"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Murray wrote (Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:51:58 -0700):

It would make sense to include the negative reviews
with the product blurbs. I'm saying they should make
the books available for purchase by those members
who might choose to ignore the product evaluations
by their presumed betters.

Mike, I notice that my colleague's unfavorable review at Chessville of one
Eric Schiller title does not inhibit Chessville from selling that book, nor
19 other Eric Schiller titles. Phil Innes

Sam Sloan wrote (6 Oct 2005 00:56:55 -0700):

OK. So you have made your point. You have
proven that one of Schiller's books contains
an error.

_
A very basic and obvious error - one that even
I with my very limited rating can perceive
immediately.

_
Sam Sloan wrote (6 Oct 2005 00:56:55 -0700):

However, Reuben Fine's "Basic Chess Endgames"
contains dozens of errors, yet nobody claims that
Basic Chess Endgames is a bad book or that
someone should not buy it.
_
Bobby Fischer's "60 Memorable Games" contains
numerous errors and lines which have been busted
by modern computer analysis, yet nobody claims
that it has been a bad book.

_
There is a big difference between a line "busted by
modern computer analysis" and a mistake that
a player like me can easily percieve.

_
Sam Sloan wrote (6 Oct 2005 00:56:55 -0700):

You and Taylor Kingston have cited this one
error by Schiller a dozen different times on this
newsgroup. What this obviously means is that
this is the only error you can find in the more
than one hundred books written by Schiller,
because if you could find other errors you would
cite them rather than cite this one over and over
again.
_
Now that this is established, do not you feel that
Schiller books are to be recommended since he
has made only one mistake in the more than one
hundred books he has written?

_
Foolishness. I have made no effort to find errors
in Schiller books, and would not consider myself
sufficiently competent to find them if I did search.
_
My quoting of negative comments is a sort of
challenge to the Schiller backers. Where are the
strongly positive reviews of Schiller books? Where
are the comments like these?
_
"enriched the literature on the subject"
- Jeremy Silman on Basic Chess Endings by Fine
_
"definitely a good choice for any player below
expert level" - S. Evan Kreider on
Pandolfini's Endgame Course
_
"Emms does his usual excellent job" - John
Watson on The Survival Guide to Rook Endings
by Emms
_
"first rate efforts" - John Donaldson on the
Winning Chess series by Seirawan
_
Here again is the Carsten Hansen comment that
I posted:
_
"... 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." - Carsten Hansen (August 2000)
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen15.txt

Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:58:32 GMT):

my colleague's unfavorable review at Chessville of one
Eric Schiller title does not inhibit Chessville from selling
that book, nor 19 other Eric Schiller titles.

_
This is, in my opinion, the best pro-Schiller argument
that I have seen so far, but one still has to wonder
just what it shows. Will the benefits of Schiller
-selling for USCF necessarily match the benefits
of Schiller-selling for Chessville? Even if they do,
will these benefits outweigh the potential negatives:
decreased sales of other better books, decreased
customer satisfaction, and promotion of a USCF
enemy?

Ironically, just a week or two ago, I was considering
buying a book from Chessville that USCF does not
sell. Ultimately, I gave up when I could not find
information on how to pay for an order by check.
I would be grateful if Phil Innes (or David Surratt)
could tell us how to do that.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:58:32 GMT):

my colleague's unfavorable review at Chessville of one
Eric Schiller title does not inhibit Chessville from selling
that book, nor 19 other Eric Schiller titles.

_
This is, in my opinion, the best pro-Schiller argument
that I have seen so far, but one still has to wonder
just what it shows. Will the benefits of Schiller
-selling for USCF necessarily match the benefits
of Schiller-selling for Chessville?

A putative question that cannot be answered, since USCF/Chescafe do not take
part in the survey of what benefits USCF by way of admitting Schiller's
books.

Even if they do,

Even!

will these benefits outweigh the potential negatives:
decreased sales of other better books, decreased
customer satisfaction, and promotion of a USCF
enemy?

And here we have two issues - (1) the amount of money generally available to
a public buying books, and what-we-care where they spend it, as long as they
spend it on chess books, and (2) I note that David Ames has already raised a
point which requires some explanation of who one should ban.... et ca

Ironically, just a week or two ago, I was considering
buying a book from Chessville that USCF does not
sell. Ultimately, I gave up when I could not find
information on how to pay for an order by check.
I would be grateful if Phil Innes (or David Surratt)
could tell us how to do that.

Send the damn check with a request to what you want to either chessville or
to its fulfillment subscription service. If anything goes wrong I will
personally reimburse you in full.

Phil

I wrote (6 Oct 2005 12:48:44 -0700):
Even if [the benefits of Schiller-selling for USCF
do match the benefits of Schiller-selling for
Chessville], will these benefits outweigh the
potential negatives: decreased sales of other
better books, decreased customer satisfaction,
and promotion of a USCF enemy?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:45:39 GMT):

And here we have two issues - (1) the amount of
money generally available to a public buying books,
and what-we-care where they spend it, as long as
they spend it on chess books,

_
It seems to me that decreased customer satisfaction
and promotion of a USCF enemy are potential matters
for concern.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:45:39 GMT):

and (2) I note that David Ames has already raised
a point which requires some explanation of who one
should ban.... et ca

_
I see no reason why I should explain things that
are the product of David Kane's imagination. When
he chooses to discuss what I have actually written,
I will be happy to consider what he has to say.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
I wrote (6 Oct 2005 12:48:44 -0700):
Even if [the benefits of Schiller-selling for USCF
do match the benefits of Schiller-selling for
Chessville], will these benefits outweigh the
potential negatives: decreased sales of other
better books, decreased customer satisfaction,
and promotion of a USCF enemy?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:45:39 GMT):

And here we have two issues - (1) the amount of
money generally available to a public buying books,
and what-we-care where they spend it, as long as
they spend it on chess books,

_
It seems to me that decreased customer satisfaction
and promotion of a USCF enemy are potential matters
for concern.

Louis Blair continues to call Eric Schiller a "USCF enemy" though does not
say why, or even if this is his own point of view. We do know that eric
Schiller does not accord with all USCF policies, and if this is the basis of
Louis Blair's statment then he is proposing that for political reasons
Schillers books should not be sold.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:45:39 GMT):

and (2) I note that David Ames has already raised
a point which requires some explanation of who one
should ban.... et ca

_
I see no reason why I should explain things that
are the product of David Kane's imagination. When
he chooses to discuss what I have actually written,
I will be happy to consider what he has to say.

When you can speak directly to any point at issue, I will be glad to
respond. But if you in the meantime snipe around the edges, not quite saying
anything, but questioning everything, shall we think you prefer an
inferential method of discourse?

You cannot continuously 'question' people without declaring what is at
stake, otherwise your questions will be seen as either of no matter or
criticisms.

You have directly written here a suggestion for conversation that Eric
Schiller's books should be banned. David Kane did not notice it first, I
wrote to this issue 2 or 3 weeks ago.

You, Louis Blair, proposed the subject for public consideration of banning
Schiller. You now have taken to adopting several terms about Schiller which
include the term 'enemy'.

You do not define your terms, yet repeat them at great length, while
requiring always other people to reiterate theri terms to your satisfaction.

If you want Schiller banned, can you say yes or no? Make the parenthesis
later. You are raising the issue so take some responsibility for it.

Phil Innes

ALT-TIMERS DISEASE

If Eric Schiller criticizes the USCF rulebook every
day of the week -- and twice on Sunday. So what?
That is not the kind of criticism that would disqualify
him from having his books carried by the USCF.

Louie Blair's response to Mr. Kane will be that
he was "only asking questions." That will be a lie.
We all know it to be a lie. But that will be his line.

Recently, Louie asked me what I thought about
mistakes in chess analysis. It was a signally
weakminded query even by his standards, and I
responded that I abhorred mistakes in chess analysis
and did not support them and even favored correcting
them. If I did not say the latter, I now say it.
Yes, let us correct errors; let us try to avoid them;
let us even blow our schnozzolas on them.

Still, the point here is that Louie's silly
question could have no other purpose, given the
context, than to attack Eric Schiller. He could not
possibly have expected a meaningful answer to such a
query, so he must have asked the question to stab at
Mr. Schiller.

Either that, or he really is beginning to exhibit
what Vik Pupol's used to call Alt-timers Disease.

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:16:20 GMT):

Louis Blair continues to call Eric Schiller a
"USCF enemy" though does not say why,

_
"... Eric Schiller's association with a savage
attack on the USCF combined with promotion
of the CEA in a book directed at non-USCF
members." - Louis Blair (6 Oct 2005
13:52:02 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:16:20 GMT):

We do know that eric Schiller does not accord
with all USCF policies, and if this is the basis
of Louis Blair's statment then he is proposing
that for political reasons Schillers books should
not be sold.

_
Phil Innes has been repeatedly advised that this
nonsense does not properly represent my views.
He has no quote to indicate that it does. How
many more times are we going to see it?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:16:20 GMT):

When you can speak directly to any point at
issue, I will be glad to respond.

_
Phil Innes appears to suffer from the delusion that it
is important to me that he respond. He is mistaken.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:16:20 GMT):

You cannot continuously 'question' people without
declaring what is at stake,

_
"I have seen no solid information that indicates
that the USCF should promote Schiller in any way."
- Louis Blair (5 Oct 2005 11:40:14 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:16:20 GMT):

You have directly written here a suggestion for
conversation that Eric Schiller's books should
be banned.

_
Of course, Phil Innes had no quote that he wished
to present to back up his inappropriate distortions of
my views.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:16:20 GMT):

You, Louis Blair, proposed the subject for public
consideration of banning Schiller.

_
Of course, Phil Innes had no quote that he wished
to present to back up his inappropriate distortions of
my views.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:16:20 GMT):

You [require] always other people to reiterate
theri terms to your satisfaction.

_
I have no idea what this is referring to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:16:20 GMT):

If you want Schiller banned, can you say yes or no?

_
No.

Larry Parr wrote (6 Oct 2005 17:33:24 -0700):

If Eric Schiller criticizes the USCF rulebook every
day of the week -- and twice on Sunday.

_
Eric Schiller was associated with a savage attack
on the USCF combined with promotion of the CEA
in a book directed at non-USCF members.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Oct 2005 17:33:24 -0700):

So what?

_
Selling "sloppily constructed" merchandise by a
USCF enemy is not an approach that sounds all
that promising to me.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Oct 2005 17:33:24 -0700):

That is not the kind of criticism that would disqualify
him from having his books carried by the USCF.

_
I did not say that it was.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Oct 2005 17:33:24 -0700):

Louie Blair's response to Mr. Kane will be that
he was "only asking questions."

_
False.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Oct 2005 17:33:24 -0700):

Recently, Louie asked me what I thought about
mistakes in chess analysis.

_
"Does Larry Parr have anything to say about
analytical errors?" - Louis Blair (15 Sep 2005
06:03:57 -0700)
_
Larry Parr fails to mention that my 15 Sep 2005
06:03:57 -0700 note accompanied this question
with two 10 Sep 2005 quotes of Taylor Kingston
containing discussion of Eric Schiller analytical
errors. Larry Parr had responded to Taylor
Kingston while ignoring the analytical error
discussions.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Oct 2005 17:33:24 -0700):

Louie's silly question could have no other purpose,
given the context, than to attack Eric Schiller.

_
The purpose was to prod Larry Parr into addressing
instead of ignoring an issue raised by Taylor Kingston.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Oct 2005 17:33:24 -0700):

He could not possibly have expected a meaningful
answer to such a query,

_
I agree that expecting a meaningful answer from
Larry Parr can be pretty ridiculous, but, at least
we got some indication of whether or not Larry
Parr had anything that he wanted to say in
response to the Schiller analytical error
discussions posted by Taylor Kingston.

On 6 Oct 2005 06:44:41 -0700, "Louis Blair"
wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote (6 Oct 2005 00:56:55 -0700):

OK. So you have made your point. You have
proven that one of Schiller's books contains
an error.

_
A very basic and obvious error - one that even
I with my very limited rating can perceive
immediately.

But you did not spot the error. The error was actually spotted by FIDE
master Carsten Hansen.

Are you saying that you would have spotted the error even if Hansen
had not spotted it?

Sam Sloan