_
"What obviously occurred was that among the
mountains of books Eric has consulted in writing
his 100-plus works he confused something written
by one author for a work written by another author.
Perhaps he looked at an old issue of Euwe's Chess
Archives, confounded it with Sc6! on the cover of the
Westerinen book, and remembered how concise and
neat Euwe's work was, figuring it was Westerinen's."
- Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005 18:51:11 -0700)
_
"It is very simple. Westeinen is a grandmaster, a
fact Taylor Kingston conveniently neglects to mention
and a fact that members of this group likely do not
know. Naturally, if books are written on the same
chess opening by a grandmaster and by two untitled
players, the book by the grandmaster will probably
be the best, and Schiller made this assumption."
- Sam Sloan (Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:28:56 GMT)
_
Will we ever get the Eric Schiller version of what happened?

Taylor Kingston wrote:
David Ames wrote:
Schiller has seen the book, but has not read it, I am sure.

Which leaves unanswered the question of how he decided it was the
best book on 1.e4 Nc6.

It seems to me that Schiller must simply have remembered the "Sc6!" on
the cover. If he believed there was a book on the Nimzovich Defense by
GM Westerinen, it would not have been hard to believe that a GM's book
was better than anyone else's. Others, of course, may see it
differently.

Schiller has given two different (and not entirely consistent)
excuses for his error; neither quite fits your scenario. Even granting
your hypothesis for the sake of argument, Schiller did not just
*assume* the GM's book was best, he published an explicit claim that it
*was* best, without reading it or even knowing what it was about. That
is just as irresponsible and unfair as, say, a reviewer panning a
Schiller book he has not read, just because of Schiller's bad
reputation.

Each of us is making a leap of logic here. For my part, I consider
that Schiller's claim the non-existent book *was* best was merely an
assumption based upon Westerinen's standing and reputation.

In journalism, what Schiller did was a serious error. Mike Barnicle,
formerly a columnist for The Boston Globe , ran into a serious scrape
when it was discovered that he had recommended books (something like "a
yuck a minute") without having read them. Other things were said.
After a brief reprieve, the newspaper asked him to find a different
employment.

David Ames

Louis Blair wrote:
Will we ever get the Eric Schiller version of what happened?

See the OP at the top of this thread, Louis. I quote the relevant
parts of my recent exchange of e-mails with Schiller.

Louis Blair wrote:
_
"What obviously occurred was that among the
mountains of books Eric has consulted in writing
his 100-plus works he confused something written
by one author for a work written by another author.
Perhaps he looked at an old issue of Euwe's Chess
Archives, confounded it with Sc6! on the cover of the
Westerinen book, and remembered how concise and
neat Euwe's work was, figuring it was Westerinen's."
- Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005 18:51:11 -0700)
_
"It is very simple. Westeinen is a grandmaster, a
fact Taylor Kingston conveniently neglects to mention
and a fact that members of this group likely do not
know. Naturally, if books are written on the same
chess opening by a grandmaster and by two untitled
players, the book by the grandmaster will probably
be the best, and Schiller made this assumption."
- Sam Sloan (Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:28:56 GMT)
_
Will we ever get the Eric Schiller version of what happened?

On 22 September 2005 in the RGCM and RGCP thread,
"Taylor Kingston letter attacking Eric Schiller",
Sam Sloan published (evidently with Eric Schiller's
permission) an E-mail by Eric Schiller in response
to Taylor Kingston's accusations.

The post (submitted by Sam Sloan) begins with the words,
"This is old stuff...", and is signed off by Eric Schiller.

If Louis Blair cannot find that post, then he
may write to me and I shall forward it to him.

--Nick

David Ames wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:
Sam Sloan wrote (Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:28:56 GMT):

Schiller has acknowledged the error and stated that
when the second edition of the book came out, the
error was corrected. What more do you want?
_
I think that what some are looking for is Eric Schiller's
explanation of how it came about that the chess world
was told that a non-existent book was the best on
1 e4 Nc6.

Westerinen's book was on display at Stockmann's in Helsinki when I was
there in 1973. The paper cover bore the title "5 ... Sc6!" (I hope I
remember the move number correctly.) Evidently Schiller remembered the
"Sc6!" portion, which *by itself* meant to him a book on the Nimzovich
Defense.

Schiller has seen the book, but has not read it, I am sure.

Can Eric Schiller read Swedish (the language of GM Westerinen's book)?

--Nick

wrote:

Eric's claim was mistaken, perhaps even
careless. It is NOT what NM Kingston in his cankered
junk tries to make it: irresponsible, unfair, dishonest.


One time I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

David Ames

Sam Sloan told us (Thu, 22 Sep 2005
15:07:57 GMT) that Eric Schiller wrote:
_
"this was a response to an informal letter
from Myers, I was in Hawaii with no chess
library, just Khmer language stuff as I was
studying on a fellowship as part of my
Doctoral studies at the University of Chicago.
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, not Joel's."
_
It does not seem to me that this explains how it
came about that Eric Schiller believed that the
book was THE BEST on 1 e4 Nc6. Also, the
last sentence does not seem to me to be much
of an explanation for how the belief got into the
book.

Sam Sloan told us (Thu, 22 Sep 2005
15:07:57 GMT) that Eric Schiller wrote:
_
"this was a response to an informal letter
from Myers, I was in Hawaii with no chess
library, just Khmer language stuff as I was
studying on a fellowship as part of my
Doctoral studies at the University of Chicago.
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, not Joel's."
_
It does not seem to me that this explains how it
came about that Eric Schiller believed that the
book was THE BEST on 1 e4 Nc6. Also, the
last sentence does not seem to me to be much
of an explanation for how the belief got into the
Unorthodox Openings book.

Sam Sloan told us (Thu, 22 Sep 2005
15:07:57 GMT) that Eric Schiller wrote:
_
"this was a response to an informal letter
from Myers, I was in Hawaii with no chess
library, just Khmer language stuff as I was
studying on a fellowship as part of my
Doctoral studies at the University of Chicago.
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, not Joel's."
_
It does not seem to me that this explains how it
came about that Eric Schiller believed that the
Westerinen book was THE BEST on 1 e4 Nc6.
Also, the last sentence does not seem to me to
be much of an explanation for how the belief got
into the Unorthodox Openings book.

My question is with all the great chess literature out there about every
facet of the game, why does anyone even *bother* with Schiller?



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven