Chess forum - Misleading Book Titles.

Author

Misleading Book Titles.

Skeptic

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

I was browsing chess books in a store the other day, and noted two extremely
misleading chess titles. By "misleading" I do not mean "lousy book", a book
that fails to do what it intends to--I mean a book where there is no
connection between the book and the title.

The first was Eric Schiller's "Complete Defense to King Pawn Opening", by
Eric Schiller, described on the cover as "the world's leading writer on
chess openings." The table fo contents instantly shows that this "complete"
book deals solely with the Caro-Kann! The second is "Pandolfini's Ultimate
Guide to Chess: Basic to Advanced Strategies with America's Foremost Chess
Tutor". The table of contents shows "Basic strategies" actually means "how
the pieces move", while "advanced strategies" means "centralize your king in
the endgame", "avoid doubled pawns", etc.

This is, simply, false advertising. Apparently, either the authors or the
publishers of these books decided that a book with "complete" or "ultimate"
in the title (and "leading writer" or "foremost teacher" next to the
author's name) would sell better, at least to their target
market--beginners--who do not know enough about chess to know they are being
misled.

Compare this to Capablanca, for example. When he wrote a book for beginners,
how did he call it? "Chess Secrets of the World Champion"? "The Ultimate
Chess Course from the World's Leading Chess Expert"? "The Complete Chess
Strategy Guide from the World's Foremost Player"? No--he simply called it
"Chess Fundamentals".

But then again, Capablanca was a gentleman.

mikeNOSPAM@theopenfile.com

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

Geez...get a life.

- Mike Petersen

Chess One

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

"Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:NimTe.29348$%w.16874@twister.nyc.rr.com...

quote:

>I was browsing chess books in a store the other day, and noted two
>extremely misleading chess titles. By "misleading" I do not mean "lousy
>book", a book that fails to do what it intends to--I mean a book where
>there is no connection between the book and the title.
>
> The first was Eric Schiller's "Complete Defense to King Pawn Opening", by
> Eric Schiller, described on the cover as "the world's leading writer on
> chess openings." The table fo contents instantly shows that this
> "complete" book deals solely with the Caro-Kann! The second is
> "Pandolfini's Ultimate Guide to Chess: Basic to Advanced Strategies with
> America's Foremost Chess Tutor". The table of contents shows "Basic
> strategies" actually means "how the pieces move", while "advanced
> strategies" means "centralize your king in the endgame", "avoid doubled
> pawns", etc.

I just reviewed an Everyman title which the cover described as
'comprehensive' but the author's own introduction described as 'a sketch',
and which the cover said was 'wild and aggressive', while the introduction
asserted 'sensible investment'.

quote:

> This is, simply, false advertising. Apparently, either the authors or the
> publishers of these books decided that a book with "complete" or
> "ultimate" in the title (and "leading writer" or "foremost teacher" next
> to the author's name) would sell better, at least to their target
> market--beginners--who do not know enough about chess to know they are
> being misled.

Yes - its good to read reviews if they are honest - especially since slim
titles are almost as expensive as ones double their size. Although in
reviewing another book recently it was clear to me that at least 50% of the
'reviewers' had no idea what was between the covers, and even those who
looked inside didn't actually bother to read much, and understood even less.

The Everyman title was incidentally 128 pages, copyright 2003, and cost
$19.95 in the USA. The Everyman site has listed the title as having 144
pages...

quote:

> Compare this to Capablanca, for example. When he wrote a book for
> beginners, how did he call it? "Chess Secrets of the World Champion"? "The
> Ultimate Chess Course from the World's Leading Chess Expert"? "The
> Complete Chess Strategy Guide from the World's Foremost Player"? No--he
> simply called it "Chess Fundamentals".
>
> But then again, Capablanca was a gentleman.

So he was, and 'disinterested' - but we should be aware that many chess
books from only a few publishing houses are reviewed by each other's
writers - so that it might incline me to slam your book because it might
compete with mine, or with my 'house-colleague'. Maybe this is even
justified on occasion, but how gentlemanly to have said that one was in the
exact same market at the same time with a competing product? ;)

Cordially, Phil Innes

Skeptic

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

Perhaps you can tell me this: who actually WRITES the cover / back cover
blurb on most chess books?

It seems that if an author writes a book about, say, the French defense,
publishers today think the cover must proclaim "WIN WITH THE FRENCH!", while
the back cover blurb must say "The world-famous super-expert on the French,
Grandmaster so-and-so, will show you in this book how to beat all your
opponents in fifteen moves or less as black, so you will add 1200 points to
your rating in three weeks."

I don't see the point of such fluff, and I suspect that, usually at least,
it's not the authors who are responsible for such nonsense, but the
publishers' marketing people.

Bruce Leverett

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

Skeptic wrote:

quote:

> I was browsing chess books in a store the other day, and noted two extremely
> misleading chess titles. By "misleading" I do not mean "lousy book", a book
> that fails to do what it intends to--I mean a book where there is no
> connection between the book and the title.
>
> The first was Eric Schiller's "Complete Defense to King Pawn Opening", by
> Eric Schiller, described on the cover as "the world's leading writer on
> chess openings." The table fo contents instantly shows that this "complete"
> book deals solely with the Caro-Kann!

You are misunderstanding.

The idea of "Complete Defense to King Pawn Opening" is not to teach you
about all the different defenses, but to teach you one defense that
would be "complete" -- you wouldn't have to learn any other. This is
not a false or misleading title. Some years ago a whole bunch of books
came out with titles along the same lines: "Complete Defense to XXXX"
or "Complete Opening System for White". The idea in every case was to
enable a player to get by with just a very narrow opening repertoire.
The book you are quoting is just one of those.

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

Bruce Leverett wrote:

quote:

> The idea of "Complete Defense to King Pawn Opening" is not to teach you
> about all the different defenses, but to teach you one defense that
> would be "complete" -- you wouldn't have to learn any other. This is
> not a false or misleading title.

I would agree. If the book examines the Caro-Kann in sufficient depth
and breadth, it could reasonably be billed as offering a "complete
defense" to 1.e4.
The cover blurb's claim that Eric Schiller is "the world's leading
writer on
chess openings" is another matter. Schiller might be considered so only
in terms of quantity, definitely not in quality.

irvin

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

When Max D'lugy was USCF President he stopped by a chess table in Washington
Square Park where Roman Dzindzichashvili was giving me 5-1.5 time odds for a
small wager. We struck a conversation and I eventually asked him how he felt
about the USCF selling books with "mutually-exclusive" titles like "Winning
with the Sicilian" and "Beating the Sicilian". He laughed a bit and we
dismissed it as regular publisher's hype.

The bottom line: buyer beware. Salespeople will present their products in
the most favorable light, even if that means bending/stretching/raping the
truth.

--
Irvin
-------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com

"Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:NimTe.29348$%w.16874@twister.nyc.rr.com...

quote:

>I was browsing chess books in a store the other day, and noted two
>extremely misleading chess titles. By "misleading" I do not mean "lousy
>book", a book that fails to do what it intends to--I mean a book where
>there is no connection between the book and the title.
>
> The first was Eric Schiller's "Complete Defense to King Pawn Opening", by
> Eric Schiller, described on the cover as "the world's leading writer on
> chess openings." The table fo contents instantly shows that this
> "complete" book deals solely with the Caro-Kann! The second is
> "Pandolfini's Ultimate Guide to Chess: Basic to Advanced Strategies with
> America's Foremost Chess Tutor". The table of contents shows "Basic
> strategies" actually means "how the pieces move", while "advanced
> strategies" means "centralize your king in the endgame", "avoid doubled
> pawns", etc.
>
> This is, simply, false advertising. Apparently, either the authors or the
> publishers of these books decided that a book with "complete" or
> "ultimate" in the title (and "leading writer" or "foremost teacher" next
> to the author's name) would sell better, at least to their target
> market--beginners--who do not know enough about chess to know they are
> being misled.
>
> Compare this to Capablanca, for example. When he wrote a book for
> beginners, how did he call it? "Chess Secrets of the World Champion"? "The
> Ultimate Chess Course from the World's Leading Chess Expert"? "The
> Complete Chess Strategy Guide from the World's Foremost Player"? No--he
> simply called it "Chess Fundamentals".
>
> But then again, Capablanca was a gentleman.
>

Sam Sloan

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

On 6 Sep 2005 14:47:41 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:

quote:

>
>Bruce Leverett wrote:
>
> I would agree. If the book examines the Caro-Kann in sufficient depth
>and breadth, it could reasonably be billed as offering a "complete
>defense" to 1.e4.
> The cover blurb's claim that Eric Schiller is "the world's leading
>writer on
>chess openings" is another matter. Schiller might be considered so only
>in terms of quantity, definitely not in quality.
>

Taylor Kingston claims that he never attacks Eric Schiller, but he
always does except of course when he is attacking one of his other
favorite targets, which include Larry Parr, Larry Evans, Ray Keene and
me.

Here, the claim is that Schiller is the "world's leading writer on
chess openings". I feel that the "world's leading writer" would be the
one who either writes the most or is read the most. It is not the
strongest player or who writes the best. Since Schiller clearly writes
the most and is probably read the most, his publisher is certainly
entitled to call him "the world's leading writer".

Sam Sloan

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-06, 8:35 pm

Sam Sloan wrote:

quote:

> Here, the claim is that Schiller is the "world's leading writer on
> chess openings". I feel that the "world's leading writer" would be the
> one who either writes the most or is read the most. It is not the
> strongest player or who writes the best.

One must concede that Sam is at least consistent. Not only does he
observe no discernible standards of quality himself, but he actively
prefers writers whose work is shoddy.

Skeptic

2005-09-07, 12:32 am

X-no-Archives:yes

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1126043261.260366.250240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Bruce Leverett wrote:
>
> I would agree. If the book examines the Caro-Kann in sufficient depth
> and breadth, it could reasonably be billed as offering a "complete
> defense" to 1.e4.
> The cover blurb's claim that Eric Schiller is "the world's leading
> writer on
> chess openings" is another matter. Schiller might be considered so only
> in terms of quantity, definitely not in quality.

I see both of your points, but I still think the title is deeply misleading.

Let's use an analogy. Suppose someone writes a book, "The Complete French
Cook Book". You open it and find out, to your amazement, that it contains
ONLY recipies for souffles. The excuse is that, since there are so many
different types of souffles in the French kitchen, one could limit oneself
only to them and still be able to cook apperizers, entrees, and desserts, so
it is "complete"... as long as one is willing to only eat souffles. Or how
about a book--"The Complete guide for Car Repair"--which deals only with
repairing Ford Pintos, excusing the title by saying that, after all, if you
voluntarily limit yourself to only driving a Pinto, then it IS a "complete"
guide as far as your concerned?

Surely you'd feel cheated? "Complete" implies broadness, variety, many
options--strictly speaking it implies looking at ALL options and varieties
of something, (although by that definition no "complete" book or guide is
ever really "complete"). To say a book is a "complete" reply to 1. e4 as
long as you limit yourself strictly to the Caro-Kann is (to paraphrase Henry
Ford) like claiming that the model Ts come in a "complete" range of colors,
as long as one is willing to only ask for black-hued colors. The differnce
is, Ford was kidding.

Seems like a marketing thing to me. Another book about the Caro-Kann? (Yawn)
who cares? But wait! If you agree only to play the Caro-Kann against 1.e4,
you now have a "complete reply to 1.e4"--just what the average 1400-player,
sick and tired of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5/c4
play-until-somebody-hangs-material games is looking for! It's a goldmine!

David Ames

2005-09-07, 6:35 am

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> Bruce Leverett wrote:
>
> I would agree. If the book examines the Caro-Kann in sufficient depth
> and breadth, it could reasonably be billed as offering a "complete
> defense" to 1.e4.
> The cover blurb's claim that Eric Schiller is "the world's leading
> writer on
> chess openings" is another matter. Schiller might be considered so only
> in terms of quantity, definitely not in quality.

I am reminded of the old gibe at Fred Reinfeld: "Have you seen
Reinfeld's last book?" "I hope so."

David Ames

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-07, 8:33 pm

David Ames wrote:

quote:

> I am reminded of the old gibe at Fred Reinfeld: "Have you seen
> Reinfeld's last book?" "I hope so."

Agreed, Reinfeld's later work was mediocre, and he recycled and
repackaged shamelessly. Still, compared to Schiller, Reinfeld was like
an American Tarrasch.

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-07, 8:33 pm

I have written no chess books, but have 12 published books by various
companies. When you deal with a publisher, they may make changes in the
title to make it more "sellable" and often, the author is practically
forced to go along.

I also wrote the back matter for most of my books, which once or twice
was garbled into something almost unintelligible by a copyeditor who
didn't understand the profession the book was written for at all. And
odd things happen like the copyeditor changing the name of the
certifying body for which a review text was written.

As to Reinfeld, he wrote some of the best books on chess and some awful
ones. One of his books I consider the only pedagogically correct way to
teach chess (speak of Tarrasch and being dogmatic!). The first section
starts with endgame studies, moves on to problems (mostly miniatures,
easy for the beginner to understand, if not solve) and then teaches by
showing complete games.

But often very good books do not sell. When you first enter publishing,
you assume publishers want a quality book. But as one of my
acquisitions editors once told me, "We don't want to publish good
books. We want to publish books that sell."

On that sad state of affairs, I sign off.

Jerzy

2005-09-07, 8:33 pm

Skeptic wrote:

quote:

> Compare this to Capablanca, for example. When he wrote a book for
> beginners, how did he call it? "Chess Secrets of the World Champion"?
> "The Ultimate Chess Course from the World's Leading Chess Expert"?
> "The Complete Chess Strategy Guide from the World's Foremost Player"?
> No--he simply called it "Chess Fundamentals".
>
> But then again, Capablanca was a gentleman.

He lived almost 100 years ago when commercialism wasn`t so developped as
today and he *was* a WCC. Therefore he didn`t call his book e.g. "Chess
Fundamentals by WCC" but he gave a more modest title "Chess Fundamentals"
unlike many chess writers who are not WCCs but use many advertising tricks.
BTW Capa earned a good salary as a diplomat so he didn`t have to sell his
books at any cost using such tricks.

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-07, 8:33 pm

Skeptic wrote:

quote:

> I see both of your points, but I still think the title is deeply misleading.

Looking into this a bit further, I think Mr. Skeptic may have a valid
point in this particular case.

quote:

> Let's use an analogy. Suppose someone writes a book, "The Complete French
> Cook Book". You open it and find out, to your amazement, that it contains
> ONLY recipies for souffles. The excuse is that, since there are so many
> different types of souffles in the French kitchen, one could limit oneself
> only to them and still be able to cook apperizers, entrees, and desserts, so
> it is "complete"... as long as one is willing to only eat souffles.

Some semantic issues are involved here. Crucial is the distinction
between "The Complete ..." and "A Complete ...". In the context of
chess books, the former implies "everything about this subject," the
latter "everything about part of this subject."
There are many chess books with titles like "A Complete Opening
Repertoire for White" or "A Complete Defense to 1.d4" or some such.
Having reviewed chess books for about a decade, and always with the
buyer's interests a high priority, I consider this quite legitimate.
Generallly "A Complete Repertoire" books do not claim to teach *all*
chess openings -- they teach a small subset of openings, usually ones
that limit the opponent's options, which one can play exclusively, and
still get a playable game. The "A Complete Defense" books do not claim
to teach all possible defenses to, say, 1.e4, but rather they
concentrate on one particular defense -- Pirc, Sicilian, French,
Caro-Kann, whatever -- that will give one decent chances against 1.e4.
Again, quite legitimate, as long as the book has reasonable depth and
breadth, deals with a sound opening, and does not omit key lines.
However, the specific Schiller book Skeptic cites is different.
Checking www.Amazon.com, it appears the title is actually "Complete
Defense to King Pawn Openings." This title is ambiguous, starting with
neither "A" nor "The," but the plural "openings" implies that is of the
"The" type. This is clearly reinforced by the the alluring promise
immediately following: "Win against *_any_* King Pawn Opening!" This
definitely gives the impression that the book deals with the entire
huge variety of lines possible after 1.e4 -- Ruy Lopez, King's Gambit,
Vienna Game, Bishop's Opening, etc. etc., just to name a few of the
symmetrical lines.
After 1.e4 c6, by definition only one opening is possible: the
Caro-Kann. If, as Skeptic says, the book deals *only* with the
Caro-Kann, then the "win against any king pawn opening" claim is at
worst deceptive, at best meaningless.

quote:

> Seems like a marketing thing to me.

I would agree, and it is typical of the absurd hype Cardoza puts on
most Schiller books.

Harold Buck

2005-09-07, 8:33 pm

In article <LDsTe.8107$x43.2090152@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
"Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

quote:

> Surely you'd feel cheated? "Complete" implies broadness, variety, many
> options--strictly speaking it implies looking at ALL options and varieties
> of something, (although by that definition no "complete" book or guide is
> ever really "complete"). To say a book is a "complete" reply to 1. e4 as
> long as you limit yourself strictly to the Caro-Kann is (to paraphrase Henry
> Ford) like claiming that the model Ts come in a "complete" range of colors,
> as long as one is willing to only ask for black-hued colors. The differnce
> is, Ford was kidding.

You just don't understand the convention, that's all. First of all,
you'd have to be an idiot to think that one book was going to cover all
possible responses the 1. e4 in enough depth to be useful, at least if
you were going to be able to lift it.

Second, the practice is to call something a "complete" defense if it
provides a system that you can use against all legitimate reponses. And
there are many books that do this sort of thing, with titles like "A
complete defense. . ." If it were one book, maybe you'd have a point,
but when everyone does it I don't think you have a valid complaint. It's
like if you bought a book called "A complete guide to French desserts"
and then complained that it didn't tell you how to make soups.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-07, 8:33 pm

>This is clearly reinforced by the the alluring promise

quote:

>immediately following: "Win against *_any_* King Pawn Opening!"

And being one who picks nits, I must note that 1. e3 is also a King
Pawn Opening.

Someone mentioned Schiller's Tarrasch book as being the best on that
opening in another thread. I still think the old Samarian book on the
QGD is the best, even if horribly dated. I wish some GM would pick that
book up and revise it.... Schiller's book is OK if you want to learn an
active defense, but as in most of his books, it stops short of mastery.

And as to the guy who bought a book on the Elephant Gambit by a 1200,
the best Elephant Gambit book is still "Fernspiel und Schachschulung,"
by an author who played the Elephant Gambit in postal chess, as did I,
pre-computers.

Schiller has also written about a "bust" to the Elephant Gambit in his
books, which he has recycled over and over again. I can't tell you how
happy I am that people follow his "bust," as it is not one at all, and
as usual, stops before the real work is to be done. I have won tons of
blitz games on ICC when people follow his "bust." It is a position that
should be bad for black, but you must either have memorized much more
theory or understand the ins and outs of this particular gambit to win.

My favorite postal game was in true Sam Sloan style, and against a
1900:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5?! 3. exd e4 4. Bb5+?? c6 5. dxc bxc 6. Qe2 (the move
he counted on, I think) cxb5 7. Qxe4+ Qe7 0-1

My favorite Schillerism is in his book on the Scotch Gambit, where he
notes the line analyzed by Maroczy:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 Qf6? and now 6. e5! is
good for white, and winning if Black plays 6. ... Nxe5, but Schiller
doesn't go any further than that, and notes the position as possibly
not being so bad for Black. However, White achieves a winning position
in one move here, meaning that Schiller didn't look very closely and
second- or third-hand referenced Maroczy, as his analysis clearly shows
the win. I bet even Goran Tomic could find the win.

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-07, 8:33 pm

jamesrynd@aol.com wrote:

quote:

> Someone mentioned Schiller's Tarrasch book as being the best on that
> opening in another thread.

Co-author on that was GM Leonid Shamkovich; in fact he is listed
first. Was he or Schiller primarily responsible for the book's quality?

Chess Freak

2005-09-07, 8:33 pm

How Ironic.

<mikeNOSPAM@theopenfile.com> wrote in message news:1126035912.827541.158740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Geez...get a life.
|
| - Mike Petersen
|

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-08, 12:32 am

KINGSTON'S HOWL

quote:

>One must concede that Sam is at least consistent. Not only does he observe no discernible standards of quality himself, but he actively prefers writers whose work is shoddy...typical of the absurd hype Cardoza puts on most Schiller books.> Taylor Kingsto

n

Sam Sloan has got it essentially right. The
publisher's claim that Eric Schiller is the world's
leading writer on chess openings is not absurd; it is
on a par, as it were, with arguing that Fred Reinfeld
was once the world's greatest chess teacher.

Eric would be the first to say, "Bobby Fischer
could provide you with far deeper insights into the
Ruy Lopez and its strategies than I can, but if you
want a set of books looking at the widest array of
openings, then I have probably written the most
ambitious selection yet published."

We are all aware that the publisher's blurb WAS
talking about quantity and breadth of treatment of a
vast number of openings. It was not talking about a
lifetime labor of love on a single opening (say, Hugh
Myers' work on the Nimzovich) or Paul Keres' monumental
work on the French Defense.

Eric Schiller fills a market niche, and his huge
number of readers evidently believe that he meets
needs they are willing to pay to assuage.

Self-proclaimed ELO powerhouse NM Taylor
Kingston's contumely is the howl of the widely disregarded.

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-08, 12:32 am

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> Sam Sloan has got it essentially right. The
> publisher's claim that Eric Schiller is the world's
> leading writer on chess openings is not absurd; it is
> on a par, as it were, with arguing that Fred Reinfeld
> was once the world's greatest chess teacher.
> Eric Schiller fills a market niche, and his huge
> number of readers evidently believe that he meets
> needs they are willing to pay to assuage.

I really didn't think even Larry would go this far. Sam obviously has
no shame and no sense, but Larry at least makes a pretense of erudition
and of upholding certain standards. And now, after he has had the gall
to accuse the eminent and highly competent historians Ken Whyld and
David Hooper of being liars in the service of the Soviet Union, Parr
contrives to find excuses for the absurd hype given to the "work" of
Eric Schiller.
Words fail me.

Skeptic

2005-09-08, 12:32 am

X-no-Archives:yes

quote:

> Generallly "A Complete Repertoire" books do not claim to teach *all*
> chess openings -- they teach a small subset of openings, usually ones
> that limit the opponent's options, which one can play exclusively, and
> still get a playable game.

No argument from me here; of course "complete" does not mean "all possible
variations to 1.e4 seen at master level". I did not even expect it to mean,
"all common variations seen at club level". Indeed, I would have expected,
in context, precisely less common alternatives that gives the black player a
selection of possiblities that are NOT the Ruy Lopez, Italian, or French
openings, i.e., an exposition of the more important "off the beaten path"
alternatives for the beginner's level.

So a book including information on the main variations and ideas of, say,
the Alekhine, Petroff, Caro-Kann, Pirc, and Philidor, deliberately ignoring
the Ruy Lopez, Italian, and Sicilian, would make sense as a "complete
defense to 1.e4" in this context. Of course I am not presuming to write it,
or to insist on all or any of these openings in particular to be "fairly"
called "complete". But surely a book ONLY about the Caro-Kann is deeply
misleading. To reuse my metaphor, I would not expect a book titled "Complete
French Cooking for Beginners" to include all, or even most, French
recipies--but I would expect it to include more than only souffles!

On second thought, though, perhaps what really bothers me is the pedagogical
issue here. Even if technically the Caro-Kann can be a "complete" defense to
1.e4, with such a title, Schiller implies that a beginner--his target
audience--learning the Caro-Kann knows enough about chess openings replies
to 1.e4 (at least for the time being). This is simply not true--it's hard to
think of something that will stunt the development of a beginner more than
exclusive reliance on one opening as black to the most common opening move
in chess.

It reminds me a bit of the old Russian story about Ossip Bender, a very weak
player, who pretends to be a great chess champion in order to scam a town of
trusting people. He agrees to give a simul in the local chess club,
supremely confident of victory, since he knew that "At least the first move,
1.e4, would not present any problems". I suspect that such a "complete
opening book" is only marginally worse than these sort of one-opening
"complete defense" tricks, in practice.

Louis Blair

2005-09-08, 12:32 am

Skeptic wrote (Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:42:37 GMT):

quote:

> ... Eric Schiller, described on the cover as "the
> world's leading writer on chess openings."

_
Larry Parr wrote (7 Sep 2005 17:38:44 -0700):

quote:

> We are all aware that the publisher's blurb WAS
> talking about quantity and breadth of treatment of a
> vast number of openings.

_
Who does Larry Parr include in this "We"?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-08, 12:32 am

ANOTHER PALPABLE LIE

quote:

>Sam obviously has no shame and no sense, but Larry at least makes a pretense of erudition and of upholding certain standards. And now, after he has had the gall to accuse the eminent and highly competent historians Ken Whyld and David Hooper of being lia

rs in the service of the Soviet Union, Parr contrives to find excuses for the absurd hype given to the "work" of Eric Schiller. Words fail me.> Taylor Kingston

I am being accused of writing what I have not written. Never did
I accuse Hooper and Whyld of being "in the service of the Soviet
Union." That is a
palpable lie.

In fact, I "accused" them of writing what was up until then the
finest chess reference work ever penned! I noted that many Soviet
entries in the Oxford Companion had a pinkish complexion and were
evidently dishonest. I did not speculate on their motives inmy review,
though have since written they were likely in service to themselves,
trading information with Soviet sources and not wishing to
offend them.

Nor was this practice unusual during the Soviet period. Both the
Britannica and the National Geographic were notorious for being willing
to print evil nonsense about the USSR to retain access.

In the case of the National Geographic, the most infamous, indeed
evil, instance was its December 1944 issue when the death camps of the
Kolyma and Magadan
were portrayed as little short of health resorts. (In Magadan, since
the fall of the Reds, there is a museum devoted to these great death
camps -- more deadly in
the early years than Auschwitz, since even the guards died of
starvation and exposure in 90 degree below zero temperatures.
Cannibalism was normal.)

Now, then, to Eric Schiller once again.

We note that no argument is made against my point: Mr.
Schiller evidently successfully serves a large market niche of buyers
and repeat buyers. He is not giving them Keres on the
Dreispringerspiel bis Koenigsgambit; he is giving them an introduction
and an overview of an amazingly large number of openings. In the
important sense of being an entrepreneurial writer on the openings who
serves a need that people are willing to assuage by paying moolah, then
one can indeed argue that Mr. Schiller is the world's leading writer on
the openings. That is what I wrote. That is where I stand. That is
what goes unaddressed by a certain
Winterian claqueur.

As for erudition, I am just one of the crackers sitting around
the hookah in the
mountains of Crossville, smoking up ice baby and rooting for Tennessee
football teams, if there are any. I mean: there must be, right?

Skeptic

2005-09-08, 3:31 am

> In fact, I "accused" them of writing what was up until then the

quote:

> finest chess reference work ever penned! I noted that many Soviet
> entries in the Oxford Companion had a pinkish complexion and were
> evidently dishonest.

Can you give an example of such an entry? I have the book, which is indeed
excellent, but I don't see what you mean by entries having a "pinkish
complexion". The most that I can see is that the book, rightly in my
opinion, tends to avoid political controversy and unsubstantiated rumors.

But they do the same with western grandmasters. Generally speaking, they
avoid both the "lost on purpose to X after threathened by the KGB" rumors
about Soviet players and the "rabid antisemite who lost his mind by mistake
after playing too many blindfold games" rumors about western players.

Louis Blair

2005-09-08, 3:31 am

Skeptic wrote (Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:42:37 GMT):

quote:

> ... Eric Schiller, described on the cover as "the
> world's leading writer on chess openings."

_
Larry Parr wrote (7 Sep 2005 17:38:44 -0700):

quote:

> We are all aware that the publisher's blurb WAS
> talking about quantity and breadth of treatment of a
> vast number of openings.

_
I wrote (7 Sep 2005 20:22:51 -0700):

quote:

> Who does Larry Parr include in this "We"?

_
Larry Parr wrote (7 Sep 2005 20:38:01 -0700):

quote:

> We note that no argument is made against my
> point: ...

_
Perhaps that is because we are still waiting for
Larry Parr to clarify certain aspects of what he
has written.
_
Again, who does Larry Parr include in this "We"?
(See first Larry Parr quote above.)

Louis Blair

2005-09-08, 3:31 am

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV=ADVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com>
Date: 1 Aug 2005 19:22:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Rage of the Librarians
..=2E.
The title of my Oxford Companion review was
"Brilliant Reference Work Is Orwellian Memory Hole."
..=2E.
I wrote, "The Oxford Companion is, then,
informed, witty, and quite often pathbreaking. Its
scholarly hues seem sober yet lively. But there is
another color to this book which strikes the mind's
eye like a ray from one of Homer's rosy-fingered
dawns. This is the color of the politically scarlet
thread which runs through most of the entries on
subjects Soviet."
..=2E.
I ended, "Still, before concluding that the
Messrs. Hooper and Whyld are -- whatever their values
as antiquarians -- a pretty nasty bill of goods, one
ought to consider that they could merely be two rather
wide-eyed, historical naifs let loose among the tells
of Soviet arcana by a commissin to write a book.
Moreover, their bizarre notion that Nikolai Krylenko,
the first Soviet chess czar and one-time Commissar for
Justice, is 'widely held to be responsible for
Stalin's purges' lends some credence to the idea that,
in matters Soviet, they are intellectually virgo intacta.
_
"But, really, one doubts it. They knew better.
And in that knowing better, they have done something
highly original: they have written a brilliant work
of reference which is, at the same time, an Orwellian
memory hole."=20
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA=ADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Skeptic

2005-09-08, 8:34 pm

X-no-Archives:yes

NOTE: for some reason I cannot see my reply to Mr. Kingston on my server;
this is a repost. If y'all see it twice I apologize...

quote:

> Generallly "A Complete Repertoire" books do not claim to teach *all*
> chess openings -- they teach a small subset of openings, usually ones
> that limit the opponent's options, which one can play exclusively, and
> still get a playable game.

Louis Blair

2005-09-08, 8:34 pm

Skeptic wrote (Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:42:37 GMT):

quote:

> ... Eric Schiller, described on the cover as "the
> world's leading writer on chess openings."

_
Larry Parr wrote (7 Sep 2005 17:38:44 -0700):

quote:

> We are all aware that the publisher's blurb WAS
> talking about quantity and breadth of treatment of a
> vast number of openings.

_
I wrote (7 Sep 2005 20:22:51 -0700):

quote:

> Who does Larry Parr include in this "We"?

_
Still waiting for an answer.

David Ames

2005-09-09, 3:32 am

At one point, Baburin wanted people not to buy his book. I believe he
felt he got a raw deal from the publisher -- was it Batsford.

David Ames

Angelo DePalma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Of course there's "Secrets of Grandmaster Chess" which is really an
> autobiography of John Nunn, complete with deeply annotated (I think he goes
> too far) games. This book would be more interesting of Nunn were a more
> compelling chess personality.
>
> Then there's "Winning Pawn Structures" by Baburin, a truly excellent book.
> Unfortunately the title misleads, as the only structures he discusses are
> IQPs (maybe I didn' see others towards the back). This book is highly
> recommended.
>
> "Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:NimTe.29348$%w.16874@twister.nyc.rr.com...

samsloan

2005-09-09, 8:33 pm

irvin wrote:

quote:

> When Max D'lugy was USCF President he stopped by a chess table in Washington
> Square Park where Roman Dzindzichashvili was giving me 5-1.5 time odds for a
> small wager.

Are you sure it was Washington Square Park? I believe it was probably
Liberty Park, across the street from the World Trade Center. Roman
Dzindzichashvili usually played in Liberty Park and Max Dlugy often
stopped by Liberty Park to watch the games, as he worked for Bankers
Trust across the street.

I assume that it was the Bankers Trust job that eventually led to Dlugy
being in jail where he is today.

Sam Sloan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Dlugy

irvin

2005-09-09, 8:33 pm

It was Washington Square Park, Sam. I'm sure, because, among other things, I
never visited the Liberty Park chess tables. Roman (great player and great
natural talent!) played in many places at various times.

--
Irvin
-------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com

"samsloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:1126263869.886976.36800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> irvin wrote:
>
> Are you sure it was Washington Square Park? I believe it was probably
> Liberty Park, across the street from the World Trade Center. Roman
> Dzindzichashvili usually played in Liberty Park and Max Dlugy often
> stopped by Liberty Park to watch the games, as he worked for Bankers
> Trust across the street.
>
> I assume that it was the Bankers Trust job that eventually led to Dlugy
> being in jail where he is today.
>
> Sam Sloan
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Dlugy
>

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-09, 8:33 pm

When he destroyed me at a National Open a few years back, Baburin said
he had finally come to terms with the publisher. However, the amount of
money he received from a book that sold well and was also a good book
was frighteningly low.

Nunn a more compelling chess personality? Strong IGM, good writer (one
of the stories in that very book about meeting an Irish player who had
been severly inebriated the night before and whom Nunn assumed he would
wipe off the board was a howl - Nunn lost), now IGM of Chess Problem
Solving, now probably on the route to IGM of chess composition as well.
How is that not compelling?

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-09, 8:33 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> Sam Sloan has got it essentially right. The
> publisher's claim that Eric Schiller is the world's
> leading writer on chess openings is not absurd; it is
> on a par, as it were, with arguing that Fred Reinfeld
> was once the world's greatest chess teacher ...
> Eric Schiller fills a market niche, and his huge
> number of readers evidently believe that he meets
> needs they are willing to pay to assuage.

Some relevant quotes:

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey." -- John Ruskin

"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the
people all of the time ..." -- A. Lincoln

"Advertising may be described as the science of arresting human
intelligence long enough to get money from it." -- Stephen Leacock

"Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest
way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless." --
Sinclair Lewis

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-09, 8:33 pm

I would say that my own major critique of Schiller is not that he
writes books for 1500s, but that he assumes that inferior work is
acceptable for 1500s. When I ran a chess club, I could see that most
1500s are just dying to reach that 1800 level, and want to do whatever
it takes to improve. But with most Schiller books, they won't. It was
sad to see lines that Schiller gave as + and watch them get busted due
to the very fact that those lines were just wholly incorrect and they
played them blindly.

Yes, that is their fault too, but it seems to me that it is also
preying on those weaker than you. I guess Larry Parr, our local
libertarian zealot, sees nothing wrong with making a little profit off
them. To me, it smacks of hucksterism. Schiller is not meeting their
needs, he is simply profiting from them. Is profit bad? No, but when
your product sucks, how ethical is it to suck money away from people?

Chess One

2005-09-09, 8:33 pm

Well, as much as I usually disagree with 'jamesrynd' here he writes a very
good post:-

<jamesrynd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1126293386.465056.74520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>I would say that my own major critique of Schiller is not that he
> writes books for 1500s, but that he assumes that inferior work is
> acceptable for 1500s. When I ran a chess club, I could see that most
> 1500s are just dying to reach that 1800 level, and want to do whatever
> it takes to improve. But with most Schiller books, they won't. It was
> sad to see lines that Schiller gave as + and watch them get busted due
> to the very fact that those lines were just wholly incorrect and they
> played them blindly.

yes - how much is the poor 1500 player supposed to remember about technique
and context in some random position OTB, rather than actually study the
board position and 'be there'? - the fact that they ARE 1500 players means
they haven't internalised some basic rules, have fatal flaws in fact, and
their rating is as much the other guy caving in and going nuts in any
position as any merit of their own, no?

Besides, even if the lines offered would be of interest to 2500 level
players, what can this mean in terms of how to behave in real time OTB
without reference to a few clues as could be provided by some book?

quote:

> Yes, that is their fault too, but it seems to me that it is also
> preying on those weaker than you. I guess Larry Parr, our local
> libertarian zealot, sees nothing wrong with making a little profit off
> them. To me, it smacks of hucksterism. Schiller is not meeting their
> needs, he is simply profiting from them. Is profit bad? No, but when
> your product sucks, how ethical is it to suck money away from people?

I would say that 90% of chess books can't really do anything but entertain
the purchaser with schemes and fantasies, and radically understate the need
for work rather than cleverness.

What any 1500 player need to do is to understand whatever position they are
in by virtue of their own wit in real time - if this means studying
beforehand basic factors like pins and piece mobility factors, pawn
structures in early, middle and endgame in books, so be it - but to allow
chess its full and natural scope [and why we liked it in the first place]
surely to god we don't need 1,000 books to tell us these things over and
over - and if we never got the basic principles out of Wienfield or Horowitz
then perhaps the real truth for us is that we are too lazy for chess and we
already peaked ;(

Cordially, Phil Innes

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-09, 8:33 pm

>I would say that 90% of chess books can't really do anything but entertain

quote:

>the purchaser with schemes and fantasies, and radically understate the need
>for work rather than cleverness.

This is of course true, but anyone who has ever taught knows that
learning is exactly about "schemes and fantasies" - and of course, hard
work! There are some books that present such schemes and fantasies in
such a way as to encourage the reader (learner) to pursue further
learning.

I offer Pirc Alert as one of the few books that was good because it was
as entertaining as an opening book can be, and stressed ideas
(fantasies) as well as schemes.

quote:

>then perhaps the real truth for us is that we are too lazy for chess

This is of course true for some. A good many people are willing to work
hard, but if they work hard at the wrong things (eg., 90% of the
Schiller database dump books), they will not improve. And I find that
to be a disservice to the reader.

Of course, Americans especially are always wanting the "quick and easy"
way; and thus, buy these books as shortcuts. Sometimes it is because
they say they lack the time for study. But that problem is easily
solved through a few of the decent repertoire books - there are a few
such good books, especially in the KIA and Colle.

But the "one book" owner is still the one I always loved to play - go
to the Bookseller's stand, buy the book, find a weakness, and win...

Skeptic

2005-09-09, 8:33 pm

X-no-Archives:yes

The problem with weak players memorizing opening varioations is that it is
futile, almost as a matter of logic.

Suppose you are a 1400 player who memorized all the "main lines" of the
Caro-Kann to, say, move 15. Playing with other 1400s, it is 99% certain that
your opponent will deviate from all of those "main lines" into an "inferior
line" by move 5--but you will then have no idea how to exploit it since that
isn't in the book. And in the 1% of cases when he doesn't deviate, he had
reached a nearly equal position anyway and obviously knows the opening as
well as you do, so what have you gained?

It's an excertcise in futility.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-10, 12:32 am

LIBERTARIAN ZEALOT

<I guess Larry Parr, our local libertarian zealot, sees nothing wrong
with making a
little profit off them. To me, it smacks of hucksterism. Schiller is
not meeting their
needs, he is simply profiting from them. Is profit bad? No, but when
your product sucks, how ethical is it to suck money away from people?>
-- James Rynd

James Rynd and the Elo Killer-diller make the argument that the
poor American booboisie does not know what is good for it.

Of the two, Mr. Rynd makes the better argument.

The Elo Killer-diller's ploy, largely untrue to begin with, is
especially outrageous in the chess context. Eric Schiller has no great
resources for advertising and, in truth, does relatively little of it.
The idea that chessplayers
are being snowed under by a mountain of Cardoza Press ads is
preposterous. How many have even appeared in Chess Life?

Chevrolet sold a lot of those hideous Corsairs, I think they were,
with a
truly prodigious advertising campaign, but it was eventually
discontinued for want of sales. The market catches up.

Now, then, for James Rynd,s omeone who says that the market
largely meets needs rather than befuddles people is a libertarian
zealot. I might as well call him a socialist nincompoop.

The problem with his attack (see next paragraph) is that it;s a
sentimental lie. I applaud the feelings that prompted the sentiment,
but his picture is false.

The idea that 1500-rated players are reaching "+" positions and
then losing because of Eric's analysis (against other 1500 to, say,
1800 players) is absurd.
Either that, or the average 1500 is better these days than Bill Brock
(I shall resist further humor here) or, for that matter, a real 2300+
ELO player rather than our self-proclaimed Kingstonian one.

GM Larry Evans once noted that against any player in the world,
you have a chance to recover from an inferior position except perhaps
Bobby Fischer. Are our 1500s now better booked and armed with more
fearsome technique than say a Bob Steinmeyer or a Bill Addison, to name
a couple of old Evans foes?

So, then, why do Eric's books sell well?

Because of the accurate spelling and always spot-on dates?
Because of a Winterian punctilio for tournament names? Because of the
flawless syntax in
which there is never an unclear antecedent or an incorrect tense
progression? Because of the General Motors-level advertising budget at
the mighty Cardoza
Press? Because after more than 100 books our nation's 1500-rated
players have still not caught on to a flim-flam ham?

Or because Eric is frequently engaging and interests readers,
offering an introduction to an opening and a ready handbook that no one
else offers?

I think his work overall bears a striking resemblance to Rogelio
Caparros' who got a ragging from the Winterian claquers for his
collections of Alekhine's and Capablanca's games. There was the usual
huffing and puffing about dates being wrong, names misspelled, this or
that game really belonging in another section and so on. Indeed, I
found errors not mentioned by the bloodhounds, including reversing the
names on a brilliant Capa win over Leon Labatt.

Having said that, and unless a volume has since appeared to
supersede it, Caparros' second edition of Capa's games, which appeared
in 1994, is still the
most complete work on the subject. It obviously serves a market niche;
it obviously meets or met a need; it obviously is selling not because
of massive
advertising or because of silly buyers; and so on. I say this even
though Mr. Caparros' utterly mangled two hitherto unknown Capa games
that I sent him (see page 248) including a 10 second game against
Maroczy. All I could do was smile seraphically.

Eric, too, meets a need -- and to meet it, he cannot by definition
spend years on a single book, turning it into a labor of love. In
which case, he would not be providing a broad survey of openings but
providing an in-depth look at a single opening, which is meeting
another need or set of needs.

Skeptic

2005-09-10, 3:32 am

X-no-Archives:yes

quote:

> Eric, too, meets a need -- and to meet it, he cannot by definition
> spend years on a single book, turning it into a labor of love.

What need? If anything, there is an enormous oversupply of opening books and
encyclopedias. What, exactly, do Schiller's opening books offer that
numerous other opening authors do not? His numerous historical and
grammatical gaffes would be merely annoying if his analysis was good. But
most critics agree that his analysis is derivative, faulty, and inferior to
that of just about anybody else.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-10, 3:32 am

AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT

<But most critics agree that his analysis is derivative, faulty, and
inferior to
that of just about anybody else.> Skeptic

If Eric Schiller's analysis is derivative (whose is not, when
providing opening lines?) then it cannot by definition be "inferior to
that of just about anybody else." There are times when the attacks on
him lack even internal consistency.

Now, you might argue that Eric Schiller, a decent player, is the
single worst chess analyst on planet Earth. You might then conclude
that his analysis is the worst available. This argument would at least
be internally consistent.

But you cannot argue that he is derivative -- taking from Keres
here, Kasparov there -- and that his work is inferior to just about
anybody else. The criticism in this instance would be lack of
originality, not analytical quality.

Those attacking Mr. Schiller's work ought at least to offer
arguments that are consistent internally, if not with reality.

Sam Sloan

2005-09-10, 3:32 am

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:04:51 GMT, "Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

quote:

> But most critics agree that his analysis is derivative, faulty, and inferior to
>that of just about anybody else.

Who are these "most critics" other than Taylor Kingston?

Sam Sloan

Mike Murray

2005-09-10, 6:34 am

On 9 Sep 2005 22:07:23 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:

quote:

>AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT

quote:

><But most critics agree that his analysis is derivative, faulty, and
>inferior to
>that of just about anybody else.> Skeptic

quote:

> If Eric Schiller's analysis is derivative (whose is not, when
>providing opening lines?) then it cannot by definition be "inferior to
>that of just about anybody else." There are times when the attacks on
>him lack even internal consistency.

quote:

> Now, you might argue that Eric Schiller, a decent player, is the
>single worst chess analyst on planet Earth. You might then conclude
>that his analysis is the worst available. This argument would at least
>be internally consistent.

quote:

> But you cannot argue that he is derivative -- taking from Keres
>here, Kasparov there -- and that his work is inferior to just about
>anybody else. The criticism in this instance would be lack of
>originality, not analytical quality.

quote:

> Those attacking Mr. Schiller's work ought at least to offer
>arguments that are consistent internally, if not with reality.

One could say that his analysis is both original and good.
Unfortunately, when it is good, it is not original and when it is
original, it is not good.

(This comment is purely notional, as well as plagiarized, since I have
read no books by Schiller)

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

> The idea that 1500-rated players are reaching "+" positions and

quote:

>then losing because of Eric's analysis (against other 1500 to, say,
>1800 players) is absurd.

I went back and re-read my post and I am fairly secure you
misunderstood, Larry.

I was saying that Schiller was giving those lines as "+", not that they
actually were.

Thus, the 1500 is busted before he even knows it. But he remains
stubborn and secure that the book won't fail him. He may play the line
several times. So he loses a bunch of games, and gives up chess.

Who wins?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

<I was saying that Schiller was giving those lines as "+", not that
they
actually were.> James Rynd

Examples, please.

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> The Elo Killer-diller's ploy, largely untrue to begin with, is
> especially outrageous in the chess context. Eric Schiller has no great
> resources for advertising and, in truth, does relatively little of it.
> The idea that chessplayers
> are being snowed under by a mountain of Cardoza Press ads is
> preposterous. How many have even appeared in Chess Life?

Apparently infuriated by what he regarded as a "palpable lie" on my
part, Larry Parr responds with one of his own. Did I ever say that
"chessplayers are being snowed under by a mountain of Cardoza Press
ads," or anything of the sort? No.
Given the title and context of this thread, the advertising under
discussion is obviously the deceptive title and other hype on the cover
of Schiller's book.

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> <I was saying that Schiller was giving those lines as "+", not that
> they actually were.> James Rynd
>
> Examples, please.

I do not know what lines Mr. Rynd may have been referring to, but a
significant number of Schiller analytical errors are pointed out in
these reviews:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/standco.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/wco.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen15.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review462.pdf

The last of the above points out how Schiller often does not even
copy others' analysis correctly.
These are from just a few minutes' perusal of chesscafe.com, the site
I am most familiar with. I will see later what may be found on other
sites.
The one Schiller book I was foolish enough to buy was a slim
treatment of the Von Henig-Schara Gambit, which I purchased 10 or 15
years ago because at the time (a) it was about the only thing available
on that line, and (b) I was then unaware of Schiller's reputation. On
careful perusal it proved to be rife with errors, both analytical and
typographical. I would cite some of them here, but I threw the book
away some years ago, not wishing to repeat Schiller's sin of profiting
under false pretenses.
In the interest of balance, and in case anyone should think
ChessCafe.com publishes only negative reviews of Schiller books, I note
two other, mostly positive reviews:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/belgrade.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/wakg.txt

Catalan

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:43227053.11941718@ca.news.verio.net...

quote:

>
> Who are these "most critics" other than Taylor Kingston?

Everybody knows who they are. I am surprised that you don't know who they
are.

Equinorm@AOL.com

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

Schiller has written a few very mediocre books himself (e.g., "Complete
Defense to Queen Pawn Openings"), and has collaborated with more
accomplished writers/analysts on a few others. But this small number
of mediocrities shine like supernovas in the dark firmament of his
oeuvre, the vast majority of which was aptly described by Tony Miles in
his famous two word review.

"Eric Schiller, author of more than 80 chess books, and the world's
leading writer on chess openings, is widely considered one of the
foremost chess analysts, writers and teachers." -blurb on back cover
of "Complete Defense to Queen Pawn Openings"

This blurb may not contain any provable mistruths ("leading" and
"foremost" can have various meanings and "widely considered" is
sufficiently vague to allow competing interpretations). It is even
possible that Mr. Schiller has taken legal advice on this issue.
However, there is no question that the gist of this blurb is deceiving,
as it makes Schiller sound like a world-class expert in opening theory
and and a well-regarded chess writer, which he is not.

Caveat emptor.

- Geof Strayer

Catalan

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

<Equinorm@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:1126364525.447099.309530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> "Eric Schiller, author of more than 80 chess books, and the world's
> leading writer on chess openings, is widely considered one of the
> foremost chess analysts, writers and teachers." -blurb on back cover
> of "Complete Defense to Queen Pawn Openings"
>
> This blurb may not contain any provable mistruths ("leading" and
> "foremost" can have various meanings and "widely considered" is
> sufficiently vague to allow competing interpretations). It is even
> possible that Mr. Schiller has taken legal advice on this issue.
> However, there is no question that the gist of this blurb is deceiving,
> as it makes Schiller sound like a world-class expert in opening theory
> and and a well-regarded chess writer, which he is not.

Kinda like his Official Rules of Chess book. Official to who?

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

I reiterate my earlier post, and append at the end a specific example
from FM Carsten Hansen's review:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I do not know what lines Mr. Rynd may have been referring to, but a
> significant number of Schiller analytical errors are pointed out in
> these reviews:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/standco.txt
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/wco.txt
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen15.txt
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review462.pdf
>
> The last of the above points out how Schiller often does not even
> copy others' analysis correctly.
> These are from just a few minutes' perusal of chesscafe.com, the site
> I am most familiar with. I will see later what may be found on other
> sites.
> The one Schiller book I was foolish enough to buy was a slim
> treatment of the Von Henig-Schara Gambit, which I purchased 10 or 15
> years ago because at the time (a) it was about the only thing available
> on that line, and (b) I was then unaware of Schiller's reputation. On
> careful perusal it proved to be rife with errors, both analytical and
> typographical. I would cite some of them here, but I threw the book
> away some years ago, not wishing to repeat Schiller's sin of profiting
> under false pretenses.
> In the interest of balance, and in case anyone should think
> ChessCafe.com publishes only negative reviews of Schiller books, I note
> two other, mostly positive reviews:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/belgrade.txt
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/wakg.txt

From Carsten Hansen's review, an example of an elementary analysis
gaffe by Schiller:

It is not exactly a secret that Schiller has released some works that
have contained all kinds of howlers. Two of my favorites are the
cover of his book on the Janowsky Indian, which gives the moves:
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bf5 [sic] and, in one of his recent books
639 Essential Endgame Positions, where I found the following
position on page 28 (See Diagram):

White: Kc4; pawn - e3; Black: Kg4; pawn - e4.

Schiller offers us the following insights: "This is a win for White
regardless of who is on the move. 14.Kd5 Kf3; 15.Kd4 would put
Black in zugzwang immediately, but even when it is Black's turn,
defeat cannot be avoided. This maneuver is known as
triangulation. Instead of moving to a square directly, the King
makes a triangular journey (here Kc4-d4 via d5). Triangulation is
only possible for the King and the Queen, but the mighty Queen
rarely needs to make use of it. In pawn endings, it is one of the
principal weapons of combat. 13...Kg3. 13...Kf3; 14.Kd4 is the
familiar zugzwang. 14.Kd5 Kf3; 15.Kd4. (See Diagram)

The goal is reached. Black loses the pawn and the game. 14...Kg4;
16.Kxe5 Kg5; 17.Ke5 with a simple win."

For those who believe in what Schiller has to say about endgames,
I have a little tip: Good luck! As many scholastic players certainly
will be able to point out, the above endgame is drawn, no matter
who is to move. The key is another of the principal weapons of
combat, the opposition. For Schiller and his followers, here is the
key: move the King backwards! Let's try it out: 1...Kf5 2 Kd4(d5)
Kf6 3 Kxe4 Ke6, and White can't win. Similarly, if White is to
move: 1 Kd5 Kf5 2 Kd4 (the triangulation he is babbling about)
2...Kf6 3 Kxe4 Ke6, and as the dust settles, it emerges that, yes
you can open your eyes now, it's a draw. Isn't it fantastic? I could
give you another handful of examples from that same book, but I
will not waste your time.

Skeptic

2005-09-10, 8:32 pm

> If Eric Schiller's analysis is derivative (whose is not, when

quote:

> providing opening lines?) then it cannot by definition be "inferior to
> that of just about anybody else."

Let me give an extreme example to explain what I mean.

Suppose I write an opening book about the Alekhine Defense, call it "a
complete defense to 1. e4", but then deal ONLY with the main line to the
four pawn attack (say), which I copied lock, stock, and barrel from, say,
John Cox's "Starting Out: The Alekhine". This would be both derivative (as I
just copied Cox's work) and also inferior, since I am IGNORING MANY OTHER
LINES, while Cox does not, so if anybody relies on my book they are out at
sea the moment the oppoent deviates. This--in less extreme form--is the
problem with Schiller's opening books. He does very little original analysis
AND he also very often simply ignores many reasonable replies by the
opponent. It is not that he copies Keres (or whomever), it's that he copies
while leaving gaping holes.

Skeptic

2005-09-11, 12:33 am

X-no-Archives:yes

quote:

> Who are these "most critics" other than Taylor Kingston?

Well, Tony Miles famously called one of Schiller's opening manuals "utter crap". For something more substantial, going only by the archives at www.chesscafe.com , we have reviews of "How To Play The Belgrade Gambit" by Bruce Monson, saying among other things that:

"Appearances suggest that when devising his outline, he settled
upon presenting only those lines he considered consistent with his
way of thinking, disregarding the rest. I admit I was put-off by this
decision, and was perplexed by what he chose not to include.
Billed as a 'How To' book on the Belgrade Gambit, one would
naturally expect all the primary variations to get some air-time. But
this was not the case and many critical variations are completely
ignored."

As for Schiller's "Who's Afraid of the King's Gambit", it is reviewed better by Glenn Budzinski, his too notes many "holes" in the analysis and concludes that

"Who's Afraid of the King's Gambit?" can perhaps best be
summarized by the old adage "One gets what one pays for." In
today's big bucks chess book market, an opening book that retails
for less than $10 and isn't a pamphlet, is probably going to be a
good buy if it has any value at all. In the case of this work, it is
reasonably well researched and the reader will get a few solid
suggestions for playing the Black side of the King's Gambit, but
not much else. As long as the prospective buyer isn't expecting to
find a lot of new ideas (even 10...Ng4 of Chapter 1 made its
appearance over 100 years ago)or detailed analysis of tournament
praxis, he probably won't be disappointed."

This would be rather insulting "damnation by faint praise" for any other author, but in the case of Schiller, this is just about the BEST thing anybody in www.chesscafe.com has to say about any of his books. About "World Championship Openings", the unnamed reviewer--who admittedly might by Mr. Kingston--says:

"What we really have here is a look at major opening systems
that can only be politely described as "fluff." No real
substance. This combines with weak historical sections,
typographical errors, sub-standard production and the
author's ego-centric mercenary approach to produce a truly
regrettable book."

Chris Hansen, who runs the popular "Checkpoint" feature on that web site, Reviewed Schiller's "Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings" and said, inter alia, that:

"In this book, we have an author combination that is perplexing. On one hand we have Eric Schiller, who at least appears to be a popular author, but whose output for the most part hasn't been worth the paper it was printed on. I noted a remarkable improvement on his CD-ROM on the Tarrasch Queen's Gambit, but in comparison to his "effort on the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation in the Vienna Game which by far is the worst book I have reviewed in this column over the last three and a half years, things could only get better."

Unfortunately, they didn't (or at least not by much). He concludes that this book, too, is one where:

"There are some good pieces of analysis here and there, but the majority of this book is well below average."

This is just one web site. I could go on and on... with other reviewers, other web sites, and so on and so forth. And I am speaking here only on the chess analysis: as Edward Winter amply shows, Schiller's grasp of chess history (to say nothing of basic spelling and grammar) is virtually nonexistant. But even if he was the best Chess historian ever and never made a single mistake in dates, grammar, or spellings, those qualified to judge the "pure" chess content of his books have universally condemned them.

I, for the life of me, cannot name a SINGLE well-known reviewer ANYWHERE who thinks that ANY of Schiller's books is more than--at the most--average, and, as a general rule, horrible... Taylor Kingston or no Taylor Kingston.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-11, 12:33 am

< In the interest of balance, and in case anyone should think
ChessCafe.com publishes only negative reviews of Schiller books, I note
two other, mostly positive reviews.> -- Taylor Kingston

The book reviews at CensoredCafe re an Eric Schiller or a Ray
Keene are mainly predestined. Some of us are banned and alternative
views will not be seen.

Sam Sloan

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:16:11 GMT, "Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

quote:

>This would be rather insulting "damnation by faint praise" for any other =
>author, but in the case of Schiller, this is just about the BEST thing =
>anybody in www.chesscafe.com has to say about any of his books. About =
>"World Championship Openings", the unnamed reviewer--who admittedly =
>might by Mr. Kingston--says:

Exactly the point. Taylor Kingston was the book review editor at Chess
Cafe when all these book reviews were written, so whether he wrote
them himself or had somebody else write them does not matter.

As you may be aware there is a big political dispute going on between
the owner of Chess Cafe and Eric Schiller so they are hardly an
unbiased source.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

On 10 Sep 2005 12:20:43 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:

quote:

>
>Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> I reiterate my earlier post, and append at the end a specific example
>from FM Carsten Hansen's review:
>

Funny coincidence: Every one of those book reviews was published by
Chess Cafe while Taylor Kingston was book review editor. The Chess
Cafe website is highly censored. For example, I was once personally
attacked on the Chess Cafe website. I sent them a rebuttal, bit they
refused to publish it. They are the only organization I know of that
would not allowed a person when attacked to respond.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> From Carsten Hansen's review, an example of an elementary analysis
>gaffe by Schiller:
>
>It is not exactly a secret that Schiller has released some works that
>have contained all kinds of howlers. Two of my favorites are the
>cover of his book on the Janowsky Indian, which gives the moves:
>1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bf5 [sic] and, in one of his recent books
>639 Essential Endgame Positions, where I found the following
>position on page 28 (See Diagram):

This was obviously a typo. What was meant was 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3.
Nc3 Bb5. Every book in the world contains typos. An editor of Random
House once remarked, "In the entire history of our organization, we
have never published a book that did not contain at least one major
typo."

quote:

>White: Kc4; pawn - e3; Black: Kg4; pawn - e4.
>
>Schiller offers us the following insights: "This is a win for White
>regardless of who is on the move. 14.Kd5 Kf3; 15.Kd4 would put
>Black in zugzwang immediately, but even when it is Black's turn,
>defeat cannot be avoided. This maneuver is known as
>triangulation. Instead of moving to a square directly, the King
>makes a triangular journey (here Kc4-d4 via d5). Triangulation is
>only possible for the King and the Queen, but the mighty Queen
>rarely needs to make use of it. In pawn endings, it is one of the
>principal weapons of combat. 13...Kg3. 13...Kf3; 14.Kd4 is the
>familiar zugzwang. 14.Kd5 Kf3; 15.Kd4. (See Diagram)
>
>The goal is reached. Black loses the pawn and the game. 14...Kg4;
>16.Kxe5 Kg5; 17.Ke5 with a simple win."
>
>For those who believe in what Schiller has to say about endgames,
>I have a little tip: Good luck! As many scholastic players certainly
>will be able to point out, the above endgame is drawn, no matter
>who is to move. The key is another of the principal weapons of
>combat, the opposition. For Schiller and his followers, here is the
>key: move the King backwards! Let's try it out: 1...Kf5 2 Kd4(d5)
>Kf6 3 Kxe4 Ke6, and White can't win. Similarly, if White is to
>move: 1 Kd5 Kf5 2 Kd4 (the triangulation he is babbling about)
>2...Kf6 3 Kxe4 Ke6, and as the dust settles, it emerges that, yes
>you can open your eyes now, it's a draw. Isn't it fantastic? I could
>give you another handful of examples from that same book, but I
>will not waste your time.

The two negative reviews Taylor Kingston has just cited are exactly
the same negative reviews he has cited again and again, over and over
again. Since Eric Schiller has written more than one hundred published
books, it is rather surprising that Taylor Kingston cannot find more
than just two negative reviews to keep citing over and over again.

Everybody knows that Taylor Kingston has a major hardon for Eric
Schiller. Why cannot he find anybody who agrees with him?

Sam Sloan

Skeptic

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

> Exactly the point. Taylor Kingston was the book review editor at Chess

quote:

> Cafe when all these book reviews were written, so whether he wrote
> them himself or had somebody else write them does not matter.

This seems a bit odd to me. Editors, as a rule, do not tell their writers
whether to write good or bad reviews; this would be a gross violation of the
ethics of journalism. And if Mr. Kingston intimidated or censored "his"
writers on the Schiller matter, why have none of them protested? If there is
any evidence for such coersion / censorship, I would like to know it.

In any case, the point is moot because, first, Mr. Kingston would hardly
control Hansen's column, and, second, www.chesscafe.com is hardly the only
place that reviews Schiller's books; there are many other chess sites and
magazines which do. And--as a general rule--there is consensus that his
books are usually worthless, although they occassionally reach "average" or
"below average" quality.

Skeptic

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

> This was obviously a typo. What was meant was 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3.

quote:

> Nc3 Bb5.

Indeed.

quote:

>Every book in the world contains typos. An editor of Random
> House once remarked, "In the entire history of our organization, we
> have never published a book that did not contain at least one major
> typo."

Quite right, but, the point is that usually typos do not appear in the
title... nor do the cover illustrations of opening books, attempting to show
the main position, often show a wrong position (with king and queen
reversed), as in Schiller's book on the Belgrade gambit.

It's not that there are typos in Schiller's books that is the problem, but
their quality.

Sam Sloan

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:47:29 GMT, "Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

quote:

>
>This seems a bit odd to me. Editors, as a rule, do not tell their writers
>whether to write good or bad reviews; this would be a gross violation of the
>ethics of journalism. And if Mr. Kingston intimidated or censored "his"
>writers on the Schiller matter, why have none of them protested? If there is
>any evidence for such coersion / censorship, I would like to know it.

Ethics of Journalism!!?? You are talking about Taylor Kingston, a man
with no ethics and no marality whatever.

Everybody knows that Taylor Kingston has a major hardon for Eric
Schilller, Raymond Keene, Larry Evans, Larry Parr and Sam Sloan. I am
the one most recent to join this distinguished crew. The others have
been attacked by Taylor Kingston for years.

Everybody knows that if you write a favorable book review of a Eric
Schiller book, Chess Cafe will not publish it.

quote:

>In any case, the point is moot because, first, Mr. Kingston would hardly
>control Hansen's column, and, second, www.chesscafe.com is hardly the only
>place that reviews Schiller's books; there are many other chess sites and
>magazines which do. And--as a general rule--there is consensus that his
>books are usually worthless, although they occassionally reach "average" or
>"below average" quality.

Yes.l But that is only one review of one book. That particular review
has been cited dozens of times over and over again. If Eric Schiller
were such a bad writer, there would be other reviews they could cite.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:58:39 GMT, "Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

quote:

>
>Indeed.
>
>
>Quite right, but, the point is that usually typos do not appear in the
>title... nor do the cover illustrations of opening books, attempting to show
>the main position, often show a wrong position (with king and queen
>reversed), as in Schiller's book on the Belgrade gambit.
>
>It's not that there are typos in Schiller's books that is the problem, but
>their quality.

Obviously, the publisher did not submit the cover of the book to Eric
Schiller for checking, prior to publication. This was a major error on
both of their parts, but not a sufficient reason to condemn Eric
Schiller as an author and as a person.

Sam Sloan

Mike Murray

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:58:39 GMT, "Skeptic" <apilpel1@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

quote:

>Quite right, but, the point is that usually typos do not appear in the
>title

This did happen to one of du Mont's books. I believe the title page
misspelled his *name*.

cynic

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

*Ethics of Journalism!!?? You are talking about Taylor Kingston, a man
with no ethics and no marality whatever. Everybody knows that Taylor
Kingston has a major hardon for Eric Schilller, Raymond Keene, Larry
Evans.* Sam Sloan

A trifle exaggerated but essentially true. Kingston has attacked his
critics using a variety of screen names (he still won't own up to it)
yet has the audacity to blast others for using pseudonyms.

politikalhack@gmail.com

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

> From Carsten Hansen's review, an example of an elementary analysis

quote:

>gaffe by Schiller:

quote:

>It is not exactly a secret that Schiller has released some works that
>have contained all kinds of howlers. Two of my favorites are the
>cover of his book on the Janowsky Indian, which gives the moves:
>1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bf5 [sic] and, in one of his recent books
>639 Essential Endgame Positions, where I found the following
>position on page 28 (See Diagram):

Sloan:

<<This was obviously a typo. What was meant was 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3.
Nc3 Bb5. Every book in the world contains typos. An editor of Random
House once remarked, "In the entire history of our organization, we
have never published a book that did not contain at least one major
typo.">>

But what if the proposed correction to the typo itself contains a
typo--self-proclaimed National Master Sloan's "3...Bb5"? And what if
the obvious correction to the proposed correction to the typo leads to
a position from the Nimzoindian, whereas the title of the book (at
least the related e-book) is _The Janowski-Indian Defense_?

When typos radically change meaning (and I've had typos of my own over
the years), they matter.

Mystery solved here: http://chesscentral.com/pickard/janowski.htm

Skeptic

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

> Obviously, the publisher did not submit the cover of the book to Eric

quote:

> Schiller for checking, prior to publication. This was a major error on
> both of their parts, but not a sufficient reason to condemn Eric
> Schiller as an author and as a person.
>
> Sam Sloan

I am not attacking Schiller as a person. At worst I am saying he's a lousy
or sloppy writer, which is not the same thing.

You are correct that cover design is the publisher's, not the author's, job.
The problem is, however, WHY did the publisher make such an odd mistake such
as mispelling the moves in the title of the book on the Janowsky-Indian?

The reason can be seen in the book itself: the same wrong moves appear in
the title page and in the heading of the introduction. One can only conclude
that Schiller presented a manuscript to the publisher whose title and
introduction included the wrong move order, and the publisher faithfully put
what Schiller wrote on the cover.

So it is, in this case, clearly Schiller's, not the publisher's (or at least
both) fault. I argue that anybody who is sloppy enough to submit to their
publisher a manuscript where the title and introduction misspell the opening
line discussed, is beyound the normal "occassional typo" carelessness.

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

Sam Sloan wrote:

quote:

> Taylor Kingston was the book review editor at Chess
> Cafe when all these book reviews were written, so whether he wrote
> them himself or had somebody else write them does not matter.

"Fools rush in" and all that. Sam is never afraid to come up with
laughable fabrications when he has nothing else to argue with.
There is not, nor ever was, any such position as "book review editor"
for ChessCafe.com. I have never advised any ChessCafe writer about what
verdict to render in a review, nor has anyone so advised me. I see a
review (other than my own) for the first time at the same time as
everyone else -- when it first appears on the site.

quote:

> As you may be aware there is a big political dispute going on between
> the owner of Chess Cafe and Eric Schiller so they are hardly an
> unbiased source.

And what is the nature of this "big political dispute"? We may have
yet another Sloan fabrication.

A couple of clarifying comments on an earlier post by Skeptic:
"About "World Championship Openings", the unnamed reviewer--who
admittedly might be Mr. Kingston ..." -- I did not write that review.
The reviewer was probably Hanon Russell.
"Chris Hansen, who runs the popular "Checkpoint" feature on that web
site ..." -- FM Hansen's first name is Carsten. I have never heard him
called Chris.

politikalhack@gmail.com

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

"[A] position from the Nimzoindian" s/b simply "the Nimzoindian," right?

Taylor Kingston

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

Sam Sloan wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> This was obviously a typo. What was meant was 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3.
> Nc3 Bb5.

Sam Sloan trying to correct Eric Schiller's typos is like Goran Tomic
trying to correct President Bush's English. The Janowsky Indian begins
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5.
Besides the propensity for typos, Eric Schiller shares something else
with Sam: the willingness to fabricate falsehoods. For example,
discussing the Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6), Schiller once said that
the best book on that line was one by Heikki Westerinen. The problem
is, Westerinen never wrote any such book. Two lies for the price of
one: Schiller not only recommends a book that does not exist, he also
says it's the best of its kind!

Louis Blair

2005-09-11, 8:32 pm

Larry Parr wrote (10 Sep 2005 20:44:35 -0700)

quote:

> < In the interest of balance, and in case anyone should
> think ChessCafe.com publishes only negative reviews
> of Schiller books, I note two other, mostly positive
> reviews.> -- Taylor Kingston
>_
> The book reviews at CensoredCafe re an Eric Schiller
> or a Ray Keene are mainly predestined. Some of us
> are banned and alternative views will not be seen.

_
Larry Parr fails to take note of a reason that the reviews
were mentioned. Taylor Kingston had written:
_
"a significant number of Schiller analytical errors
are pointed out in these reviews:
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/standco.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/wco.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen15.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review462.pdf
...
In the interest of balance, and in case anyone
should think ChessCafe.com publishes only
negative reviews of Schiller books, I note two
other, mostly positive reviews:
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/belgrade.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/wakg.txt"
_
Does Larry Parr have anything to say about
analytical errors?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-09-12, 12:31 am

PERSONAL ATTACKS

<I am not familiar with the web-site "CensoredCafe," but having
written over 100 book reviews for www.ChessCafe.com, I will hazard a
guess that I am in a better position than Mr. Parr to know what goes
on in that area.> -- Taylor Kingston

I based my comments on the gleeful field day of hatred that
reigned in countless messages about Ray Keene and Larry Evans at the
CensoredCafe bulletin board and elsewere.

Some time ago on this forum I posted my own experience at the
Censored Cafe, and you had the usual claque stating that this writer
was obviously not up to the verbal skill level required of many of the
unlettered that cluttered up their bulletin board or that this writer
and many others who sought to defend, say,
Larry Evans against the drivel of Edward Winter (some of whose books
are published by Hanon Russell) were not offering arguments up to the
CensoredCafe's snuff.

In the case of Ray Keene, I offered a major defense re a
long-running issue within the deadline period posted, but in spite of a
receipt and inquiries made thereafter, my essay did not appear. Hanon
Russell did not deem it worthy.

One learns.

Another book that cannnot appear at the CensoredCafe is the work
co-written with the late Arnold Denker, The Bobby Fischer I Knew and
Other Stories (ACF and USCF book of the year in 1996). No one has yet
pointed out a single typo involving a move or a misspelled word in the
entire book (though, heavens knows, there must be ONE), so we assume
that even the Winterian claquistadors have other reasons
why it is not carried by the CensoredCafe.

KINGSTON QUOTES HIS HERO WINTER

quote:

>As far as I know, Schiller never admitted it was an error, never explained what other author he might have meant, and continued to insist that the Westerinen book did exist, even after the truth was pointed out to him. Therefore I ca