On 1 Sep 2005 07:58:29 -0700, "Liam Too" wrote:

The Historian wrote:
My apologies, when I wrote "article" I meant the Shakespeare biography
in the Brittanica.

Sloan is a pillar of Orfordian "thought".

If Sam is not Oxfordian nor Stratfordian the way we know it, then I
doubt it very much if he even knows the meaning of the Oxfordian
"thought" as we know it.

Of course I know what it means. It means that you believe that the
Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare.

I disagree. I believe that the Earl of Oxford's daughter Elizabeth
wrote all of Shakespeare.

Sam Sloan
http://www.samsloan.com/shakespe.htm

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:47:59 -0400, John A Swartz
wrote:



Sam Sloan wrote:



Talk:Eric Schiller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
I strongly object to the negative remarks made by Camembert on the
Eric Schiller biography. In the first place, Camembert is not a chess
player, or at least this name is unknown to chess. In addition, it can
seen by his remarks about Judit Polgar that he knows nothing about
chess or about her. It is further objectional that somebody can use a
fake name to attack somebody on Wikipedia.

The fact that Sam Sloan is not familiar with this name (which of course
could be an alias) doesn't seem to me to be neither proof that
"Camembert" is not a chessplayer, nor proof that he/she knows nothing
about chess or Eric Schiller.

I made this assesment after reading his remarks about Judit Polgar and
other chess personalities which demonstrated his ignorance of the
subjects about which he was writing.

Sam Sloan

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:01:30 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

On 31 Aug 2005 06:22:52 -0700, "Liam Too"
wrote:

The Historian wrote:
If they are of use to the article writer, yes. Would you leave the
"Upstart crow" remarks out of the Shakespeare article because they are
uncomplimentary?

This is interesting, I didn't knoe that Sam knows Shakespeare. I wonder
if he is Oxfordian?

Of course, Robert Greene was the very first writer who said that
William Shakespeare was an "upstart crow" in Greene's book, Groatsworth
of Wit (1592).

Where can I read Sam's article?

Lance

You really did not know that I am a Shakespearian scholar? Take a look
at:

http://www.samsloan.com/shakespe.htm

LOL. Scholar, eh?

I only read the first sentence of your scholarly contribution:

"On one point everybody agrees: The works of William Shakespeare are
the greatest works ever written in the history of the English
language."

and that is already quite wrong. For an interesting opinion on S.'s
qualities read Tolstoi's essay. You will never again be able to watch
Lear without laughing.

Where can I read Sam's article?

Lance

You really did not know that I am a Shakespearian scholar? Take a look
at:

http://www.samsloan.com/shakespe.htm

LOL. Scholar, eh?

I only read the first sentence of your scholarly contribution:

"On one point everybody agrees: The works of William Shakespeare are
the greatest works ever written in the history of the English
language."

and that is already quite wrong. For an interesting opinion on S.'s
qualities read Tolstoi's essay. You will never again be able to watch
Lear without laughing.

Yes - it can't be everybody, but everybody who read Orwell's response to
Tolstoy might discount our Russian friend's vast anxiety over Shakespeare
significantly.

Sam likes de Vere's daughter for the Author, completely ignoring the Queen
herself, who, as ani fül no, was the pre-incarnation of de Elvis.

Speculation on the author is best done on the full of the moon, but deV's
daughter is not so absurd as other claims, not excluding the simple tale of
the un-aided rise of the glover's son from total obscurity to write like
no-one did before or since - but speculation on the psychology of the author
is rare indeed.

Speaking of Orwell, he wrote the same thing about Edward Wallace in a letter
to Geoffrey Gorer in May 1936, he says:

"I don't know if you ever read Elmer Rice's /A Voyage to Purilia./ it
contains a most interesting analysis of certain conventions - taken for
granted & never even mentioned - existing in the ordinary film. It would be
interesting & I believe valuable to work out the underlying beliefs &
general imaginative background of a writer like Edgar Wallace. But of course
that's the kind of thing nobody will ever print."

Cordially, Phil Innes

PS: talking of Orwell - he says he bought a good boxwood chess set for
7/6d - is it known if he played the game with any specific partners?

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:27:26 +0200, Jürgen R. wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:01:30 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

On 31 Aug 2005 06:22:52 -0700, "Liam Too"
wrote:

The Historian wrote:
If they are of use to the article writer, yes. Would you leave the
"Upstart crow" remarks out of the Shakespeare article because they are
uncomplimentary?

This is interesting, I didn't knoe that Sam knows Shakespeare. I wonder
if he is Oxfordian?

Of course, Robert Greene was the very first writer who said that
William Shakespeare was an "upstart crow" in Greene's book, Groatsworth
of Wit (1592).

Where can I read Sam's article?

Lance

You really did not know that I am a Shakespearian scholar? Take a look
at:

http://www.samsloan.com/shakespe.htm

LOL. Scholar, eh?

I only read the first sentence of your scholarly contribution:

"On one point everybody agrees: The works of William Shakespeare are
the greatest works ever written in the history of the English
language."

and that is already quite wrong. For an interesting opinion on S.'s
qualities read Tolstoi's essay. You will never again be able to watch
Lear without laughing.

I see. A German tells us that a Russian translator was a better writer
of English than Shakespeare ever was.

On 31 Aug 2005 04:37:26 -0700, "The Historian"
wrote:

The comment was the late Tony Miles's opinion of a Schiller book, but
his describing the book that way is a fact. If the author of the
article wishes to make the point that Schiller has a horrible
reputation as a writer, then quoting reviews is proper. Without a
citation to some source that helped the writer form an opinion, we are
left with Innes-style history, where every point is argued by force of
assertion.

There are several problems with your point. Perhaps most important is
that Miles himself had a reputation. Miles was constantly attacking
chess personalities in print. Among his many victims were Anatoly
Karpov, Raymond Keene, Woman's Grandmaster Martha Fierro, Indian Chess
Organizer Umar Koya, Nigel Short, and many others. The list is long.
Any time you read a Miles article you could be almost certain that it
would contain an attack on somebody.

Of course, it is well known that Miles even got into fistfights in
chess tournaments. He even punched me out during the 1986 World Chess
Olympiad in Dubai because of his mistaken belief that I had written
something derogatory about him.

Miles was known to be mentally ill. He served time in both jail and
mental hospitals.

The negative review by Miles of an Eric Schiller book must be taken in
this context. Unfortunately, the original author of the article about
Schiller appears not to be a chess player. His biography of himself
describes himself as a "music student" and says nothing about chess.
He probably did not even know that Miles was mentally ill and prone to
attacks on people and he probably did not know that Schiller has
written more than one hundred chess books and the fact that he has
received two negative reviews means little.

Again it must be emphasized that Schiller states that he writes his
books for Class C chess players. His point is a very good one, which
is that there are only a few thousand chess masters in the world
whereas there are millions of Class C players. Is it better to write a
book for a few thousand potential readers, or for the millions?
Schiller knows that chess masters rarely buy chess books. They have
their own computer databases and do their own home analysis to prepare
for tournaments. Class C players on the other hand will appreciate and
buy a chess book with some tricky lines that their rival Class C
players might fall into, even though the masters might consider the
same lines to be unsound and unplayable at the top levels.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
... Schiller has
written more than one hundred chess books and the fact that he has
received two negative reviews means little.
... Is it better to write a
book for a few thousand potential readers, or for the millions?
Schiller knows that chess masters rarely buy chess books.

Sam, your attempts to make excuses for Schiller are absurd. He has
received far more than "two negative reviews" and most of his books are
dreadful no matter what the rating of the intended reader. A book full
of factual, typographical, and analytical errors is a bad book, whether
read by a patzer or a GM. Schiller is, quite simply, probably the
sloppiest chess writer extant.

On 2 Sep 2005 08:32:50 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


Sam Sloan wrote:
... Schiller has
written more than one hundred chess books and the fact that he has
received two negative reviews means little.
... Is it better to write a
book for a few thousand potential readers, or for the millions?
Schiller knows that chess masters rarely buy chess books.

Sam, your attempts to make excuses for Schiller are absurd. He has
received far more than "two negative reviews" and most of his books are
dreadful no matter what the rating of the intended reader. A book full
of factual, typographical, and analytical errors is a bad book, whether
read by a patzer or a GM. Schiller is, quite simply, probably the
sloppiest chess writer extant.

The proof is in the pudding. Every time Eric Schiller writes a book,
thousands of chess players buy it. That is why he has more than one
hundred books in print, with rival publishers bidding for his works.

On the other hand, Taylor Kingston has written two books, but nobody
bought them. The few reviews he has received have all been terrible.
He will have trouble finding a publisher for another book.

Sam Sloan

Schiller has hit upon a clever scheme. He realizes that people buy a book mostly
on the basis of its title, and spends more time than most authors thinking about
interesting topics and ways to sell these topics. Unfortunately, once he has the
topic, he simply wants to see the project to completion, rather than trying to
cover it well.

This may be what you need to do to make money writing chess books. I would wager
that Schiller has far more chess players who have bought a Schiller book, and
were dissatisfied by it, than any other author.

I have bought opening books by Schiller, since he picks interesting sharp lines.
However, his treatment of them is not much better than I can find in my general
opening manuals. That is why I did not buy his "fighting Nimzovich Sicilian" or
some such title, even though I play the line. If Tim McGrew (of the Gambit
Cartel) put out a book on the same topic, it would be far superior in every way.

I hope to publish a book soon (I am picking a publisher to send to now), and Sam
can feel free to rip it to shreds in comparison to Schiller's book. I will bet
that I put far much more time into the project than Schiller did with any single
book, and care more about the content, even though it may sell very poorly. But
then, chess books are not how I make my living.

Jerry Spinrad

In article , (Sam Sloan) writes:
| On 2 Sep 2005 08:32:50 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
| wrote:
|
|
| Sam Sloan wrote:
| ... Schiller has
| written more than one hundred chess books and the fact that he has
| received two negative reviews means little.
| ... Is it better to write a
| book for a few thousand potential readers, or for the millions?
| Schiller knows that chess masters rarely buy chess books.
|
| Sam, your attempts to make excuses for Schiller are absurd. He has
| received far more than "two negative reviews" and most of his books are
| dreadful no matter what the rating of the intended reader. A book full
| of factual, typographical, and analytical errors is a bad book, whether
| read by a patzer or a GM. Schiller is, quite simply, probably the
| sloppiest chess writer extant.
|
| The proof is in the pudding. Every time Eric Schiller writes a book,
| thousands of chess players buy it. That is why he has more than one
| hundred books in print, with rival publishers bidding for his works.
|
| On the other hand, Taylor Kingston has written two books, but nobody
| bought them. The few reviews he has received have all been terrible.
| He will have trouble finding a publisher for another book.
|
| Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
The proof is in the pudding.

Sam, the correct version of that saying is "The proof of the pudding
is in the eating."

Every time Eric Schiller writes a book,
thousands of chess players buy it. That is why he has more than one
hundred books in print, with rival publishers bidding for his works.

On the other hand, Taylor Kingston has written two books, but nobody
bought them. The few reviews he has received have all been terrible.
He will have trouble finding a publisher for another book.

Once again, Sam shows that he inhabits another reality, separate from
the rest of us. I have written no books at all, Sam. What two titles
did you have in mind?
In any event, neither my writing nor Schiller's sales have any
relevance at all to the question of the quality of Schiller's work.