tack you suggest. Thus my
questions dealt with subjects about which I was better informed, such
as Keres and Botvinnik, Curaçao 1962, Euwe and FIDE, etc.
The complete absence of a topic is not at all comparable to partial,
misleading information such as Schiller gave about Euwe.
--------


Schiller's writing is not a mistake - it is simply poorly phrased in this
instance - no strong player will be unaware of Euwe's status in defeating
Alekhine, we have probably all played over the games. In Schiller's case I
can't see that he was misrepresenting Euwe deliberately.

I suppose the question is whether 'partial information' is as bad as a
complete dissapearing act in the case of Gulko. It's not as if the Russian
champion was downgraded, but that he never existed! Not only that, but the
indication from Russian sources was a marked one - ie, that there may be
lies. Botvinnik's family was quite ready to sue Averbakh, eg.

Perhaps you might allow other people to evaluate this subject, too,
otherwise you are in the curious position of being witness, advocate, judge
and jury.

And since we are discussing standards of chess writing this may not appear
to the readers here as any entirely fair standard when the someone has had
their books banned.

Phil Innes
---------


I recall a
story about an officer who didn't like a certain sailor. Every few days
he would write in his log "Seaman So-and-so was sober today." This was
literally true, because in fact, the sailor never drank at all. But the
captain made the natural inference from the log, that the sailor was
usually drunk, and had the poor guy severely disciplined. Schiller's
partial information is similarly misleading.

[FiFiela]

Christ! He's back again......

You don't have to leave the debate but you do need to stop saying that
you are leaving the debate and then re-appearing 2,3 or 4 posts later.

Gawd but you're the World Champion of Farewell Tours.

[Nick]

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by Chess One
But in chess there can be a test of the trained model-citizen Hero against
a foreign Barbarian [not his own fault, he is just a pawn in their system].
And there was an enormous decades-long effort to support the model
citizen Hero [literally, one became a 'Hero of the Soviet Union']

The title of 'Hero of the Soviet Union' usually was awarded to
Soviet citizens who had shown exceptional bravery in combat.

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by Chess One
with tight control to any 'affront' to his status - replete with
Western journalists in place who would make the first complaint!

All very true, Phil. However, this does nothing to support Schiller's
claim that Fischer-Spassky 1972 was "a major psychological blow to the
Soviet government." Certainly it was an embarrassment, and it certainly
was a blow to the likes of Taimanov, Petrosian and Spassky, but for it
to qualify as a MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL BLOW TO THE GOVERNMENT, I think it
would have to be shown that it caused the Soviet government to lose its
resolve or change its mind in some important way. What domestic or
foreign policy decisions were affected by the match? Did anyone in
the Politburo or Central Committee say "Well, now that Spassky's lost,
we'd better not invade Afghanistan,

That's not a good 'test case' in terms of chronology.

The USSR invaded (as I recall, the USSR's official position was that
its armed forces were invited by Afghanistan's government to help
restore order) Afghanistan in December 1979. That's more than
seven years after the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match had ended.

Post by Taylor Kingston
and stop funding those African rebels"?

To exactly which 'African rebels' does Taylor Kingston refer?

The USSR supported 'African rebels' who were fighting for their
national independence in Angola and Mozambique from Portugal's
colonial rule. In contrast, US foreign policy was sympathetic
to Portugal's continuing colonial rule in Angola and Mozambique.

The USSR supported 'African rebels' who were fighting against
Ian Smith's racist regime in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

The USSR supported 'African rebels' who were fighting against
apartheid in South Africa. In contrast, the United States
long gave substantial support *in all but name* to the
pro-apartheid regime in South Africa. After apartheid came
to an end, of course, nearly all of the Americans who had
supported apartheid preferred to lie and deny that they
had ever done so.

Why does Taylor Kingston evidently prefer to use the term,
'African rebels', to describe Africans who fought against
European colonial rule or against apartheid?

--Nick

[Jürgen R.]

Post by p***@cs.com
KINGSTON'S MALIGNANT INTENT
NM Taylor Kingston, the man who promoted himself
from 1800 to 2300+ ELO, did indeed lie about what
Eric Schiller wrote.
Now, please notice. NM Kingston writes
something that IS true: Eric ought to have explained
more about Max Euwe's career. It is not enough to
note that the Dutch great was a contender, though the
statement is true as written.
Having said that, Eric did not write, as
viciously alleged by NM Kingston, that Euwe was
NEVER world champion. The point of that posting,
written with evident glee, was to humiliate.
NM Kingston took an INCOMPLETE statement by Eric and
transmogrified it into an absurdity, supposedly but
not actually written by Eric.
Please note: this lousy, low lie exceeds
anything in moral terms that has been alleged by NM
Kingston and his like against NM Schiller. Malignant
intent aforethought is worse than carelessness or, as
was argued, lying by Eric.
NM Kingston has revealed his canker. It is a
character weakness on our part that we are not unhappy
he has done so.
NM Kingston attempts to excuse his lying -- for
that is what he quite deliberately did, knowing full
well what Eric really wrote -- by arguing that I might
accuse the authors of the Oxford Companion To Chess of
truckling to the Soviets if Smyslov and Tal were cited
only as contenders.
I might indeed IF the context so warranted, such
as these same authors deliberately failing to mention
Boris Gulko's status as a refusenik in a reference
book entry! However, in the case of Smyslov and Tal,
I might conclude monumental incompetence instead, if
there were no evident political angle as in the cases
of Gulko, Alburt, Korchnoi, Petrov, Levenfish and
several other entries in the Companion that our NM
Kingston dares not discuss.
To be sure, Eric was not writing a reference
work entry when mentioning Euwe in passing in a
sentence. NM Kingston knows that, and his allusion to
the Companion is a dishonestly false analogy. Eric
was, it appears, writing a brief intro to a game, and
he did not make the egregious error NM Kingston claimed.
Moreover, NM Kingston knew the text of what Eric
wrote, and he deliberately misrepresented it. Our 2300+
Elo man is quite a bill of goods. Quite a leeetle man indeed.
Give me a bumptious, overly excited Sam Sloan any day compared
with a cold, ego-driven bit of cancer such as our NM Kingston, who
apparently has terminated his "indefinite" vacation from this forum.

Again ZE (Zero-Elo) Parr writes many words about little. Nobody gives
a shit about NM (Non-Master) Kingston and PP (Permanent Patzer)
Schiller's stupid books.

[p***@cs.com]

HART'S OUNCE OF DISHONESTY

< Kingston did not claim that Schiller said that Euwe was never world
champion. He said is that this is something you would learn from
Schiller and this is not a stretch at all since it is the logical
inference from Schiller's statement.> -- Vince Hart

Vinnie Hart's attempt to excuse NM Taylor
Kingston's lie about what Eric Schiller really wrote
may stand -- if Mr. Hart will agree-- as emblematic of
the latter's level of intellectual honesty.

Do we agree, Mr Hart?

Mr. Hart argues that NM Kingston didn't claim
that Eric Schiller wrote that Max Euwe was never world
chess champion; he merely wrote something that caused
NM Kingston to learn such is the case.

Mr. Hart would add a literal cast to NM
Kingston's words about learning. So, then, I would add
a literal twist to NM Kingston's claim: can he learn
that which he already knew to be false? If NM
Kingston did not know such to be false, then what does
that say about our NM Kingston?

The truth: NM Kingston transmogrified an
incomplete thought by Eric Schiller into an absurd
error with the object of visiting derision on Mr.
Schiller. That was his dirty purpose.

The vehicle for the purpose was a cold-blooded
lie with malign intent. One figures Mr. Hart knows
such to be the case and is here deliberately
contributing his little ounce of dishonesty to rgcp.

[Vince Hart]

Post by p***@cs.com
The truth: NM Kingston transmogrified an
incomplete thought by Eric Schiller into an absurd
error with the object of visiting derision on Mr.
Schiller. That was his dirty purpose.

"incomplete thought" What a lovely euphemism for ignorance and/or
carelessness.

[Ian Burton]

Post by jr
*I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller: Max Euwe was never chess
world champion.* Taylor Kingston
*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston
What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday!

[p***@cs.com]

<Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan
Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to
winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday!> -- Ian Burton

The Games of Robert J. Fischer by Wade & O'Connell (page 123) claims
that three games were played, but one of the draws is missing: "The
score of this game is not available, but Euwe remembers that the game
followed Botvinnik-Euwe, Leningrad 1934, for some way. Fischer got some
advantage, Euwe pulled off something of a swindle and stood rather
better when the draw was agreed."

More anon.

[Ian Burton]

Post by p***@cs.com
<Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan
Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday!> -- Ian Burton
The Games of Robert J. Fischer by Wade & O'Connell (page 123) claims
that three games were played, but one of the draws is missing: "The
score of this game is not available, but Euwe remembers that the game
followed Botvinnik-Euwe, Leningrad 1934, for some way. Fischer got some
advantage, Euwe pulled off something of a swindle and stood rather
better when the draw was agreed."
More anon.

All very strange. Any third game that was played was not played at the
Manhattan CC. Hans Kmoch, director of the club, was the referee of the
match. No more punctilious a referee has ever existed. There would be no
way in which he would have allowed a score sheet to escape his attention.

[FiFiela]

<<< I resolved a while ago to ignore you, then rejoined the fray when
you
started spouting new nonsense. Obviously that resolution was correct:
you are beyond hope of redemption. Time to ignore you again.>>>

He's back......

[E***@AOL.com]

Post by David Ames
I would appreciate knowing where it is written that Fine spent years on
an ending volume. Although I recall reading differently, I can no
longer find a source.
Fine's BCE is, I believe, modeled after Berger's German-language
endgame book. A player active as Fine was during the 'thirties and up
to the U.S. entry into WWII was familiar with all the important things
that had happened since Berger. It would not have taken him long at
all to rewrite and insert new material into the Berger template. Fine
was a GM when GM was truly a distinction.
From Grandmaster Yuri Averbach's Forward to the revised 2003 edition of

Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings:


"In 1954, when the match USA-USSR was held in New York, I had the
pleasure of making the aquaintance of Reuben Fine. Naturally, our talk
touched upon Basic Chess Endings. He told me that he found the work so
fascinating that he completed it in four months - surely a record
worthy of inclusion in the Guiness Book of World Records. From my own
experience I know that to write such a book would take years."


Anecdotal evidence only, of course. But it seems to me I have read
elsewhere as well that Fine wrote BCE rather quickly, although I cannot
at the moment recall where.

-Geof Strayer

[E***@AOL.com]

Post by David Ames
I would appreciate knowing where it is written that Fine spent years on
an ending volume. Although I recall reading differently, I can no
longer find a source.
Fine's BCE is, I believe, modeled after Berger's German-language
endgame book. A player active as Fine was during the 'thirties and up
to the U.S. entry into WWII was familiar with all the important things
that had happened since Berger. It would not have taken him long at
all to rewrite and insert new material into the Berger template. Fine
was a GM when GM was truly a distinction.
From Grandmaster Yuri Averbach's Forward to the revised 2003 edition of

Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings:


"In 1954, when the match USA-USSR was held in New York, I had the
pleasure of making the aquaintance of Reuben Fine. Naturally, our talk
touched upon Basic Chess Endings. He told me that he found the work so
fascinating that he completed it in four months - surely a record
worthy of inclusion in the Guiness Book of World Records. From my own
experience I know that to write such a book would take years."


Anecdotal evidence only, of course. But it seems to me I have read
elsewhere as well that Fine wrote BCE rather quickly, although I cannot
at the moment recall where.

-Geof Strayer

[E***@AOL.com]

Post by David Ames
I would appreciate knowing where it is written that Fine spent years on
an ending volume. Although I recall reading differently, I can no
longer find a source.
Fine's BCE is, I believe, modeled after Berger's German-language
endgame book. A player active as Fine was during the 'thirties and up
to the U.S. entry into WWII was familiar with all the important things
that had happened since Berger. It would not have taken him long at
all to rewrite and insert new material into the Berger template. Fine
was a GM when GM was truly a distinction.
From Grandmaster Yuri Averbach's Forward to the revised 2003 edition of

Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings:


"In 1954, when the match USA-USSR was held in New York, I had the
pleasure of making the aquaintance of Reuben Fine. Naturally, our talk
touched upon Basic Chess Endings. He told me that he found the work so
fascinating that he completed it in four months - surely a record
worthy of inclusion in the Guiness Book of World Records. From my own
experience I know that to write such a book would take years."


Anecdotal evidence only, of course. But it seems to me I have read
elsewhere as well that Fine wrote BCE rather quickly, although I cannot
at the moment recall where.

-Geof Strayer

[jr]

"Yes, I agree that Pandolfini is only marginally better than Schiller.
They are both awful hacks." avitar

But the difference is ChessCafe blacklists Schiller and stocks
Pandolfini whose latest effort THE Q&A WAY IN CHESS (2005) is merely a
reprint of his column since 1999 in the Cafe.

Needless to add, Hanon Russell is mentioned rather graciously in the
introduction to this tripe.

According to Kingston, of course, there is no bias in the reviews and
no banning of authors -- though he fails to mention the omission of
fine books cited by Parr that were not written by Schiller.

[p***@cs.com]

SPINRAD'S QUESTION.

Let us limit the discussion. Do you feel that it is appropriate to not stock the work of a writer because the writer's output is consistently of poor quality?> -- Jeremy Spinrod

I have no philosophy of what should and should not be stocked.

The proprietor has the right, to my mind, to ban any author he
wishes. We authors have the right to raise holy heck about it.

If I were running the book and equipment business, I would look
first at the category of books that sell: opening volumes and
instructional works.
Stock those! Next comes biographical games collections and memoirs, if
memory serves. Next comes tournament books, which usually sell poorly.
Finally, you get down to the problems and chess variant books, which
generally sell poorly.

You use commonsense: order more books on
Morphy than on Milko Bobotsov, though I personally
would like to see a collection of his best games.

As for banning books by an author notorious for
this or that, I know of no such person, including
Reshevsky who wrote a hideous potboiler on Great
Chess Upsets. My recollection is that the same game
was repeated in the book.

You don't ban Alekhine because in the very same book he offered
conflict evaluations of the same position -- let alone, as charged
against Schiller, of offering different views in different books.

What is a plagiarized chess book? One that reprints games from
the Informant with similar notes, say, on a given opening? Is it
plagiarism, for
example, to write a work on the Smith-Morra Gambit by culling a lot of
games from databases and adding notes from other sources? If so, then
the contents of
nearly every work in chess are highly plagiarized. It is said that
someone put out a work on combinations that was nearly a reprint of
Fred Reinfeld's 1001 Chess Combinations or 1001 Checkmates -- or
whatever the title was. But what about Reinfeld, he got the positions
from the games of others. He went net fishing and put them without
comment in a book, giving the solutions at the end.

Or what about Reinfeld's all-time bestseller,
Chess in a Nutshell. All he did was copy down some
rules and add a few rudimentary explanations. At one
level, it is a NOTHING book; and nearly anything
written by Eric is far meatier. Should Chess in a
Nutshell be banned by ChessCafe?

I don't know.

In lieu of being unable to answer such questions,
my view is that if an chess author is selling well or
has done something of interest, he should not be
banned or blacklisted. One may chose NOT to stock,
say, Jimmy Liew's selection of Malaysian games, but
that would strictly be for sales reasons.

[p***@cs.com]

REPRINTING MATERIAL

Post by jr
But the difference is ChessCafe blacklists Schiller

and stocks Pandolfini whose latest effort THE Q&A WAY IN CHESS (2005)
is merely a reprint of his column since 1999 in the Cafe.> -- jr

My point would be a bit different.

I see nothing wrong with Bruce Pandolfini putting out
a collection of his Q&A articles in ChessCafe.
Larry Evans did this kind of thing with his Chess
Catechism, and Al Horowitz put out instructional books
containing his old chess movies from the pages of
Chess Review. Some readers want this kind of thing
for a record or a remembrance of what they read in
magazines or newspapers.

Still, yes, IF one is going to attack Eric
Schiller for compiling data in books or repeating some
of his previous work (one of the charges retailed by
the Winter-Cafe lads) then one could attack a
Pandolfini or an Evans for offering readers material
they already published elsewhere in a highly
visible forum.

[Matt Nemmers]

Post by p***@cs.com
REPRINTING MATERIAL

Post by jr
But the difference is ChessCafe blacklists Schiller

and stocks Pandolfini whose latest effort THE Q&A WAY IN CHESS (2005)
is merely a reprint of his column since 1999 in the Cafe.> -- jr
My point would be a bit different.

Wait....wasn't that *your* point?

[Louis Blair]

_
"As Steinitz wrote about authors like Schiller and
Pandolfini, the question of 'who is he among
chessplayers?' and 'what did he learn before
he determined to teach?' is rather important."
_
Is it appropriate to compare Schiller and Pandolfini?
My impression is that, for the most part, the target
audience for a Pandolfini book is quite different from
that of a Schiller book. It appears that Pandolfini
books are primarily for the player who is just barely
past the stage of learning the rules, whereas Schiller
books (with, for example, long expositions on specific
openings) appear to be for players who are past this
stage.
_
"It has a bit of a reputation as a beginner's
endgame book, but it contains a great
deal of information useful to the intermediate
player as well. ... definitely a good choice for
any player below expert level, and affordable too,
listing at $12 U.S." - S. Evan Kreider on
Pandolfini's Endgame Course
_
I don't know that I would agree with S. Evan Kreider
about B and A players, but I think his comment is
plausible for E and maybe D and C. On the other
hand, when it comes to Schiller and Evans, we see:
_
"For those who believe in what Schiller has
to say about endgames, I have a little tip:
Good luck!" - Carsten Hansen (August 2000)
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen15.txt
_
"I enjoyed the puzzles, but I do not feel
I learned from them as there was no pattern
to them. ... I would recommend reading Winning
Chess Endgames by Yasser Seirawan and then,
after they are comfortable with the material,
having a go at this puzzle book to hone in
the skills." - Andy Howie on Chess Endgame
Quiz by GM Evans
_
Compare this with comments about other books
with approximately the same target audience:
_
"excellent" - Jeremy Silman on Chess Endgame
Training by Rosen
_
"a relatively slender but quite useful work ...
more than enough for most players below 2200."
- John Donaldson on Chess Endings Made Simple by
Snape
_
"Emms does his usual excellent job ... I like this
book a lot" - John Watson on The Survival Guide to
Rook Endings by Emms

[Louis Blair]

[Schiller is] not my favorite author (Chernev, Evans
and Fine are) but some of his books have taught me
a lot about chess.

_
Can "jr" give us some specifics about what he learned
and from which Schiller books he learned "a lot"?

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by Louis Blair
Can "jr" give us some specifics about what he learned
and from which Schiller books he learned "a lot"?

I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller:

Max Euwe was never chess world champion.

Tarrasch played a world title match with Lasker in 1916.

The moves ...Qd8-c7, ...Nb8-c6, and ...d7-d6 all reinforce control of
the square d5.

Fischer won the 1962 Interzonal in 1958.

Fischer was stripped of his world champion title by FIDE.

In a game with Efim Geller, Fischer defeated Mikhail Tal.

Petrosian won the world title in 1966 and held it for three years.

After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd1 exd5,
beginners are likely to play 7.Qe5+.

In Korchnoi-Rodriguez, Rome 1981, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5
4.cxd4 cxd5 5.Qa4+ Bd7 6.Qxd4 exd5 7.Qxd5 Nc6 8.e3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Bc5 10.Nf3
Qe7 11.a3 0-0-0 12.Qc2 Kb8 13.b4, the correct response was 13...Bb6,
but play proceeded 13...g4 14.bxc5 gxf3.

In Fischer-Spassky, world title match 1972, game 6 (1-0, 41), winning
with the black pieces added psychological value to Fischer's victory.

Botvinnik held the world title off and on from 1948 to 1966.

In Fischer-Stein, Sousse Interzonal 1967, after 26...Nd3 27.Rd1 Nxc1
White would have had a lost game.

The 1957 US Open was held in New Jersey.

FIDE still conducts Candidate Matches on a 3-year cycle.

Resignation and forfeiture are the same thing.

Need I add that all of the above are untrue? I suppose I might have
learned more from Schiller, but I have read only two of his books in
their entirety. BTW, in case it is not obvious, in the
Korchnoi-Rodriguez game as given by Schiller, 13...g4 is impossible.
Black actually played not 12...Kb8 but 12...g5, which is a definite
mistake. After 12...Kb8 13.b4 the best move is not 13...Bb6 but
13...Nd4!. As for Fischer-Stein, readers can look that up in their
databases and analyze the given variation.

[Nick]

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by Louis Blair
Can "jr" give us some specifics about what he learned
and from which Schiller books he learned "a lot"?

I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind,
Max Euwe was never chess world champion.

As far as I can recall, Taylor Kingston has cited a statement
by Eric Schiller in which Max Euwe was described as a player
who had been a contender for the world chess championship.

(I suppose that Taylor Kingston can cite the exact Eric Schiller
quotation again if it's needed for convenient reference here.)

Eric Schiller's statement is true *as far as it goes*, but
it could have the misleading implication that Max Euwe never
had succeeded in becoming the world champion of chess.

Like many players, I know enough about chess history *not*
to have been misled by Eric Schiller's characteristically
slipshod writing. Unfortunately, some more ignorant readers
could have inferred from Eric Schiller's statement that
"Max Euwe was never chess world champion" (to quote Taylor
Kingston). Given that more ignorant readers tend to buy
Eric Schiller's chess books in the first place, his
statement about Max Euwe is bad (misleading) enough.

But I have to say that it's *not* so bad as Eric Schiller
writing *directly and explicitly* that 'Max Euwe was never
chess world champion' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
Is there any evidence that Eric Schiller ever has written
*directly and explicitly* that 'Max Euwe was never chess
world champion' (to quote Taylor Kingston)?

So it's fair enough for Taylor Kingston to criticise
Eric Schiller for writing sloppily and misleading his
readers (or, at least, his more ignorant readers).
But it seems rather unfair, as far as I can tell, to
insinuate that Eric Schiller has made the direct false
assertion that 'Max Euwe was never chess world champion'.

As far as I know, Eric Schiller (who has not claimed to
be a 'chess historian') often has been inaccurate when
mentioning 'facts' about chess history. But I suspect
that even Eric Schiller *did* know that Euwe defeated
Alekhine to win the world chess championship. In my
view, Eric Schiller's statement about Max Euwe was
*not* written on account of his ignorance of Euwe having
been the world champion or on account of Schiller's
*intent* (What would he have to gain?) to mislead readers.
It was written on account of Eric Schiller's evidently
irremediable sloppiness in writing about chess.

*If* a rec.games.chess.* reader who was ignorant of
what I have just written (above) had come across
Taylor Kingston's statement that he has 'learned'
(sarcasm intended by TK) from Eric Schiller that
"Max Euwe never was chess world champion", then would
that 'innocent' reader be more likely to conclude,
*based only on what Taylor Kingston has written in
this thread*, that Eric Schiller had made that comment
about Euwe *explicitly or only by an implication*?

I have no objection to Taylor Kingston's citing factual
errors in Eric Schiller's books. I have no objection
to Taylor Kingston writing critical reviews (though
I may not necessarily agree completely with them) of
Eric Schiller's books. But I do have significant
criticisms about Taylor Kingston's sense of fairness
on many issues because he has shown that he's ready to
exaggerate, to distort, and worse (in my observation)
in the service of his polemical purposes. Of course,
Taylor Kingston's far from the only writer in RGC*
who does that.

If Taylor Kingston had written that Eric Schiller
wrote a statement *implying rather than asserting*
that "Max Euwe was never chess world champion", then
I would have slightly more respect for Taylor Kingston's
sense of fairness.

Post by Taylor Kingston
Tarrasch played a world title match with Lasker in 1916.

Perhaps all records of it were lost during the Great War? :-)

Post by Taylor Kingston
The moves ...Qd8-c7, ...Nb8-c6, and ...d7-d6
all reinforce control of the square d5.

Evidently, 'd5' was a typo for 'e5'.

I concur with many of Taylor Kingston's criticisms of what
Eric Schiller has written about chess. Yet I also have the
impression that Taylor Kingston has not always been completely
fair to Eric Schiller as a chess writer or as a human being.

--Nick

[Louis Blair]

The memoir that Arnold Denker and I wrote, though
in print and though winning the ACF and Cramer book
of the year award in 1996, is also banned.

_
"Agreed, it's a good book. The $39.95 price (for a
paperback on Amazon, yet) might be a stumbling
block. Why so high? The copy I bought new about
8-10 years ago was only $19.95, full retail." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Oct 2005 13:38:30 -0700)

[Nick]

Post by p***@cs.com
PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES
We note that NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated
but self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO electrode, could not
recollect his own rating within 500 points, which was
one of the sleaziest episodes on this site in recent
years. NM Kingston told us a lot about himself with
that ego-driven lie.
Then NM Kingston told us that we was leaving "indefinitely."
But he hung around and around and around. He was just gasifying.
Now NM Kingston blames Eric
Schiller, the author of dozens of books, for having
forgotten analysis. Keres forgot adjournment
analysis, and Gligoric played into a line of the
Exchange Ruy against Fischer, having recommended
Fischer's line himself in earlier analysis! Botvinnik
overlooked a one-mover in analysis of a Gruenfeld that
gave Bobby a pawn in their 1962 game at Varna. Mieses
overlooked mate in one in some of his analysis.
Zukertort played into the same opening trap twice!
Rubinstein, too, if memory serves.
How refreshing a Ray Keene is when compared
with a NM Kingston or an Edward Winter. In his Chess Life
coverage of the second Spassky-Korchnoi match, Keene condemned
a French line for white, which Spassky then improved
upon dramatically later on. He wrote, if memory
serves, that his earlier note looked "pretty sick" at
this point. It was honest, and the reader appreciated
watching the dialectic within a grandmaster's mind as
he searched for truth. Yes, Keene should not have
been so categorical earlier, but he was speaking his mind.
So, too, with Eric Schiller. If he does not
feel able to evaluate a position, he says so. If he
has an idea, he gives it to us. And yes, he cannot
remember everything he has written, any more than a
much less prolific Gligoric could do.
On the subject of honesty, Eric Schiller may
once have been an 1800-rated player, but I doubt that
he ever lied in the ratty style of NM Kingston at that
time that he was a 2300+ ELO powerhouse. True,
Eric later reached 2300+ or thereabouts in his ELO.

According to the ChessBase Player Encyclopedia,
FM Eric Schiller's peak rating was 2270 FIDE in 1988.

Given that he *did* become a FM, Eric Schiller could
have achieved a peak of 2300+ FIDE at some moment
between the publications of the FIDE ratings lists.
Does any reader here know more details about that?

Today, Eric Schiller's rated 2194 FIDE and 2216 USCF.

--Nick

Post by p***@cs.com
Knowing Eric, however, he has a puckish sense
of humor. Perhaps he will appear here and tell us
that he is only an 1800-rated player.
Second thought, no. "Sandbagger!" the likes of
a NM Kingston would then holler.
And so it goes.

[p***@cs.com]

WHO'S CLOSER TO THE MARK?

<Given that he *did* become a FM, Eric Schiller could
have achieved a peak of 2300+ FIDE at some moment
between the publications of the FIDE ratings lists.
Does any reader here know more details about that?> -- Nick

I wrote that Eric Schiller was in the "region"
of 2300 or 2300+ "thereabouts." Nick Bourbaki
says he peaked at 2270, though possibly went over 2300
in performance ratings because he has the FM title.
If he went over, then I submit that my description
would be spot on.

I submit, in any event, that my description of
Eric's playing strength was largely accurate.
It certainly comes closer to the mark than NM
Taylor Kingston, our 1800-rated guy, who claimed to be
2300-plus. One might argue that NM Kingston has won
the USCF Ultimate Unsandbagger Award.

REQUEST TO FM SCHILLER: could you humor us and
drop by here and claim to be an 1800-rated player, if
only to prompt NM Kingston to begin screaming that you
are a self-declared sandbagger? Eric: it is
undoutedly a character flaw, but I really am curious
to see how low NM Kingston will sink in his advocacy.

[Nick]

Post by p***@cs.com
WHO'S CLOSER TO THE MARK?

Larry Parr snipped my previous sentence, in which I
cited the ChessBase Player Encyclopedia, which stated
that FM Eric Schiller has a peak FIDE rating of 2270.

Post by p***@cs.com
Given that he *did* become a FM, Eric Schiller could
have achieved a peak of 2300+ FIDE at some moment
between the publications of the FIDE ratings lists.
Does any reader here know more details about that?
--Nick

That was a sincere request for information.

Post by p***@cs.com
I wrote that Eric Schiller was in the "region"
of 2300 or 2300+ "thereabouts."

I knew that.

Post by p***@cs.com
Nick Bourbaki says he peaked at 2270,

The ChessBase Player Encyclopedia stated that.

Post by p***@cs.com
though possibly went over 2300 in performance
ratings because he has the FM title.
If he went over, then I submit that my
description would be spot on.
I submit, in any event, that my description of
Eric's playing strength was largely accurate.

Larry Parr has *jumped to the wrong conclusion*
that I was disputing what he wrote *in this case*.
On the contrary, I cited the ChessBase Player
Encyclopedia because it substantially corroborated
what Larry Parr wrote. My previous post was *not*
written as a criticism of Larry Parr, though he
evidently misconstrued it as a criticism of him.

Does Larry Parr assume that I always must criticise
everything that he writes simply because he writes it?
If so, then Larry Parr is wrong again about me.

--Nick

Post by p***@cs.com
It certainly comes closer to the mark than NM
Taylor Kingston, our 1800-rated guy, who claimed to be
2300-plus. One might argue that NM Kingston has won
the USCF Ultimate Unsandbagger Award.
REQUEST TO FM SCHILLER: could you humor us and
drop by here and claim to be an 1800-rated player, if
only to prompt NM Kingston to begin screaming that you
are a self-declared sandbagger? Eric: it is
undoutedly a character flaw, but I really am curious
to see how low NM Kingston will sink in his advocacy.

[p***@cs.com]

DULCET ACCORD

<I cited the ChessBase Player Encyclopedia because it substantially
corroborated
what Larry Parr wrote.> -- Nick

Peace -- perhaps peace at any price! I figured
that Nick Bourbaki was agreeing with me. My comments
were by way of preempting possible obfuscations from
other quarters.

Mr. Bourbaki and I are in dulcet accord on this point.

[Sam Sloan]

On 16 Oct 2005 14:47:49 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"

Post by Taylor Kingston

Post by Duncan Oxley
So why belabor us with all the trivial
mistakes? Common man isn't it time to let this one die out?

Believe me, I have posted only a small percentage of Schiller's
"mistakes," and in the current situation I don't consider them trivial.
I want the public to be aware that those "crusading" on Schiller's
behalf are either ignorant or dishonest. As I said in another post,
Schiller's advocates are like someone pretending to be a nutritionist,
and asking "Should we not examine whether dirt is a food? Why does this
grocery not sell dirt? What sinister cabal is denying us our right to
eat dirt?"
But no, I will not post every Schiller gaffe here. Life is too short,
and Google may not have enough disk space.

Taylor Kingston had posted dozens of long screeds about a single error
Eric Schiller made in 1987 where Schiller thought that Westerinin's
book entitled Nc6! was about the Nimzovitch Defense whereas it was
really about the Nc6 variation of the King's Indian Defense.

Knowing that Taylor Kingston attacks every error he can find in
anything by Schiller, tells that in the last 18 years since 1987, Eric
Schiller has not made a single error, because if he had made another
error, Kingston would be telling us about that, rather than repeating
over and over again complaints about this one 1987 error.

Sam Sloan

[Joshua Houk]

Post by Taylor Kingston
In the 1987 edition of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (the same book
in which Schiller recommended the non-existent book), [...]

Irony, oh, the irony...