< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 83 OF 111 ·
|Aug-12-09|| ||mack: The Staunton just doesn't seem the same this year without Eric Schiller mocking my hippos in the bar.|
|Aug-12-09|| ||Eric Schiller: <mack> I'm rather depressed about it myself. I'll be back next year. But i real;ly wanted to hang out and talk some American politics after all the developments. Need to get out of the country once in a while. Far too many idiots here.|
|Oct-13-09|| ||HeMateMe: Eric, I noticed you were discussing Wikipedia on another page. This is a paragraph from the Wiki entry for you:|
<Schiller's books have often received scathing reviews. Chess historian Edward Winter has criticized them for large numbers of spelling, factual and typographical errors, and even flagrant plagiarism. Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings famously received a two-word review from Tony Miles in Kingpin: "Utter crap." Carsten Hansen wrote of Schiller's book on the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation of the Vienna Game, "I have seen thousands of chess books over the years, but this book is by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN.">
I don't for one minute believe everything I read on Wiki, but its a fast look for general info, especially when I see a name in the news or a historical figure I'm curious about.
If you've written over 100 books, then there has to be quality in what you're doing, else these books wouldn't be selling, and you wouldn't be given the opportunity to publish, if the sales were weak or non-existent. I've read through dozens of chess books myself, and still probably wouldn't know the difference between a great book and an average one.
The author of this article describing your work seems to be someone from either the chess world and/or the publishing world, and not a friendly commentator, either.
I noticed you're description of Wiki echoed that of Ray Keene's.
My question is, is there any person(s) or organization(s) that have a particular reason to slag on your books or activities? Without naming a specific person, could you describe why this present situation exists?
|Oct-24-09|| ||James Demery: The feud with Schiller and Winter continues.|
|Oct-25-09|| ||Eric Schiller: <He hat me> It isn't rocket science. I have spent my life in chess, but I am not a GM. I am an FM, an International Arbiter and International Organizer and won titles in Illinois,Hawaii and California. My chess does not suck. Except when it does. I can lose to an 1800 as easily as Ibeat a GM at times. A lot of my games have been published outside my books, including th eNew York and London Times, Ches Informant, etc. But if I'm not a GM, I'm not allowed to make a living (not much of one).|
Miles was referring to the quality of the openings in UCO (even those he frequently played) not commenting at all on the research or analysis. Termites just use the quote. I got along very well with Tony, even invited him out to play in Hawaii at our expense and I learned a lot from his spending a lot of time showing me the error of my ways in our one tournament game at Ramsgate 81.
As for the termite Hansen, he just didn't like my idea of using the words of Frankenstein and Dracula to annotate the games and analysis in my book. That's like criticizing Life of Brian because it insults the church. Still, to anyone who actually plays the opening, it was a very useful little book. But of course he was paid by Hanon Russell, who was boycotting my books. Reviews at his "chess cafe" usually had one of his paid authors praising an author he published or attacking others.
Others just were jealous of my friendship with Garry Kasparov. Not until he became Champion, of course. Or annoyed that I work closely with Ray Keene.
Winter is a special case. I could attribute it to his reaction to anyone who claims (and proves) that he got any detail wrong, but it predates the Koltanowski incident, where I defended George (admittedly a friend, I seem to have too many). Though I don't fear his lawyers, his threatened lawsuits never happened, I don't like to discuss what I believe is the real, very ugly reason.
All I will say is make a list of Winter's targets and a list of chess people he praises. The pattern will be obvious to any chessplayer. This is all I have ever said.
As for Wiki, their article on me is just another termite attack and more proof that it is an irresponsible source. This is especially true in its suppression of my linguistics work, which is in no way controversial except to fundamentalists of the Church of Chomsky. Sam Sloan, to his credit, tried to repair it but his additions and corrections were wiped out instantly.
Nor will they allow posting of my political work, which infuriates some conservatives (the work, not the posting). But I have been involved with, and even led, some major political demonstrations and will continue to do so.
People just seem to find reasons to dislike me. I have been accused of working for the KGB and the CIA! But I get along with most people very well.
If people are so jealous of my modest existence, I must be having a much better life than I thought :-)
|Oct-25-09|| ||HeMateMe: Hi <Eric>, thanks for your posting and comprehensive thoughts. I don't think anyone takes Wikipedia too seriously. It's not as though one is reading the World Book or the Encyclopedia Britannica. When the Wiki postings take on the nature of a personal attack one realizes that this is a dispute or argument in progress, and all the fact may not be present. However, when the postings take on allegations of a business nature, one suspects there is a bit of truth on both sides, without knowing who is more right or wrong. You get that feeling in reading the Ray Keene entry.|
I don't think anyone cares if William Winter believes an author is off by one day on Capablanca's birthday.
Can you address the accusation of Plagarism? If you are writing a book about openings, of course you are going to be presenting lines that have been written about many times before. I guess its how one presents those lines, the types of diagrams, etc. Does anyone have reason to suspect you have copied their work(s)?
What is this 'Koltanowski affair' you are referring to? Wasn't he this kindly old fellow that specialized in the Knights tour and blindfold chess? I don't think I've ever heard any unkind words about him. I haven't seen any unkind words about you either on this site, or very few. You shouldn't have the idea that large numbers of people dislike you or are gosipping about you. You aren't really a 'hot topic', which is a good thing, I guess.
When you author over 100 books, you will be covering old ground, and for that reason, some chess enthusiasts will discount your work. I've owned several of your books at one time or another, and they weren't the best or worst chess books I've read. I see no reason for anyone to bag on your output, but this will happen if you publish a lot. If you annotate games by great players by Kasparov, people will feel you are cashing in on someone elses abilities. Andy Soltis has written a lot of chess books too, and some of his books on the openings are mostly ignored, but his historical themed work is highly regarded. Maybe you could try something along those lines?
Anyway, say hi to Bob Weir for us. BTW, I don't think KAOS or any other intelligence gathering agency is actively pursuing you. You may be stressed a bit, but have a nice day.
|Oct-25-09|| ||Eric Schiller: <Hehateme>Sorry, I forgot about the ridiculous"plagiarism" charge. Winter got his knickers in a bunch because in my combination and tactics books I never said where the game combination was first published! Nor has anyone else, ever! It is indicative of his "scholarahip". |
That's why I have a Ph.D. and he doesn't and never will.
|Nov-05-09|| ||TheFocus: <HeMateMe><Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings famously received a two-word review from Tony Miles in Kingpin: "Utter crap.">|
<Eric Schiller><Miles was referring to the quality of the openings in UCO (even those he frequently played) not commenting at all on the research or analysis.>
Wow! Miles calls UCO "utter crap" and you try to put a positive spin on it. Are you a closet Republican? In no way was Miles saying "I ENJOYED this book, this is a must-have, must-read book! Go out and buy it!" Crap is crap, no matter how thin you slice it.
|Nov-05-09|| ||whiskeyrebel: UCO is a fun book with a unique theme no matter what Miles thought. If Winter had the balls to use his real name to attack others I'd take him more seriously.|
|Nov-05-09|| ||Jim Bartle: "All I will say is make a list of Winter's targets and a list of chess people he praises. The pattern will be obvious to any chessplayer. This is all I have ever said."|
Now that sounds interesting. Unfortunately I doubt I know enough about chess to pick out the pattern even with all the evidence in front of my nose.
|Nov-06-09|| ||aragorn69: Nice conspiration theories around here!... Fun read, even for the evidence-challenged!!!|
|Nov-06-09|| ||DoubtingThomas: "Winter got his knickers in a bunch because in my combination and tactics books I never said where the game combination was first published! Nor has anyone else, ever!"|
That would be here?
|Nov-06-09|| ||FHBradley: It's sort of 'funny' that every time anyone has something negative to say about someone else's book, it turns out the fault lies not with the book but with the reviewer.|
|Nov-06-09|| ||parisattack: IM Schiller -
Any word on the Pterodactyl eBook?
Also - One of my favorite books of yours is Hypermodern Opening Repertoire for White. I use it with John D's Strategic Opening Rerpertoire. The latter was recently revised. Any chance the same for your Hypermodern book?
|Nov-09-09|| ||FSR: Schiller's account of what Winter said is extremely misleading, to say the least. Read for yourself:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Winter contends, and provides abundant evidence, that Schiller in "The Big Book of Combinations" "plundered hundreds (many hundreds) of positions, and gave himself away by indiscriminately repeating countless mistakes from the earlier tome." (The "earlier tome" is Chess Informant's "Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames.")|
|Nov-09-09|| ||FSR: As for Wikipedia (to which I am a frequent contributor) does Schiller contend that anything Wikipedia has said about him is false? E.g. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S...): <Schiller's books have often received scathing reviews. Chess historian Edward Winter has criticized them for large numbers of spelling, factual and typographical errors, and even flagrant plagiarism. Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings famously received a two-word review from Tony Miles in Kingpin: "Utter crap." Carsten Hansen wrote of Schiller's book on the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation of the Vienna Game, "I have seen thousands of chess books over the years, but this book is by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN.">|
Note the footnotes, which cite the places where the sources said these things. Does Schiller (or anyone else) contend that Wikipedia has not accurately represented the statements made about his work by Edward Winter, Tony Miles, and Carsten Hansen? If anything in the article is mistaken, please let me know.
|Nov-09-09|| ||FSR: Moreover, the aforementioned article also says:
<John L. Watson, who has co-authored three books with Schiller, considers some of Schiller's output to be well suited to its amateur audience. Watson wrote of Complete Defense to King Pawn Openings and Complete Defense to Queen Pawn Openings that "these books are explicitly aimed at the developing student, not the advanced player, and I think they both do a particularly good job of gently guiding an inexperienced player through a new opening. ... While Schiller probably deserves some of the criticism he gets, a consequence of writing too many books too quickly, he should also get credit when he does a good job." International Master Jeremy Silman wrote of Watson and Schiller's The Big Book of Busts, "I am forced to swallow my bigoted view of Schiller's work (or does this just validate my opinion of Watson?) and admit that this is a GREAT BOOK".>
Wikipedia has in my opinion bent over backwards to be fair to Schiller. As I recall, I was the editor who inserted the last quote about "The Big Book of Busts" - which I agree is an excellent book. Believe me, it is not so easy to find reviewers with anything good to say about Schiller's chess books.
|Nov-09-09|| ||FSR: The best chess (and non-chess) articles in Wikipedia are scholarly works, which is not something one would say of Schiller's chess books. See the articles, primarily written by me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George.... These are two of the four chess-related Featured Articles on Wikipedia, as indicated by the star in the upper-right hand corner of each. (Less than one out of every 1,100 articles on Wikipedia is a Featured Article.)|
|Nov-09-09|| ||FSR: <whiskeyrebel . . . If Winter had the balls to use his real name to attack others I'd take him more seriously.>|
Last I heard, Edward Winter WAS his real name.
<HeMateMe . . . I don't think anyone cares if William Winter believes an author is off by one day on Capablanca's birthday.>
The chessplayer William Winter, who died in 1955, is different from the present-day chess historian Edward Winter. Edward Winter's charges against Schiller are far more serious than being "off by one day on Capablanca's birthday." Try reading them. I linked to "Copying" previously, and more links to Winter's critiques of Schiller are in the Wikipedia article on Schiller to which I linked.
|Nov-09-09|| ||parisattack: <FSR:....Believe me, it is not so easy to find reviewers with anything good to say about Schiller's chess books.>|
Partly and deservedly on several of his more recent publications...although I hope Tony Miles can someday be known for more than the 'Utter Crap' review - though it is undoubtedly clever and correct.
Working with major publishers is a real effort; I know, I've written seven books on a non-chess subject. You're dealing with a lot of different departments - development editors, graphics, composition people, production editors... Not an excuse for sloppy writing, to be sure, but something on the otherside of the equation, at least.
As to Winter - some of his efforts are grand and glorious but, yes, there's a lot of the 'Capablanca's birthday' stuff which I personally just don't have an interest.
As to Schiller - Many of his early opening monographs were quite good, IMHO, as well as a few of his mass circulation tomes such as Hypermodern Repertoire for White. Hopefully he'll write more of those, turn opinion around. But I understand about specialty books with a limited audience - It's the Advance, Stupid.
|Nov-09-09|| ||HeMateMe: <FSR> I do get my Winters mixed up. As a kid, i had a book on openings by william Winter. Not as good as the MCO books, but useful for a beginner. And I've seen some very cool utube vids featuring Edgar Winter's White Trash band, playing 'Frankenstein' (no relation to Eric schiller's openings topic) and some good stuff featuring Johnny Winter. Do check out 'Road Work' the very good doulbe live rock and roll Winter album/CD.|
What about this plagarism business? Sounds like it can be proven, if true. I'm guessing there's no real money in chess books--Whoever publishes the openings tome that ES is accused of plagarizing probably feels they would spend more money on legal fees than what they would recoup in a successful lawsuit. Assuming that publisher is still in business.
What about his other stuff? He claims to be 'a linguistics expert', but Wikipedia (he blames people like you?) won't publish his non chess work, they won't allow an article including theses things to appear on the web. What is his beef with Chess cafe? He claims Carsten Hanson won't allow them to put his (Schiller's) books on the web site for sale?
tony Miles was the Bill 'Spaceman' Lee of the chess world. I'll always remember his beating world champion Karpov with 1. a3. For me, thats the ...Q--g6 game, with a shower of gold pieces to follow!
|Nov-09-09|| ||FSR: <HeMateMe> I think people on Wikipedia have said that Schiller's work on linguistics is not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the article about him. "Not sufficiently notable" doesn't reflect Wikipedia's judgment on its merit, but what reliable sources have or have not said on it. I have no knowledge of or opinion about Schiller's linguistics work.|
As to Miles and Marshall, I think you have your algebraic notation backwards. Miles beat Karpov with 1...a6 in Karpov vs Miles, 1980, and Marshall beat Levitsky with 23....Qg3!! in S Levitsky vs Marshall, 1912. But Amos Burn's 33...Qg4!!! in E MacDonald vs Burn, 1910 is IMHO the most spectacular move ever played.
|Nov-12-09|| ||bmulligan: Without an advanced degree, Evgeny Bareev can write a masterpiece like "From London to Elista."|
Why shouldn't we expect much higher quality product from E.S., a tremendously intelligent person who teaches chess and has associations with some of the top players?
|Nov-12-09|| ||FSR: FSR: <bmulligan> Indeed. Note Schiller's fatuous non sequitur of October 25: "That's why I have a Ph.D. and [Winter] doesn't and never will." The vast majority of those who write about chess do not, unlike Schiller, have Ph.D.s. Some of them nonetheless write very well. Schiller, being such an erudite fellow, presumably could write better than your average chess writer if he chose to do so. Instead, he is a notorious purveyor of schlock. What does that tell you about his standards?|
|Nov-12-09|| ||HeMateMe: <FSR:> You're just "jealous of his friedship with Gary Kasparov!"|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 83 OF 111 ·