Barnes and Nobles are featuring me in a simul next month, and seem to be stocking all my new books. They tend to stock only newer books, as might be expected.

I am not one of those who think all of your books are bad. They are not. I am one of those who thinks that some of your books are bad (such as your "Unorthodox Chess Openings") and others are good (such as your "Gambit Chess Openings"; obviously, you "dig" gabmits.)

Ignoring both those who dismiss all your books as hackwork and those who will defend all your books, it seems to me that the problem is this: instead of concentrating on things you are REALLY good at--Gambit openings, the Caro-Kann opening, instructions for beginners--you spread yourself too thin and write also about things you are not an expert at--Openings in general, chess history, etc.

The result is not only that you write some bad books about things you are not an expert at, but also that the quality of the books about things you are an expert at suffers. They are not as good as they could have been, because you only spend 20% of your effort on them instead of 100%.

1 a confirmation that the person concerned has actually read the so called bad books and thus knows what they are talking about--

2 reasons why they are bad with chapter verse and proof not just broad and vague assertions

a so called good chess book cd be good for a number of reasons- but usually and primarily i have found because it helps the readers improve their comprehension of chess and thus their results.

a bad book cd be bad for a huge number of reasons

poor print
bad proof reading
incorrect analysis
confusing layout
boring or repetitive language
generalised blunders and inaccuracies
data dumping with no real writing or explanations

so what precisely is eric being accused of and what is the proof? i have reviewed many of his books for the london times and found them easy reads -usually well produced-with the occasional typo , missed transposition and wrong date but nothing which makes comprehension impossible-of course 100% accuracy shd always be the goal, but frankly if you are writing an openings book and attribute a game to st petersburg 1895-for ex-rather then st petersburg 1896, it isnt going to inflict much damage!

conversely i have reviewed books by writers with huge reputations for accuracy where i have discovered horrors such as :

kings left in check in analysis for several moves

print so poor you cdnt distinguish black and white pieces especially the queens -with black knights being little more than blobs on the page

editing errors which distorted the meaning of the original work

forced checkmates overlooked in critical variations

terrible blunders leaving material to be taken

assessments of positions which were the reverse of the truth

downright lies and distortions about events in the past

i have also co written a number of books with eric and had him edit several of mine too. as a director of hardinge simpole publishing i am also proud to have eric as one of our stable of authors.

i shd add that almost no-one else has erics energy-in the recent gibtelecom tournament which i attended as a guest eric did the following

1 arbit the event -duties increased when stewart reuben collapsed through strain!

2 play two tournament games when players dropped out-he won both

3 gave lectures and courses in the mornings for trainee arbiters and local kids

4 advised the organisation on improvements for next year

5 collected material from the event for future writings

6. Still had time left over to email us the PGN after each round, and post dailly updates on our tournament page.

I don't want to make this into a discussion of the specifics of criticisms against some of Mr. Schiller's books. I am making a very general point: Mr. Schiller, I think, spreads himself far too thing. Had he concentrated his stupendeous energy on fewer books, they could be real classics. Which is NOT to say they are bad.

The same claim, come to think of it, can be made of you, Mr. Keene: like Mr. Schiller, you have stupendeous energy for chess promotion, instruction, writing, and fundraising, but, like Mr. Schiller, you write so many books they just cannot be given the attention they deserve. This is not saying they are bad. This is saying they are not as good as they could have been.

How about a constructive suggestion for both of you? You are well-known collaborators. Suppose both of you take the next year to write just ONE BOOK on a SPECIFIC SUBJECT (instead of many books about openings or combinations or chess in general) and write it together. Choose whatever you want: a famous (or unjustly forgotten) chess match; biography of a past or current chess player; instruction in a particular opening; anything.

With your energy, connections, and--if you may forgive me--"pushiness" for getting information and support from others for chess (a very good quality for a chess promoter of course), you could surely write not only a good book, but the DEFINITIVE book on whatever subject you chose.

Without judging anyone's books here - I haven't even written one - I think <Skeptic1972> has a point, if someone concentrates on the things he's really good at the results will be better, and writting many books is not the same as writting good books.

Two, I would find it very difficult to impartially review the books of one of my friends and business partners. If <ray keene> can do it - hats off!

in my reviews of erics books in the times i have pointed out BOTH what i considered praiseworthy and what i considered failings-where i thought them important--

2 WRITING SCHEDULE

Without getting into details, I think some of the criticism is that at least some of Eric Schiller's books are directed toward novices, and the more advanced players here find them shallow and obvious. Not a fair criticism.

As to the whole quality versus quantity discussion, I have to say that perhaps <Mr. Keene> and <Mr. Schiller> have put a little too much emphasis on being the most prolific author, and this has led to some output of rather dubious quality on Mr. Schiller's part.

I have yet to read any books by Mr. Keene, so cannot make any judgement on their merits, but I would suggest that to make any mention of, much less boast about the quantity of books one has written is a rather hollow endeavour.

After all, Danielle Steele (since she is mentioned above) has been quite a prolific author who is noteworthy for her astonishing productivity, lack of taste, and general tackiness. Quality is not a term that readily comes to mind when her name is mentioned.

I'm certain that any author, instead of saying "I've written 140 pieces of pulp" would rather say "I only wrote one book, but it was ___________." (Insert 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Faust' or 'And Their Eyes were Watching God' or 'Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953' or any other classic.)

So, having stated that, I would like to ask both <Ray Keene> and <Eric Schiller> which, out of the many books they have both authored, they consider to be representetive of their very best work, the one of which they are most proud of, so that I may perhaps make a more positive second appraisal of Mr. Schiller's work, and get off on the right foot with Mr. Keene's.

if you want some recommendations for reading

goethe-faust
schiller-friedrich-wallenstein
schiller -eric best games of fischer and kasparov
keene-my book on nimzowitsch or grandmaster strategy -published by hardinge simpole

yes-you can like winter and schiller too-just as we brits fought against napoleon but still admired him!!

btw goethe met napoleon and was also at the battle of valmy--

As for my best or most representative work, I think that the Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom (in its 3rd edition), and the trilogy Standard Chess Openings, Gambit Chess Openings and Unorthodox Chess Openings, plus World Champion Openigs would be my choices. "In particular Gambit Chess Openings, the largest collection of gambits ever assembled, which took years of research. On specific openings, my books on the Tarrasch and Caro-Kann for Cardoza represent the approach I advocate for presenting information and I am very pleased with both books.

Chapters of these and most of my books are available online at www.ericschiller.com.

My latest book is a study guide to king and pawn endgames, using a unique (as far as I know) format involving presentation of target positions in each study. Many Chessgamers have already seen it during the proofing round. I plan to keep offering PDF proofs to members of our community, and I thank them for making each book better than it would have been otherwise.

If the Eric Schiller book you are referring to is "Learn from Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games" published by Cardoza - then perhaps you should look at it again, because while not a complete disaster, it's of such poor quality as to not be worth it's $14.95 cover price.

It is in fact, the volume that first made me doubt the quality of Schiller's work. Or perhaps there is another book by Schiller on Fischer that you are making reference to?

As for your book "Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal" , it was the one I was looking at purchasing. It will be interesting to see how it supplements My System and Chess Praxis, and I look forward to reading it. I take it that this is based upon, or a revision of your earlier work "Aron Nimzowitsch: Master of Planning"?

However, as I mentioned before I was rather surprised by the poor quality of your "Learn from Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games" published by Cardoza, and this is what brought me to reflect that perhaps the rather quantitative nature of your publishing endeavours has led to some failings in the quality department.

However, thank you for mentioning those other books which you consider to be among your better work. The next time I am in a book store or in a position to peruse one, I will do so, and perhaps in the future I will be able to contribute a post, a la Keene, entitled "Eric Schiller: A Reappraisal"