wrote:
WHO'S CLOSER TO THE MARK?

Larry Parr snipped my previous sentence, in which I
cited the ChessBase Player Encyclopedia, which stated
that FM Eric Schiller has a peak FIDE rating of 2270.

Given that he *did* become a FM, Eric Schiller could
have achieved a peak of 2300+ FIDE at some moment
between the publications of the FIDE ratings lists.
Does any reader here know more details about that?
--Nick

That was a sincere request for information.

I wrote that Eric Schiller was in the "region"
of 2300 or 2300+ "thereabouts."

I knew that.

Nick Bourbaki says he peaked at 2270,

The ChessBase Player Encyclopedia stated that.

though possibly went over 2300 in performance
ratings because he has the FM title.
If he went over, then I submit that my
description would be spot on.
I submit, in any event, that my description of
Eric's playing strength was largely accurate.

Larry Parr has *jumped to the wrong conclusion*
that I was disputing what he wrote *in this case*.
On the contrary, I cited the ChessBase Player
Encyclopedia because it substantially corroborated
what Larry Parr wrote. My previous post was *not*
written as a criticism of Larry Parr, though he
evidently misconstrued it as a criticism of him.

Does Larry Parr assume that I always must criticise
everything that he writes simply because he writes it?
If so, then Larry Parr is wrong again about me.

--Nick

It certainly comes closer to the mark than NM
Taylor Kingston, our 1800-rated guy, who claimed to be
2300-plus. One might argue that NM Kingston has won
the USCF Ultimate Unsandbagger Award.

REQUEST TO FM SCHILLER: could you humor us and
drop by here and claim to be an 1800-rated player, if
only to prompt NM Kingston to begin screaming that you
are a self-declared sandbagger? Eric: it is
undoutedly a character flaw, but I really am curious
to see how low NM Kingston will sink in his advocacy.

DULCET ACCORD

I cited the ChessBase Player Encyclopedia because it substantially
corroborated
what Larry Parr wrote. -- Nick

Peace -- perhaps peace at any price! I figured
that Nick Bourbaki was agreeing with me. My comments
were by way of preempting possible obfuscations from
other quarters.

Mr. Bourbaki and I are in dulcet accord on this point.

wrote:
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

And apparently he must fabricate as well:

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
discussion we
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?

I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.

1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."
2. This Westerinen book does *NOT* exist. Doubts were first raised by
Hugh Myers. In the April-May 1988 issue of "The Myers Openings
Bulletin" he wrote: "Hard to find! I should say so. I've never seen
it, and other theoreticians have told me they don't know of it."
Despite this and other evidence, Larry Parr insisted that the book
might exist. To remove all doubt, I contacted Westerinen through Esko
Nutilainen, an official of the Finnish Chess Federation. On 22
September 2005, Nutilainen wrote to me: "I just phoned to Heikki
Westerinen and he confirmed that he has not written anythung [sic]
about 1 e4 Nc6." Westerinen did write a book titled "Sc6!",
published in Swedish in 1972, but it dealt only with the King's
Indian line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6.
3. Schiller and Myers had a brief correspondence about the
non-existent book in 1988. Myers wrote to Schiller, then in Hawaii,
asking about it. Myers reports that Schiller replied by postcard,
insisting that a book on 1.e4 Nc6 by Westerinen did exist, and that a
copy was in his library in Chicago. Schiller promised to give Myers
further information upon his return home. Here is Schiller's account,
from an e-mail to me dated 16 September 2005:
"[T]his was a response to an informal letter from Myers, I was in
Hawaii with no chess library ... I answered off the top of my head, and
simply got it wrong. I recalled the cover with the big bold Nc6! on it
and assumed for some reason that it was a book on 1.e4 Nc6. Somehow the
exchange found its way into the book, entirely my fault ... I corrected
the information in a letter to Myers after I returned home and was
confronted with the error."
There are several problems with Schiller's response:
1) "Unorthodox Openings" was published in 1987, before Schiller's
1988 exchange with Myers, not after. Therefore it's impossible that
"the exchange found its way into the book." Schiller's erroneous claim
was made first in the book, then repeated to Myers.
2) While Schiller might at first assume that a book titled "Sc6!"
was about the Nimzovich Defense, that cannot explain how he came to
call it "the best" on that subject. To know a book is best, one
must read it thoroughly. If he had read it, he would know it was not
about 1.e4 Nc6. Despite repeated queries, Schiller has never explained
how he came to say it was "the best." In an e-mail to me dated
9/17, Schiller said he might have been "confusing it with a German
book, probably." However, he has never explained what German book
that might have been.
3) On Schiller's claim that he "corrected the information in a
letter to Myers" after returning to Chicago, Myers told me in a
letter dated 28 September 2005: "I never received such a letter. The
only thing I received from him in 1988 was a postcard from Hawaii
saying the Westerinen book was in his library in Chicago."

I leave it to readers to decide for themselves on this matter. I hope
this added information is helpful.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

And apparently he must fabricate as well:

This response is not quite grasping the nettle - instead, and in the absense
of references to other players which would make any criticism actually
useful, a continued dossier is compiled against one person. When asked if
other author's made the same level of errors, the reply was 'don't know'.

This is why this affaire smells. Especially when it is written by a book
reviewer whose website now bans all the titles from the author in question.

Can anyone reading this think that there is nothing else going on?

When the subject is different, and other authors raised to some level near
sainthood, there is no 'apparently fabricate' even though the subject is
actually a serious one about the repression of a player because of
ethnicity.

Can anyone reading this think there is any attempt to be fair? Or what we
are reading is a standard evenly applied?

References to 'fabrications', lapses and ommissions by other authors go
unnoticed! I accept that chesscafe as a business is not obliged, as a
business, to sell all products and must make commercial decisions based on
sales turnover.

I do not understand what business it has to block numerous writers for any
other reasons, especially since it now represents USCF's sales. If USCF asks
for an ostensibly popular book [in a commercial sense] to appear in its
lists via Chesscafe, would it appear? Would anyone even ask? What if the
'boat was rocked' at this stage of the proceedings - the usually claimed
delicate and secret negotiations?

Pointing out errors in one author's books without a comparsion to other
titles, by someone who does not seem to be on good personal terms with at
least 3 of the banned writers, cannot even pretend to be an objective
standard of what the public wants to buy, nor of the quality of the books in
question.

Phil Innes

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
discussion we
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?

I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.

1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."
2. This Westerinen book does *NOT* exist. Doubts were first raised by
Hugh Myers. In the April-May 1988 issue of "The Myers Openings
Bulletin" he wrote: "Hard to find! I should say so. I've never seen
it, and other theoreticians have told me they don't know of it."
Despite this and other evidence, Larry Parr insisted that the book
might exist. To remove all doubt, I contacted Westerinen through Esko
Nutilainen, an official of the Finnish Chess Federation. On 22
September 2005, Nutilainen wrote to me: "I just phoned to Heikki
Westerinen and he confirmed that he has not written anythung [sic]
about 1 e4 Nc6." Westerinen did write a book titled "Sc6!",
published in Swedish in 1972, but it dealt only with the King's
Indian line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6.
3. Schiller and Myers had a brief correspondence about the
non-existent book in 1988. Myers wrote to Schiller, then in Hawaii,
asking about it. Myers reports that Schiller replied by postcard,
insisting that a book on 1.e4 Nc6 by Westerinen did exist, and that a
copy was in his library in Chicago. Schiller promised to give Myers
further information upon his return home. Here is Schiller's account,
from an e-mail to me dated 16 September 2005:
"[T]his was a response to an informal letter from Myers, I was in
Hawaii with no chess library ... I answered off the top of my head, and
simply got it wrong. I recalled the cover with the big bold Nc6! on it
and assumed for some reason that it was a book on 1.e4 Nc6. Somehow the
exchange found its way into the book, entirely my fault ... I corrected
the information in a letter to Myers after I returned home and was
confronted with the error."
There are several problems with Schiller's response:
1) "Unorthodox Openings" was published in 1987, before Schiller's
1988 exchange with Myers, not after. Therefore it's impossible that
"the exchange found its way into the book." Schiller's erroneous claim
was made first in the book, then repeated to Myers.
2) While Schiller might at first assume that a book titled "Sc6!"
was about the Nimzovich Defense, that cannot explain how he came to
call it "the best" on that subject. To know a book is best, one
must read it thoroughly. If he had read it, he would know it was not
about 1.e4 Nc6. Despite repeated queries, Schiller has never explained
how he came to say it was "the best." In an e-mail to me dated
9/17, Schiller said he might have been "confusing it with a German
book, probably." However, he has never explained what German book
that might have been.
3) On Schiller's claim that he "corrected the information in a
letter to Myers" after returning to Chicago, Myers told me in a
letter dated 28 September 2005: "I never received such a letter. The
only thing I received from him in 1988 was a postcard from Hawaii
saying the Westerinen book was in his library in Chicago."

I leave it to readers to decide for themselves on this matter. I hope
this added information is helpful.

wrote:
THE WAR AGAINST SCHILLER


NM Kingston figures that most of you are unaware
that the errors alleged against Eric Schiller, a true
2300-region ELO master, occur across 100 or so books
-- an enormous body of work.

Everyone knows that Schiller couldn't churn out as many crappy books as
he does if he took the time to do any actual work on them.



He figures most of you are unaware that, say, a Gligoric
forgot his own analysis and so have grandmasters playing
only ONE game, their own after adjournment. Keres, one of the
greatest of all adjournment analysts, forgot what he
analyzed. Botvinnik in pregame analysis overlooked a
one-mover that Bobby saw instantly. Portisch could
not see the stock Bxh7+ sacrifice and lost to
Donner. Mieses published analysis missing a mate on
the move, and he wrote only a handful of books.

Everyone also knows that you cannot compare a grandmaster who forgets a
piece of analysis under game conditions to an author who does not
bother to verify the validity of his work with materials he has at
hand.

Vince Hart

wrote:
NM Kingston figures that most of you are unaware
that ... Keres, one of the
greatest of all adjournment analysts, forgot what he
analyzed.

Larry Parr figures most of you are dumb enough to think this
analogous to what Schiller did. It is not. Had, say, Keres written in a
book that "This analysis by Botvinnik is stupid," when in fact the
analysis was by Keres, then we would have the same thing as Schiller
did, described in the first post of this thread.

The war against Eric Schiller is in defense of
ChessCafe

Funny. Some of us think that Larry Parr knows full well that
Schiller's books are mostly worthless, but he supports them only to
attack ChessCafe. That, or Parr is much more ignorant than even his
strongest detractors thought.

I marked dozens of corrections in my copy of Fine's "Basic Chess
Endings" but it's still a masterpiece. What's all this fuss about
Schiller's errors?

I find blacklisting abhorrent and fail to understand the animus against
Schiller. He's not my favorite author (Chernev, Evans and Fine are) but
some of his books have taught me a lot about chess. If ChessCafe
carries Pandolfini, why not Schiller? It just doesn't make any sense.

On 16 Oct 2005 14:47:49 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

Duncan Oxley wrote:

So why belabor us with all the trivial
mistakes? Common man isn't it time to let this one die out?

Believe me, I have posted only a small percentage of Schiller's
"mistakes," and in the current situation I don't consider them trivial.
I want the public to be aware that those "crusading" on Schiller's
behalf are either ignorant or dishonest. As I said in another post,
Schiller's advocates are like someone pretending to be a nutritionist,
and asking "Should we not examine whether dirt is a food? Why does this
grocery not sell dirt? What sinister cabal is denying us our right to
eat dirt?"
But no, I will not post every Schiller gaffe here. Life is too short,
and Google may not have enough disk space.

Taylor Kingston had posted dozens of long screeds about a single error
Eric Schiller made in 1987 where Schiller thought that Westerinin's
book entitled Nc6! was about the Nimzovitch Defense whereas it was
really about the Nc6 variation of the King's Indian Defense.

Knowing that Taylor Kingston attacks every error he can find in
anything by Schiller, tells that in the last 18 years since 1987, Eric
Schiller has not made a single error, because if he had made another
error, Kingston would be telling us about that, rather than repeating
over and over again complaints about this one 1987 error.

Sam Sloan

On 17 Oct 2005 06:03:35 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


wrote:
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

And apparently he must fabricate as well:

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
discussion we
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?

I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.

1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."

See how Taylor Kingston keeps repeating the same lies. Tim Harding is
not an IM, a fact that can easily be established by looking at
http://www.fide.com

Yet, Taylor Kingston asks us to believe his version of a private
exchange that took place in 1988 about which none of us could ever
know the truth.

2. This Westerinen book does *NOT* exist.

In fact, the Westerinin book does exist. There is such a book entitled
Nc6! Nc6 is the key move in the Nimzovitch Defense. However, the
Westerinin book is about the Kings Indian Defense. So, the book
exists. Just the subject is different.

Doubts were first raised by
Hugh Myers. In the April-May 1988 issue of "The Myers Openings
Bulletin" he wrote: "Hard to find! I should say so. I've never seen
it, and other theoreticians have told me they don't know of it."
Despite this and other evidence, Larry Parr insisted that the book
might exist. To remove all doubt, I contacted Westerinen through Esko
Nutilainen, an official of the Finnish Chess Federation. On 22
September 2005, Nutilainen wrote to me: "I just phoned to Heikki
Westerinen and he confirmed that he has not written anythung [sic]
about 1 e4 Nc6." Westerinen did write a book titled "Sc6!",
published in Swedish in 1972, but it dealt only with the King's
Indian line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6.
3. Schiller and Myers had a brief correspondence about the
non-existent book in 1988. Myers wrote to Schiller, then in Hawaii,
asking about it. Myers reports that Schiller replied by postcard,
insisting that a book on 1.e4 Nc6 by Westerinen did exist, and that a
copy was in his library in Chicago. Schiller promised to give Myers
further information upon his return home. Here is Schiller's account,
from an e-mail to me dated 16 September 2005:
"[T]his was a response to an informal letter from Myers, I was in
Hawaii with no chess library ... I answered off the top of my head, and
simply got it wrong. I recalled the cover with the big bold Nc6! on it
and assumed for some reason that it was a book on 1.e4 Nc6. Somehow the
exchange found its way into the book, entirely my fault ... I corrected
the information in a letter to Myers after I returned home and was
confronted with the error."

Hugh Myers has a legitimate interest in this subject, because the
Nimzovitch Defense with 1. ... Nc6! is his baby.

Therefore, Myers has a right to raise this issue.

However, Taylor Kingston just wants to attack Eric Schiller, and the
issue over Nc6 is just a vehicle to attack Schiller.

By the way, while you are corresponding with Myers. Why do not you ask
him why he never publishes the game where he played 1. ... Nc6 against
Sam Sloan in the 1969 World Open Chess Championship in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, and Sam Sloan beat him.

Just curious. Actually, I have lost the scoresheet and would like to
have the game back.

Sam Sloan

Vince Hart wrote:

Everyone also knows that you cannot compare a grandmaster who forgets a
piece of analysis under game conditions to an author who does not
bother to verify the validity of his work with materials he has at
hand.

Vince Hart

Like for example, Taylor Kingston repeatedly stating that Tim Harding
is an International Master, whereas in reality Tim Harding has no
international title.

Sam Sloan