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.

On 15 Oct 2005 14:26:47 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

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?

Where are these "several times"? 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 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."

Another lie by Taylor Kingston. Tim Harding is not an IM. He is an
untitled player rated 2225. While complaining about an error Schiller
made in 1987, Taylor Kingston makes a far more serious error right
here, but not as serious as saying that Korchnoi was a Soviet citizen
in 1978, as Taylor Kingston wrote a few weeks ago.

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.

Oh really. Does this mean that you have "read thoroughly" all the
books by Schiller, Keene and Evans that you have been panning?

If you have read all those chess books, why are you so weak?

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."

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.

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.

It certainly is. You have demonstrated, as one member of this group
has just noted, "Taylor Kingston also likes to remind us that
he's a sanctimonious prig."

You have also demonstrated that since 1987 Eric Schiller has never
made an error, because otherwise you would cite that error as proof of
your claims, rather than cite this 1987 error over and over again in
dozens of postings here.

Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote:
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?

Where are these "several times"? Schiller has acknowledged
the error and stated that when the second edition of the book
came out, the error was corrected.

This thread seems to belong in RGCM rather than only in RGCP.

As I recall, Sam Sloan published in rec.games.chess.* an
E-mail by Eric Schiller in response to Taylor Kingston
about this subject. Would Sam Sloan like to post it
again in this thread? It seems fairest that both
Taylor Kingston and Eric Schiller should be able to
express themselves on this subject in this thread.

Although I do not necessarily accept everything written by
Eric Schiller in his E-mail (as published by Sam Sloan),
to his credit, Eric Schiller made no attempt to blame
his co-author, GM Joel Benjamin, for the error.

What more do you want?

I doubt that Eric Schiller *lied*--intentionally made a false
statement--when he mentioned GM Westernin's non-existent book.
What on earth could Eric Schiller have to gain by doing that?

Eric Schiller should be blamed for being very careless with the
facts and perhaps also for being reluctant to admit error and
disingenuous in covering up his error. But I doubt that
Eric Schiller *lied* in the first place about it.

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."

Another lie by Taylor Kingston. Tim Harding is not an IM.

It's true that Tim Harding is *not* a FIDE IM in OTB play.
But Tim Harding *is* an ICCF Senior International Master
of correspondence chess (according to his homepage).

He is an untitled player rated 2225.

True, according to the FIDE website.

While complaining about an error Schiller made in 1987,
Taylor Kingston makes a far more serious error right here,

I disagree with Sam Sloan on that point.

but not as serious as saying that Korchnoi was a Soviet
citizen in 1978, as Taylor Kingston wrote a few weeks ago.

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.

Oh really. Does this mean that you have "read thoroughly" all the
books by Schiller, Keene and Evans that you have been panning?

If you have read all those chess books, why are you so weak?

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."

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's hypothesis about Eric Schiller's *assumption* seems
plausible enough. But Eric Schiller *should* have read that
(non-existent) book *before* claiming that it's 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.

It certainly is. You have demonstrated, as one member of this group
has just noted, "Taylor Kingston also likes to remind us that
he's a sanctimonious prig."

I wrote that statement (above) quoted by Sam Sloan.
But I wrote it in a different context, and I object to Sam Sloan
quoting it, without asking for my permission, in this context.

My criticisms of Taylor Kingston are independent of Sam Sloan's
criticisms of Taylor Kingston. And I disagree with many of
Sam Sloan's criticisms (as far as I recall) of Taylor Kingston.

--Nick

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 the explanation
of how it came about that the chess world was told
that a non-existent book was the best on 1 e4 Nc6.

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.

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.

David Ames

David Ames wrote:
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.

It must have "6...Sc6!". The line it covered was 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6
3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6. Thanks for the information that
the cover had the move number on it. I did not know that until now. It
makes Schiller's gaffe even harder to excuse, since even by just
reading the cover he could see that the book was not about the opening
1.e4 Nc6.

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. Schiller claims that perhaps he was thinking of
some other book, perhaps in German, but he has never explained, to my
knowledge, what that book might have been, or on what basis he
considered it better than those by Myers or Harding, which *were*
actually about 1.e4 Nc6.
Readers who can get hold of a copy of the old Myers Openings Bulletin
#39 (1988) will find a lengthy review of the 1987 edition of
"Unorthodox Chess Openings." The review is co-written by American NM
Hugh Myers and German FM Stefan Bücker, both great experts in unusual
openings. Schiller supporters who've been asking for some quantitative
analysis of the frequency of error in Schiller's work will likely get
quite a lot to chew on from that review.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
David Ames wrote:
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.

It must have "6...Sc6!". The line it covered was 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6
3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6. Thanks for the information that
the cover had the move number on it. I did not know that until now. It
makes Schiller's gaffe even harder to excuse, since even by just
reading the cover he could see that the book was not about the opening
1.e4 Nc6.

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.

David Ames

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.

PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES (continued)

Self-proclaimed NM Taylor Kingston, who lied
baldly about his own rating (he's 1800 and claimed
2300+ Elo) is essentially arguing that Eric
Schiller had to be lying when claiming as best a book
on the Nimzovich Defense that was not on that opening.

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.

(Even so, for the record and somewhat inapropos,
the finest work on that opening I have seen is by a
Midwest master named Hugh Myers, a book that falls
under the heading of a lifetime labor of love.)

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.

On a few occasions in both chess and non-chess
writing, I have imagined a book that did not exist as
I recollected. Luckily, I caught myself, and the
misapprehension did not appear in cold print. Eric
was not so fortunate, though we must keep in mind that
we have only NM Kingston's word that he contacted the
Finns, etc. He may be telling the truth, or he may
not. There is no reason at this juncture to take his
word about anything at face value.

Concerning the accuracy of NM Kingston or, for
that matter, his mentor Edward Winter, one can point to
embarrassing lapses. NM Kingston was apparently
unaware of his own rating when making a false claim.
Either that -- or he was lying.

He recently told us that Victor Korchnoi was a Soviet
citizen in 1978. Edward Winter wrote a screed attacking
the accuracy of Larry Evans in which he found 25 errors
over a period of roughly 50 years. I found a higher incidence
of error in Winter's essay on accuracy than he actually
adduced for Evans!

He was so eager to pounce on the slighest error of the 5-time
U.S. Champion that he even tried to impale GM Evans for referring to
The Oxford Companion To Chess as The Oxford Companion Of Chess.

One could, if one wished, adopt an arch contumely and note
the absurdity of a man lattacking another for inaccuracy while
committing a higher incidence of such inaccuracy in the attack.

The goal is to cut down on mistakes without trying to crucify an
author
with the kind of bile that flows from the pen of Edward Winter and his
pet student Taylor Kingston.