The Historian wrote:

"The precise meaning of the term 'consensus history' is still debated
among historians, but the generally accepted definition is that it
described a view of American history that emphasized unity of thought,
and one that, practiced uncritically, reduced the history of the United
States to a chronicle of the exploits of rich and successful white
males. (There's hardly anyone else in Daniel Boorstin's trilogy The
Americans, for instance, as demonstrated by Peter Charles Hoffer in his
book Past Imperfect.)

Why pick on a "white males" focus? I have found that much of
what is taught as history is overly concerned with wars and
warmongering. Why, in many cases, there is so much space
spent on war and conquest, that virtually none is left for other
aspects of life. Even the rich, white males could be pinched,
barely able to merit a mention, except if they happened to wear
a general's stars, preferably on the winning side and in a major
clash.

Consensus chess history is likewise a streamlined
and bowdlerized chronology, restricting itself to the coming and going
of grandmasters, and recycling the same stock of stories each time."

I noticed this "recycling" too. And things always seem to be
slanted to favor the hero of the day, his excuses for ducking
elevated to valid reasons, those who ducked him, skewered as
miserable cowards, etc.

http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm

Very interesting reading. However, I was not too
impressed by the subject's strength of play, although
his reckless style would likely please lowly patzers to
a T. Just one example: in one of the games
listed, giving up the Queen to derail the attack on
Black's King required no Fritzian genius, just the
knowledge that the King *is* the most valuable
piece on the board. (I believe this insight can be
found in any brief summary of the rules of play.)

I wonder if writers like Mr. Hilbert are not discouraged
by a lack of sales volume? How many will choose to
buy a book about an unknown, when they have become
accustomed to reading only about the grandmasters
and chess openings? Perhaps money is not an issue
for the historian types. One other comment I would like
to make is that from personal experience I have learned
that these "original sources" (which historians are so
frequently praised for dutifully studying) are often
themselves flawed, containing gross errors of fact.
Hence, a citation from the original which purportedly
proves that Bobby Fischlinker played 1.h4 vs. Tiger
Petroleum could potentially be a typo, or a careless
assertion by an editor who quite simply had no clue
what he was writing about. Very few readers are sharp
enough to spot many of these errors, which tend to
get repeated, rendering the false impression of a
"consensus" among the copycats. And besides,
history is bunk.

-- help bot