|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > October 2005 > Another Schiller Gaffe
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]
| Author |
Another Schiller Gaffe
|
|
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
|
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 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
| 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
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1129475986.285398.241840@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> 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.
>
| |
| Joshua Houk 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
| "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in
news:1129475986.285398.241840@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
quote:
> In the 1987 edition of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (the same book
> in which Schiller recommended the non-existent book), [...]
Irony, oh, the irony...
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
|
Duncan Oxley wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
> 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.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-16, 11:31 pm |
| 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.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-16, 11:31 pm |
| 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.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-17, 2:31 am |
| 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.
| |
|
| parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
> 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.
quote:
> I wrote that Eric Schiller was in the "region"
> of 2300 or 2300+ "thereabouts."
I knew that.
quote:
> Nick Bourbaki says he peaked at 2270,
The ChessBase Player Encyclopedia stated that.
quote:
> 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
quote:
> 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.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-17, 5:30 am |
| 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.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-17, 7:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> 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 2005-10-17, 7:31 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1129554215.045233.307010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> And apparently he must fabricate as well:
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
quote:
> 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.
>
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-10-17, 7:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
>
> 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
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-17, 7:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
> 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.
| |
|
| 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.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-10-17, 11:30 pm |
| On 16 Oct 2005 14:47:49 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
>Duncan Oxley wrote:
quote:
>
> 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
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-10-17, 11:30 pm |
| On 17 Oct 2005 06:03:35 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> 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."
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.
quote:
> 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.
quote:
>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."
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
| |
| sloan@ishipress.com 2005-10-17, 11:30 pm |
| Vince Hart wrote:
quote:
> 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
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-18, 2:31 am |
| 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.
| |
| avital.pilpel@gmail.com 2005-10-18, 5:31 am |
| jr wrote:
quote:
> 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".
quote:
> 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"...
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-18, 7:31 pm |
| THE CHESSCAFE BLACKLIST
quote:
>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."
| |
| Jeremy Spinrad 2005-10-18, 7:31 pm |
| 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 <1129650819.729668.306560@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@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 Sc
hil|> 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 2005-10-18, 7:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
> 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.
quote:
> 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.
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-10-18, 7:31 pm |
| <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1129650819.729668.306560@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 2005-10-18, 7:31 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (16 Oct 2005 20:05:20 -0700):
quote:
> 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)
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-18, 7:31 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (18 Oct 2005 08:53:39 -0700):
quote:
> 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
| |
|
| "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.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-18, 11:31 pm |
| SPINRAD'S QUESTION.
quote:
>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.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-18, 11:31 pm |
| REPRINTING MATERIAL
quote:
>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 2005-10-18, 11:31 pm |
| <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1129685560.500076.79550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> REPRINTING MATERIAL
>
> 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?
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
<avital.pilpel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129720721.554881.276210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> (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.
quote:
>
> 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?
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 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Vjq5f.26039$p_.11591@trndny05...
quote:
>
> <avital.pilpel@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1129720721.554881.276210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 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..."
quote:
> 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
quote:
>
> 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
>
| |
| David Kane 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1129666016.826106.98470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> Quite true, since ChessCafe has never "blacklisted" Schiller. On
the
quote:
> rare occasion that he has written something worthwhile, it has been
on
quote:
> 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 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
David Kane wrote:
quote:
> 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 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1129737534.195205.16920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> David Kane wrote:
>
> 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.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
quote:
> 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.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
quote:
> 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 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129739383.516986.27140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
>
> _
> 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.
_
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
>
> _
> 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
_
quote:
> "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)
>
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
quote:
> We have removed the choice from the consumer to
> buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
> recommendation.
_
I wrote (19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700):
quote:
> Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):
quote:
> Yes you could.
_
Then it is incorrect to assert that we have removed
the choice from the consumer to buy the book or not.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):
quote:
> 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.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
quote:
> 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 wrote (19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700):
quote:
> I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
> by Phil Innes about what other people should be
> ALLOWED to read.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):
quote:
> 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)
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
quote:
> We have removed the choice from the consumer to
> buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
> recommendation.
_
I wrote (19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700):
quote:
> Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):
quote:
> Yes you could.
_
Then it is incorrect to assert that we have removed
the choice from the consumer to buy the book or not.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):
quote:
> 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.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
quote:
> 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 wrote (19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700):
quote:
> I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
> by Phil Innes about what other people should be
> ALLOWED to read.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):
quote:
> 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)
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
| jr (wrote (17 Oct 2005 19:35:40 -0700):
quote:
> [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"?
| |
| Larry Tapper 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
avital.pilpel@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
quote:
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
| |
| Skeptic 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
| > Yes you could. But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess into mainstream
quote:
> 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.
quote:
> 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 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
"Skeptic" <avital.pilpel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129749989.185676.247640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
mainstream[vbcol=seagreen]
to be[vbcol=seagreen]
also want to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Not any more strange than the fact you won't find the American
Medical
quote:
> 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
quote:
> 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 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
| _
"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 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
| David Kane wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:49:48 -0700):
quote:
> 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.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-19, 7:35 pm |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> 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.
| |
|
| Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> Louis Blair wrote:
>
> 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.
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.
quote:
> Tarrasch played a world title match with Lasker in 1916.
Perhaps all records of it were lost during the Great War? :-)
quote:
> 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
| |
| David Ames 2005-10-19, 11:31 pm |
| >
quote:
>
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
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-19, 11:31 pm |
| 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.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>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.]]]]]
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>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.]]]]]
quote:
>did (though Fine made plenty of errors) or produce the
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Indeed he doesn't.
[[[[[This is called a gratuitous slap. In many circles it is regarded
as unfair.]]]]]
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>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.]]]]]
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>(Shrug) well, of course he does. So do pornographic
>books, but that's no recommendation.
[[[[[A smear. No evidence. Just another slap.]]]]]
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>True, true.
>Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount of
>shelf space devoted to:
quote:
>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.]]]]]
quote:
>So what?
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>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.
[[[[[I dealt with the above paragraph in the
introduction to this message.]]]]]
quote:
>...," etc. -- and it is our right to hold the man's
[vbcol=seagreen]
>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.]]]]]
| |
| Equinorm@AOL.com 2005-10-19, 11:31 pm |
|
David Ames wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
>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
| |
| Equinorm@AOL.com 2005-10-19, 11:31 pm |
|
David Ames wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
>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
| |
| Equinorm@AOL.com 2005-10-19, 11:31 pm |
|
David Ames wrote:
quote:
> 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.
quote:
>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
| |
| David Kane 2005-10-19, 11:31 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1129756007.327092.159180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> David Kane wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:49:48 -0700):
>
>
> _
> 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.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-10-19, 11:31 pm |
| Commenting on a criticism of Eric Schiller,
Larry Parr wrote (19 Oct 2005 19:03:49 -0700):
quote:
> 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 shr | | |