"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.

I was not aware that any Schiller titles claimed: The GIZMO, Miracle Opening
Reptoire solves Chess, sort of title. But I am aware that USCF has had a go
itself with,

"take this brain-pill and Natrolly you... "

so, unless you want to go into actual care and attention paid to
endorsements... ? yikes !

Your posting assumes that USCF/Chesscafe endorses the content of the book.
Or rather, the inverse. Therefore doesn't sell it based on the author's
perceived treatment of teaching the KID - even though this method is popular
with buyers at Barnes and Noble.

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.

Which would be okay! So what are the standards for 'worthless books', and
just so that there is nothing personal in it, can independent people make
the assessment?

Its interesting, but I just reviewed a book which seem very slight value to
me, but the cover quite openly LIES about the content, suggesting
'comprehensive' instead of 'sketch' which is the author's term. It is
advertised by the publisher at 144 pages, but only has 125 pages.

I have written this 3 times here, and no one has asked me a single question
about it, or suggested that this book should be banned.

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?

You reply to my comments instead of Larry Parr, who the editor of Chess
Life.

I would not publish your advertisement if I thought it was a lie. But you
are referring to what USCF should do, and they have other standards. They
allowed just such a specious idea into practice at a tournament for kids,
pushing the Natrol product.

So USCF do not have these standards - if we want to impose them - so that
the public doesn't get lied to, we should attempt to make some minimum
standards - and apply them equally to all titles. Then we are no longer
arguing about Eric Schiller's books, but every writers books.

And I don't have to defend Eric Schiller, but the standard of mis-shapen
criticism which attacks him alone [well, and Parr, Keene, and a few other
selective targets]

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?

Yes, i would agree that it would be vastly amusing, especially in this case
)

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.

Your question related ot the popularity of the article, not whether it would
be accepted from a qualitative basis. I am a little leary of making
comparisons in this case, since the dreaded bug-aboos have already appeared;
mentions of Hitler, porn, how-to-do-your-own-brian-surgery humour, and now
George Jr to cap it all!

But we must remind ourselves that this is an IM, not a C player. Cirticism
comes from sub-C players, as well as praise - and as they say, money is the
sincerest form of praise. So if you want a simple book on playing some
opening, maybe you'll buy a Schiller one, instead of the tournament version
aimed at 2100+ players.


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?

ROFL! You can't damage the reputation of chess - chess is not a person, its
jsut a game. And USCF proposed Natrol to us just this year! Where was the
fuss about that?

Becuase doing
otherwise would be "censorship"??

No, for all the reasons I have offered above.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

Your posting assumes that USCF/Chesscafe endorses the content of the book.
Or rather, the inverse. Therefore doesn't sell it based on the author's
perceived treatment of teaching the KID - even though this method is popular
with buyers at Barnes and Noble.

Or, rather, the converse. The inverse, according to my understanding,
would be "The content of this book endorses USCF/Chesscafe.

David Ames

"Curious George" wrote in message
news:wXF5f.6058$9N.2022@trndny07...

Dynamite? Get a life.

C. George

I thought it was a good piece by Nick, too. I mean, if the author were
really sooooo bad, how come its necessary to invent things about him?

And if you are a chess writer, book sales are your life.

Phil Innes


------------

One point is clear: nothing alleged against
Eric Schiller rises to the level of deliberately
misrepresenting a possible error in order to
humiliate. If Eric did NOT write that Euwe was never
world champion, then NM Kingston, a liar about his own
rating, committed a morally corrupt act.

Could someone please reproduce the precise text from Eric?

wrote:
Could someone please reproduce the precise text from Eric?

Gladly, Larry. On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest
Games," after the game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told
"Bobby must have taken great pleasure from this first win over the
veteran Grandmaster who was once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship." Period. End of chapter.
The statement is literally true, but *nowhere* in the book does
Schiller mention that Euwe actually *was* World Champion 1935-1937.
That is a *serious* omission that gives the clear impression that Euwe,
like Rubinstein or Keres, was a close-but-no-cigar player, never world
champion. Especially bad in a book intended for beginners, who would
not know chess history.
Imagine an obituary for Richard Nixon that said he nearly won the
presidency in 1960, but said nothing about winning it in 1968 and 1972?

Or let's put this even more clearly: How would Larry Parr feel if,
say, The Oxford Companion to Chess said that Smyslov or Tal were
"legitimate contenders" but said nothing to indicate either ever was
world champion? We would no doubt be reading Larry rant about Hooper &
Whyld's Soviet-influenced deliberate mendacity.

*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.* Taylor Kingston

*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston

What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

jr wrote:
What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

The selective blindness and inconsistency of Parr's supporters is an
unceasing source of wonder. Any far-fetched, Rube-Goldberg-style
inference by Parr is treated as gospel, while a reasonable, even
obvious inference by a Parr opponent is "quite a stretch."

jr wrote:
*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.* Taylor Kingston

*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston

What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Actually, as you quoted, Kingston did not claim that Schiller said that
Euwe was never world champion. He said is that this is something you
would learn from Schiller and this is not a stretch at all since it is
the logical inference from Schiller's statement. Fischer's great
pleasure would have been a result of the fact that Euwe had actually
won the world championship rather than just contending. The fact that
Schiller identifies him merely as a "legitimate contender" clearly
suggests to the reader that this was the pinnacle of Euwe's career.

Vince Hart

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

*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston

What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday!
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

(About the AMA):

Which would be okay!

(For the AMA to sell "Garlic: The Miracle Cure for Cancer" type books).

Would it?

It would be OK (morally--legally, the AMA can sell "Mein Kampf" if they
want to) for B&N or Amazon to sell such books. But not for the AMA. The
AMA has a moral responsibility to not sell books it knows to be
worthless.

So what are the standards for 'worthless books', and
just so that there is nothing personal in it, can independent people make
the assessment?

The standards are that of the medical--or chess--expert opinion.

If virtually all physicians who offered an opinion agreed that "Garlic:
The Miracle Cure for Cancer" is worthless, it is worthless. If
virtually all grandmasters and chess book reviewers who offered an
opinion agree that Schiller's books are worthless (and they do), they
are.

It is one thing if a book recieves mixed reviews, or has both defenders
and detractors among the experts. It is quite another if virtually
EVERYBODY who is a). good at chess and/or reviewing chess books, and
b). offered an opinion agreed the book is worthless, as it is with
Schiller.

Popularity has nothing to do with it. The USCF should uphold standards,
not just go with what is popular. It should FIGHT the popularity of
atrocious books with bad reviews and the promotion of good books, not
pander to it.

Its interesting, but I just reviewed a book which seem very slight value to
me, but the cover quite openly LIES about the content, suggesting
'comprehensive' instead of 'sketch' which is the author's term. It is
advertised by the publisher at 144 pages, but only has 125 pages.

I have written this 3 times here, and no one has asked me a single question
about it, or suggested that this book should be banned.

First, make sure that there is really a unfair description here. For
example, many books have introductions, prefaces, or appendixes that
are numbered seperately from the main sections of the books, so perhaps
they account for the "missing" 19 pages; or perhaps the publisher's
blurb refers to a different edition, etc.

Second, clearly suggest here that it isn't the author who is
misdescribing the book, but the unscrupolous publisher: it is not the
author who is claiming his book is comprehensive, but the publisher.
You should not punish an author for a publisher's lies, unless there is
good reason to believe the author goes along with them, or unless the
lies are so outrageous as to constitute false advertising. (In which
case, when describing it on your web site, you can add a cavet to
correct the publisher's lies.)

So I think we are dealing with a different situation he with your
example, we are dealing with a PUBLISHER (possibly) "puffing" and
misidentifying a book. This tells us nothing about the book itself: is
it any good? Does it cover what the author says it covers? Is the
typsetting good? The material original? And so on. If the book stinks,
don't sell it. If it book is good, or at least interesting, I would
sell it despite the publisher's lies--again, up to a point.

With Schiller, things are different. True, his books usually carry
misleading back cover blurbs and titles (i.e., "A Complete defense to
King's Pawn Openings" that deals only with the Caro-Kann.) Maybe that
is due to the publisher without Schiller's knowledge--I doubt that very
much, since such a prolific and best-selling author would know better.
But in any case, that is the least of Schiller's problems: the main
problem, the central issue, is that the BOOKS THEMSELVES are crap.

You reply to my comments instead of Larry Parr, who the editor of Chess
Life.

Well, you both disagreed with me, so there is no difference between
you: you are both EVIL AND WORTHLESS. This is usenet, after all :-)

I would not publish your advertisement if I thought it was a lie. But you
are referring to what USCF should do, and they have other standards. They
allowed just such a specious idea into practice at a tournament for kids,
pushing the Natrol product.

I am not aware of the Natrol product. Alas, pressed for money, they
might have knowingly accepted funding from a worthless product. But
surely this is no argument: "why do you not sell Schiller's books, when
you already shown you will sell / accept sponsorship from other
worthless products!".

So USCF do not have these standards - if we want to impose them - so that
the public doesn't get lied to, we should attempt to make some minimum
standards - and apply them equally to all titles.

We should have minimum standards and apply them fairly, true. But it is
surely a far lesser evil to apply the minimum standards unfairly than
to refuse to apply them at all for fairness' sake? If the USCF accepted
one worthless product, must it now, for "fairness'" sake, sell ALL
worthless products?

Surely, the thing the USCF SHOULD do to rectify the situaiton is to
refuse to sell any worthless product, not add more worthless products
to its list. That the USCF sells, say, Pandolfini's crap and not
Schiller's is at most an argument against selling Pandolfini, not for
selling Schiller.

Yes, i would agree that it would be vastly amusing, especially in this case
)

Actually I can see your point here... but you wouldn't describe him as
"the world's leading chess analyst", and you would at least have
somebody go over and revise that "white horsey jumps over and eats
black pawn" comment at move 13 before publication. With Schiller's
books (especially for kids) equally painful passages and style remain
intact.

Your question related ot the popularity of the article, not whether it would
be accepted from a qualitative basis. I am a little leary of making
comparisons in this case, since the dreaded bug-aboos have already appeared;
mentions of Hitler, porn, how-to-do-your-own-brian-surgery humour, and now
George Jr to cap it all!

Yes, we are getting close to the "50 posts law", a.k.a. the
"draw-by-mention-of-Hitler" usenet situation. But I'll try to stay out
of it :-)

ROFL! You can't damage the reputation of chess - chess is not a person, its
jsut a game.

You most certainly can. Chess has a reputation with the larger public,
in the same way that science or abstract painting or medicine as a
whole does. It is vague and inaccurate, that's true, but it's still
quite reasonable to think about the reputation of chess as a whole.
Schiller's stuff is hurting it, as do Bobby Fischer's paranoia.
Capablanca's charm and good writing helped it. Examples could be
multiplied.

Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan
Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to
winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday! -- Ian Burton

The Games of Robert J. Fischer by Wade & O'Connell (page 123) claims
that three games were played, but one of the draws is missing: "The
score of this game is not available, but Euwe remembers that the game
followed Botvinnik-Euwe, Leningrad 1934, for some way. Fischer got some
advantage, Euwe pulled off something of a swindle and stood rather
better when the draw was agreed."

More anon.