|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > October 2005 > Book sales, Schiller, and USCF
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]Pages: Pages: 1 [2]
| Author |
Book sales, Schiller, and USCF
|
|
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
| ENEMY OF THE USCF?
quote:
>Another typical Louis Blair non-answer.
You have introduced the possibility that
enemies are to have their works excluded
from sale, but are willing to describe the
system solely with respect to one
person. To have any meaningful
discussion of your system of retribution
it is necessary to understand how
the rules apply in other potential cases.
The quotes (snipped) to which you
object seem to be largely simple
facts but do reveal a mild tone
of contempt. For the record, I do
not agree with Schiller's comments
on the USCF's minor rules
variations, but it's beyond absurd that
a mere expression of opinion would be
viewed as a factor in a decision
not to stock an author's books.> -- David Kane
David Kane is ripping Louie Blair a new one.
Louie asserts savage attacks without producing them,
and Mr. Kane does not let him off the hook.
Please see my own thread with Louie in which he
cannot bring himself to admit that he did not ask the
question he meant to ask.
The poor old man.
| |
| wthyde@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
| avital.pilpel@gmail.com writes:
quote:
>
> But that is the precisely the difference between amazon and the
> chesscafe.
To start with, my comment was provoked by your odd accusation
leveled at chessville. As you did not respond to that, I take
it that subthread is over. But for fun, I will take the devil's
advocate position re USCF in what follows.
Amazon is a GENERAL bookstore that will sell all books. It
quote:
> therefore does not mislead anybody who goes there into thinking they
> would not sell worthless books. But the USCF's bookstore can reasonably
> assume the audience would be mostly chessplayers, and especially, USCF
> members. It has more duties towards its customers than amazon has
> toward theirs.
Everything depends on what the USCF equipment operation is for.
If it is purely to raise money, it should sell what people
want to buy, and if they want Schiller's books, those should
be stocked. If it is purely to provide a service, then
again it should stock what the customers want.
If it has an educational purpose, then indeed some books will not
be stocked, but in that case the USCF must have an open process by
approval is granted or withheld, and an appeals process so that
authors may contest an arbitrary decision.
quote:
> A USCF member going to shop at the USCF's bookstore KNOWS that the USCF
> does not sell all books and not even all chess books.
True of all stores. But it does not follow that the selection
criterion must be one you personally approve.
He assumes at the
quote:
> very least that the USCF will not, knowingly, sell him what it knows to
> be worthless junk, chesswise-speaking.
How does "it" know this? Who makes the decision and how can
they be called to account for it - what recourse would John
Nunn, for example, have if out of pure prejudice his books
were not sold?
quote:
> I see you are from Duke. Let us take Duke's university bookstore. Does
> it sell all books? No. Being a university bookstore, it is dedicated
> (or should be) to serving the educational interests of the students.
> Suppose that it threw out the "Classics" section and "course packets"
> stalls
I forget the name of this logical fallacy, but you are assigning
to me a position I never took, that USCF should *not* sell
good books. There is room for both Eric Schiller and David
Bronstein.
quote:
>
> But I am not talking about not selling every author I dislike (or the
> list would be far longer). I reserve it to these two or three worst
> offenders, known throughout the chess community as writing virtually
> NOTHING BUT worthless junk.
One of my two Schiller books was not worthless. Not great,
but for $3.95 it gave reasonable value.
I know some class players who like Pandolfini's work. They
would *strongly* disagree with your claim that they are
"worthless junk". I should know, I've been encouraging
them to get better books. So who makes the decision,
you, or the people who want to spend the money?
The USCF should sell what its membership wants to buy. It's
perhaps a pity the membership is so keen on Schiller and
Pandolfini, but there it is. USCF can provide book reviews,
and if people still want to buy "Winning with The Byrd Opening
(1f3)" and similar error-laden volumes despite the bad reviews,
let them.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
| I wrote (12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700):
quote:
> I have indicated where the savage attack is - the
> rule book. I encourage those who are interested to
> look and form their own opinion.
_
David Kane wrote (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:02:09 -0700):
quote:
> No.
_
David Kane has an odd habit of writing "No"
after something I wrote, and then following
up with comments that do not contradict
the remark of mine to which he is responding.
Here, the additional comments are:
quote:
> You've given a series of quotes, none of
> which are remotely "savage" or indicate any
> general hostility to the USCF.
_
I can only suggest that others read the
quotes and, if necessary, the book (which
I have indeed identified as the location of
the savage attack) and form an opinion of
their own.
_
I wrote (12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700):
quote:
> The book encourages CEA involvement and
> discourages USCF involvement. If potential
> USCF members are persuaded to go for CEA
> instead, this is not good for USCF.
_
David Kane wrote (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:02:09 -0700):
quote:
> The mission of the USCF is "to extend the role
> of chess in American society". If the CEA could
> perform a function needed by the chess community
> in a manner superior to the USCF doing it itself,
> then this furthers the USCF mission.
_
If the USCF looses enough members and goes out
of business, this does not further the USCF mission.
(Unless one believes that chess is better off
without the USCF. I do not think the USCF is
obliged to promote those who seek to discourage
USCF membership.)
_
I wrote (12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700):
quote:
> I encourage those who are interested to look at
> the book and decide for themselves [whether or
> not the book was directed at non-USCF members].
_
David Kane wrote (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:02:09 -0700):
quote:
> It is directed at chessplayers.
_
Awhile ago, I asked if David Kane had read the book.
I still have not seen an answer to that. For what it
is worth:
_
"Schiller agrees that [the USCF] should not
[sell the Rules book]." - Sam Sloan (20 Sep 2005
18:43:21 -0700)
_
I wrote (12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700):
quote:
> If potential USCF members are persuaded
> to go for CEA instead, this is not good for USCF.
_
David Kane wrote (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:02:09 -0700):
quote:
> Untrue. See above. Do CEA rules even
> forbid USCF members to join? Are you
> aware that there are many chess organizations
> in the US and around the world? Is
> someone playing on ICC, using rules slightly
> different than those of the USCF,
> also automatically an "enemy"?
_
I think perhaps, that David Kane missed the
word, "instead", in my sentence. In my
opinion, the book discourages USCF
membership.
_
I wrote (12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700):
quote:
> The book attacks the motives of those involved
> with USCF tournament organization. It adopts
> a contemptuous tone. It is indicated that CEA
> is better. Readers who "find" themselves "playing
> in [a USCF event]" are encouraged to pester the
> tournament director about rules.
_
David Kane wrote (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:02:09 -0700):
quote:
> No. Actually the book gives the rules to the
> game of chess. And in doing so, makes reference
> to different variations of the game - as any book
> with that subject would be expected to.
_
David Kane writes "No", but his two sentences
following "No" do not contradict what I wrote.
Again, did he read the book. Which of my
sentences does he dispute?
_
David Kane wrote (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:52:05 -0700):
quote:
> Let's hear the general theory as to what "author
> actions" elevate someone to "enemy" status,
> which then factors into the decision to stock books.
_
I wrote (12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700):
quote:
> I think the notion of defining "enemy" is a red
> herring. It is not necessary for the idea under
> discussion. The central idea is considering the
> potential for damage resulting from the promotion
> of the author of a "sloppily constructed" book.
> One can think about damage potential without
> making categories and classification systems
> (in somewhat the same way that one can think
> about the height of a player without making a
> definition of tall). I suspect that much of
> business is done without a general theory.
_
David Kane wrote (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:02:09 -0700):
quote:
> Another typical Louis Blair non-answer.
> You have introduced the possibility that
> enemies are to have their works excluded
> from sale, but are willing to describe the
> system solely with respect to one
> person. To have any meaningful
> discussion of your system of retribution
> it is necessary to understand how
> the rules apply in other potential cases.
_
I am not proposing a "system of retribution".
If David Kane asks me for money, and I
choose not to give it to him, that is not
retribution. It is simply me not choosing
to do him a favor. Nobody has a right to
have something sold by USCF. Why
should the USCF be obliged to make
formal rules about who it chooses to
promote? Are businesses in general,
so obliged?
_
Here are the quotes from the book by Eric
Schiller and Richard Peterson, called, The
Official Rules of Chess:
_
"While there are still a few organizations that adopt their own
set of rules, following the rules as presented here will almost
always keep a player out of trouble. A few exceptions
involving the unorthodox rules of the United States Chess
Federation are ..." - B
_
"The following are the standard rules of chess as applied in
World Championship competition. ... These rules conform in
most part to those of the world chess federation (FIDE), but
differ significantly from those found in American tournaments
conducted under the auspices of the United States Chess
Federation." - B
_
"This sort of nonsense is confined, thankfully, to American
tournaments. The justification for this is that it allows players
with busy schedules to compete in tournaments, but in reality
that is only a way of saying that organizers can take in more
entry fees. In some sanctioned USCF tournaments, ..." - B
_
"Most American tournaments are [designed to pack as much
chess as possible into a short period of time]" - B
_
"In most of the world, chess sets, boards and clocks are
provided, though in America, players are often required
to bring their own equipment." - B
_
"Some tournaments, especially in America, have large prizes
available to low rated players, ... This is basically done to
justify high entry fees and encourage low rated players to
participate, but there is a dark side ..." - B
_
"In the United States Chess Federation, no distinction is
made between arbiters and tournament directors, but in
most of the world, ..." - B
_
"Early in 1999, several well-known coaches met to address
the needs of the scholastic chess community so that the
chessplayers of the 21st century would be able to receive
assistance without the onerous burden of a dues structure, ..." - A
_
"... under CEA rules the arbiter is a part of the game. Except
for the USCF tournaments, this is the rule in the rest of the
world." - A
_
"... the authors have a rather low opinion of [USCF] specific
rules, ..." - B
_
"... the USCF rules ... are designed primarily for the benefit
of organizers, not players. ... the idea is to minimize the need
for arbiters and thus maximize revenues for event organizers.
These provincial rules are not in force anywhere else in the
known universe, ..." - B
_
"... the absurdity of some of these [USCF] rules ..." - B
_
"The USCF excuses these strange rules by stating that in
large tournaments it is impossible (read: too expensive) to ..." - B
_
"... the rest of the world knows ..." - B
_
"Since only a small percentage of American chessplayers
actually play in USCF events, the authors find no need
to discuss these rules in detail. ... should you find yourself
playing in such an event you should ask the tournament
director to explain the differences between the USCF rules
and the standard (international) rules." - B
_
Quotes marked with an A are from Section Three (Rules
for Scholastic Chess) and Section Thirteen (The Chess
Education Association). Quotes marked with a B are
not from Chapter Three and Chapter Thirteen. I mention
this because Richard Peterson has written:
quote:
> I take credit for the sections on scholastic chess and the
> CEA. The balance of the book was written by Mr. Schiller
> and the opinions therein are his.
| |
| David Kane 2005-10-13, 11:31 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129243513.662809.41450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> _
> I am not proposing a "system of retribution".
> If David Kane asks me for money, and I
> choose not to give it to him, that is not
> retribution. It is simply me not choosing
> to do him a favor. Nobody has a right to
> have something sold by USCF. Why
> should the USCF be obliged to make
> formal rules about who it chooses to
> promote? Are businesses in general,
> so obliged?
The streak of non-answers continues.
I have never suggested that rules need be
formal or that anyone has a right to have
something sold by the USCF. But you have
stated that an author's expression of
disagreement over minor rules variations
is a factor to consider when deciding to
stock the author's books. But over and
over you refuse to elaborate on the
very point that you alone made, and
which I have repeatedly challenged.
..
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-10-14, 2:31 am |
| Congratulations Louis! You have succeeded in making Parr's arguments
look good.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 2:31 am |
| David Kane wrote (Thu, 13 Oct 2005
16:41:03 -0700):
quote:
> The streak of non-answers continues.
_
I have not seen David Kane tell us whether or
not he has read the rule book, although he has
been asked more than once.
_
David Kane wrote (Thu, 13 Oct 2005
16:41:03 -0700):
quote:
> I have never suggested that rules need be
> formal
_
Very well. I will strike the word, "formal"
from my comments:
_
I am not proposing a "system of retribution".
If David Kane asks me for money, and I
choose not to give it to him, that is not
retribution. It is simply me not choosing
to do him a favor. Nobody has a right to
have something sold by USCF. Why
should the USCF be obliged to make
rules about who it chooses to promote?
Are businesses in general, so obliged?
_
David Kane wrote (Thu, 13 Oct 2005
16:41:03 -0700):
quote:
> I have never suggested ... that anyone has
> a right to have something sold by the USCF.
_
The observation was not made to indicate
anything about what David Kane had suggested.
It was intended to emphasize that we are not
talking about the possibility of taking from
an author anything to which he has a right.
We are talking about a USCF decision on
whether or not to promote someone.
_
David Kane wrote (Thu, 13 Oct 2005
16:41:03 -0700):
quote:
> But you have stated that an author's
> expression of disagreement over minor
> rules variations is a factor to consider
> when deciding to stock the author's books.
_
This is false. David Kane has no quote to
back it up.
_
David Kane wrote (Thu, 13 Oct 2005
16:41:03 -0700):
quote:
> But over and over you refuse to elaborate
> on the very point that you alone made, and
> which I have repeatedly challenged.
_
A request for elaboration is too vague for
me to have a clear idea about what
information David Kane wants. I am not
going to spend lots of time elaborating at
random, only to have David Kane call it
another non-answer.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 5:36 am |
| Larry Parr wrote (12 Oct 2005 23:09:03 -0700):
quote:
> THE PARSER SNIPS
_
"name-calling and mud-slinging, I eschew
that kind of stuff" - Larry Parr (7 Jun 2005
20:00:59 -0700)
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Oct 2005 23:09:03 -0700):
quote:
> Louie Blair snipped most of what I wrote about
> to his weakminded queries in an attempt at a
> response.
_
Larry Parr snips nearly all of what I wrote and
substitutes his untrustworthy rewrites. I tried
to address Larry Parr's main issue. Larry Parr
on the other hand ignores the issue of his
repeated and groundless 'as'-and-'like' dishonesty
charge. (Details below.)
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Oct 2005 23:09:03 -0700):
quote:
> He wrote that he was speaking in common
> parlance when asking whether I expected himself
> and others like himself to believe that I would not
> sling mud in the hope that some sticks.
_
"Himself and others like himself" is Larry Parr's
type of phrase, not mine. This is the sort of thing
that I wrote:
_
"I asked if Larry Parr was expecting us to believe
that he himself would not use this tactic?"
(10 Oct 2005 19:40:20 -0700)
_
Larry Parr's rewrite, of course, obscures the idiom
that I was using.
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Oct 2005 23:09:03 -0700):
quote:
> He actually meant to ask -- he was "trying to"
> ask -- whether I claimed to be innocent of such
> a practice.
_
And, as I mentioned before, I was simultaneously
trying to express skepticism about Larry Parr's
innocence.
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Oct 2005 23:09:03 -0700):
quote:
> Nonsense. The man lies arrantly and ever so
> arrogantly.
_
Assertion is not evidence.
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Oct 2005 23:09:03 -0700):
quote:
> Louie Blair may be innocent of the distinction
> between "whether " and "if" and he may never
> have heard of the subjunctive mood, but on
> several occasions he asked my views about
> his views and the views of others like him.
_
No. I asked if (sic) Larry Parr was (sic) expecting
us to believe that he himself would not use the tactic
of repeating the same charge over and over again,
in the hope that mud will stick.
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Oct 2005 23:09:03 -0700):
quote:
> It was another of his patented weakminded queries.
>_
> I wonder -- though not very hard -- why the Parser
> cannot admit to asking yet another weakminded
> query
_
At this point, I can certainly agree that the phrasing
that I chose was not the best for my purpose.
_
Larry Parr wrote (12 Oct 2005 23:09:03 -0700):
quote:
> I wonder -- though not very hard -- why the Parser
> cannot ... ask instead a straightforward question
> such as: "Larry Parr, do you toss mud at people
> in the hope that some sticks?"
_
I would have thought by now that it was clear what
I was getting at, but, if it will help Larry Parr to
focus on what I consider to be the main issue:
_
Larry Parr, do you attack without a shred of
evidence in the hope that mud will stick?
_
Here is an incident for Larry Parr to consider:
_
"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.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 5:36 am |
| Here are some quotes from the book by Eric
Schiller and Richard Peterson, called, The
Official Rules of Chess:
_
"While there are still a few organizations that adopt their own
set of rules, following the rules as presented here will almost
always keep a player out of trouble. A few exceptions
involving the unorthodox rules of the United States Chess
Federation are ..." - B
_
"The following are the standard rules of chess as applied in
World Championship competition. ... These rules conform in
most part to those of the world chess federation (FIDE), but
differ significantly from those found in American tournaments
conducted under the auspices of the United States Chess
Federation." - B
_
"This sort of nonsense is confined, thankfully, to American
tournaments. The justification for this is that it allows players
with busy schedules to compete in tournaments, but in reality
that is only a way of saying that organizers can take in more
entry fees. In some sanctioned USCF tournaments, ..." - B
_
"Most American tournaments are [designed to pack as much
chess as possible into a short period of time]" - B
_
"In most of the world, chess sets, boards and clocks are
provided, though in America, players are often required
to bring their own equipment." - B
_
"Some tournaments, especially in America, have large prizes
available to low rated players, ... This is basically done to
justify high entry fees and encourage low rated players to
participate, but there is a dark side ..." - B
_
"In the United States Chess Federation, no distinction is
made between arbiters and tournament directors, but in
most of the world, ..." - B
_
"Early in 1999, several well-known coaches met to address
the needs of the scholastic chess community so that the
chessplayers of the 21st century would be able to receive
assistance without the onerous burden of a dues structure, ..." - A
_
"... under CEA rules the arbiter is a part of the game. Except
for the USCF tournaments, this is the rule in the rest of the
world." - A
_
"... the authors have a rather low opinion of [USCF] specific
rules, ..." - B
_
"... the USCF rules ... are designed primarily for the benefit
of organizers, not players. ... the idea is to minimize the need
for arbiters and thus maximize revenues for event organizers.
These provincial rules are not in force anywhere else in the
known universe, ..." - B
_
"... the absurdity of some of these [USCF] rules ..." - B
_
"The USCF excuses these strange rules by stating that in
large tournaments it is impossible (read: too expensive) to ..." - B
_
"... the rest of the world knows ..." - B
_
"Since only a small percentage of American chessplayers
actually play in USCF events, the authors find no need
to discuss these rules in detail. ... should you find yourself
playing in such an event you should ask the tournament
director to explain the differences between the USCF rules
and the standard (international) rules." - B
_
Quotes marked with an A are from Section Three (Rules
for Scholastic Chess) and Section Thirteen (The Chess
Education Association). Quotes marked with a B are
not from Chapter Three and Chapter Thirteen. I mention
this because Richard Peterson has written:
quote:
> I take credit for the sections on scholastic chess and the
> CEA. The balance of the book was written by Mr. Schiller
> and the opinions therein are his.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 5:36 am |
| William Hyde wrote (13 Oct 2005 13:11:21 -0400):
quote:
> Everything depends on what the USCF equipment
> operation is for. If it is purely to raise money, it
> should sell what people want to buy,
_
If people do buy a book, is it necessarily because
they want that particular book? My impression is
that, a lot of the time, people are guessing when
they choose a book. Look at how many times
we see notes asking for advice on book-buying.
_
Also, there is this sort of thing:
_
"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
_
Also, what about the potential negatives:
decreased sales of other better books, decreased
customer satisfaction, and promotion of a person
who discourages people from joining the USCF?
_
William Hyde wrote (13 Oct 2005 13:11:21 -0400):
quote:
> If it has an educational purpose, then indeed
> some books will not be stocked, but in that case
> the USCF must have an open process by
> approval is granted or withheld, and an appeals
> process so that authors may contest an arbitrary
> decision.
_
What examples are there of sellers that have "an
open process" and "an appeals process"?
| |
| David Kane 2005-10-14, 5:36 am |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129268169.273954.123560@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> David Kane wrote (Thu, 13 Oct 2005
> 16:41:03 -0700):
>
>
> _
> A request for elaboration is too vague for
> me to have a clear idea about what
> information David Kane wants. I am not
> going to spend lots of time elaborating at
> random, only to have David Kane call it
> another non-answer.
>
There is nothing remotely vague about my
request. You've indicated that you think
it is appropriate to consider "other actions"
in a decision to stock books, and when
called to clarify this in a particular case
have a handful of mostly factual quotes
about rules and tournament conditions
from one book (of hundreds) which
supposedly reveal the author's "enemy"
status. You have provided no elaboration
of any kind.
Obviously nobody really cares about
your particular biases. Your case
is illuminating in that it shows how
even an arguably legitimate yet subjective
stocking policy (e.g. based on quality)
could easily become absurd and
illegitimate in practice.
| |
| David Kane 2005-10-14, 5:36 am |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129273270.169560.181430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Here are some quotes from the book by Eric
> Schiller and Richard Peterson, called, The
> Official Rules of Chess:
Out of curiosity, which of the quotes
are in the opinion of Louis Blair
a. false?
b. cause damage to the USCF?
If the USCF has anything to be
upset about, it is probably
over the fact that the rules were
published at all, thereby cutting into
a USCF monopoly, not over the
mild comments concerning
minor rules variations.
..
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| These are all interesting comments - thank you Louis for posting them. What
is so controversial about them - They all seem to be true, and good advice
to anyone moving to or from USCF/ROW rules systems. Phil Innes
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129273270.169560.181430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Here are some quotes from the book by Eric
> Schiller and Richard Peterson, called, The
> Official Rules of Chess:
> _
> "While there are still a few organizations that adopt their own
> set of rules, following the rules as presented here will almost
> always keep a player out of trouble. A few exceptions
> involving the unorthodox rules of the United States Chess
> Federation are ..." - B
> _
> "The following are the standard rules of chess as applied in
> World Championship competition. ... These rules conform in
> most part to those of the world chess federation (FIDE), but
> differ significantly from those found in American tournaments
> conducted under the auspices of the United States Chess
> Federation." - B
> _
> "This sort of nonsense is confined, thankfully, to American
> tournaments. The justification for this is that it allows players
> with busy schedules to compete in tournaments, but in reality
> that is only a way of saying that organizers can take in more
> entry fees. In some sanctioned USCF tournaments, ..." - B
> _
> "Most American tournaments are [designed to pack as much
> chess as possible into a short period of time]" - B
> _
> "In most of the world, chess sets, boards and clocks are
> provided, though in America, players are often required
> to bring their own equipment." - B
> _
> "Some tournaments, especially in America, have large prizes
> available to low rated players, ... This is basically done to
> justify high entry fees and encourage low rated players to
> participate, but there is a dark side ..." - B
> _
> "In the United States Chess Federation, no distinction is
> made between arbiters and tournament directors, but in
> most of the world, ..." - B
> _
> "Early in 1999, several well-known coaches met to address
> the needs of the scholastic chess community so that the
> chessplayers of the 21st century would be able to receive
> assistance without the onerous burden of a dues structure, ..." - A
> _
> "... under CEA rules the arbiter is a part of the game. Except
> for the USCF tournaments, this is the rule in the rest of the
> world." - A
> _
> "... the authors have a rather low opinion of [USCF] specific
> rules, ..." - B
> _
> "... the USCF rules ... are designed primarily for the benefit
> of organizers, not players. ... the idea is to minimize the need
> for arbiters and thus maximize revenues for event organizers.
> These provincial rules are not in force anywhere else in the
> known universe, ..." - B
> _
> "... the absurdity of some of these [USCF] rules ..." - B
> _
> "The USCF excuses these strange rules by stating that in
> large tournaments it is impossible (read: too expensive) to ..." - B
> _
> "... the rest of the world knows ..." - B
> _
> "Since only a small percentage of American chessplayers
> actually play in USCF events, the authors find no need
> to discuss these rules in detail. ... should you find yourself
> playing in such an event you should ask the tournament
> director to explain the differences between the USCF rules
> and the standard (international) rules." - B
> _
> Quotes marked with an A are from Section Three (Rules
> for Scholastic Chess) and Section Thirteen (The Chess
> education Association). Quotes marked with a B are
> not from Chapter Three and Chapter Thirteen. I mention
> this because Richard Peterson has written:
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:laidndBcBuYMctPeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
> news:1129243513.662809.41450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The streak of non-answers continues.
> I have never suggested that rules need be
> formal or that anyone has a right to have
> something sold by the USCF. But you have
> stated that an author's expression of
> disagreement over minor rules variations
> is a factor to consider when deciding to
> stock the author's books. But over and
> over you refuse to elaborate on the
> very point that you alone made, and
> which I have repeatedly challenged.
yes - as I understand the issue, Schiller has pointed out that American
money-style tournaments pack a lot of chess into a typically long weekend,
and that he advises 'player beware'. i don't know what is so controversial
about pointing this out - so perhaps it is perceived as a criticism of the
quality of chess played under these rules?
without really understanding why anyone would mind Schiller making these
comments, it is difficult to annoint him with the title 'enemy', and an even
greater streeeeeetch to blacklist his titles
this seems to be the nubbins of it all - and EVEN IF we allow all the
qualitative comments about his titles to be true, surely other authors have
the same faults?
And EVEN IF we allow that there are fewer faults in other's titles, where to
draw any line? 5 typos and you're out?
the author above asks "Why should the USCF be obliged to make formal rules
about who it chooses to promote."
which is an eye-opener even in these days of the sweetheart-deal! USCF is a
public non-profit established to promote the game into mainline American
culture. [it is not a 'business in general'] and what 30 people actually do
on that front is somewhat questionable in itself compared to the successes
of others
i suppose the logic of 'less is better' can now be extended to blacklisting
popular chess authors, for the reasons given above - NO! because there
doesn't need to be a reason...
phil innes
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Wow!! A Louis Blair post that is almost entirely drivel free:
reasonable quotes, reasonably responsive, no nitpicking over
terminology, no denials of someone's interpretation of his position, no
demands for quotes. Way to go Louis!
Vince Hart
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> William Hyde wrote (13 Oct 2005 13:11:21 -0400):
>
>
> _
> If people do buy a book, is it necessarily because
> they want that particular book? My impression is
> that, a lot of the time, people are guessing when
> they choose a book. Look at how many times
> we see notes asking for advice on book-buying.
> _
> Also, there is this sort of thing:
> _
> "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
> _
> Also, what about the potential negatives:
> decreased sales of other better books, decreased
> customer satisfaction, and promotion of a person
> who discourages people from joining the USCF?
>
> _
> William Hyde wrote (13 Oct 2005 13:11:21 -0400):
>
>
> _
> What examples are there of sellers that have "an
> open process" and "an appeals process"?
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| David Kane wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:36:08 -0700):
quote:
> You have provided no elaboration of any kind.
_
I am not going to spend lots of time elaborating at
random, only to have David Kane call it another
non-answer.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| David Kane wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:36:08 -0700):
quote:
> You have provided no elaboration of any kind.
_
I am not going to spend lots of time elaborating at
random, only to have David Kane call it another
non-answer. I am still waiting for David Kane to
tell us whether or not he has read the rule book.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| David Kane wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:59:13 -0700):
quote:
> Out of curiosity, which of the quotes
> are in the opinion of Louis Blair
> a. false?
> b. cause damage to the USCF?
_
I am still waiting for David Kane to tell us whether
or not he has read the rule book. I am certainly
not going to spend lots of time just to satisfy
David Kane's curiosity. I have already indicated
the main points to be noted:
_
"The book attacks the motives of those involved
with USCF tournament organization. It adopts
a contemptuous tone. It is indicated that CEA
is better. Readers who 'find' themselves 'playing
in [a USCF event]' are encouraged to pester the
tournament director about rules." - Louis Blair
(12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700)
_
Apart from saying that he perceived "a mild tone
of contempt", David Kane has not really discussed
any of this. David Kane himself has indicated:
_
"I do not agree with Schiller's comments on
the USCF's minor rules variations" - David
Kane (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:02:09 -0700)
_
so, I do not see why it is up to me to itemize
everything that is wrong. Overall, the book
discourages USCF involvement, and that is
what I refer to as damage.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:07:54 GMT):
quote:
> What is so controversial about them?
_
"The book attacks the motives of those involved
with USCF tournament organization. It adopts
a contemptuous tone. It is indicated that CEA
is better. Readers who 'find' themselves 'playing
in [a USCF event]' are encouraged to pester the
tournament director about rules." - Louis Blair
(12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700)
_
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
quote:
> it is difficult to annoint him with the title 'enemy',
_
The book discourages USCF involvement
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
quote:
> EVEN IF we allow all the qualitative comments about
> his titles to be true, surely other authors have
> the same faults?
_
I do not know who Phil Innes has in mind.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
quote:
> And EVEN IF we allow that there are fewer faults in
> other's titles, where to draw any line? 5 typos and
> you're out?
_
As I understand it, many, if not most, business decisions
are made without drawing lines.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
quote:
> USCF is a public non-profit established to promote the
> game into mainline American culture. [it is not a
> 'business in general']
_
I do not see why this should oblige the USCF to draw
lines.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
quote:
> what 30 people actually do on that front is somewhat
> questionable in itself compared to the successes
> of others
_
I do not think drawing lines is the solution to USCF
problems. As I understand it, many, if not most,
business decisions are made without drawing lines.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
quote:
> popular chess authors
_
I have seen no evidence that Schiller is popular with
USCF members. Even the evidence for the general
public seems somewhat confused.
_
"[Do you have] Any insight on how Barnes and
Noble does their ranking ?" - Mike Murray
(Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:23:06 -0700)
| |
| David Kane 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129308805.958930.121960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> David Kane wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:59:13 -0700):
>
>
> _
> I am still waiting for David Kane to tell us whether
> or not he has read the rule book. I am certainly
> not going to spend lots of time just to satisfy
> David Kane's curiosity. I have already indicated
> the main points to be noted:
> _
> "The book attacks the motives of those involved
> with USCF tournament organization. It adopts
> a contemptuous tone. It is indicated that CEA
> is better. Readers who 'find' themselves 'playing
> in [a USCF event]' are encouraged to pester the
> tournament director about rules." - Louis Blair
> (12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700)
> _
> Apart from saying that he perceived "a mild tone
> of contempt", David Kane has not really discussed
> any of this. David Kane himself has indicated:
> _
> "I do not agree with Schiller's comments on
> the USCF's minor rules variations" - David
> Kane (Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:02:09 -0700)
> _
> so, I do not see why it is up to me to itemize
> everything that is wrong. Overall, the book
> discourages USCF involvement, and that is
> what I refer to as damage.
>
You are apparently offering these
selected quotes as evidence that
Schiller is an "enemy". I don't think
any fair-minded reader would come
to that conclusion. So I was giving
you a chance to elaborate.
It is true that I do not agree with
Schiller's criticism. However, the
point is that, as a fair-minded person,
I do not believe that these comments
should be in any way a factor in
a decision to stock his books.
My questions are not idle
curiosity but go to the source of
your evident bias. One theory
is that you are a vigorous
defender of the USCF's version
of the rules. While I might be
tempted to mock this, I
was in a long and rather pointless
rules debate myself not long ago
in this newsgroup, so must concede
that these sorts of things do have
a way of enflaming passions.
Another theory is that you
have no interest in the rules
themselves, but are offended
by the mere existence of
organizations other than the USCF
and are upset that an author
comment negatively on the
USCF, even in the minor and
innocuous fashion as revealed
by your supplied quotes.
By the way, not a single of
your quotes supports your
overall assessment of
"discourages USCF
involvement"
| |
| wthyde@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| "Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> writes:
quote:
> William Hyde wrote (13 Oct 2005 13:11:21 -0400):
>
>
> _
> If people do buy a book, is it necessarily because
> they want that particular book? My impression is
> that, a lot of the time, people are guessing when
> they choose a book. Look at how many times
> we see notes asking for advice on book-buying.
I agree. And if the USCF wishes to provide a list
of recommended works they can do so, controversial
though it would be. Or they can delist books, but
they should be open about it.
Of course the deal with the ChessCafe may render anything
I say below moot - the question is what should USCF do if
it had complete control of its book inventory.
quote:
> _
> Also, there is this sort of thing:
> _
> "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."
One suggestion would be to include a link to reviews
by each book.
Or, don't carry the above, but be prepared to explain why
if the author, publisher, or customer should ask.
quote:
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/wco.txt
> _
> Also, what about the potential negatives:
> decreased sales of other better books, decreased
> customer satisfaction, and promotion of a person
> who discourages people from joining the USCF?
>
The assumption here is that the silent decision process will
always be correct. What if good books are delisted because the
authors are unpopular with USCF officials?
And customer satisfaction is variable. Personally I would
rate Bronstein's "200 open games" above any book by Schiller.
But many, many, players would not.
Horowitz and Reinfeld's "Chess Traps, Pitfalls, and Swindles"
has been denounced on this group as a terrible book. In a
way I suppose it was, but it was also the first chess book
I ever actually studied, and I greatly enjoyed it.
And starting with this allegedly bad book has not stopped me
from spending thousands of dollars on chess books in the years
since. Some of them at the ChessCafe.
As to your last point, now we enter a dangerous realm indeed.
Who makes *that* decision? Will it always be crystal clear?
quote:
> _
> William Hyde wrote (13 Oct 2005 13:11:21 -0400):
>
>
> _
> What examples are there of sellers that have "an
> open process" and "an appeals process"?
None that I know of. But if USCF is to be assigned a
paternalistic role, saying yes to some books and no to
others on grounds other than the traditional one of sales,
authors and publishers should at the very least know why
book A is sold and book B is not, and and also, I'd say,
have some method of contesting an unfavourable decision.
Otherwise the process is open to abuse.
I see three options:
(1) Sell everything which makes financial sense (erring on
the side of stocking too much, if this is a service to
the members).
(2) Sell everything, but have some sort of system by which the
prospective buyer can learn about the book before buying.
(3) Only sell books regarded as being "good enough".
The first choice is easiest, and "buyer beware" is part of our
culture. The second requires more work, will involve controversy,
but out-of-favour works will still be available. The third
is much like the second, but open to abuse unless time-consuming
and expensive safeguards are set up. My choice would be either
of the first two options.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| On 14 Oct 2005 13:57:25 -0400, wthyde@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
quote:
> I see three options:
>
> (1) Sell everything which makes financial sense (erring on
> the side of stocking too much, if this is a service to
> the members).
>
> (2) Sell everything, but have some sort of system by which the
> prospective buyer can learn about the book before buying.
>
> (3) Only sell books regarded as being "good enough".
>
> The first choice is easiest, and "buyer beware" is part of our
> culture. The second requires more work, will involve controversy,
> but out-of-favour works will still be available. The third
> is much like the second, but open to abuse unless time-consuming
> and expensive safeguards are set up. My choice would be either
> of the first two options.
I agree with your post, with the small tweak that in (1) and (2)
above, I believe there are some ways to provide the service and still
make some money without actually stocking marginal items.
| |
| wthyde@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> writes:
quote:
> On 14 Oct 2005 13:57:25 -0400, wthyde@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree with your post, with the small tweak that in (1) and (2)
> above, I believe there are some ways to provide the service and still
> make some money without actually stocking marginal items.
I agree with that. My qualification in (1) was to forestall
accusations that I only want the USCF to offer bestselling
works.
If making money is necessary (and I think it is), unpleasant
decisions may have to be made - but if this is also to be a
service links can be provided to recommended sellers who stock
the items in question. Or special orders can be accepted for
marginal items.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129309002.588938.60610@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:07:54 GMT):
> _
> "The book attacks the motives of those involved
> with USCF tournament organization. It adopts
> a contemptuous tone. It is indicated that CEA
> is better.
So what's the truth about the motives of the rule makers at USCF - or isn't
that important? Is CEA better, eg?
quote:
> Readers who 'find' themselves 'playing
> in [a USCF event]' are encouraged to pester the
> tournament director about rules." - Louis Blair
I would also want to understand the rules - I hope that would not make me an
enemy. I would even say that the game belongs to the players, first and
foremost, and if anyone wishes to represent players, then let this not mean
act in place of their wishes, but coordinate their wishes.
What I glean from this is that the reason to blacklist Eric Schiller's books
is that he dared question what was better for chess players.
Phil Innes
quote:
> (12 Oct 2005 14:32:49 -0700)
> _
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129310177.857806.206200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
>
>
> _
> The book discourages USCF involvement
dear Louis, if you would not post so obscurely I would not have to complain
that I provided a lot of context for my comment, to be rewarded by
'discourages USCF involement', whatever that means.
As far as I can see, Erich Schiller has not discouraged attendance at USCF
events, but has encouraged attention to what rules are in force, and has
listed them - since many can be said to be counter-intuitive or which do not
follow the rest of the world's procedures.
quote:
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
>
>
> _
> I do not know who Phil Innes has in mind.
Neither is that a question.
quote:
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
>
>
> _
> As I understand it, many, if not most, business decisions
> are made without drawing lines.
Except some HAS drawn a line at Schiller's titles. Perhaps we simply abandon
any objective standard at USCF/Chesscafe and come right out with it and say
we don't like the son of a XXXXX?
_
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
>
>
> _
> I do not see why this should oblige the USCF to draw
> lines.
USCF HAS drawn a line. it already has made a decision - what is its basis?
quote:
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
>
>
> _
> I do not think drawing lines is the solution to USCF
> problems. As I understand it, many, if not most,
> business decisions are made without drawing lines.
I'm getting a bit bored with the idea that business people make decisions
without any standard of measure, and give up on representing again that USCF
is not a business like others but a public charity to promote chess to a
certain popularity. That it does so by repressing popular authors is a
paradox known best to itself.
quote:
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:55 GMT):
>
>
> _
> I have seen no evidence that Schiller is popular with
> USCF members. Even the evidence for the general
> public seems somewhat confused.
If you have seen no evidence, then perhaps you have also seen no evidence
that he is not unpopular, and might even want to assume that the accused is
innocent instead of guilty?
Phil Innes
_
quote:
> "[Do you have] Any insight on how Barnes and
> Noble does their ranking ?" - Mike Murray
> (Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:23:06 -0700)
>
| |
| David Kane 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
<wthyde@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:yv7z4q7kgewq.fsf@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu...
quote:
>
> I see three options:
>
> (1) Sell everything which makes financial sense (erring on
> the side of stocking too much, if this is a service to
> the members).
>
> (2) Sell everything, but have some sort of system by which
the
quote:
> prospective buyer can learn about the book before buying.
>
> (3) Only sell books regarded as being "good enough".
>
> The first choice is easiest, and "buyer beware" is part of
our
quote:
> culture. The second requires more work, will involve
controversy,
quote:
> but out-of-favour works will still be available. The third
> is much like the second, but open to abuse unless
time-consuming
quote:
> and expensive safeguards are set up. My choice would be
either
quote:
> of the first two options.
>
(4) Sell only those items with
USCF content - rule books, T-shirts
with USCF logos etc. Not simply
because the USCF has a history of
ineptitude making it highly unlikely
that it will be profitable in competition
with private businesses selling the same
things, but because, more fundamentally,
being involved in a mail order business
has about as much relevance to the
USCF's mission as selling life insurance
or operating a prostitution service.
The lure of "easy" money (which
proves not so easy in reality) is a
distraction extracting a huge
opportunity cost.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:46:08 GMT):
quote:
> So what's the truth about the motives of the rule
> makers at USCF - or isn't that important?
_
quote:
>From what I can tell, they are sincere well-intentioned
individuals trying to do a difficult job.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:46:08 GMT):
quote:
> Is CEA better, eg?
_
Is Hertz better than Avis? If so, does this mean that
Avis is obliged to promote Hertz. I do not think so.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:46:08 GMT):
quote:
> I would also want to understand the rules - I hope
> that would not make me an enemy.
_
If, in the middle of a tournament, Phil Innes pesters
a tournament director "to explain the differences
between the USCF rules and" the rules in the
Schiller rule book, I suspect that Phil Innes will
find himself considered to be an enemy by at
least one person.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:03:23 GMT):
quote:
> If you have seen no evidence [that Schiller is popular
> with USCF members], then perhaps you have also
> seen no evidence that he is not unpopular, and might
> even want to assume that the accused is innocent
> instead of guilty?
_
"Although I don't own any of his works, from the
reviews I've read, they tend to be rather sloppily
constructed pot-boilers." - Mike Murray (Wed,
05 Oct 2005 10:30:08 -0700)
_
"I am no great fan of Schiller's books" - David
Kane (Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:13:05 -0700)
_
"Eric Schiller's books have been dismissed in
some circles as 'data dumps', nothing more than
a compilation of games culled from computer
databases." - David Surratt (1-26-03)
_
http://chessville.com/reviews/revie...ss_Openings.htm
_
"I have seen thousands of chess books over the
years, but this book is by far THE WORST BOOK
I HAVE EVER SEEN. I don't have any words to
express the degree of disgust I feel. It is sad that
anybody is willing to put their name on such trash,"
- Carsten Hansen (August 2000), reviewing The
Frankenstein-Dracula Variation in the Vienna
Game by Eric Schiller
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen15.txt
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129328760.408813.197780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:46:08 GMT):
>
>
> _
> individuals trying to do a difficult job.
Well intentioned people can have motives that do not require rules, its
true. But it isn't good business.
_
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:46:08 GMT):
>
>
> _
> Is Hertz better than Avis? If so, does this mean that
> Avis is obliged to promote Hertz. I do not think so.
We are not discussing if a chess organisation needs promote another, but if
an author can mention the differences between them as a recommendation to
the player.
You do not seem to be actually contesting if the points that Schiller is
raising are true, but that in raising them as a comparison, that his views
are unwelcome at USCF to the extent of blacklisting his views.
quote:
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:46:08 GMT):
>
>
> _
> If, in the middle of a tournament, Phil Innes pesters
> a tournament director "to explain the differences
> between the USCF rules and" the rules in the
> Schiller rule book, I suspect that Phil Innes will
> find himself considered to be an enemy by at
> least one person.
But I would not be reading a Schiller commentary or reviewing odd rules in
the middle of a tournament so as to be a pest [by neglect]. This was not my
point at all. I would want to know what the rules were before the games
started - and how should I appreciate those if not to read Schiller? And
thus, ask my questions in advance of play?
Phil Innes
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-15, 2:31 am |
| Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:06:16 GMT):
quote:
> We are not discussing if a chess organisation needs
> promote another, but if an author can mention the
> differences between them as a recommendation to
> the player.
_
An author can mention whatever he wants. I have
never indicated otherwise.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:06:16 GMT):
quote:
> You do not seem to be actually contesting if the
> points that Schiller is raising are true, but that in
> raising them as a comparison, that his views are
> unwelcome at USCF to the extent of blacklisting
> his views.
_
The above does not describe my views and Phil
Innes has no quote to back it up.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:06:16 GMT):
quote:
> I would want to know what the rules were before the
> games started - and how should I appreciate those
> if not to read Schiller? And thus, ask my questions
> in advance of play?
_
I am not interested in debating the ideas of Phil Innes
about USCF tournament behavior. I am talking about
the Eric Schiller idea which is that if someone finds
himself "playing in" a USCF event, he "should ask the
tournament director to explain the differences between
the USCF rules and the" rules in the Schiller book.
| |
| David Kane 2005-10-15, 2:31 am |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129330369.868117.57480@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> _
> "I am no great fan of Schiller's books" - David
> Kane (Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:13:05 -0700)
I own 4 of his books and have read around 5 others.
I'd rate them as being of "fair" quality on the
whole. I think the debate over quality is highly
ironic, given that the USCF's own mandatory
product, Chess Life, is in my opinion the
definitive example of low quality chess writing.
I do detest the Cardoza look, though.
quote:
> "Eric Schiller's books have been dismissed in
> some circles as 'data dumps', nothing more than
> a compilation of games culled from computer
> databases." - David Surratt (1-26-03)
> _
> http://chessville.com/reviews/revie...ss_Openings.htm
A few lines after the above quote, the reviewer wrote:
"He is also the author of a number of quite good books,
with one on the Goring Gambit coming immediately to mind."
Fairness seems to be a concept foreign to Louis Blair.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-15, 2:31 am |
| David Kane wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:34:37 -0700):
quote:
> A few lines after the above quote, the reviewer wrote:
> "He is also the author of a number of quite good books,
> with one on the Goring Gambit coming immediately to mind."
>_
> Fairness seems to be a concept foreign to Louis Blair.
_
If one is going to play that game, here is another
negative comment that David Kane did not mention:
_
"My questions about another 'Featured Gambit',
the Goring Gambit, weren't even close to being
addressed. And in a half a page, the 'More
Gambits in Brief' are even less likely to address
any critical concerns."
_
I did not claim that Eric Schiller has received no positive
comments, and I provided the link that leads to the
positive comment that David Kane now quotes.
_
We were discussing the indications that we have
about whether or not Eric Schiller is popular with
USCF members. There are a number of references
to negative attitudes towards quantities of Eric
Schiller books. I was giving some examples
to demonstrate this.
http://chessville.com/reviews/revie...ss_Openings.htm
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-15, 2:31 am |
| MUD IS MUDDY
We are making progress.
Louie Blair now writes of the question he asked,
"At this point, I can certainly agree that the phrasing
I chose was not the best for my purpose."
Hah. The poor old man. He asked two questions,
neither of which had much to do with what turned out
to be the question he was, in his phrase, "trying to" ask.
Louie's first attempt was this question: "Is
Larry Parr expecting us to believe that he himself
would not use this tactic?"
His second attempt was pathetic: "I ask if
[sic!] Larry Parr was [sic] expecting us to believe
that he himself would not use this tactic."
The "tactic" refers to tossing mud in the hope
that some will stick. My response was that both
questions -- the second one, especially -- were
weakminded. I noted that Louie was asking me NOT to
comment on what I do but to divine what he and others
of his kind (his "us") might think. This would
require knowing what goes on in, say, Louie's noggin',
and my answer would necessarily be speculative.
At this point, Louie lied straight out. He
replied ever so dishonestly, "No. I was trying to ask
if Larry Parr claims that he would not use this tactic,
and using a commonly used style of phrasing to express
skepticism about the notion."
First, I am not responsible for figuring out what
Louie -- we in chess, even get tenth-rate Torquemadas
-- was "trying to" ask me.
Secondly, Louie was NOT, as he lies above, seeking
to know what I would do. He was asking me, repeatedly,
whether I believe that his "us," including presumably himself,
would believe that I eschew a certain tactic.
Still, as I say, we are making progress. But not
quite enough.
Louie rewrote his question. It now reads,
"Larry Parr, do you attack without a shred of evidence
in the hope that mud will stick?"
The problem is that the "tactic," as hitherto
described, was to toss mud in the hope that some would
stick. Louie is trying to switch questions. My
problem with the question is that I would define "mud"
as either falsehood or, even when true, irrelevant and
somewhat inconsequential wrongdoing. For example,
Jones discovers who torched city hall, and an enemy
newspaper attacks Jones for having stolen money from a
church box when he was 11. That is mud, even though
formally true.
"Mud" may, therefore, have plenty of evidence
backing it up. All mud is not lacking evidence; all
attacks lacking evidence are not mud.
I respectfully suggest to Louie that my version
of the question is better: "Larry Parr: do you sling
mud in the hope that some sticks?" "Mud," in the
common understanding, is always ill-motivated and
either untrue or irrelevant or both, though there may
be plenty of evidence in the mud.
Louie's amended question, though far sharper
than his first two efforts, still mixes categories,
for not all attacks without evidence are mud, just as
not all mud is without evidence.
Gentlemen: I am trying to phrase Louie's
question as sharply as possible so that he has the
best chance to attack my answer, which is the purpose
of his exercise.
What could be more fair ?
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-15, 2:31 am |
| One cannot help but be moved by Larry Parr's efforts
to help. :-) It now seems like a good idea to me to
include the without-a-shred-of-evidence clause, so
I choose not to follow Larry Parr's suggestion to remove
it. However, in an effort to make the grade with him,
I now rephrase the question again:
_
"Larry Parr: do you sling mud without a shred
of evidence in the hope that some sticks?"
_
Will we ever get to the goal: Larry Parr taking up
a discussion of his behavior in the incident below?
_
"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.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129347063.345340.11980@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:06:16 GMT):
>
>
> _
> An author can mention whatever he wants. I have
> never indicated otherwise.
Without getting blacklisted. Have you 'indicated' on that?
quote:
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:06:16 GMT):
>
>
> _
> The above does not describe my views and Phil
> Innes has no quote to back it up.
This is true, and I join 2 other writers in providing what I thought was a
summary of the views - but which I evidently have not understood. But after
all this writing, we still seem not to have visited the issue of if Schiller
is making fair comment - and if indeed it is okay to do so.
If I have misunderstood Dr. Blair's views to the extent of misstating them
in my sysopsis, I admit that it is not a rhetorcal device to gain credit in
this exchange, but confusion. I do not understand what Dr. Blair's views
are.
quote:
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:06:16 GMT):
>
>
> _
> I am not interested in debating the ideas of Phil Innes
> about USCF tournament behavior.
But you were interested in supposing that I would become a pest in the
middle of a tournament, and you /did/ say so, which occasioned that reply.
quote:
> I am talking about
> the Eric Schiller idea which is that if someone finds
> himself "playing in" a USCF event, he "should ask the
> tournament director to explain the differences between
> the USCF rules and the" rules in the Schiller book.
Okay - so what are you talking about it? I would want to lead the
conversation by way of suggesting that knowing the rules is not only useful
but a matter of the player's responsibility. But... I delay this level of
inquiry until I understand Dr. Blair's.
Phil Innes
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
| I don't care about Eric Schiller's criticism of USCF rules or his
support for the CEA. Nevertheless, I would support any retailer's
decision not to carry his works because I think he has no respect for
the purchasers of his books.
I bought my only Schiller books in 1997. I had returned to chess after
a twenty year absence and I was rebuilding my opening repertoire from
scratch. I decided to make the Panov Attack my weapon against the
Caro-Kann and I saw Schiller's books advertised in some catalog and I
decided to take a chance. I felt that the money was wasted. The
books were nothing but data dumps that provided me no insight
whatsoever into the opening.
At least Schiller did not make the outrageous claims about his
qualifications that he makes these days. Rather, he admitted that he
was not competent to evaluate many of the lines that his book covered:
"Frankly, my own level of chess understanding is not up to the task,
and would lead only to misevaluations." While I might have liked to
give him credit for his honesty, it was kind of hard given that he was
telling me that he was not qualified to write the book that I just
shelled out money for.
So why did Schiller write a book about an opening he did not
understand? I'm guessing that it was because he knew there were
people like me who would take a chance on it sight unseen just because
there was very little else out there on the topic. I think he knew
that what he was producing was crap, but did not care.
So how and why did Schiller go from someone whose "level of chess
understanding is not up to the task" to "the world's leading
authority on chess openings." I think it was a function of
competition. In 1997, you did not have as many high quality opening
tomes from the likes of Ward, Aagaard, Emms, Gallagher, Kosten and
other titled players so Schiller did not have to pretend to be
something he wasn't. Now that he is competing with writers who have
real credentials he has decided to make up some for himself.
To me, Schiller is in a league of his own when it comes to producing
crap and I respect the fact that Chess Caf=E9 does not carry his books.
Vince Hart
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
|
"Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129388283.024219.273100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I don't care about Eric Schiller's criticism of USCF rules or his
support for the CEA. Nevertheless, I would support any retailer's
decision not to carry his works because I think he has no respect for
the purchasers of his books.
I bought my only Schiller books in 1997. I had returned to chess after
a twenty year absence and I was rebuilding my opening repertoire from
scratch. I decided to make the Panov Attack my weapon against the
Caro-Kann and I saw Schiller's books advertised in some catalog and I
decided to take a chance. I felt that the money was wasted. The
books were nothing but data dumps that provided me no insight
whatsoever into the opening.
**Vince, this is the most honest review I have read here. I expect everyone
with your expectation would have been dissapointed. But, did you not read
any reviews?
At least Schiller did not make the outrageous claims about his
qualifications that he makes these days. Rather, he admitted that he
was not competent to evaluate many of the lines that his book covered:
"Frankly, my own level of chess understanding is not up to the task,
and would lead only to misevaluations." While I might have liked to
give him credit for his honesty, it was kind of hard given that he was
telling me that he was not qualified to write the book that I just
shelled out money for.
**in 1981 David Levy, Kevin O'Connell and David Watt wrote at least 3 books
for Imprint Capablanca, which also had no understanding of any of the
thousands of lines contained betweent he covers - but at least they called
it a quatitative analysis, essentially looking at every line by results
achieved with it - and giving illustrative games with every line.
**I just reviewed a book which grossly misrepresented its own contents - the
publisher advertised some 144 pages but their are 125, but more importantly
the blurb writer talks of 'thorough education' while the poor author only
mentioned 'a sketch', and while the blurb talks about 'wild and agressive
chess' the author himself spoke of 'sensible investments', which I think has
a different flavour entirely, and nothing speculatory.
**All this before getting past the introduction. Anyway, for $19.95 I didn't
think the book worth it.
So why did Schiller write a book about an opening he did not
understand? I'm guessing that it was because he knew there were
people like me who would take a chance on it sight unseen just because
there was very little else out there on the topic. I think he knew
that what he was producing was crap, but did not care.
**Unless it was in Levy's sense of the above. But if it represented itself
as other than a sketch for deeper study - you have a point!
So how and why did Schiller go from someone whose "level of chess
understanding is not up to the task" to "the world's leading
authority on chess openings."
**Who actually wrote that? I would say John Nunn had a good claim - but all
these things are equivocal, I remember looking in the first edition of NCO
and not finding an entire version of the French [Armenian]. At the time
Khalifman was writing an entire treatise on it.
I think it was a function of
competition. In 1997, you did not have as many high quality opening
tomes from the likes of Ward, Aagaard, Emms, Gallagher, Kosten and
other titled players so Schiller did not have to pretend to be
something he wasn't. Now that he is competing with writers who have
real credentials he has decided to make up some for himself.
To me, Schiller is in a league of his own when it comes to producing
crap and I respect the fact that Chess Café does not carry his books.
**This is a good argument, if based on a slim base of experience. I might
also say that people may actually want a wordy [at the expense of
under-researched] volume, so that books which are rated 'tournament' or
2000+ and full of extensive lines in all variations, but which are
confusing, these folks can choose simpler materials - and that a function of
a demand market is to provide what people will buy.
**Sorry you had a bad experience - it would interest me if, even
retrospectively, you could find a review, or even a blurb for the particualr
book you chose, and we could all look at what was said about the title.
Cordially, Phil
Vince Hart
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
| In his review of Aagaard's "Easy Guide to the Panov-Botvinnik Attack,"
Silman commented "Where Schiller's Panov-Botvinnik series can't be
taken seriously (does "Fritz--assisted database--dump" come to mind?),
Aagaard's work has a lot to commend it." Of course that was long after
my purchase. Other than that, I have not come across much in the way
of comment on the books I bought.
While this is the only purchase I have made of Schiller's books, I have
seen many others browsing the bookstores or the book sellers at
tournaments. I have also seen many reviews of his works. I don't
think that my sample size is inadequate to support my conclusion.
Vince Hart
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1129388283.024219.273100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I don't care about Eric Schiller's criticism of USCF rules or his
> support for the CEA. Nevertheless, I would support any retailer's
> decision not to carry his works because I think he has no respect for
> the purchasers of his books.
>
> I bought my only Schiller books in 1997. I had returned to chess after
> a twenty year absence and I was rebuilding my opening repertoire from
> scratch. I decided to make the Panov Attack my weapon against the
> Caro-Kann and I saw Schiller's books advertised in some catalog and I
> decided to take a chance. I felt that the money was wasted. The
> books were nothing but data dumps that provided me no insight
> whatsoever into the opening.
>
> **Vince, this is the most honest review I have read here. I expect everyo=
ne
quote:
> with your expectation would have been dissapointed. But, did you not read
> any reviews?
>
> At least Schiller did not make the outrageous claims about his
> qualifications that he makes these days. Rather, he admitted that he
> was not competent to evaluate many of the lines that his book covered:
> "Frankly, my own level of chess understanding is not up to the task,
> and would lead only to misevaluations." While I might have liked to
> give him credit for his honesty, it was kind of hard given that he was
> telling me that he was not qualified to write the book that I just
> shelled out money for.
>
> **in 1981 David Levy, Kevin O'Connell and David Watt wrote at least 3 boo=
ks
quote:
> for Imprint Capablanca, which also had no understanding of any of the
> thousands of lines contained betweent he covers - but at least they called
> it a quatitative analysis, essentially looking at every line by results
> achieved with it - and giving illustrative games with every line.
>
> **I just reviewed a book which grossly misrepresented its own contents - =
the
quote:
> publisher advertised some 144 pages but their are 125, but more important=
ly
quote:
> the blurb writer talks of 'thorough education' while the poor author only
> mentioned 'a sketch', and while the blurb talks about 'wild and agressive
> chess' the author himself spoke of 'sensible investments', which I think =
has
quote:
> a different flavour entirely, and nothing speculatory.
>
> **All this before getting past the introduction. Anyway, for $19.95 I did=
n't
quote:
> think the book worth it.
>
> So why did Schiller write a book about an opening he did not
> understand? I'm guessing that it was because he knew there were
> people like me who would take a chance on it sight unseen just because
> there was very little else out there on the topic. I think he knew
> that what he was producing was crap, but did not care.
>
> **Unless it was in Levy's sense of the above. But if it represented itself
> as other than a sketch for deeper study - you have a point!
>
> So how and why did Schiller go from someone whose "level of chess
> understanding is not up to the task" to "the world's leading
> authority on chess openings."
>
> **Who actually wrote that? I would say John Nunn had a good claim - but a=
ll
quote:
> these things are equivocal, I remember looking in the first edition of NCO
> and not finding an entire version of the French [Armenian]. At the time
> Khalifman was writing an entire treatise on it.
>
> I think it was a function of
> competition. In 1997, you did not have as many high quality opening
> tomes from the likes of Ward, Aagaard, Emms, Gallagher, Kosten and
> other titled players so Schiller did not have to pretend to be
> something he wasn't. Now that he is competing with writers who have
> real credentials he has decided to make up some for himself.
>
> To me, Schiller is in a league of his own when it comes to producing
> crap and I respect the fact that Chess Caf=E9 does not carry his books.
>
> **This is a good argument, if based on a slim base of experience. I might
> also say that people may actually want a wordy [at the expense of
> under-researched] volume, so that books which are rated 'tournament' or
> 2000+ and full of extensive lines in all variations, but which are
> confusing, these folks can choose simpler materials - and that a function=
of
quote:
> a demand market is to provide what people will buy.
>
> **Sorry you had a bad experience - it would interest me if, even
> retrospectively, you could find a review, or even a blurb for the particu=
alr
quote:
> book you chose, and we could all look at what was said about the title.
>=20
> Cordially, Phil
>=20
> Vince Hart
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-16, 2:31 am |
| THERE'S ALWAYS A PRETEXT
quote:
>To me, Schiller is in a league of his own when it
comes to producing crap and I respect the fact that
Chess Caf=E9 does not carry his books.> -- Vince Hart
Vinnie Hart's outrage is predictable enough.
Eric is a fine master, and when he states there
are lines he cannot evaluate, he is really saying
nothing more than what a Petrosian said after
misevaluating a Sicilian position against Fischer in
game seven of their match. This does not make Eric a
Petrosian, but it does speak to the inherent
difficulty of chess.
The Cafe also fails to carry my books and those
of Ray Keene, including his wonderful Illustrated
History of Chess. There will always be a pretext to
defend a blacklist.
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
| I doubt that Parr knows any more about Schiller's books than he knows
about Sloan's website, movie plots, the laws of evidence, the laws
concerning child abuse or countless other subjects upon which he spews
his drivel.
Vince Hart
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> THERE'S ALWAYS A PRETEXT
>
> comes to producing crap and I respect the fact that
> Chess Caf=E9 does not carry his books.> -- Vince Hart
>
> Vinnie Hart's outrage is predictable enough.
> Eric is a fine master, and when he states there
> are lines he cannot evaluate, he is really saying
> nothing more than what a Petrosian said after
> misevaluating a Sicilian position against Fischer in
> game seven of their match. This does not make Eric a
> Petrosian, but it does speak to the inherent
> difficulty of chess.
>
> The Cafe also fails to carry my books and those
> of Ray Keene, including his wonderful Illustrated
> History of Chess. There will always be a pretext to
> defend a blacklist.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (16 Oct 2005 05:49:05 -0700):
quote:
> In his latest message, Louie Blair writes, "One
> cannot help but be moved by Larry Parr's efforts to
> help. ..."
>_
> ... we accept at face value Louie's expression of
> being moved, since he has so often in the past
> insisted on being taken at face value, though we
> all understood -- our Louie first and foremost --
> the ruse to be a lie in itself.
_
Larry Parr chose to snip the smily face, :-), that I
included to indicate that the sentence was not
to be taken seriously.
_
Larry Parr wrote (16 Oct 2005 05:49:05 -0700):
quote:
> In his latest message, Louie Blair writes, "... It
> now [sic] seems like a good idea to me to include
> the without-a-shred-of-evidence clause, so I choose
> not to follow Larry Parr's suggestion to remove it. ..."
>_
> ... we find inclusion of the word "now" to be sloppy.
> He tells us that he "now" considers inclusion of a
> given phrase to be a good idea, yet he earlier included
> it. Was he earlier including the phrase without
> considering it a good idea, perhaps even a bad idea?
> We don't know at this point.
_
I considered the phrase to be a good idea when I
earlier included it, and I consider it to be a good
idea, now.
_
Larry Parr wrote (16 Oct 2005 05:49:05 -0700):
quote:
> We think it imperative to get a clarification from
> Louie, lest he later tell us that the question he
> has formed was not quite the question he meant
> to ask. He was "trying to" -- to use his phrase --
> to ask another question. His employment of the
> "now" adverb may have been a sloppy error, but
> we need the word from the Louie's mouth. Slop
> or an attempt to deceive?
_
Larry Parr can call it "slop" if he likes. It was not
an attempt to deceive.
_
Larry Parr wrote (16 Oct 2005 05:49:05 -0700):
quote:
> In his latest message, Louie Blair writes, "...
> However, in an effort to make the grade with him,
> I now rephrase the question again: 'Larry Parr: do
> you sling mud without a shred of evidence in the
> hope that some sticks?'"
>_
> ... before we can get to Louie's question, we
> cannot permit him to change the subject, which
> was his attempt to lie about what he intended to
> ask.
>_
> In an immediate previous posting, Louie Blair
> wrote, "At this point, I can certainly agree that the
> phrasing I chose was not the best for my purpose."
>_
> An understatement to say the least. The poor
> old man asked two questions, neither of which had
> much to do with what turned out to be the question
> he was, in his phrase, "trying to" ask.
_
Larry Parr chooses to leave out the evidence:
_
"Is Larry Parr expecting us to believe that he
himself would not use this tactic?" - Louis
Blair (22 Sep 2005 12:59:08 -0700)
_
"I asked if Larry Parr was expecting us to believe
that he himself would not use this tactic?"
(10 Oct 2005 19:40:20 -0700)
_
"I was trying to ask if Larry Parr claims that he
would not use this tactic, and using a commonly
used style of phrasing to express skepticism about
the notion." - Louis Blair (11 Oct 2005 03:22:53 -0700)
_
Will we ever get to the goal: Larry Parr taking up
a discussion of his behavior in the incident below?
_
"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.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:23:51 GMT):
quote:
> I would want to lead the conversation by way of
> suggesting that knowing the rules is not only useful
> but a matter of the player's responsibility.
_
It is not the right approach to wait until one "find"s
oneself "playing in [a USCF event]" and then "ask
the tournament director to explain the differences
between the USCF rules and the" rules in the
Schiller book.
| |
| Spamscone@yahoo.com 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
>
> But you were interested in supposing that I would become a pest in the
> middle of a tournament, and you /did/ say so, which occasioned that reply.
I doubt you were considered a pest during your Vermont tournament
career, Philth. In fact, I think the local players were probably happy
to play you; after all, what class player doesn't want to beat a
'nearly an IM 2450'?
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:23:51 GMT):
quote:
> you were interested in supposing that I would become
> a pest in the middle of a tournament, and you /did/ say
> so,
_
What I actually wrote:
_
"If, in the middle of a tournament, Phil Innes
pesters a tournament director 'to explain the
differences between the USCF rules and' the
rules in the Schiller rule book, I suspect that
Phil Innes will find himself considered to be
an enemy by at least one person."
_
What I would actually suppose is that Phil Innes
would have enough sense to refrain from doing
what the Schiller rules book urged readers to do.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-16, 11:31 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129497480.094101.206240@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:23:51 GMT):
>
>
Laugh - Louis Louis!
[as might be said by Inspector Morse]
You have been pulling my leg all along!
I wrote that I wanted to know the rules, then you suppose me to become
disruptive in the middle of the tournament wanting to know the rules. So I
say - no, I would want to know the rules before I started playing.
To which you offer:-
quote:
> _
> It is not the right approach to wait until one "find"s
> oneself "playing in [a USCF event]" and then "ask
> the tournament director to explain the differences
> between the USCF rules and the" rules in the
> Schiller book.
Heaven forfend! Phil
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-16, 11:31 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:38:15 GMT):
quote:
> I wrote that I wanted to know the rules, then you suppose
> me to become disruptive in the middle of the tournament
> wanting to know the rules.
_
This is what I actually wrote:
_
"If, in the middle of a tournament, Phil Innes
pesters a tournament director 'to explain the
differences between the USCF rules and' the
rules in the Schiller rule book, I suspect that
Phil Innes will find himself considered to be
an enemy by at least one person." - Louis
Blair (14 Oct 2005 15:26:00 -0700)
_
What I would actually suppose is that Phil Innes
would have enough sense to refrain from doing
what the Schiller rules book urged readers to do.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:38:15 GMT):
quote:
> So I say - no, I would want to know the rules before
> I started playing.
>_
> To which you offer:-
_
Phil Innes does not correctly describe my response,
which was:
_
"I am not interested in debating the ideas of
Phil Innes about USCF tournament behavior.
I am talking about the Eric Schiller idea which
is that if someone finds himself 'playing in' a
USCF event, he 'should ask the tournament
director to explain the differences between
the USCF rules and the' rules in the Schiller
book." - Louis Blair (14 Oct 2005 20:31:03 -0700)
_
Subsequently, Phil Innes wrote:
_
"I would want to lead the conversation by
way of suggesting that knowing the rules is
not only useful but a matter of the player's
responsibility." - Phil Innes (Sat, 15 Oct 2005
13:23:51 GMT)
_
It was in response to the Sat, 15 Oct 2005
13:23:51 GMT comment of Phil Innes that I
"offer"ed:
_
"It is not the right approach to wait until
one 'find's oneself 'playing in [a USCF
event]' and then 'ask the tournament
director to explain the differences
between the USCF rules and the' rules
in the Schiller book." - Louis Blair
(16 Oct 2005 14:18:00 -0700)
| |
|
| klgore@mailinator.com wrote (addressing Mike Murray):
quote:
> Louis Blair wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Like Goef, I don't know if I meet the minimum standards
> for participating in the survey but I shall anyway.
> If I have a bias it is that I find Dr. Blair objectionable
> when he's in 'pendant' mode;
Perhaps 'klgore' meant "'pedant' mode"? :-)
quote:
> I have had one extended "discussion", if that word applies,
> with him and it devolved into a definitional battle
> concerning common words and it was unpleasant and I bailed
> given his obstinence (mine of course being totally
> acceptable). ...
My impression is that Louis Blair often writes posts
that assume or expect a higher level of literacy than
commonly found among the readers of rec.games.chess.*.
That may explain why some readers apparently fail to
appreciate some of Louis Blair's merits as a writer.
That may explain why some readers apparently fail to
notice the inconsistencies of some of his critics.
I can recall having had a few misunderstandings or
disputes with | | |