Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 05, 06:00 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Dumbing-Down of American Chess


wrote in message
...
On 31 Aug 2005 04:37:26 -0700, "The Historian"
wrote:

The comment was the late Tony Miles's opinion of a Schiller book, but
his describing the book that way is a fact. If the author of the
article wishes to make the point that Schiller has a horrible
reputation as a writer, then quoting reviews is proper. Without a
citation to some source that helped the writer form an opinion, we are
left with Innes-style history, where every point is argued by force of
assertion.


There are several problems with your point.


Not the least is that the person is a stranger from the truth - but because
this person, or rather persona, does not write here, let us leave any
psychological aspects of the writer aside...

Perhaps most important is
that Miles himself had a reputation. Miles was constantly attacking
chess personalities in print.


Well - he could never be accused of sycophantic behavior, or being overawed
by Greats. This is an unfortunate lead by Sam Sloan who does not
differentiate whether these 'attacks' were indeed true. As any matter of
public debate this alone is the issue.

Among his many victims were Anatoly
Karpov, Raymond Keene, Woman's Grandmaster Martha Fierro, Indian Chess
Organizer Umar Koya, Nigel Short, and many others. The list is long.
Any time you read a Miles article you could be almost certain that it
would contain an attack on somebody.


One might even say he was no brown-noser! LOL

I got Tony off the hook when he was accused of racism after writing about
his experience in India, and had to insist to his accusers that he merely
accused an Indian organiser [since that time we have seen the Indian Fed
split into pro-Fide sort of grafting, and Anand's group who seem to have a
real interest in chess] of being a corrupt son of a bitch.

Of course, it is well known that Miles even got into fistfights in
chess tournaments. He even punched me out during the 1986 World Chess
Olympiad in Dubai because of his mistaken belief that I had written
something derogatory about him.


And so you may have sufficient reason to have an animus... ?

Miles was known to be mentally ill. He served time in both jail and
mental hospitals.


But here you leave the rails, conflating two issues, both misleading. Have
you in fact any qualification to speak about 'mental illness'?

The negative review by Miles of an Eric Schiller book must be taken in
this context.


As should his negative view of Nigel Short. In fact I wrote Hanon russell
that if he didn't suspend his attacks on Miles by Short I would write more
specifically to the objectivity of these Short attacks against the dead
Miles, by way of mentioning a shared girlfriend.

Unfortunately, the original author of the article about
Schiller appears not to be a chess player. His biography of himself
describes himself as a "music student" and says nothing about chess.
He probably did not even know that Miles was mentally ill and prone to
attacks on people


You are in a vulnerable position to conflate these two items. Since when
does attacking someone constitute 'mental illness'?

and he probably did not know that Schiller has
written more than one hundred chess books and the fact that he has
received two negative reviews means little.


Mr. Schiller has written both good and bad chess books in my opinion. If you
review books it is your duty to comment on each - and if in your opinion
they are bloody awful - and most chess books are - then why not say so?

Again it must be emphasized that Schiller states that he writes his
books for Class C chess players.


Whatever that can mean in any pedagogic sense. Since I knew Miles to some
degree, may I represent his post-mortem opinion than to write just to "C"
players is to confirm "C" players in their status forever - and that Class
"C" players are precisely at the point where they have exhausted every
bloody resource there is to them except their own daring and intelligence. I
am sure Tony as the first ever British GM would echo such sentiment - he
surely had to overcome the inertia of whatever is a "C" player, as well as
what stopped English masters from being anything else - and as a pioneer who
was there to tell him anything from their experience?

His point is a very good one, which
is that there are only a few thousand chess masters in the world
whereas there are millions of Class C players. Is it better to write a
book for a few thousand potential readers, or for the millions?


This is an excellent point, commerce overcoming art as it always does. But
why noticing this point this renders one insane is not so evident, except
perhaps to an American reader, since they have only 2 native born GMs these
past 25 years - and to aspire to more is evidently proof that one needs the
padded cell, no?

Schiller knows that chess masters rarely buy chess books. They have
their own computer databases and do their own home analysis to prepare
for tournaments.


And Grandmasters actually think for themselves - well some of them do -
candidates for higher office and a stake in world rankings are actually
required to be original.

Class C players on the other hand will appreciate and
buy a chess book with some tricky lines that their rival Class C
players might fall into, even though the masters might consider the
same lines to be unsound and unplayable at the top levels.



And here is the story of chess USA. It is an empiric story, sensible, and
ultimately depressing since its lacks any sort of spirit at all. How ironic
that this dumbing down should occur in the nation that owned chess in the
1930's at a team level.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan



  #2   Report Post  
Old September 3rd 05, 01:13 AM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 31 Aug 2005 04:37:26 -0700, "The Historian"
wrote:

The comment was the late Tony Miles's opinion of a Schiller book, but
his describing the book that way is a fact. If the author of the
article wishes to make the point that Schiller has a horrible
reputation as a writer, then quoting reviews is proper. Without a
citation to some source that helped the writer form an opinion, we are
left with Innes-style history, where every point is argued by force of
assertion.


There are several problems with your point.


Not the least is that the person is a stranger from the truth - but because
this person, or rather persona, does not write here, let us leave any
psychological aspects of the writer aside...


A valid point is a valid point regardless of who makes it.

Perhaps most important is
that Miles himself had a reputation. Miles was constantly attacking
chess personalities in print.


Well - he could never be accused of sycophantic behavior, or being overawed
by Greats. This is an unfortunate lead by Sam Sloan who does not
differentiate whether these 'attacks' were indeed true. As any matter of
public debate this alone is the issue.

Among his many victims were Anatoly
Karpov, Raymond Keene, Woman's Grandmaster Martha Fierro, Indian Chess
Organizer Umar Koya, Nigel Short, and many others. The list is long.
Any time you read a Miles article you could be almost certain that it
would contain an attack on somebody.


One might even say he was no brown-noser! LOL

I got Tony off the hook when he was accused of racism after writing about
his experience in India, and had to insist to his accusers that he merely
accused an Indian organiser [since that time we have seen the Indian Fed
split into pro-Fide sort of grafting, and Anand's group who seem to have a
real interest in chess] of being a corrupt son of a bitch.


Oddly enough, there's no evidence of your fine hand getting Miles "off
the hook". But that surprises no one.

Of course, it is well known that Miles even got into fistfights in
chess tournaments. He even punched me out during the 1986 World Chess
Olympiad in Dubai because of his mistaken belief that I had written
something derogatory about him.


And so you may have sufficient reason to have an animus... ?

Miles was known to be mentally ill. He served time in both jail and
mental hospitals.


But here you leave the rails, conflating two issues, both misleading. Have
you in fact any qualification to speak about 'mental illness'?


Being insane, Sam Sloan is qualified to speak about 'mental illness.'

The negative review by Miles of an Eric Schiller book must be taken in
this context.


As should his negative view of Nigel Short. In fact I wrote Hanon russell
that if he didn't suspend his attacks on Miles by Short I would write more
specifically to the objectivity of these Short attacks against the dead
Miles, by way of mentioning a shared girlfriend.


Why Phil Innes wrote to the owner of ChessCafe to get him to stop
"attacks" by someone unconnected with ChessCafe that appeared in an
English newspaper is a mystery. And why Innes thought he had enough
clout to silence Nigel Short is another. BTW, did you know that Mr.
Innes has a hobby of standing on Brattleboro streetcorners yelling at
the streetlights, telling them to change?

Unfortunately, the original author of the article about
Schiller appears not to be a chess player. His biography of himself
describes himself as a "music student" and says nothing about chess.
He probably did not even know that Miles was mentally ill and prone to
attacks on people


You are in a vulnerable position to conflate these two items. Since when
does attacking someone constitute 'mental illness'?


It seems to be an indicator in your case.

and he probably did not know that Schiller has
written more than one hundred chess books and the fact that he has
received two negative reviews means little.


Mr. Schiller has written both good and bad chess books in my opinion. If you
review books it is your duty to comment on each - and if in your opinion
they are bloody awful - and most chess books are - then why not say so?

Again it must be emphasized that Schiller states that he writes his
books for Class C chess players.


Whatever that can mean in any pedagogic sense. Since I knew Miles to some
degree,


Miles and Innes both came from the UK.

(Snip remaining Phil twaddle.)

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 6th 05, 03:35 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Our Michael is not completely up on the relationship between 'boring' Tony
and 'lively' Nigel - some people think the relationship is the other way
round;

Tony once quipped about the relationship that on meeting Nigel for breakfast
at a tournament [forgot where, Moscow?] he said "Good morning Nigel" and is
still waiting for a witty reply.

Of course these two jockeyed for the #1 spot in English chess - on board 1
and also #1 player in the public mind - for some years, and, combined with a
mutual romantic interest, might be /expected/ not to have seen eye-to-eye
much of the time.

But my screed below only mentions their relationship by way of a context -
and that is the wobbly subject of much writing de nos jours - that the
standard is so bloody awful that we could afford to overlook the [sometimes
understandable! nevertheless] motive of the writer, since this writing does
not rise sufficiently in our attention to be worth challenging.

Its interesting, but stimulated by a third party I have just written to
Edward Winter on the same subject - that we accept these unexamined extended
blurbs as chess history much as we suspend our disbelief when watching Bambi
prance around the screen in a Disney movie, or view cute little talkative
bears - the only danger is acting as if we continue to believe these
fictions, forgetting that we are likely to eat poor Bambi, and we eaten by
the bears.

In writing on these subjects elsewhere, the chief reservation from Russians,
for example, in describing their own historic chess scene is that by
exposing any cheating and degradations of chess from a 'pure sporting
encounter' they achieve Western attention! This is an odd statement, isn't
it? They mean that we in the West don't candidly examine our own facetious
chess histories but are very happy to heap as much dirt as possible onto old
enemies.

And this sort of dialogue I now write, Michael, is called a lucubration, a
word from the 1500s indicating an amount of lamp-light is necessary to
investigate what goes on after dark.

In the US, while having so few real champions to discuss on any heroic
level, and in any case, wanting to shrink them down to size in some strange
exercise of leveling, and without any notable psychological writing on chess
players, we now fall to discussing Disneyfied histories of the week on
"Week-ipedia".

And this is also a dumbing down of American Chess in particular where these
fantasy biographies are seemingly more acceptable than elsewhere.

Phil Innes

"Ich bin auch ein Vermonter!"

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 31 Aug 2005 04:37:26 -0700, "The Historian"
wrote:

The comment was the late Tony Miles's opinion of a Schiller book, but
his describing the book that way is a fact. If the author of the
article wishes to make the point that Schiller has a horrible
reputation as a writer, then quoting reviews is proper. Without a
citation to some source that helped the writer form an opinion, we are
left with Innes-style history, where every point is argued by force of
assertion.

There are several problems with your point.


Not the least is that the person is a stranger from the truth - but
because
this person, or rather persona, does not write here, let us leave any
psychological aspects of the writer aside...

Perhaps most important is
that Miles himself had a reputation. Miles was constantly attacking
chess personalities in print.


Well - he could never be accused of sycophantic behavior, or being
overawed
by Greats. This is an unfortunate lead by Sam Sloan who does not
differentiate whether these 'attacks' were indeed true. As any matter of
public debate this alone is the issue.

Among his many victims were Anatoly
Karpov, Raymond Keene, Woman's Grandmaster Martha Fierro, Indian Chess
Organizer Umar Koya, Nigel Short, and many others. The list is long.
Any time you read a Miles article you could be almost certain that it
would contain an attack on somebody.


One might even say he was no brown-noser! LOL

I got Tony off the hook when he was accused of racism after writing about
his experience in India, and had to insist to his accusers that he merely
accused an Indian organiser [since that time we have seen the Indian Fed
split into pro-Fide sort of grafting, and Anand's group who seem to have
a
real interest in chess] of being a corrupt son of a bitch.

Of course, it is well known that Miles even got into fistfights in
chess tournaments. He even punched me out during the 1986 World Chess
Olympiad in Dubai because of his mistaken belief that I had written
something derogatory about him.


And so you may have sufficient reason to have an animus... ?

Miles was known to be mentally ill. He served time in both jail and
mental hospitals.


But here you leave the rails, conflating two issues, both misleading.
Have
you in fact any qualification to speak about 'mental illness'?

The negative review by Miles of an Eric Schiller book must be taken in
this context.


As should his negative view of Nigel Short. In fact I wrote Hanon russell
that if he didn't suspend his attacks on Miles by Short I would write
more
specifically to the objectivity of these Short attacks against the dead
Miles, by way of mentioning a shared girlfriend.



Well now! - according to Phillip it seems 'our' Nige (& him a married
man & living in Greece begorrah & shock) & Toni (late deceased,
unlamented & resting) @ some point in time were both rooting the same
sheila. Durty little ****ers!. From the photos I've seen of a young
Nigel, he seems a generous, encompassing soul. Tony, by contrast (I've
analysed no photos of him to date) seems anything but, but his apparent
willingness to resort to crude intimidation, particularly within the
gentlemanly confines of the chess arena warrants, in my view, censure.
Who in effect does this 2nd rate master think he is. He's dead now, so
we have no worry of any bluster. Was it not Gata Kamsky's execrable
'pere' trying similar tactics on our Nige? Poor lad, he does seem to
attract the more moronic element in high-level chess. As a footnote, I'm
confident my fist still breaks bone..


(,,)



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 May 8th 05 05:29 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 May 4th 04 01:59 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 3rd 04 10:06 AM
High School Affiliates RSHaas rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 6 February 19th 04 11:47 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 13th 03 10:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017