In the rgcp thread "Schiller, Westerinen and Myers" I examined
Eric Schiller's excuses for recommending a book that does not exist
as the "best" on the Nimzovich Defense, presenting testimony from
GM Heikki Westerinen and NM Hugh Myers. In my recent correspondence
with Myers, he pointed out another gaffe by Schiller that can only be
characterized as bare-faced mendacity or utter ineptitude.
In the 1987 edition of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (the same book
in which Schiller recommended the non-existent book), there is a
discussion of the Myers Gambit in the English Opening: 1.c4 g5 2.d4
Bg7. For the rest of the story, I quote from Myers' book "A Chess
Explorer" page 102:

Then resurrecting the dispute about 1.c4 g5 2.d4 Bg7, [Schiller and
Benjamin] ... dared to call a move "stupid" which "Myers gives"
-- without saying that in Myers Openings Bulletin #27, in an article
that I didn't write, it was clearly stated that the move which they
called 'stupid' was in analysis by *_Schiller_*!

So we have an interesting situation: either Schiller lied in UCO
trying to make Myers look bad, or Schiller has such a poor memory that
he does not remember what he himself has written, and calls his own
analysis "stupid" while blaming someone else. This from the man
Cardoza publishing calls "the world's leading writer on chess
openings." And so it goes.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
In the rgcp thread "Schiller, Westerinen and Myers" I examined
Eric Schiller's excuses for recommending a book that does not exist
as the "best" on the Nimzovich Defense, presenting testimony from
GM Heikki Westerinen and NM Hugh Myers. In my recent correspondence
with Myers, he pointed out another gaffe by Schiller that can only be
characterized as bare-faced mendacity or utter ineptitude.
In the 1987 edition of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (the same book
in which Schiller recommended the non-existent book), there is a
discussion of the Myers Gambit in the English Opening: 1.c4 g5 2.d4
Bg7. For the rest of the story, I quote from Myers' book "A Chess
Explorer" page 102:

Then resurrecting the dispute about 1.c4 g5 2.d4 Bg7, [Schiller and
Benjamin] ... dared to call a move "stupid" which "Myers gives"
-- without saying that in Myers Openings Bulletin #27, in an article
that I didn't write, it was clearly stated that the move which they
called 'stupid' was in analysis by *_Schiller_*!

So we have an interesting situation: either Schiller lied in UCO
trying to make Myers look bad, or Schiller has such a poor memory that
he does not remember what he himself has written, and calls his own
analysis "stupid" while blaming someone else. This from the man
Cardoza publishing calls "the world's leading writer on chess
openings." And so it goes.

My favorite Schiller gaffe is analytical in nature, and shows just what
a careless copier he is. In his Gambit Opening Repertoire for White, he
includes the following game, with his notes:

Sawyer,T - Snapstys,V [C00]
Chaturanga CC Hatboro, 1988

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3 dxe4 4.Nd2 Nf6 5.f3 exf3 6.Ngxf3 Be7 7.Bd3 b6
8.0-0 Bb7 9.Bg5 0-0 10.Qe1 Nc6 11.c3 Ne8

So far so good.

12.Qh4

Not so good. I remember purchasing the book and rushing home to study
it. As a student of Dan Heisman, I found myself looking at this
position and asking, "Doesn't White have better?" (Yes Dan, I DID learn
something from you!) And after about 30 seconds I asked, "Doesn't White
have the Greek Gift sacrifice?"

For those readers who are 'nearly an IM 2450', the winning move was
12.Bxh7+. If 12 ...Kxh7 (12...Kh8 13.Qh4 Bxg5 14.Nxg5 Qxg5 15.Qxg5
Kxh7) 13.Qh4+ Kg8 (13...Kg6 leads to mate) 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Ng5 Qxg5
16.Qxg5

Schiller didn't include any of the analysis I've given. The possible
reason he didn't see the mate was that the volume he lifted the game
from, Tim Sawyer's Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybook, didn't annotate the
game but merely included it as a bare gamescore. How Schiller,
reputedly a master player, could miss a Greek gift if he was paying
attention is beyond me. Sawyer, who actually played the game, has an
excuse for missing the move during play; it was a five minute game.

The actual game continued:

12...h6 13.Ne4 Bxg5 14.Nexg5 Nf6 15.Rae1 Re8 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Rxe5 hxg5
18.Rxg5 Kf8 19.Rxg7 Kxg7 20.Qg5+ Kf8 21.Rxf6 Qd5 22.Rxf7+ Kxf7 23.Bg6+
Kg7 24.Bf5+ Kf7 25.Bg6+ ½-½

This was the last Schiller book I purchased. I got rid of it soon after.

Dear Taylor,

I hate to say this because I respect your writing however aren't
you beating a dead horse here? I mean everyone knows Schiller
writes crappy books. Very crappy books. (I sometimes wonder
if he even writes them himself.) So why belabor us with all the trivial
mistakes? Common man isn't it time to let this one die out?

Best regards,
Duncan

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

In the rgcp thread "Schiller, Westerinen and Myers" I examined
Eric Schiller's excuses for recommending a book that does not exist
as the "best" on the Nimzovich Defense, presenting testimony from
GM Heikki Westerinen and NM Hugh Myers. In my recent correspondence
with Myers, he pointed out another gaffe by Schiller that can only be
characterized as bare-faced mendacity or utter ineptitude.
In the 1987 edition of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (the same book
in which Schiller recommended the non-existent book), there is a
discussion of the Myers Gambit in the English Opening: 1.c4 g5 2.d4
Bg7. For the rest of the story, I quote from Myers' book "A Chess
Explorer" page 102:

Then resurrecting the dispute about 1.c4 g5 2.d4 Bg7, [Schiller and
Benjamin] ... dared to call a move "stupid" which "Myers gives"
-- without saying that in Myers Openings Bulletin #27, in an article
that I didn't write, it was clearly stated that the move which they
called 'stupid' was in analysis by *_Schiller_*!

So we have an interesting situation: either Schiller lied in UCO
trying to make Myers look bad, or Schiller has such a poor memory that
he does not remember what he himself has written, and calls his own
analysis "stupid" while blaming someone else. This from the man
Cardoza publishing calls "the world's leading writer on chess
openings." And so it goes.

Duncan Oxley wrote:
Dear Taylor,

I hate to say this because I respect your writing however aren't
you beating a dead horse here? I mean everyone knows Schiller
writes crappy books. Very crappy books. (I sometimes wonder
if he even writes them himself.) So why belabor us with all the trivial
mistakes? Common man isn't it time to let this one die out?

Best regards,
Duncan

But not everyone does, Duncan. There exists a school of thought that
says "If you can put covers on it, its good." Taylor is trying to
persuade the followers of that school.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in
oups.com:

In the 1987 edition of "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (the same book
in which Schiller recommended the non-existent book), [...]

Irony, oh, the irony...

Duncan Oxley wrote:
Dear Taylor,
I hate to say this because I respect your writing however aren't
you beating a dead horse here? I mean everyone knows Schiller
writes crappy books. Very crappy books.

A fair point, Duncan, but quite evidently some people on these
newsgroups haven't gotten the word. Several here seem to be trying to
portray Schiller as a fine writer who is the innocent victim of a
conspiracy to ban his books.
So I posted this to show that Schiller's work is not only poor
quality, but to demonstrate that he is either ludicrously incompetent,
or highly dishonest. Considering his evasive and inconsistent answers
about the non-existent Westerinen book, the latter looks more likely.
Also, in his recent letters Hugh Myers indicated this particular
incident was particularly noteworthy; in fact in "A Chess Explorer" he
describes it as "a new low for ignoring the truth in a chess book."
Myers is not a computer-user, and I felt his point deserved to be
posted here.

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.

PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES

We note that NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated
but self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO electrode, could not
recollect his own rating within 500 points, which was
one of the sleaziest episodes on this site in recent
years. NM Kingston told us a lot about himself with
that ego-driven lie.

Then NM Kingston told us that we was leaving "indefinitely."
But he hung around and around and around. He was just gasifying.

Now NM Kingston blames Eric
Schiller, the author of dozens of books, for having
forgotten analysis. Keres forgot adjournment
analysis, and Gligoric played into a line of the
Exchange Ruy against Fischer, having recommended
Fischer's line himself in earlier analysis! Botvinnik
overlooked a one-mover in analysis of a Gruenfeld that
gave Bobby a pawn in their 1962 game at Varna. Mieses
overlooked mate in one in some of his analysis.
Zukertort played into the same opening trap twice!
Rubinstein, too, if memory serves.

How refreshing a Ray Keene is when compared
with a NM Kingston or an Edward Winter. In his Chess Life
coverage of the second Spassky-Korchnoi match, Keene condemned a
French line for white, which Spassky then improved
upon dramatically later on. He wrote, if memory
serves, that his earlier note looked "pretty sick" at
this point. It was honest, and the reader appreciated
watching the dialectic within a grandmaster's mind as
he searched for truth. Yes, Keene should not have
been so categorical earlier, but he was speaking his mind.

So, too, with Eric Schiller. If he does not
feel able to evaluate a position, he says so. If he
has an idea, he gives it to us. And yes, he cannot
remember everything he has written, any more than a
much less prolific Gligoric could do.

On the subject of honesty, Eric Schiller may
once have been an 1800-rated player, but I doubt that
he ever lied in the ratty style of NM Kingston at that
time that he was a 2300+ ELO powerhouse. True,
Eric later reached 2300+ or thereabouts in his ELO.

Knowing Eric, however, he has a puckish sense
of humor. Perhaps he will appear here and tell us
that he is only an 1800-rated player.

Second thought, no. "Sandbagger!" the likes of
a NM Kingston would then holler.

And so it goes.

THE WAR AGAINST SCHILLER

The most recent error alleged against Eric
Schiller is that he forgot analysis that he himself
had written. NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated guy
who lied about being 2300+ ELO, is banking on most
of you having little knowledge of just how difficult
most grandmasters, let alone others, find chess to be.

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.

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.

The war against Eric Schiller is in defense of
ChessCafe, which publishes Taylor Kingston and bans
Mr. Schiller's work, just as it banned books by Keene
and Evans until recently. The memoir that Arnold Denker
and I wrote, though in print and though winning the ACF
and Cramer book of the year award in 1996, is also banned.
So are the two instructional volumes that I penned with Lev Alburt.

The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must. Chess is not yet
susceptible to full mastery. The issue is the
incidence of analytical error as opposed to other
authors, and no study has been presented here to
indicate that Schiller is much better or worse than others.

wrote:
PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES

We note that NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated
but self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO electrode, could not
recollect his own rating within 500 points, which was
one of the sleaziest episodes on this site in recent
years. NM Kingston told us a lot about himself with
that ego-driven lie.

Then NM Kingston told us that we was leaving "indefinitely."
But he hung around and around and around. He was just gasifying.

Now NM Kingston blames Eric
Schiller, the author of dozens of books, for having
forgotten analysis. Keres forgot adjournment
analysis, and Gligoric played into a line of the
Exchange Ruy against Fischer, having recommended
Fischer's line himself in earlier analysis! Botvinnik
overlooked a one-mover in analysis of a Gruenfeld that
gave Bobby a pawn in their 1962 game at Varna. Mieses
overlooked mate in one in some of his analysis.
Zukertort played into the same opening trap twice!
Rubinstein, too, if memory serves.

How refreshing a Ray Keene is when compared
with a NM Kingston or an Edward Winter. In his Chess Life
coverage of the second Spassky-Korchnoi match, Keene condemned
a French line for white, which Spassky then improved
upon dramatically later on. He wrote, if memory
serves, that his earlier note looked "pretty sick" at
this point. It was honest, and the reader appreciated
watching the dialectic within a grandmaster's mind as
he searched for truth. Yes, Keene should not have
been so categorical earlier, but he was speaking his mind.

So, too, with Eric Schiller. If he does not
feel able to evaluate a position, he says so. If he
has an idea, he gives it to us. And yes, he cannot
remember everything he has written, any more than a
much less prolific Gligoric could do.

On the subject of honesty, Eric Schiller may
once have been an 1800-rated player, but I doubt that
he ever lied in the ratty style of NM Kingston at that
time that he was a 2300+ ELO powerhouse. True,
Eric later reached 2300+ or thereabouts in his ELO.

According to the ChessBase Player Encyclopedia,
FM Eric Schiller's peak rating was 2270 FIDE in 1988.

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?

Today, Eric Schiller's rated 2194 FIDE and 2216 USCF.

--Nick

Knowing Eric, however, he has a puckish sense
of humor. Perhaps he will appear here and tell us
that he is only an 1800-rated player.

Second thought, no. "Sandbagger!" the likes of
a NM Kingston would then holler.

And so it goes.

WHO'S CLOSER TO THE MARK?

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

I wrote that Eric Schiller was in the "region"
of 2300 or 2300+ "thereabouts." Nick Bourbaki
says he peaked at 2270, 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.
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.