jr (wrote (17 Oct 2005 19:35:40 -0700):

[Schiller is] not my favorite author (Chernev, Evans
and Fine are) but some of his books have taught me
a lot about chess.

_
Can "jr" give us some specifics about what he learned
and from which Schiller books he learned "a lot"?

wrote:

[...]
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?

Avital's researches led me to check out a few more authors.

I see that another popular chess author who doesn't seem to be in stock
on the USCF Sales site is NM Bill Robertie, whose books I often see in
general book stores such as Barnes and Noble. I doubt that Bill (who is
an old college teammate of mine) is losing much sleep over this
omission, because he must be doing very well as the co-author with Dan
Harrington of an immensely popular poker book. But is Bill the target
of some sinister personal animus here? I doubt it.

My own opinion about the selectivity issue is: Assuming that USCF Sales
is not trying to be comprehensive like Amazon, its target consumers
will be reasonably well served by almost any well-informed proprietor
who cares about quality, even though his personal selection may seem
idiosyncratic at times. If, for example, Larry Parr were in Hanon
Russell's shoes, I imagine that Parr would be hawking his own book and
those of his friends, and conceivably there would be some grumbling
about that. But my feeling is that the customers of USCF Sales would
be, on the whole, better off with Parr in charge than they would if the
proprietor were an ignorant number-cruncher who made decisions on sales
volume alone.

Larry T.

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?

Not any more strange than the fact you won't find the American Medical
Association selling "Garlic: the Miracle Cure for Cancer" on its web
site, despite its popularity with the public and the vast amount of
shelf space Barnes and Noble gives to similar books.

Like the AMA, part of the USCF's goal is to give the public RELIABLE
and GOOD information about chess (or medicine). This implies, among
other things, shunning knowingly worthless books, no matter how popular
with the public they are.

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

I would go further than that. I would say the USCF is probably losing
money not selling Schiller junk. But it still shouldn't, since it would
be betraying its public mandate--to give reliable information about
chess to the public--if it did so.

Simiarly, the AMA should not sell "Carlic: the Miracle Cure for Cancer"
(or similar books) despite the fact that it would no doubt sell much
better than, say, "Gray's Anatomy" or other reliable medical works.

You were the editor of CHESS LIFE. Suppose I wanted to run a full-page
ad for my book, "Chess Solved! A Simple System for Beating Anybody in
Five Minutes." Would you take the money and run the ad, letting the
public decide if the book is worthwhile?

Or suppose president Bush came to you and said: "I am a C-level player
at best, but I want to write a regular column analyzing chess games in
your magazine." Such a column, regardless of its chess level, would
surely be very popular (at least initially), for reasons having little
to do with its quality. Would you agree?

You should not! In both cases, taking the offer would be a betrayal of
the public trust--that what the USCF promotes is good for chess. You
might be tempted, I can see; but would you say that as a matter of
principle, you MUST take such offers, because they would make chess
more popular among the general public--regardless of the damage it
would do to chess itself and the reputation of the USCF? Becuase doing
otherwise would be "censorship"??

"Skeptic" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

Not any more strange than the fact you won't find the American
Medical
Association selling "Garlic: the Miracle Cure for Cancer" on its web
site, despite its popularity with the public and the vast amount of
shelf space Barnes and Noble gives to similar books.

Like the AMA, part of the USCF's goal is to give the public RELIABLE
and GOOD information about chess (or medicine). This implies, among
other things, shunning knowingly worthless books, no matter how
popular
with the public they are.


The analogy is flawed, of course, because
people playing chess, EVEN if they are playing
moves that Schiller has recommended, further
the stated objective of the USCF.

Do you believe the USCF should hold
an official position on the quality of various
moves that chessplayers might play?
That seems to be the inevitable consequence
of a plan to give "GOOD information about
chess" at the move level.

_
"As Steinitz wrote about authors like Schiller and
Pandolfini, the question of 'who is he among
chessplayers?' and 'what did he learn before
he determined to teach?' is rather important."
_
Is it appropriate to compare Schiller and Pandolfini?
My impression is that, for the most part, the target
audience for a Pandolfini book is quite different from
that of a Schiller book. It appears that Pandolfini
books are primarily for the player who is just barely
past the stage of learning the rules, whereas Schiller
books (with, for example, long expositions on specific
openings) appear to be for players who are past this
stage.
_
"It has a bit of a reputation as a beginner's
endgame book, but it contains a great
deal of information useful to the intermediate
player as well. ... definitely a good choice for
any player below expert level, and affordable too,
listing at $12 U.S." - S. Evan Kreider on
Pandolfini's Endgame Course
_
I don't know that I would agree with S. Evan Kreider
about B and A players, but I think his comment is
plausible for E and maybe D and C. On the other
hand, when it comes to Schiller and Evans, we see:
_
"For those who believe in what Schiller has
to say about endgames, I have a little tip:
Good luck!" - Carsten Hansen (August 2000)
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen15.txt
_
"I enjoyed the puzzles, but I do not feel
I learned from them as there was no pattern
to them. ... I would recommend reading Winning
Chess Endgames by Yasser Seirawan and then,
after they are comfortable with the material,
having a go at this puzzle book to hone in
the skills." - Andy Howie on Chess Endgame
Quiz by GM Evans
_
Compare this with comments about other books
with approximately the same target audience:
_
"excellent" - Jeremy Silman on Chess Endgame
Training by Rosen
_
"a relatively slender but quite useful work ...
more than enough for most players below 2200."
- John Donaldson on Chess Endings Made Simple by
Snape
_
"Emms does his usual excellent job ... I like this
book a lot" - John Watson on The Survival Guide to
Rook Endings by Emms

David Kane wrote (Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:49:48 -0700):

Do you believe the USCF should hold
an official position on the quality of various
moves that chessplayers might play?

_
What is under consideration here is the possibility
of a position on the quality of various moves that
the USCF promotes. I have not seen anyone
disagree with the idea that chessplayers might
play whatever they want.

Louis Blair wrote:
Can "jr" give us some specifics about what he learned
and from which Schiller books he learned "a lot"?

I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller:

Max Euwe was never chess world champion.

Tarrasch played a world title match with Lasker in 1916.

The moves ...Qd8-c7, ...Nb8-c6, and ...d7-d6 all reinforce control of
the square d5.

Fischer won the 1962 Interzonal in 1958.

Fischer was stripped of his world champion title by FIDE.

In a game with Efim Geller, Fischer defeated Mikhail Tal.

Petrosian won the world title in 1966 and held it for three years.

After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd1 exd5,
beginners are likely to play 7.Qe5+.

In Korchnoi-Rodriguez, Rome 1981, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5
4.cxd4 cxd5 5.Qa4+ Bd7 6.Qxd4 exd5 7.Qxd5 Nc6 8.e3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Bc5 10.Nf3
Qe7 11.a3 0-0-0 12.Qc2 Kb8 13.b4, the correct response was 13...Bb6,
but play proceeded 13...g4 14.bxc5 gxf3.

In Fischer-Spassky, world title match 1972, game 6 (1-0, 41), winning
with the black pieces added psychological value to Fischer's victory.

Botvinnik held the world title off and on from 1948 to 1966.

In Fischer-Stein, Sousse Interzonal 1967, after 26...Nd3 27.Rd1 Nxc1
White would have had a lost game.

The 1957 US Open was held in New Jersey.

FIDE still conducts Candidate Matches on a 3-year cycle.

Resignation and forfeiture are the same thing.

Need I add that all of the above are untrue? I suppose I might have
learned more from Schiller, but I have read only two of his books in
their entirety. BTW, in case it is not obvious, in the
Korchnoi-Rodriguez game as given by Schiller, 13...g4 is impossible.
Black actually played not 12...Kb8 but 12...g5, which is a definite
mistake. After 12...Kb8 13.b4 the best move is not 13...Bb6 but
13...Nd4!. As for Fischer-Stein, readers can look that up in their
databases and analyze the given variation.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:
Can "jr" give us some specifics about what he learned
and from which Schiller books he learned "a lot"?

I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind,
but here are a few things I have "learned" from Schiller:

Max Euwe was never chess world champion.

As far as I can recall, Taylor Kingston has cited a statement
by Eric Schiller in which Max Euwe was described as a player
who had been a contender for the world chess championship.

(I suppose that Taylor Kingston can cite the exact Eric Schiller
quotation again if it's needed for convenient reference here.)

Eric Schiller's statement is true *as far as it goes*, but
it could have the misleading implication that Max Euwe never
had succeeded in becoming the world champion of chess.

Like many players, I know enough about chess history *not*
to have been misled by Eric Schiller's characteristically
slipshod writing. Unfortunately, some more ignorant readers
could have inferred from Eric Schiller's statement that
"Max Euwe was never chess world champion" (to quote Taylor
Kingston). Given that more ignorant readers tend to buy
Eric Schiller's chess books in the first place, his
statement about Max Euwe is bad (misleading) enough.

But I have to say that it's *not* so bad as Eric Schiller
writing *directly and explicitly* that 'Max Euwe was never
chess world champion' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
Is there any evidence that Eric Schiller ever has written
*directly and explicitly* that 'Max Euwe was never chess
world champion' (to quote Taylor Kingston)?

So it's fair enough for Taylor Kingston to criticise
Eric Schiller for writing sloppily and misleading his
readers (or, at least, his more ignorant readers).
But it seems rather unfair, as far as I can tell, to
insinuate that Eric Schiller has made the direct false
assertion that 'Max Euwe was never chess world champion'.

As far as I know, Eric Schiller (who has not claimed to
be a 'chess historian') often has been inaccurate when
mentioning 'facts' about chess history. But I suspect
that even Eric Schiller *did* know that Euwe defeated
Alekhine to win the world chess championship. In my
view, Eric Schiller's statement about Max Euwe was
*not* written on account of his ignorance of Euwe having
been the world champion or on account of Schiller's
*intent* (What would he have to gain?) to mislead readers.
It was written on account of Eric Schiller's evidently
irremediable sloppiness in writing about chess.

*If* a rec.games.chess.* reader who was ignorant of
what I have just written (above) had come across
Taylor Kingston's statement that he has 'learned'
(sarcasm intended by TK) from Eric Schiller that
"Max Euwe never was chess world champion", then would
that 'innocent' reader be more likely to conclude,
*based only on what Taylor Kingston has written in
this thread*, that Eric Schiller had made that comment
about Euwe *explicitly or only by an implication*?

I have no objection to Taylor Kingston's citing factual
errors in Eric Schiller's books. I have no objection
to Taylor Kingston writing critical reviews (though
I may not necessarily agree completely with them) of
Eric Schiller's books. But I do have significant
criticisms about Taylor Kingston's sense of fairness
on many issues because he has shown that he's ready to
exaggerate, to distort, and worse (in my observation)
in the service of his polemical purposes. Of course,
Taylor Kingston's far from the only writer in RGC*
who does that.

If Taylor Kingston had written that Eric Schiller
wrote a statement *implying rather than asserting*
that "Max Euwe was never chess world champion", then
I would have slightly more respect for Taylor Kingston's
sense of fairness.

Tarrasch played a world title match with Lasker in 1916.

Perhaps all records of it were lost during the Great War? :-)

The moves ...Qd8-c7, ...Nb8-c6, and ...d7-d6
all reinforce control of the square d5.

Evidently, 'd5' was a typo for 'e5'.

I concur with many of Taylor Kingston's criticisms of what
Eric Schiller has written about chess. Yet I also have the
impression that Taylor Kingston has not always been completely
fair to Eric Schiller as a chess writer or as a human being.

--Nick

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.

I would appreciate knowing where it is written that Fine spent years on
an ending volume. Although I recall reading differently, I can no
longer find a source.

Fine's BCE is, I believe, modeled after Berger's German-language
endgame book. A player active as Fine was during the 'thirties and up
to the U.S. entry into WWII was familiar with all the important things
that had happened since Berger. It would not have taken him long at
all to rewrite and insert new material into the Berger template. Fine
was a GM when GM was truly a distinction.

David Ames

AVITAL'S SMEARS

Avital states that he could find only two books
of mine at Amazon. I just checked. The Denker-Parr
work on Bobby Fischer is also there as well as my work
on Viktors Pupols. Plus two instructional works by
Alburt -- and another work that does not concern us here.

Avital offers this argument: The Denker-Parr
work is not at the ChessCafe but neither is a
biography on Amos Burn. Another reader mentions other
works not at the Cafe. Pretty soon we are informed
that much of the chess world is not at the Cafe, which means ...

What?

The argument amounts to this: The Soviet Union
did not ban Solzhenitsyn because one could also find
no works on say Memphis knitting designs in Moscow or,
for that matter, say, on the related subject of the
Purges by Albert Kahn.

The absence of other writers becomes, thereby,
proof or probative evidence that there is not a boycott.

The Keene and Evans books are recent additions to
the Cafe stock, which occurred after many complaints
began last year. Denker-Parr was a work serialized in
Chess Life and that sold well in the American market
-- for a chess book. To compare it with a huge
biography of Amos Burn is a bit much.

Eric Schiller is an American chess writer, who
has a high profile in the United States. The absence
of his works and the "coincidental" absence of works
by those known to be banned from the Cafe, is to be
excused by the logic that you will also not find the
works of other writers at the Cafe. As for Ray Keene
writing only one good book, that is a blatant smear
withhout, as usual, evidence.

Concerning other comments by Avital, see below.
My latest comments appear in multiple brackets.

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.

[[[[[The reader will notice that this statement is
a pure smear: no evidence to back it up. Just an attack.]]]]]

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.

[[[[[The issue is the amount of information -- and
reliability and usefulness -- at a market price that
people will pay and come back for more.]]]]]

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.

[[[[[This is called a gratuitous slap. In many circles it is regarded
as unfair.]]]]]

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.

[[[[[We have here yet another smear without evidence
to back it up. It is just an attack. Nothing more.
As for Avital preferring to own one book by Keres to
five by Schiller, that is fine, though he would do
well to supplement the opening analysis with newer
stuff. Perhaps stuff written by Schiller, who
presents massive amounts of information.

In any event, many in the market evidently prefer
Eric's less expensive works, which meet their needs or
a portion thereof.]]]]]

Does he have a market? Evidently so.

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

[[[[[A smear. No evidence. Just another slap.]]]]]

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").

[[[[[One is unclear about the point here. Eric
Schiller's work is condemned because the local Barnes
and Noble or Borders has works that offend Avital's
sensibilities? That does not strike me as an argument.]]]]]

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.

[[[[[I dealt with the above paragraph in the
introduction to this message.]]]]]

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?

[[[[[I dealt with this logic in the introduction to this message.]]]]]