Eric Schiller is compared with Reuben Fine and
Paul Keres and ... found wanting. Mr. Schiller, we
are told, copies and collates and makes errors. Of
course he does.

That's not the point; the point is that this is virtually the only
thing he does.

Many of Eric's books are explicitly works meant
to provide plenty of information at a low price.

So does the phone book; but I wouldn't rely on it to improve my
rook-and-pawn endings. The question is not the amount of information,
but the reliablity and usefulness of the information.

He
does not spend years on an ending volume as Fine did
(though Fine made plenty of errors) or produce the
kind of original analysis that Keres might work out
over a number of years and then reproduce in, say, his
fine and fascinating Dreispringspiel bis Koenigsgambit.

Indeed he doesn't.

Eric Schiller is a popular writer who has made a
lot of information available at a fraction of the prices
that one will pay for German editions of Keres' work.

Yes, indeed; but I would rather own Keres' four or five
books--excellent ones, one and all--than own Schiller's complete
collection of works--90+ books, that is true, but ranging in quality
from the mediocre to the atrocious. Contrary to what Stalin said, in
chess, quantity does not have a quality all of its own.

That is the flaw in your reasoning. That you can get five Schiller
books for the price of one Keres book is hardly an advantage for
Schiller when it is far better for the chessplayer to own any of Keres'
books over any five of Schiller's books anyway.

Does he have a market? Evidently so.

(Shrug) well, of course he does. So do pornographic books, but that's
no recommendation.

He has been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets, and
they do not give up shelf space lightly.

True, true.

Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount of shelf space devoted to:

1). "How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually Attractive"-type books
("self-help");
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts ("sex education");
3). "Why Politician X is worse than Hitler" / "The World will Explode
Tomorrow" ("Politics and Current Events")
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a popular television show
("Best-Sellers").

So what?

In any event, ChessCafe does not blacklist Eric
Schiller because of the quality of his books. Eric is
blacklisted for the same reason as this writer (my
well received works with Arnold Denker and Lev
Alburt) Ray Keene and Larry Evans: we are loathed by
the proprietor.

A quick search for "Evans" found three of Evans' best-selling books, as
well as Benko and Silman's "Pal Benko" which has quite a bit of
interviews and additions by Evans. Similarly, "Keene" gives us "Aaron
Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal", which not-so-coincidentally is considered
Keene's one good book.

I couldn't find your books, but (according to Amazon) you only wrote
two books (one in two volumes). Surely more evidence of "blacklisting"
is needed than "they don't carry either of my books"? For example, I
also couldn't find Richard Forster's "Amos Burn: A Chess Bibliography"
(one of the best chess books ever in my view) or a single book by
Keres. Is chesscafe "blacklisting" Forster and Keres? Highly unlikely.

Such is the man's undoubted right --
to prevent the discussion from yet again commencing
with the dreary, "but it's the proprietor's right ...,"
etc. -- and it is our right to hold the man's
reputation to the flame.

Go ahead--just remember to add Keres, Forster, and quite a few other
chess authors to this list of those "blacklisted" by the chesscafe.
Isn't it simply more likely that they, simply, have a more limited
selection than amazon.com?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Does he have a market? Evidently so.

(Shrug) well, of course he does. So do pornographic books, but that's
no recommendation.

This seems to be the nub of it. Recommendations are resources yo potential
buyers provided by book reviewers.

What we have here is not recommendation! We have removed the choice from the
consumer to buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

I see the balance of this thread continues by analogy only - invoking
pornography and Hitler, subject the author himself appears not to have
addressed in his chess books.

What we read below is not a book review, it is a commentary on what [other]
people /should/ be allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

He has been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets, and
they do not give up shelf space lightly.

True, true.

Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount of shelf space devoted to:

1). "How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually Attractive"-type books
("self-help");
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts ("sex education");
3). "Why Politician X is worse than Hitler" / "The World will Explode
Tomorrow" ("Politics and Current Events")
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a popular television show
("Best-Sellers").

So what?

So - if you don't like someone's book don't buy it.

And if you don't want other people to make exactly the same choice that you
did, do as chesscafe have done.

That's what. Phil Innes

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:Vjq5f.26039$p_.11591@trndny05...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Does he have a market? Evidently so.

(Shrug) well, of course he does. So do pornographic books, but that's
no recommendation.

This seems to be the nub of it. Recommendations are resources yo potential
buyers provided by book reviewers.

Yo! everbody. Make that "resources /for/ potential buyers..."

What we have here is not recommendation! We have removed the choice from
the consumer to buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

I see the balance of this thread continues by analogy only - invoking
pornography and Hitler, subject the author himself appears not to have
addressed in his chess books.

What we read below is not a book review, it is a commentary on what
[other] people /should/ be allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

I might have made the additional note that chesscafe are purportedly
supplying USCF members with books to their own taste - what are they? What
are the previous year sales figures for (a) Dvoretsky, and (b) Schiller.

Phil

He has been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major outlets, and
they do not give up shelf space lightly.

True, true.

Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount of shelf space devoted to:

1). "How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually Attractive"-type books
("self-help");
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts ("sex education");
3). "Why Politician X is worse than Hitler" / "The World will Explode
Tomorrow" ("Politics and Current Events")
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a popular television show
("Best-Sellers").

So what?

So - if you don't like someone's book don't buy it.

And if you don't want other people to make exactly the same choice that
you did, do as chesscafe have done.

That's what. Phil Innes

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

wrote:
In any event, ChessCafe does not blacklist Eric
Schiller because of the quality of his books.

Quite true, since ChessCafe has never "blacklisted" Schiller. On
the
rare occasion that he has written something worthwhile, it has been
on
the catalog. However, such occasions are rare indeed.
As for "blacklisting" Schiller's bad books, you might as well say
that classical music radio stations blacklist the Monkees.


And there is about as much as the
Monkees becoming the premier
producers of classical music as
there is of you *fairly* assessing
whether a Schiller work is "worthwhile".

David Kane wrote:
And there is about as much [chance] as the
Monkees becoming the premier
producers of classical music as
there is of you *fairly* assessing
whether a Schiller work is "worthwhile".

If you are correct, we can expect the Monkees to come out with a
complete set of Beethoven's symphonies any day now.

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

David Kane wrote:
And there is about as much [chance] as the
Monkees becoming the premier
producers of classical music as
there is of you *fairly* assessing
whether a Schiller work is "worthwhile".

If you are correct, we can expect the Monkees to come out with a
complete set of Beethoven's symphonies any day now.


There have been credible criticisms
of Schiller in this thread, but yours
are not among them. Even though
I would say that you are generally
credible, you need to understand
your own prejudices better in this
instance.

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

_
Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

_
I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.
_
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly.
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
of shelf space devoted to:
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.

_
Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

Yes you could. But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess into mainstream
culture. Isn't this somewhat strange, if mainstream culture seem to be
wanting a Schiller title from the outfit who purportedly would also want to
promote the game?

Its not a question of commerical viability - nothing particular has been
established here for or against the commercial worth/liability of the
titles.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.

_
I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.

Really - try reading it again? Or even quoting avital's comments themselves
[I did!] so we could assess if indeed it suggested what might be on public
offer, and what not. Why not show his comments? That's rhetorical. Perhaps I
mean to indicate, why cut the comment and then say 'I see nothing'?

Restore the comment and then we could all see what I respond to, and if it
is a recommendation not to represent a popular series to the populace.

Phil
_
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly.
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
of shelf space devoted to:
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.
_
I wrote (19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700):
Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):

Yes you could.

_
Then it is incorrect to assert that we have removed
the choice from the consumer to buy the book or not.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):

But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess
into mainstream culture. Isn't this somewhat strange,
...

_
Strange or not, it does not change the lack of truth in
the assertion that we have removed the choice from
the consumer to buy the book or not.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.
_
I wrote (19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700):
I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):

Really - try reading it again? Or even quoting avital's
comments themselves [I did!] so we could assess if
indeed it suggested what might be on public offer, and
what not. Why not show his comments? That's
rhetorical. Perhaps I mean to indicate, why cut the
comment and then say 'I see nothing'?
_
Restore the comment and then we could all see
what I respond to, and if it is a recommendation
not to represent a popular series to the populace.

_
The Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT Phil Innes
comment referred to "what we read below". My
19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700 note reproduced the
avital.pilpel comment that was "below". Here it
is again:
_
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly.
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
of shelf space devoted to:
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
We have removed the choice from the consumer to
buy the book or not, because or despite of our any
recommendation.
_
I wrote (19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700):
Nonsense. I can buy a Schiller book if I want to.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):

Yes you could.

_
Then it is incorrect to assert that we have removed
the choice from the consumer to buy the book or not.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):

But not from USCF, who exist to promote chess
into mainstream culture. Isn't this somewhat strange,
...

_
Strange or not, it does not change the lack of truth in
the assertion that we have removed the choice from
the consumer to buy the book or not.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT):
What we read below is not a book review, it is a
commentary on what [other] people /should/ be
allowed to read, based on our /own/ tastes.
_
I wrote (19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700):
I see nothing in the avital.pilpel comments quoted
by Phil Innes about what other people should be
ALLOWED to read.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:56 GMT):

Really - try reading it again? Or even quoting avital's
comments themselves [I did!] so we could assess if
indeed it suggested what might be on public offer, and
what not. Why not show his comments? That's
rhetorical. Perhaps I mean to indicate, why cut the
comment and then say 'I see nothing'?
_
Restore the comment and then we could all see
what I respond to, and if it is a recommendation
not to represent a popular series to the populace.

_
The Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:49 GMT Phil Innes
comment referred to "what we read below". My
19 Oct 2005 09:29:43 -0700 note reproduced the
avital.pilpel comment that was "below". Here it
is again:
_
"True, true [that Eric Schiller books have been
stocked on bookshelves for years by major
outlets, and they do not give up shelf space lightly].
_
Then again, my local B&N has enormous amount
of shelf space devoted to:
_
1). 'How to Become Rich, Thin, and Sexually
Attractive'-type books ('self-help');
2). Pornographic sex manuals of various sorts
('sex education');
3). 'Why Politician X is worse than Hitler' / 'The
World will Explode Tomorrow' ('Politics and
Current Events')
4). Whatever latest book was mentioned on a
popular television show ('Best-Sellers').
_
So what?" - avital.pilpel (19 Oct 2005 04:18:41 -0700)