My first Staunton chess set had red and white men, because that's
what
he recommended.

I had forgotten that. I wonder if he got some sort of kickback or deal
for making that recommendation. How many manufacturers of red/white
Staunton sets could there have been?

Randy Bauer wrote:

could Reinfeld's book on Lasker be
good because of Fine's participation?

_
Although his beginner books are often
criticized, I have also seen praise for
his books on famous players. One hater
of Reinfeld posted a
rec.games.chess.analysis note that said:
_
"I'm into playing out games, and
I've been playing out some of Capa's
game from Reinfeld's collection today,
and I've said more than once that I
thought he did a good job with that.
I think he also did a good job with
'Brilliancy Prize Games of the Chess
Masters'."
_
William Hyde "strongly recommend"ed
Reinfeld's book about Tarrasch and
later added:
_
"I also liked Reinfeld's books on
Keres and Nimzowitsch, ... The
annotations to the Keres games are
much lighter than Keres' own,
naturally, but they're not bad for
those of us under 2200, and there
are many games in the Reinfeld
collection not in Keres' own books.
_
For what it is worth, I think I
learned the most from his book on
Tarrasch."
_
According to the Oxford Companion:
_
"Reinfeld ... was a good but not
great player, twice New York State
champion, for example, and capable
of beating the best on a good day."

FiFiela wrote:
My first Staunton chess set had
red and white men, because that's
what he recommended.

I had forgotten that. I wonder if
he got some sort of kickback or deal
for making that recommendation. How
many manufacturers of red/white
Staunton sets could there have been?

_
I also do not remember Reinfeld making
such a suggestion. Perhaps what was
referred to was a certain sort of cheap
chess set with plastic pieces that was
sold with a board with red and black
squares. At one time (decades ago)
such a set was almost the only sort of
cheap set one could find. A club with
little money might consider such sets.

Randy Bauer wrote:
"Spam Scone" wrote in message
ups.com...

Randy Bauer wrote:
In article , Mike
Murray
says...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:11:03 GMT, "Ray Gordon"

wrote:

Pick ONE collection.

Some of Reinfeld's books, especially earlier ones he co-authored
or
ghosted, were pretty good, IMO. And Tartakower called him "an
outstanding theoretician". So, I'd go with him, even though he
never
finished his "How To Castle" with its intended follow-up "How to
Castle Queen-side" (just kidding).

Eric has at least a few useful titles -- John Watson, for example,
speaks highly
of his book on the Chigorin.

John Watson has a critical blindspot - Schiller is a friend and
co-author.

I also found his book with Benjamin on unorthodox
chess openings and his Tarrasch Defense stuff to be pretty good.
Perhaps his
best work was with Watson on the Big Book of Busts --- I used
several
of its
suggestions successfully for quite a few years.

I have yet to find a Schiller book that isn't a cheapo disasterbase
dump. My "favorite" is a Cardoza toss-off in which Schiller misses
the
Greek gift sacrifice in his annotations.

Maybe I'm not familiar with any of Reinfelds better earlier works,
but while I'd
ignore most of Schiller's books, there some I definitely would
want
to have.

Randy Bauer

It's a shame. Some of the early Reinfeld books, such as his book on
Lasker (cowritten with Fine) are quite good.


I don't want to get too deep into this, because it is not an area I
know
much about, but could Reinfeld's book on Lasker be good because of
Fine's
participation? The same, of course, can be said about Schiller,
because
some of his better works are co-authorships with the likes of
Benjamin and
Watson.

My recollection was that Watson admitted that many Schiller books
were less
than stellar and he only commented on a couple that he found to be
pretty
good.

Randy Bauer

It has been claimed that Reshevsky on Chess, by Samuel Reshevsky, was
written by Reinfeld.

David Ames

David Ames wrote:

It has been claimed that Reshevsky on Chess,
by Samuel Reshevsky, was written by Reinfeld.

_
Around 1950, Fred Reinfeld's work was criticized by
E. G. R. Cordingley. A reaction from Reinfeld
appeared in the March 1952 issue of Chess:

"you praised the 'Reshevsky' annotations to the skies;
would you have done so if you had known that I wrote
these annotations?"

(See page 322 of Kings, Commoner and Knaves.)

Louis Blair wrote:
David Ames wrote:

It has been claimed that Reshevsky on Chess,
by Samuel Reshevsky, was written by Reinfeld.

_
Around 1950, Fred Reinfeld's work was criticized by
E. G. R. Cordingley. A reaction from Reinfeld
appeared in the March 1952 issue of Chess:

"you praised the 'Reshevsky' annotations to the skies;
would you have done so if you had known that I wrote
these annotations?"

(See page 322 of Kings, Commoner and Knaves.)

The full item, on pages 321-322 of KCK, is very interesting, pointing
out a number of contradictory claims about "Reshevsky on Chess." John
Rather of Chess Review says Reinfeld wrote it, Reshevsky in 1985 writes
indignantly to Hugh Myers, saying "Every word in that book was written
by me!", and Reuben Fine claims he wrote an introduction for it at
Reinfeld's request but there's nothing by Fine in the book. If Reinfeld
did indeed write the book, then his very laudatory review of the book
in CR was both self-congratulatory and deceptive when it praised
"Reshevsky's superb notes," as CHESS noted, saying "In his fury, Fred
Reinfeld has rather let the cat out of the bag."
Such a possibility notwithstanding, I would say that on the whole
Reinfeld's work is very superior to Schiller's. Reinfeld was rarely
great, but I'm not aware that he ever churned out anywhere near as much
consistently awful trash as Schiller does nearly every book.

I also do not remember Reinfeld making
such a suggestion. Perhaps what was
referred to was a certain sort of cheap
chess set with plastic pieces that was
sold with a board with red and black
squares. At one time (decades ago)
such a set was almost the only sort of
cheap set one could find. A club with
little money might consider such sets.

Hey! I won the fourth grade lunchroom title on that type of set!


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

On 24 Mar 2005 09:55:39 -0800, "Louis Blair"
wrote:

FiFiela wrote:
My first Staunton chess set had
red and white men, because that's
what he recommended.

I had forgotten that. I wonder if
he got some sort of kickback or deal
for making that recommendation. How
many manufacturers of red/white
Staunton sets could there have been?

It was the Windsor Castle set, sold by Chess Review, possibly by
others, available in Black and White or Red and White. Came in an
"alligatoresque" briefcase, lined with green felt.

As I remember, there were a fair number of Staunton sets available in
Red and White.

I also do not remember Reinfeld making
such a suggestion.

Most of my chess books are in storage, but I believe it was in "How to
Get More Out of Chess" or "How to Play Chess Like a Champion". His
claim was that the red color gave one a cheerier outlook when
studying. Sure, I believed it.

Perhaps what was
referred to was a certain sort of cheap
chess set with plastic pieces that was
sold with a board with red and black
squares. At one time (decades ago)
such a set was almost the only sort of
cheap set one could find. A club with
little money might consider such sets.

As I remember, the Windsor Castle set cost something like twelve
dollars in 1958. According to the feds' inflation calculator
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
that's almost eighty bucks in today's debased currency.

The dye evidently weakened the Red (plastic) pieces -- they
continuously chipped and broke, while the White ones are still good as
new.

House of Staunton sells a reproduction in *wood* for about $150 retail
on their site. Kind of a reverse twist on things, going from a
plastic original to a wood knock off.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:38:17 -0800, Mike Murray
wrote:

I had forgotten that. I wonder if
he got some sort of kickback or deal
for making that recommendation. How
many manufacturers of red/white
Staunton sets could there have been?

It was the Windsor Castle set, sold by Chess Review, possibly by
others, available in Black and White or Red and White. Came in an
"alligatoresque" briefcase, lined with green felt.

I can see that my reply might be misinterpreted. Reinfeld recommended
only the *color* red and white. The set I bought to implement his
suggestion was the Windsor Castle.