jr wrote:
What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

The selective blindness and inconsistency of Parr's supporters is an
unceasing source of wonder. Any far-fetched, Rube-Goldberg-style
inference by Parr is treated as gospel, while a reasonable, even
obvious inference by a Parr opponent is "quite a stretch."

jr wrote:
*I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller: Max Euwe was never chess
world champion.* Taylor Kingston

*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston

What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Actually, as you quoted, Kingston did not claim that Schiller said that
Euwe was never world champion. He said is that this is something you
would learn from Schiller and this is not a stretch at all since it is
the logical inference from Schiller's statement. Fischer's great
pleasure would have been a result of the fact that Euwe had actually
won the world championship rather than just contending. The fact that
Schiller identifies him merely as a "legitimate contender" clearly
suggests to the reader that this was the pinnacle of Euwe's career.

Vince Hart

"jr" wrote in message
ups.com...
*I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller: Max Euwe was never chess
world champion.* Taylor Kingston

*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston

What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday!
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

(About the AMA):

Which would be okay!

(For the AMA to sell "Garlic: The Miracle Cure for Cancer" type books).

Would it?

It would be OK (morally--legally, the AMA can sell "Mein Kampf" if they
want to) for B&N or Amazon to sell such books. But not for the AMA. The
AMA has a moral responsibility to not sell books it knows to be
worthless.

So what are the standards for 'worthless books', and
just so that there is nothing personal in it, can independent people make
the assessment?

The standards are that of the medical--or chess--expert opinion.

If virtually all physicians who offered an opinion agreed that "Garlic:
The Miracle Cure for Cancer" is worthless, it is worthless. If
virtually all grandmasters and chess book reviewers who offered an
opinion agree that Schiller's books are worthless (and they do), they
are.

It is one thing if a book recieves mixed reviews, or has both defenders
and detractors among the experts. It is quite another if virtually
EVERYBODY who is a). good at chess and/or reviewing chess books, and
b). offered an opinion agreed the book is worthless, as it is with
Schiller.

Popularity has nothing to do with it. The USCF should uphold standards,
not just go with what is popular. It should FIGHT the popularity of
atrocious books with bad reviews and the promotion of good books, not
pander to it.

Its interesting, but I just reviewed a book which seem very slight value to
me, but the cover quite openly LIES about the content, suggesting
'comprehensive' instead of 'sketch' which is the author's term. It is
advertised by the publisher at 144 pages, but only has 125 pages.

I have written this 3 times here, and no one has asked me a single question
about it, or suggested that this book should be banned.

First, make sure that there is really a unfair description here. For
example, many books have introductions, prefaces, or appendixes that
are numbered seperately from the main sections of the books, so perhaps
they account for the "missing" 19 pages; or perhaps the publisher's
blurb refers to a different edition, etc.

Second, clearly suggest here that it isn't the author who is
misdescribing the book, but the unscrupolous publisher: it is not the
author who is claiming his book is comprehensive, but the publisher.
You should not punish an author for a publisher's lies, unless there is
good reason to believe the author goes along with them, or unless the
lies are so outrageous as to constitute false advertising. (In which
case, when describing it on your web site, you can add a cavet to
correct the publisher's lies.)

So I think we are dealing with a different situation he with your
example, we are dealing with a PUBLISHER (possibly) "puffing" and
misidentifying a book. This tells us nothing about the book itself: is
it any good? Does it cover what the author says it covers? Is the
typsetting good? The material original? And so on. If the book stinks,
don't sell it. If it book is good, or at least interesting, I would
sell it despite the publisher's lies--again, up to a point.

With Schiller, things are different. True, his books usually carry
misleading back cover blurbs and titles (i.e., "A Complete defense to
King's Pawn Openings" that deals only with the Caro-Kann.) Maybe that
is due to the publisher without Schiller's knowledge--I doubt that very
much, since such a prolific and best-selling author would know better.
But in any case, that is the least of Schiller's problems: the main
problem, the central issue, is that the BOOKS THEMSELVES are crap.

You reply to my comments instead of Larry Parr, who the editor of Chess
Life.

Well, you both disagreed with me, so there is no difference between
you: you are both EVIL AND WORTHLESS. This is usenet, after all :-)

I would not publish your advertisement if I thought it was a lie. But you
are referring to what USCF should do, and they have other standards. They
allowed just such a specious idea into practice at a tournament for kids,
pushing the Natrol product.

I am not aware of the Natrol product. Alas, pressed for money, they
might have knowingly accepted funding from a worthless product. But
surely this is no argument: "why do you not sell Schiller's books, when
you already shown you will sell / accept sponsorship from other
worthless products!".

So USCF do not have these standards - if we want to impose them - so that
the public doesn't get lied to, we should attempt to make some minimum
standards - and apply them equally to all titles.

We should have minimum standards and apply them fairly, true. But it is
surely a far lesser evil to apply the minimum standards unfairly than
to refuse to apply them at all for fairness' sake? If the USCF accepted
one worthless product, must it now, for "fairness'" sake, sell ALL
worthless products?

Surely, the thing the USCF SHOULD do to rectify the situaiton is to
refuse to sell any worthless product, not add more worthless products
to its list. That the USCF sells, say, Pandolfini's crap and not
Schiller's is at most an argument against selling Pandolfini, not for
selling Schiller.

Yes, i would agree that it would be vastly amusing, especially in this case
)

Actually I can see your point here... but you wouldn't describe him as
"the world's leading chess analyst", and you would at least have
somebody go over and revise that "white horsey jumps over and eats
black pawn" comment at move 13 before publication. With Schiller's
books (especially for kids) equally painful passages and style remain
intact.

Your question related ot the popularity of the article, not whether it would
be accepted from a qualitative basis. I am a little leary of making
comparisons in this case, since the dreaded bug-aboos have already appeared;
mentions of Hitler, porn, how-to-do-your-own-brian-surgery humour, and now
George Jr to cap it all!

Yes, we are getting close to the "50 posts law", a.k.a. the
"draw-by-mention-of-Hitler" usenet situation. But I'll try to stay out
of it :-)

ROFL! You can't damage the reputation of chess - chess is not a person, its
jsut a game.

You most certainly can. Chess has a reputation with the larger public,
in the same way that science or abstract painting or medicine as a
whole does. It is vague and inaccurate, that's true, but it's still
quite reasonable to think about the reputation of chess as a whole.
Schiller's stuff is hurting it, as do Bobby Fischer's paranoia.
Capablanca's charm and good writing helped it. Examples could be
multiplied.

Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan
Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to
winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday! -- Ian Burton

The Games of Robert J. Fischer by Wade & O'Connell (page 123) claims
that three games were played, but one of the draws is missing: "The
score of this game is not available, but Euwe remembers that the game
followed Botvinnik-Euwe, Leningrad 1934, for some way. Fischer got some
advantage, Euwe pulled off something of a swindle and stood rather
better when the draw was agreed."

More anon.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
oups.com...
(About the AMA):

Which would be okay!

(For the AMA to sell "Garlic: The Miracle Cure for Cancer" type books).

Would it?

It would be OK (morally--legally, the AMA can sell "Mein Kampf" if they
want to) for B&N or Amazon to sell such books. But not for the AMA. The
AMA has a moral responsibility to not sell books it knows to be
worthless.

God! Having had comparisons with Hitler, porn and How to ...Brain surgery,
we actually go to Mein Kampf as an apt comparison!!!

So what are the standards for 'worthless books',

or commentary?

and
just so that there is nothing personal in it, can independent people make
the assessment?

What is the role of the independent reviewer?

The standards are that of the medical--or chess--expert opinion.

If virtually all physicians who offered an opinion agreed that "Garlic:
The Miracle Cure for Cancer" is worthless, it is worthless. If
virtually all grandmasters and chess book reviewers who offered an
opinion agree that Schiller's books are worthless (and they do), they
are.

But do they? Worthless to them as Grandmasters? - I write with a number of
them, and several say something on the order of, I write for this rating
range - and often is approxiamtely Expert A to master level, which is their
design for the compexity of material, which the publisher thinks it can
sell.

I do not read anyone's opinion here who admits to being a typical rated
player [in the USCF typical = less than 1000 rated] who offers any objection
to simply presented material.

I also don't understand what higher rated players consider the problem EVEN
IF the writer misses a mate in eight. What is the reader to do? Memorise
that line?

Further, I don't know why Schiller's titles are singled out particularly,
and since there were all sorts of commentary on bahalf of higher rated
palyers, I thought it worthwhile to actually quote Timman and Adorjan on the
subject.

95% of opening work is trash, so they say. So why are we not collecting the
other 50 'popular' authors who write trash, and recommend to USCF that they
too are banned from their list as appearing at Chesscafe?

It is one thing if a book recieves mixed reviews, or has both defenders
and detractors among the experts. It is quite another if virtually
EVERYBODY who is a). good at chess and/or reviewing chess books, and
b). offered an opinion agreed the book is worthless, as it is with
Schiller.

We must seperate those people who write reviews based on their opinion of a
title's worth to a skill-range, but the actual purchasers of the book. If it
sells then is this not some sort of recommendation?

What we have read here is that the buyer should not even have the choice to
[in the words of Schiller's critics] make a bad choice. That Schiller alone
should be expunged from the lists. [Well, and a few other people too, but
for other reasons]

Popularity has nothing to do with it. The USCF should uphold standards,
not just go with what is popular.

Natrolly!

It should FIGHT the popularity of
atrocious books with bad reviews and the promotion of good books, not
pander to it.

Does USCF review books? If it thinks a title bad, why not say so? Does it
actually make you chess worse than before? If not, then buying book A over
book B will be a /relative/ decision on worth.

I have plenty to say about not authors - but publishing houses who doi not
indicate the skill range of certain titles - or write such misleading trash
about what's between the covers as to be actually lies. Should we ban the
publisher?

From reading here I would think so.

Its interesting, but I just reviewed a book which seem very slight value
to
me, but the cover quite openly LIES about the content, suggesting
'comprehensive' instead of 'sketch' which is the author's term. It is
advertised by the publisher at 144 pages, but only has 125 pages.

I have written this 3 times here, and no one has asked me a single
question
about it, or suggested that this book should be banned.

First, make sure that there is really a unfair description here.

Even famous players accuse me of reading their books in order to review
them. And they do not say this because it is common!

For
example, many books have introductions, prefaces, or appendixes that
are numbered seperately from the main sections of the books, so perhaps
they account for the "missing" 19 pages; or perhaps the publisher's
blurb refers to a different edition, etc.

But that example isn't the sort I was referring to, and is still not a
question!

Second, clearly suggest here that it isn't the author who is
misdescribing the book, but the unscrupolous publisher:

Ban them?

it is not the
author who is claiming his book is comprehensive, but the publisher.
You should not punish an author for a publisher's lies,

How should I recommend a book to its potential purchaser? I should say it
lies on the cover, and on their website, which I did.

unless there is
good reason to believe the author goes along with them, or unless the
lies are so outrageous as to constitute false advertising. (In which
case, when describing it on your web site, you can add a cavet to
correct the publisher's lies.)

Yes. this is what I did. But so what? Even after ending the publisher the
review [standard practice] nothing has changed - so shall we ban all
Batsford books?

So I think we are dealing with a different situation he with your
example, we are dealing with a PUBLISHER (possibly) "puffing" and
misidentifying a book.

Well - outright misrepresenting it.

This tells us nothing about the book itself: is
it any good? Does it cover what the author says it covers? Is the
typsetting good? The material original? And so on. If the book stinks,
don't sell it. If it book is good, or at least interesting, I would
sell it despite the publisher's lies--again, up to a point.

Which is the role of reviewers to discern, no? Or you think a national chess
federation can allow its B&E department's reviewer, who is in open conflict
with the writer, to make this decision? this is what is happening here.

With Schiller, things are different. True, his books usually carry
misleading back cover blurbs and titles (i.e., "A Complete defense to
King's Pawn Openings" that deals only with the Caro-Kann.) Maybe that
is due to the publisher without Schiller's knowledge--

Writers have little to no control about what goes on eiother front or back
cover, true.

I doubt that very
much, since such a prolific and best-selling author would know better.

It is absolutely the case even with best selling authors - always has been.
A book's covers are advertising material, and standard publishing contracts
emphasise that this is the norm, for any title on any subject no matter who
is the author.

But in any case, that is the least of Schiller's problems: the main
problem, the central issue, is that the BOOKS THEMSELVES are crap.

The books themselves sell in the market place with all the other 'crap'. And
if you are 2000+ rated then you are in the 2 percentile range of skills and
also purchasing habit for chess books. You will also discard the other 94%
of crap. That is your effective vote in the market. Why other 'crap' should
be ignored entirely in these threads in the question!

You reply to my comments instead of Larry Parr, who the editor of Chess
Life.

Well, you both disagreed with me, so there is no difference between
you: you are both EVIL AND WORTHLESS. This is usenet, after all :-)

Agree with the later, disagree with the former. We are asking that if a book
is truely awful that normal conditions apply to it - that by the basis of
review that book [not only Schiller's book] be not recommended to
purchasers. But we are also saying something else, that we do not agree that
the book is crap more than others are, and that this concentration on
Schiller's works is a special one.

If you don't like this opinion you can continue to not buy Schiller's books
or anything else you consider crap. We are asking that everyone else can
make the same choice as you do.

I would not publish your advertisement if I thought it was a lie. But you
are referring to what USCF should do, and they have other standards. They
allowed just such a specious idea into practice at a tournament for kids,
pushing the Natrol product.

I am not aware of the Natrol product.

It suggested that by taking this pill wonderful things might happen to your
chess.

Alas, pressed for money, they
might have knowingly accepted funding from a worthless product. But
surely this is no argument: "why do you not sell Schiller's books, when
you already shown you will sell / accept sponsorship from other
worthless products!".

If you already acccept money from worthless products [? - useful as a
placebo? ] why pretend to have any standards at all? And why return to the
subject of Schiller's books rather than 'bad' books?

You are not making sense Bill. Do you want a standard for ALL books or not?
Who should set it? How? [The process is already in place by the review
process - a normative procedure in publishing these past 600 years]

So USCF do not have these standards - if we want to impose them - so that
the public doesn't get lied to, we should attempt to make some minimum
standards - and apply them equally to all titles.

We should have minimum standards and apply them fairly, true. But it is
surely a far lesser evil to apply the minimum standards

Which are?

unfairly

Even if by proxy, via Chesscafe's '2300' rated author, who is a bit prone to
certain prejudices? While Schiller receives - what is it now - 50 [?] ****ty
remarks, the heros Winter and Wylde receive none? Even though these guys are
a bit silent about screwing Jews and other 'hot' topics which actually make
a difference to real people's lives in our times? ROFL!!!!

One guy and his publisher can influence a whole continent of people on
behalf of USCF. You have argued nothing here that is not an applied
generality about the worth of chess books, fathering all ills onto ONLY ONE
AUTHOR!

than
to refuse to apply them at all for fairness' sake? If the USCF accepted
one worthless product, must it now, for "fairness'" sake, sell ALL
worthless products?

Or the other way around - if it denies one 'worthless' author, should we
prefer the comments of a Taylor Kingston [who doesn't seem to have written
any books] to a Jan Timman about the worth of the rest? You already appeared
to make your choice.

Surely, the thing the USCF SHOULD do to rectify the situaiton is to
refuse to sell any worthless product, not add more worthless products
to its list. That the USCF sells, say, Pandolfini's crap and not
Schiller's is at most an argument against selling Pandolfini, not for
selling Schiller.

Agree - this would be logical. But it is not any logic that is in place - I
wonder why not?

Yes, i would agree that it would be vastly amusing, especially in this
case
)

Actually I can see your point here... but you wouldn't describe him as
"the world's leading chess analyst", and you would at least have
somebody go over and revise that "white horsey jumps over and eats
black pawn" comment at move 13 before publication. With Schiller's
books (especially for kids) equally painful passages and style remain
intact.

Sure! I agree. But unless we get carried away with the analogy, we should
also admit that it is false, and Eric Schiller does not talk about
'horsies'. So we would need to raise the standard of rhetoricism to what
standard we actually feel is reprehensible to a rating range - and then
apply it to all authors who fall beneath it, eh?

Your question related ot the popularity of the article, not whether it
would
be accepted from a qualitative basis. I am a little leary of making
comparisons in this case, since the dreaded bug-aboos have already
appeared;
mentions of Hitler, porn, how-to-do-your-own-brian-surgery humour, and
now
George Jr to cap it all!

Yes, we are getting close to the "50 posts law", a.k.a. the
"draw-by-mention-of-Hitler" usenet situation. But I'll try to stay out
of it :-)

But you failed by actually citing Mein Kampf ((

ROFL! You can't damage the reputation of chess - chess is not a person,
its
jsut a game.

You most certainly can. Chess has a reputation with the larger public,
in the same way that science or abstract painting or medicine as a
whole does.

Does it? I don't think so. I have never read any public appraisal of chess
books which regretted their quality nor the reputation of their authors.
have you?

It is vague and inaccurate, that's true, but it's still
quite reasonable to think about the reputation of chess as a whole.
Schiller's stuff is hurting it, as do Bobby Fischer's paranoia.

Really? I doubt that too. How would you establish your point to an effective
one for the genral public?

Capablanca's charm and good writing helped it. Examples could be
multiplied.

I am charming Bill. My trouble is that I like to slay Saxons and their
mealy-mouthed wurds. Freedom is largely wasted on them, since they were more
oppressors than oppressed.

But you won't listen to me, and that won't make any difference either.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Vince Hart wrote:
jr wrote:
*I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller: Max Euwe was never chess
world champion.* Taylor Kingston

*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston

What Schiller wrote is misleading,

As I wrote earlier, Eric Schiller's statement is true
*as far it goes*, but it has a misleading implication.

By the way, I don't think much of psychological speculation
such as 'Bobby *must* have taken great pleasure'. That may
be true, but did Eric Schiller ever ask Bobby Fischer?

but I don't see evidence for Kingston's initial claim
about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never chess world
champion." That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and
drew twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Actually, as you quoted, Kingston did not claim that
Schiller said that Euwe was never world champion.

But a plausible interpretation of Taylor Kingston's statement
is that Eric Schiller *directly asserted rather than misleadingly
implied* that "Max Euwe was never chess world champion".

He said is that this is something you would learn from Schiller

Actually, I would *not* have 'learned' that from Eric Schiller
because I already knew enough about chess history to know that
Max Euwe was a world champion. But some ignorant readers could
have been misled, and that's why I criticised Eric Schiller.

and this is not a stretch at all since it is
the logical inference from Schiller's statement.

It's a plausible inference. Strictly speaking about 'logic',
I cannot think of any reason why having been 'a legitimate
contender for the World Championship' and having been 'chess
world champion' *must* be mutually exclusive possibilities.

Fischer's great pleasure would have been a result of the fact
that Euwe had actually won the world championship rather than
just contending. The fact that Schiller identifies him merely
as a "legitimate contender" clearly suggests to the reader that
this was the pinnacle of Euwe's career.

Eric Schiller wrote a statement with a misleading implication,
and he should be criticised for it. Unfortunately, Taylor
Kingston's statement (above at the top) could be plausibly
interpreted that Eric Schiller wrote as *a direct assertion
rather than as a misleading implication* that "Max Euwe was
never chess world champion". It's true that Taylor Kingston
did *not quote* Eric Schiller to that effect, but a reader
could readily assume from Taylor Kingston's statement that
Eric Schiller had written that false direct assertion in
somewhat different words.

In my view, if Taylor Kingston were more careful and scrupulous
in criticising Eric Schiller, then he should have made it clearer
that what Eric Schiller wrote about Max Euwe was a misleading
implication rather than a false direct assertion.

--Nick

KINGSTON'S MALIGNANT INTENT

NM Taylor Kingston, the man who promoted himself
from 1800 to 2300+ ELO, did indeed lie about what
Eric Schiller wrote.

Now, please notice. NM Kingston writes
something that IS true: Eric ought to have explained
more about Max Euwe's career. It is not enough to
note that the Dutch great was a contender, though the
statement is true as written.

Having said that, Eric did not write, as
viciously alleged by NM Kingston, that Euwe was
NEVER world champion. The point of that posting,
written with evident glee, was to humiliate.

NM Kingston took an INCOMPLETE statement by Eric and
transmogrified it into an absurdity, supposedly but
not actually written by Eric.

Please note: this lousy, low lie exceeds
anything in moral terms that has been alleged by NM
Kingston and his like against NM Schiller. Malignant
intent aforethought is worse than carelessness or, as
was argued, lying by Eric.

NM Kingston has revealed his canker. It is a
character weakness on our part that we are not unhappy
he has done so.

NM Kingston attempts to excuse his lying -- for
that is what he quite deliberately did, knowing full
well what Eric really wrote -- by arguing that I might
accuse the authors of the Oxford Companion To Chess of
truckling to the Soviets if Smyslov and Tal were cited
only as contenders.

I might indeed IF the context so warranted, such
as these same authors deliberately failing to mention
Boris Gulko's status as a refusenik in a reference
book entry! However, in the case of Smyslov and Tal,
I might conclude monumental incompetence instead, if
there were no evident political angle as in the cases
of Gulko, Alburt, Korchnoi, Petrov, Levenfish and
several other entries in the Companion that our NM
Kingston dares not discuss.

To be sure, Eric was not writing a reference
work entry when mentioning Euwe in passing in a
sentence. NM Kingston knows that, and his allusion to
the Companion is a dishonestly false analogy. Eric
was, it appears, writing a brief intro to a game, and
he did not make the egregious error NM Kingston claimed.

Moreover, NM Kingston knew the text of what Eric
wrote, and he deliberately misrepresented it. Our 2300+
Elo man is quite a bill of goods. Quite a leeetle man indeed.

Give me a bumptious, overly excited Sam Sloan any day compared
with a cold, ego-driven bit of cancer such as our NM Kingston, who
apparently has terminated his "indefinite" vacation from this forum.

MORE SCABROUS CHARGES

Popularity has nothing to do with it. The USCF should uphold standards, not just
go with what is popular. It should FIGHT the popularity of atrocious
books with bad reviews and the promotion of good books, not pander to
it. Avital on Schiller

More scabrous charges from Avital (Skeptic) which he
chooses not to back up. He simply asserts with vivid
language that Eric Schiller does not provide value for
money, though he does not frame the question quite
that way, for the obvious reason that the marketplace
appears to suggest differently.

HART'S OUNCE OF DISHONESTY

Kingston did not claim that Schiller said that Euwe was never world
champion. He said is that this is something you would learn from
Schiller and this is not a stretch at all since it is the logical
inference from Schiller's statement. -- Vince Hart

Vinnie Hart's attempt to excuse NM Taylor
Kingston's lie about what Eric Schiller really wrote
may stand -- if Mr. Hart will agree-- as emblematic of
the latter's level of intellectual honesty.

Do we agree, Mr Hart?

Mr. Hart argues that NM Kingston didn't claim
that Eric Schiller wrote that Max Euwe was never world
chess champion; he merely wrote something that caused
NM Kingston to learn such is the case.

Mr. Hart would add a literal cast to NM
Kingston's words about learning. So, then, I would add
a literal twist to NM Kingston's claim: can he learn
that which he already knew to be false? If NM
Kingston did not know such to be false, then what does
that say about our NM Kingston?

The truth: NM Kingston transmogrified an
incomplete thought by Eric Schiller into an absurd
error with the object of visiting derision on Mr.
Schiller. That was his dirty purpose.

The vehicle for the purpose was a cold-blooded
lie with malign intent. One figures Mr. Hart knows
such to be the case and is here deliberately
contributing his little ounce of dishonesty to rgcp.