Dear Louis, I am sometimes guilty of making mistakes - but didn't we write
together just a week or so ago, when you raised the issue if we should take
action? etc. That isn't a quote, its a paraphrase - but isn't it an honest
one?

I am sorry that I can't follow your "USCF enemy" commentary, since this IS a
quotation, but you appear to cite only yourself, but not use the term "USCF
enemy" in your response.

So who has coined that term you now repeat?

Phil

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Murray wrote (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:41:22 -0700):

cutting to the point
_
However, it should not be forgotten that it would be a
whole different ball game if it could be shown that
Schiller books really merit comments comparable
to these:

snip Even in the 'bad' review at Chessville, the reviewer could still
conclude:-
---------
So to really understand what this book is, we have to put aside the hype
that surrounds it, and look at what's really here. Eric said it best
himself, GCO "is a browser...the book is designed as a launching pad for
gambits rather than a collection of definitive essays...and in any case
should just provoke fans of the openings into doing more work."

As a reference source then, it has tremendous value. As an interesting
glimpse into the heroic world of the Gambiteer, it has value. If these are
reasons you would consider buying the book, then by all means buy it.

--------

Cordially, Phil Innes

Sam Sloan wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:40:34 GMT):

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

_
I have repeatedly mentioned Carsten Hansen as
the author of the comment pointing out the error.

_
Sam Sloan wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:40:34 GMT):

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

_
The matter was not put to the test, so there is no
way to know for sure.

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:54:56 GMT):

Dear Louis, I am sometimes guilty of making
mistakes - but didn't we write together just a
week or so ago, when you raised the issue if
we should take action? etc. That isn't a quote,
its a paraphrase - but isn't it an honest one?

_
I cannot assess honesty in this situation, but
I can say that I do not consider the above to
be a fair representation of what I have written.
Having been so informed, an honest person
would not repeat the above without something
to back it up.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:54:56 GMT):

who has coined [the term "USCF enemy"] you
now repeat?

_
Me.

Starting with a quote of me,
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:43:54 GMT):

However, it should not be forgotten that it would be a
whole different ball game if it could be shown that
Schiller books really merit comments comparable
to these:
_
snip Even in the 'bad' review at Chessville, the
reviewer could still conclude:-
---------
So to really understand what this book is, we have to
put aside the hype that surrounds it, and look at what's
really here. Eric said it best himself, GCO "is a
browser...the book is designed as a launching pad
for gambits rather than a collection of definitive essays
...and in any case should just provoke fans of the
openings into doing more work."

As a reference source then, it has tremendous value.
As an interesting glimpse into the heroic world of the
Gambiteer, it has value. If these are reasons you
would consider buying the book, then by all means
buy it.

_
The review that I quoted did not end that way at all.
Here is how it ended:
_
"Standard Chess Openings offers far too little,
even for the casual reader. I cannot recommend
this book." - David Surratt (5-18-03)
_
http://chessville.com/reviews/Standa...s_Openings.htm
_
Phil Innes is quoting from a different review - a
review of Schiller's Gambit Chess Openings.
Here are some other quotes from that review:
_
"It is this sort of inconsistent coverage that
leaves the reader bewildered, wondering
about the cover's claim of being 'The
Complete and Definitive Reference Guide
to Gambit Chess Openings.' ... My
questions about another 'Featured Gambit',
the Goring Gambit, weren't even close to
being addressed. And in a half a page, the
'More Gambits in Brief' are even less likely
to address any critical concerns." - David
Surratt (1-26-03)
_
Phil Innes snipped some quotes that I supplied
about some books that have been sold by USCF.
Here they are again for comparison:
_
"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

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:54:56 GMT):

Dear Louis, I am sometimes guilty of making
mistakes - but didn't we write together just a
week or so ago, when you raised the issue if
we should take action? etc. That isn't a quote,
its a paraphrase - but isn't it an honest one?

_
I cannot assess honesty in this situation, but
I can say that I do not consider the above to
be a fair representation of what I have written.

Thank you.

Having been so informed, an honest person
would not repeat the above without something
to back it up.

O! ?

phil

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:54:56 GMT):

who has coined [the term "USCF enemy"] you
now repeat?

_
Me.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Starting with a quote of me,
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:43:54 GMT):

However, it should not be forgotten that it would be a
whole different ball game if it could be shown that
Schiller books really merit comments comparable
to these:
_
snip Even in the 'bad' review at Chessville, the
reviewer could still conclude:-
---------
So to really understand what this book is, we have to
put aside the hype that surrounds it, and look at what's
really here. Eric said it best himself, GCO "is a
browser...the book is designed as a launching pad
for gambits rather than a collection of definitive essays
...and in any case should just provoke fans of the
openings into doing more work."

As a reference source then, it has tremendous value.
As an interesting glimpse into the heroic world of the
Gambiteer, it has value. If these are reasons you
would consider buying the book, then by all means
buy it.

_
The review that I quoted did not end that way at all.
Here is how it ended:

But that was not your contention Louis - you wanted comparable reviews to
other authors, in your own words, "if it could be shown that Schiller books
really merit comments comparable to these", I the first review I encountered
conbtained the one I wrote.

I don't know how typical those comments are, but your own statement did not
require any quantitative analysis.

Phil

_
"Standard Chess Openings offers far too little,
even for the casual reader. I cannot recommend
this book." - David Surratt (5-18-03)
_
http://chessville.com/reviews/Standa...s_Openings.htm
_
Phil Innes is quoting from a different review - a
review of Schiller's Gambit Chess Openings.
Here are some other quotes from that review:
_
"It is this sort of inconsistent coverage that
leaves the reader bewildered, wondering
about the cover's claim of being 'The
Complete and Definitive Reference Guide
to Gambit Chess Openings.' ... My
questions about another 'Featured Gambit',
the Goring Gambit, weren't even close to
being addressed. And in a half a page, the
'More Gambits in Brief' are even less likely
to address any critical concerns." - David
Surratt (1-26-03)
_
Phil Innes snipped some quotes that I supplied
about some books that have been sold by USCF.
Here they are again for comparison:
_
"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

Starting with a quote of me,
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:43:54 GMT):
However, it should not be forgotten that it would be a
whole different ball game if it could be shown that
Schiller books really merit comments comparable
to these:
_
snip Even in the 'bad' review at Chessville, the
reviewer could still conclude:-
---------
So to really understand what this book is, we have to
put aside the hype that surrounds it, and look at what's
really here. Eric said it best himself, GCO "is a
browser...the book is designed as a launching pad
for gambits rather than a collection of definitive essays
...and in any case should just provoke fans of the
openings into doing more work."

As a reference source then, it has tremendous value.
As an interesting glimpse into the heroic world of the
Gambiteer, it has value. If these are reasons you
would consider buying the book, then by all means
buy it.
_
I wrote (7 Oct 2005 07:53:48 -0700):
The review that I quoted did not end that way at all.
Here is how it ended:
_
"Standard Chess Openings offers far too little,
even for the casual reader. I cannot recommend
this book." - David Surratt (5-18-03)
_
http://chessville.com/reviews/Standa...s_Openings.htm
_
Phil Innes is quoting from a different review - a
review of Schiller's Gambit Chess Openings.

_
Starting with a quote of me,
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:49:24 GMT):

The review that I quoted did not end that way at all.
Here is how it ended:

But that was not your contention Louis ...

_
Phil Innes seems to have missed the point. He claimed
to be presenting the conclusion of "the 'bad' review".
The "bad" review that had been under discussion in
this thread did not conclude as Phil Innes claimed.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:49:24 GMT):

you wanted comparable reviews to other authors,
in your own words, "if it could be shown that
Schiller books really merit comments comparable
to these", I the first review I encountered conbtained
the one I wrote.
_
I don't know how typical those comments are, but
your own statement did not require any quantitative
analysis.

_
I have no idea why Phil Innes is now writing about
quantitative analysis. The first purpose of my
7 Oct 2005 07:53:48 -0700 note was to point out
that Phil Innes was not correctly describing the
conclusion of "the 'bad' review" that had been
under discussion in this thread.
_
Also, I wanted to provide more quotes from the
review that did conclude as Phil Innes described:
_
"It is this sort of inconsistent coverage that
leaves the reader bewildered, wondering
about the cover's claim of being 'The
Complete and Definitive Reference Guide
to Gambit Chess Openings.' ... My
questions about another 'Featured Gambit',
the Goring Gambit, weren't even close to
being addressed. And in a half a page, the
'More Gambits in Brief' are even less likely
to address any critical concerns." - David
Surratt (1-26-03)
_
For comparison, I provided the quotes that I supplied
about some books that have been sold by USCF:
_
"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