Talk:Eric Schiller

Old talk

I strongly object to the negative remarks made by Camembert on the Eric Schiller biography. In the first place, Camembert is not a chess player, or at least this name is unknown to chess. In addition, it can seen by his remarks about Judit Polgar that he knows nothing about chess or about her. It is further objectional that somebody can use a fake name to attack somebody on Wikipedia.

What I am objecting to is the following remarks by Camembert, "Many of them have received scathing reviews: reviewing for the Chess Cafe, Carsten Hansen said Schiller's tome on the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation of the Vienna Game was "by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN" [1], while Tony Miles' famous review of Unorthodox Chess Openings for Kingpin consisted of two words: "Utter crap."

I revised Schiller's biography and within just a few minutes Camembert put this all back in. I feel that he should be banned and blacklisted from Wikipedia for this.

The fact is that Eric Schiller has written more than one hundred published books on chess and dozens of published articles in academic publications on Linguistics. If he were such a bad writer as Camembert claims, nobody would buy his books and no publisher would publish them. In addition, the authors of the two negative reviews which Camembert cites were political oponents of Schiller (one of whom is now dead), so it is simply wrong to cite them.

I request that Camembert who knows nothing of which he speaks be banned from Wikipedia. Sam Sloan

---

I would suggest that either your comments are in bad faith or you do not know what you are talking about. Anyone who has published at least one hundred books ( and from memory claimed on the back of one book to have published around two hundred) cannot be a good writer. As Winter has demonstrated his works are filled with numerous historical and literary bloopers

While it may be the case that too much space is given to these arguments to suggest that these arguments are totally unmerited, and more that the wikipedian who wrote them deserves to be banned is risible. One of the main reasons Schiller is a notable figure is the scathing attacks made on him by Winter, Miles et al.

---

"Anybody who has published at least one hundred books cannot be a good writer???" If that doesn't deserve the Wiki-dunce-cap award of the year I don't know what does. "One of the main reasons Schiller is a notable figure is the scathing attacks made on him by Winter, Miles et al." He wrote over 100 books and yet you claim he is famous because of his REVIEWS? Walk into any bookstore in the USA you can see his name on the shelves--several times over--and yet you think that this man would be unheard of if it wasn't for book reviews? This is just all so much nonsense, and moreover the biography reads like it was written by a grade school child with a vendetta. I haven't made any edits but in my opinion this is one of the worst biographies I have read in Wikipedia, and I've read hundreds of them.

Daniel Freeman 03:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

==============

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:07:00 GMT, "Alan OBrien" <alaneobrienSPAM@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>I appreciate you sticking up for Schiller, but the paragraph you obkect to: > >> What I am objecting to is the following remarks by Camembert, "Many of >> them have received scathing reviews: reviewing for the Chess Cafe, >> Carsten Hansen said Schiller's tome on the Frankenstein-Dracula >> Variation of the Vienna Game was "by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER >> SEEN" [1], while Tony Miles' famous review of Unorthodox Chess >> Openings for Kingpin consisted of two words: "Utter crap." > >...is in fact entirely correct. I suppose you are saying that there should >be no mention of those two reviews. But for many of us that is what Schiller >is most famous for.

On 30 Aug 2005 23:29:31 -0700, "politikalhack@gmail.com" <politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote:

>Schiller has written more good books than he is generally given credit >for, but Alan O'Brien's remark is rather fair. > >Ten years or so ago, I remember making some deprecating remark about a >Schiller book (don't remember which one) which IMO was not good at all. > The next time I ran in to Eric, I felt obliged to reference the remark >and apologize: he good-naturedly said, "Don't worry, I'm used to it." > >Schiller gave a scathing but just review of my recent play

Yes. I am saying that those two quotes from negative reviews should not be included in any encyclopedia article. It would be perfectly OK to add External Links to those negative reviews, However, if you read an article in Encyclopedia Britannica, would you expect to find the words "THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN" and "Utter crap"?

An encyclopedia article should deal in facts, not opinions. Calling a Schiller book "Utter crap" is clearly an opinion. This comment should be removed from Wikipedia.

If such a comment appears in a book review or in a newsgroup such as rec.games.chess.politics, that is a different matter altogether, because the expression of personal opinions is called for there. You will notice that I have not complained about the more than one hundred personal attacks Bill Brock has directed towards me on rec.games.chess.politics, but I did object when Bill Brock attacked me on Wikipedia encyclopedia.

Another pont is that Eric Schiller writes his books to be read by 1500 players. His purpose is to entertain and to teach a little about chess while doing so. His book about the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation of the Vienna Game is a perfect example. It is filled with quotes and spoofs from Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Naturally, a grandmaster like Miles or a FIDE Master like Hansen will not like such a book, but Schiller knows that they were not going to buy his book anyway. Schiller books are popular with lower-level players, and that is his intended audience.

I am also annoyed at the name "Frankenstein-Dracula Variation" of the Vienna Game. I looked this up and discovered that this is an opening I have been playing for Black since the early 1960s. I played the black side of this opening to defeat master Don Sutherland in the 1964 Northern California Championship at the Mechanics Institute in San Francisco. Who gave anybody the right to rename this old opening the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation of the Vienna Game?

By the way, is "Alan OBrien" the same person as Camembert?

Sam Sloan

Alan - here and No I am not!

I think any strong chessplayer will tell you that Eric Schiller is a complete hack of a writer. Most of his books are slopped together with very little attention. Nor is the analysis in them at all accurate. The Carsten Hansen review linked by Camembert explains in some detail why Schiller's "Frankenstein-Dracula" book is a classic example of a poorly written (and that's being charitable) Schiller book. One can debate whether this Wikipedia article on Schiller has an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia, but I am mystified by your suggestion that Camembert should be banned for accurately quoting reviews critical of Schiller's books.

I expect that you will rejoin that my "name is unknown to chess," (as you said of Camembert, whose real name I suspect is not "Camembert"), and/or that I am Camembert's sockpuppet (as you suggested of Alan O'Brien). To answer these in advance, I am not Camembert's sockpuppet and have never met the man. My real name is Frederick Rhine, I am a USCF National Master, and a USCF Senior Master at Correspondence Chess. You can find two of my games in Chess Informant, volumes 32 and 57. The opening novelty in the first game, Rhine-Sprenkle, was voted by the Informant editors as the 8th-9th most theoretically important in volume 32 (as you can see in volume 33). Nunn spends a chapter on it in all three editions of his classic Beating the Sicilian. So I know something of chess, and no doubt Carsten Hansen and the late GM Tony Miles (the two reviewers quoted in the article) know/knew a great deal more.

Of course, if you think the Schiller article is not NPOV, you are welcome to balance it with positive reviews by strong players of Schiller's books -- if you can find any. In fairness, some of Schiller's books that have co-authors are actually good -- such as the suggestively named Big Book of Busts -- but I suspect that is more due to John Watson's work than Schiller's. Krakatoa 16:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have cordial relations with both Fred Rhine and Eric Schiller. Schiller started writing books to support himself while in graduate school. It's hard to maintain both quality and quantity. Yes, Miles's "review" has become famous; it would be silly not to quote it. Eric has written or co-written several good books; Fred has noted a proper way to address NPOV issues. Billbrock 18:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly amusing P.S. - I met Fred Rhine circa spring 1979, when I was working as a clerk at Powell's bookstore on 57th Street. He was buying a handful of Reinfeld books, I warned him not to, and he explained he was buying as a collector.... Billbrock 22:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You love telling that story, Bill. Yes, it's true. I remember the encounter. I didn't recognize you, but thought it was weird that a bookstore employee was trying to persuade me not to buy the books I was buying.

Fred Reinfeld, while even more prolific than Schiller, was head and shoulders above him both as a writer and a player. I wrote most of the Wikipedia entry on Reinfeld, and was quite impressed by the guy -- and not just because he and I have almost the same name. He wrote some excellent books (biographies of Lasker, Nimzowitsch, Capablanca, etc.), but always said that the schlock he wrote for fish (I'm sure he didn't put it quite that bluntly) were his big sellers. But even those books by Reinfeld are pretty good. They're instructive, well-written for their intended audience, and are not full of mistakes -- unlike Schiller's books. A lot of beginners have learned about tactics from 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations, for example. You could do a lot worse, and buying Schiller's books is a prime example of that. Krakatoa 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought Schiller's book on the Catalan was pretty good. (And I learned a lot about chess from the books Keene co-authored on the Pirc-Modern and Keene's brilliant study of Nimzowitsch--which is to say the "hacks" of today weren't always hacks, so be charitable, folks--doing stuff is hard.) It would be fair to add something about Eric's significant contributions as an organizer--wasn't he behind the 1983(?) World Student Team, held at the U of Chicago? He was my immediate predecessor (circa 1988-89) as editor of the Illinois Chess Bulletin, and did a fine job.

Fred is right: Reinfeld is cool. Billbrock 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen Schiller's book on the Catalan. It may well be good. He is a strong enough player that he ought to be able to write decent books, particularly given the availability these days of Fritz and such to check one's analysis -- but I don't think he usually puts in the time necessary to write good books. I wouldn't throw Keene into the "hack" category, for the reasons you cite. He is one of those players (Soltis is another) who are quite strong (both GM's), have written some excellent books, but sometimes churn out junk to make a buck (see Nunn's criticism of Soltis' pamphlet on the Giuoco Piano, which presents the Møller Attack as a strong line for White, giving some throwaway analysis as to how to meet 13...h6!). Of course, the "Winning with the Latvian Gambit" syndrome is a big problem for authors -- they write a book on some highly dubious line, which must have "Winning with the" in the title to sell books, and then feel obliged for consistency's sake to present the dubious line as being incredibly strong, never mind what those pesky theoreticians say about it. Most professional chessplayers don't make big bucks, so I'm sure there's a great temptation to publish less-than-stellar work to make some money. And unfortunately there may often be an inverse relationship between the quality of a book and how well it sells -- the schlocky "Winning with the" opening books sell a lot better than the lovingly produced biographies of Nimzowitsch. Krakatoa 18:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There are several problems with your point. Perhaps most important is that Miles himself had a reputation. Miles was constantly attacking chess personalities in print. 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.

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.

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

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

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

Sam Sloan

What about Carsten Hansen? Is he a drooling lunatic too? Krakatoa 17:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really like spending time on edit wars, but I suppose I ought to respond.

This idea that Schiller has only received two bad reviews in his life is, as I daresay you know, not correct. He's rather well known for getting bad reviews. Here, for example, is the BCF bookshop (which you would think would benefit by giving glowing reviews to everything) saying of the same book Hansen reviews that it "surely belongs in the Chamber of Horrors". I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to dig up more opinions like this. I do take your point about him writing for Class C players (although I don't see how that can forgive the kind of mistake found in 639 Essential Endgame Positions that Hansen deals with in his review), and I've added a quote from John Watson dealing with this to the article (I note, however, that one of the books Watson defends on the grounds of it not being for advanced players is advertised on Schiller's website as being "For Advanced Players"; make of that what you will).

Incidentally, I play chess, read a lot about it, and own quite a lot (too many) chess books. I'm not an especially good player--really just an enthusiastic patzer. The significance of any of that escapes me. --Camembert 17:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. I am satisfied with Camembert's balancing. The article is okay now.

Sam Sloan 19:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Sam Sloan Sam Sloan 19:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Camembert added quotes from a positive review of two of Schiller's books by John Watson, Schiller's sometime co-author. I think this is a good effort at providing balance -- ironic that Camembert rather than one of Schiller's defenders did this. Krakatoa 17:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"I think any strong chessplayer will tell you that Eric Schiller is a complete hack of a writer." This gets a big loud resounding "so what??" Wikipedia indexes musical bands, does it not? Does it tell us which bands produce good music and which produce poor music? Wikipedia indexes painters, right? Does it say which ones are hacks and which ones are eminently talented? Wikipedia indexes actors? Does it mention which actors are talentless hacks and which ones are geniuses? The answers to all of this are, of course, "no", "no", "no", and "no". So why are authors treated differently? Daniel Freeman 10:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should report who gets good or bad reviews, as long as the sources are reputable. e.g. (the first widely-panned actors that sprung to mind), negative film reviews are reported in the Olsen twins article. Peter Ballard 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All those books

What do you say we prune the list a little and include several of the more notable or better selling - the article is in danger of looking like an infomercial otherwise... --SpinyNorman 06:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What source is there for the claim that "Schiller was for many years the right-hand man of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov."? What source is there for the claim that "Barnes & Noble bookstores have sold more than one hundred thousand books written by Eric Schiller"? (I agree with the "infomercial" comment of SpinyNorman.) - Louis Blair (6 March 2006)

Linguistics section

...sounds like another infomercial. It would be a favor to Eric to shorten this.... Billbrock 04:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Would it be true to say that Schiller is not notable as a linguist? i.e. he may be a very good linguist, but if he was not a chess player/author, would his achievements as a linguist be worthy enough to get him an entry in Wikipedia? I suspect not, just as Mikhail Botvinnik was doubtless a very good electrical engineer but his engineering feats would not get him into Wikipedia either. And the same for most (but not quite all) chess players who also have/had a day job. Therefore, unless I hear an objection in (say) the next week, I'll reduce the linguist section to a single paragraph, maybe even a single sentence. Rocksong 03:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No objections, I'll cut it down shortly. (p.s. I am same person as User:Rocksong). Peter Ballard 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It was restored on the basis that he's a published author + researcher; but I respond that the section is entirely uncited, reads like a CV, and is not what he's noted for. The intro has a sentence saying he works in the field - that is enough.

Books

It should be noted that he is not regarded as a good chess author because [1] gives example, can anyone put this in Controversies. Also please do this with Raymond Keene because he is involved. [[2]] is a good place to start for info on chess please kindly search info about Schiller here as well.

No Balance

This article has no balance on Eric Schillers ability. The quote "by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN" is a minor reference overplaying the issue. In my view that line should be removed. There are alternative opinions [3]. For a sense of balance read the article on George_W._Bush, here you have someone who has received widespread criticism yet you don't find the Wikipedia article focused on them or quoting the most explicit of them. SunCreator (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the criticism should be pared back (perhaps restricted to the Edward Winter critique, and Miles' famous two word review), but if we're looking for praise, the link above[4] doesn't count because it's hosted by his own publisher, probably written by Schiller himself. (There's nothing wrong with self promotion, but it has no place as an encyclopedia reference). Peter Ballard (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I know of no disinterested reliable sources who praise Eric Schiller's chess writing. He is a hack and, as Winter has documented, a plagiarist. As for George W. Bush, don't get me started. Krakatoa (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree Peter. SunCreator (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. I've removed criticism by the little-known reviewers. That leaves criticism by Winter and Miles, and support by Watson. I think that's a reasonable balance. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes - the principle of "Balance über alles" must always guide us, even if there's precious little on one side of the balance. Krakatoa (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK "balance" is the wrong word, what I meant is I think I've got it reasonably objective and neutral; in that it now only quotes well known critics (Winter, Miles, Watson), rather than little-known reviewers. By all means add other notable reviewers, good or bad, which you can find. Also, the deleted bits weren't very helpful - one was NEEDLESSLY CAPITALISED and the other merely stated that it was dissected. Also, the "praise" from Watson is heavily qualified. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that Carsten Hansen is little-known, but the relevant question is whether he is a "reliable source". He has been rated as high as 2560, written four well-reviewed chess books, and drawn 3 out of 3 games against Kasparov. As for the capitalization, it is as in the original. He wrote, "I have seen thousands of chess books over the years, but this book is by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN." I have no problem with the omission of the Bücker/Myers quote, even though I am the one who put it in. Krakatoa (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added the Carsten Hansen quote, this time giving the full quote for context. If, as in Schiller's case, an author gets mostly horrible reviewers and an occasional decent review, the horrible reviews should get more coverage than the decent ones. As WP:NPOV explains, "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence."

As for whether Hansen is a reliable source, he is a strong player, has written four well-received books himself, has done multiple book reviews, and by his own account has seen thousands of chess books. He explains in detail why he has such a low opinion of Schiller's book. I certainly consider him a reliable source on this issue. Indeed, his account is much better explained than Watson's. It can in fact be questioned whether the sort-of-favorable Watson quote should even be in the article, since as Schiller's co-author he has a pecuniary interest in having Schiller portrayed in a favorable light. Moreover, Watson's semi-admission that Schiller "probably deserves some of the criticism he gets" is deliberately weaselly. Watson is himself a very conscientious author, and in general a very conscientious reviewer; he is quite capable of looking at Schiller's books and the criticism of them and determining whether it is warranted. He has instead chosen in this one instance not to examine the evidence. I wonder why? Krakatoa (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if your concern is that HANSEN IS SCREAMING AT THE READERS BY USING CAPS, and you don't think the readers' eyeballs should be assaulted this way, or that the use of caps gives undue emphasis to Hansen's opinion, I have no problem with changing it to lower-case and adding a parenthetical (Emphasis deleted) or some such to the reference. Krakatoa (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I now agree that Carsten Hansen is OK, being an FM and chess author. But as a side note I have doubts about the 2560 rating and the Kasparov games - see my comments at Talk:Carsten Hansen. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that those probably reflect that the source confused Hansen with his countryman (or former countryman - I think Carsten Hansen now lives in the U.S.) Curt Hansen. I have accordingly deleted them from the Carsten Hansen article. Krakatoa (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

One note on Carsten Hansen's reviews is that they are just that: his reviews. I have seen cases where another independent review diverges drastically from what Hansen wrote. For example, The Samisch King's Indian Uncovered got a perfect 5/5 review from Hansen, [5]. The same book got a "thumb's down" when Jeremy Silman reviewed it.[6] This does not mean that Hansen's reviews should not be cited in articles, after all, those reviews are published on chesscafe.com, a highly regarded chess websites which has regular columns from well-respected players and authors. They should just not be used as a final verdict on any particular piece of work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair-minded guy that I am, I have now sought out and referred to in the article a very favorable review by Jeremy Silman of Watson and Schiller's The Big Book of Busts (despite Google's suggestion that I search for The Big Book of Breasts instead, the title refers to "busts" of dubious opening lines). Krakatoa (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that when this section first started, the coverage of Schiller's books was biased towards the negative, but I think it's now gone too far the other way. I think John Watson's quote on Schiller's work was fair (he has indeed written a number of quite good books, particularly the ones co-authored with Watson himself) but to say that "Amongst Schiller's large output, some of his books have received poor reviews related to the level expertise that the author was expected to be writing for" is POV. A sizeable percentage of his books have received poor reviews due to lack of substance and feeling 'rushed', i.e. nothing to do with the audience that they're intended for. Tws45 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and thought it was fairly balanced in its current state (July 2017). Certainly it needs to be mentioned that the quality of his books has been called into question. I'm rated Elo 2000, so hardly an elite player, and his books look pretty crappy to me (I own his book on the Reti, in which he calls a position "equal" then reaches the same position on the next page by transposition and calls it "clear advantage for White"!). The main thing missing from this article, as far as I can see, is his Elo rating. Newzild (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)