| |
Main
Date: 21 Sep 2005 03:42:19
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Taylor Kingston letter attacking Eric Schiller
|
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 3:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Westerinen book?
---- Eric Schiller <[email protected] > wrote:
> AS I keep saying, it was just an error. I recall being impressed by the Sc6!
> book, but was under some impression that it was about the Nimzowitsch,
> confusing it with another book.
That seems very hard to understand, since Westerinen's book was
about the Saemisch King's Indian. An expert on openings surely knows
the difference. Did you actually read it? On what did you base your
judgement that it was better than Harding's or Myers' book on the
Nimzovich Defense? What was this "other book"? I have asked these
questions several times, and have not gotten a meaningful answer from
you.
> I don't understand why it is so difficult to see the consequences of a
> simple error. Is it any different than a Bush offical talking about
> the "city" of Louisiana.
Well, yes, it's qualitatively different. Assuming a federal official
said that, I doubt that in his next breath he claimed, say, that the
"city" of Louisiana was bigger than Los Angeles and New York, and
then later claimed to have proof of this assertion.
I am really bending over backwards trying to give you the benefit of
the doubt, Eric, but your answers are not adding up. I am skeptical of
Myers' insinuation that you said "Westerinen's is best" just to slight
Myers' own book -- I have been a Myers target just as you have, and
his conclusions are not always correct.
So I am trying to keep an open mind, but so far this doesn't add up.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 15:18:33
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston letter attacking Eric Schiller
|
X-MAIL-FROM: <[email protected] >
X-SOURCE-IP: [204.127.202.59]
The asshole attacks me and Keene all the time too.
Your point is correct. And any editor would have axed "furthermore"
You need to place him in your Hall of Shame.
Eric Schiller
www.ericschiller.com
http://stores.ebay.com/Chessworks-Unlimited
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Sloan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: "Altering Sam Sloan" Contest Winners
On 8 Jul 2005 14:54:44 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> This old thread just happened to come on my newsreader, so I will ask
>> a questiuon I have always wondered about it.
>>
>> Taylor Kingston claims that Larry Evans deleted four words that
>> Taylor Kingston had written in a letter that was published in a
>> "Letters to the Editor" column in Chess Life magazine.
>
>> Could you please tell us what those four words were?
>
> I'm surprised you ask, Sam, since I posted the answer back on May 24
>in response to a post by you. The four words were:
>
> furthermore, question, quoted, below.
>
> For the full post, go to:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8hb35
OK. I see it now. I did not see it before because (Thank Goodness) I
do not rread all the postings to this group.
Here is what you say was in your original letter:
"Furthermore, your question (quoted below) involved assumptions or
assertions I do not share." -- e-mail, July 2001
You complain that Evans printed this as supposedly a direct quote from
you.:
"Your involved assumptions or assertions I do not share." -- Chess
Life, 12/2001, page 7
Your complaint is that the four words: " Furthermore, question
(quoted below)" were deleted.
I disagree. The word "furthermore" is not good style and any competent
editor would cut it out.
The words "quoted below" should also be cut out. The words might not
even be quoted below when published.
So, the only word you have any valid complaint about is the word
"question". I agree that it would have been best to leave that in,
providing that space allowed. It was probably cut out by mistake when
the three surrounding words were cut out. However, cutting out the
word question did not change the meaning of the sentence that was
clearly preserved and understood.
The issue now is that on this Usenet group you have posted more than
one hundred vituperative personal attacks on Grandmaster Larry Evans,
Larry Parr and myself all over this deletion of just one word in a
letters to the editor column. You have stirred up hundreds of personal
attacks on us by various posters all over this one word. You have
caused your backers to lose one thousand dollars to me (for that I am
thankful).
The result is that your letters to the editor will probably never be
published again by any editor who finds out about this. I certainly
doubt that Chess Life magazine will ever be willing to publish
anything by you again.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 15:07:57
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston letter attacking Eric Schiller
|
This is old stuff, and I have explained for over a decade that this
was a response to an informal letter from Myers, I was in Hawaii with
no chess library, just Khmer language stuff as I was studying on a
fellowship as part of my Doctoral studies at the University of
Chicago. I answered off the top of my head, and simply got it wrong. I
recalled the cover with the big bold Nc6! On it and assumed for some
reason that it was a book on `1.e4 Nc6. Somehow the exchange found its
way into the book, entirely my fault, not Joel's.
I frequently corrected the information in forums and when asked, and
never "lied" about it as you accuse. I corrected the information in a
letter to Myers after I returned home and was confronted with the
error. I have no doubt that you will continue to make your
misrepresentation in the future and await an apology for your
unfounded accusation. An error is not a lie. I have made mistakes and
do not cover them up. I am grateful to those who point out errors in a
polite way, but not those who engage in campaigns and personal
attacks, especially from people who have never made any significant
contribution to chess on or off the board.
You may show this reply to anyone you wish.
Eric Schiller
www.ericschiller.com
http://stores.ebay.com/Chessworks-Unlimited
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 1:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Westerinen book?
Dear Mr. Schiller,
My name is Taylor Kingston. I hope this message finds you well. I am,
in my spare time, a writer on chess. I am writing to you in hopes that
you may be able to settle an old controversy.
In 1987, Batsford released "Unorthodox Chess Openings," co-written by
you and Joel Benjamin. In the section on the Nimzovich Defense (1.e4
Nc6), the book says "Myers, Harding and Westerinen have all written
books on the subject. Westerinen's is the best, but very hard to
find."
I have contacted Myers and Harding, and according to them, Westerinen
never wrote any book on the Nimzovich Defense. Myers added that in
Hawaii, in 1988, you told him that in fact the book did exist, and
that a copy was in your library in Chicago. Myers claimed you promised
to give him further information on it, but never did.
So my questions are these:
1. Did you or Joel Benjamin write the passage about the Westerinen
book?
2. Is Myers' account of your conversation about the book correct?
3. Do you still claim the Westerinen book exists? If so, can you give
me specifics (publisher, date, etc.)?
4. If it does not exist, have you ever publicly retracted the
erroneous statement in UCO?
5. If there have been later editions of UCO, have they too had the
claim about Westerinen's book?
6. Myers seems to think the passage in UCO may have been a deliberate
falsehood. If it was only an inadvertent error, what book were you or
Benjamin thinking of?
I ask these questions only to satisfy my own curiosity. Any reply you
care to make will be treated confidentially, unless you specifically
state that it may be published.
Yours truly, Taylor Kingston
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2005 11:01:54
From: chasmad
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston letter attacking Eric Schiller
|
[email protected] wrote:
<snip >
> In the case of Eric Schiller's apparent misattribution of
> authorship of a book that did not exist, his explanations are simple
> enough. I was under the same misimpression when writing an
> award-winning article on Alekhine,
First Prize for Most Incomprehensible Gibberish by a Right-Wing
Crybaby. Congrats, Larry!
Charles
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2005 21:59:51
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston letter attacking Eric Schiller
|
AN OPEN MIND?
<So I am trying to keep an open mind, but so far this doesn't add up. >
Taylor Kingston
NM Kingston claims that Eric Schiller's expanations for a silly error
don't add up. Of course not. By definition, they cannot.
In the case of Eric Schiller's apparent misattribution of
authorship of a book that did not exist, his explanations are simple
enough. I was under the same misimpression when writing an
award-winning article on Alekhine, that the latter had written a major
work on Kecskemet 1927 instead of merely annotating several games. In
some fashion I had confounded this non-existent "major work" with other
Alekhine works. Luckily, I caught my glitch before going to press;
Eric Schiller did not.
If Alekhine were NM Kingston's target instead of Schiller, he
would be asking how the ex-world champion in his work on Nottingham
1936 offered in the same book contradictory evaluations of the very
same, early opening position, that the great man knew like the back of
his own hand. Our 2300+ ELO Eiffel Tower would then argue that
Alekhine's explanations do not add up. Which, of course, they would
and could not.
|
|
