|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-24-05 | | Akavall: <Eric Schiller> I was looking at your books on ebay and I was very surprised that there are only three new books available (the rest are used). "NEW - First Chess Openings by Eric Schiller"
"Gambit Chess Openings - Schiller, Eric *NEW"
"The Official Rules of Chess - Schiller, Eric *NEW"
Dumb question maybe, but shouldn't you be pushing as hard as you can on that front? A lot of people, like me, buy tons of stuff on ebay. |
|
Dec-25-05
 | | Eric Schiller: <Akavall>eBay is not a primary sales point for new books, and used books generate no royalties. There are more books than you found, for example at my Chessworks store at eBay I offer a few things. But mainly the only reason to buy them there is to get personalized, autographed copies. Otherwise, a simple ISBN google will find much lower prices. Also, I prefer sales in stores because when books sell there, the store orders not only more copies, but also additional titles. For a place like eBay, I'm considering doing bundles and supplementary materials, like PGN files. To make a new book attractive there I think you need to add something extra. |
|
| Dec-25-05 | | Akavall: <Eric Schiller> Ok, I see. Thank You. |
|
Dec-26-05
| | Eric Schiller: I have a new book, Of Kings and Pawns, ready for a final check before it goes to press. This has already been proofed once, so I'll make the proof PDF available to the first dozen who email me and offer to check it for any remaining errors. The book is a collection of 26 endgame positions, covering the key elements of king and pawn play, using a new format which presents a target position together with the starting position. This book will go into production after the start of the new year and should be available from Universal in mid-February. |
|
| Dec-26-05 | | sleepkid: <Eric> I've been following a bit of the conversation here, and I agree that the whole USCF/Chess Cafe debacle is regrettable. I'd actually never seen one of your books before (I mostly collect old chess volumes, rare and out of print, some german, some russian - at last count having several 100) however, I was in the bookstore the other day and happened to come across your "Learn from Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games" published by Cardoza, and I was rather shocked at how poor the quality was. The cover was fairly tacky, the computer generated diagrams were extremely poor, the print layout wasn't very good, and just glancing through it I noticed several grammatical errors and a historical error! I followed through one line of analysis that quite obviously had some sort of scripting error in it. At $14.95 it represented a very poor investment of money for a chess player, and I'm fairly surprised it even made it to print. At the same store I also glanced through you book on "Kasparov's Greatest Games" and "Gambit Opening for White" and found them to be only slightly better. Quite apart from the whole USCF/ChessCafe issue, if I owned a bookstore I wouldn't be stocking those particular volumes, or any of the other Cardoza volumes based on that. It's obvious that you have a great desire to write, and you probably have a lot to offer novice players, but there seems to have been a bit too much emphasis on quantity rather than quality in your publishing endeavours. It might be time for you to do a rather critical reassessment of your catalogue, and perhaps remove or revise certain volumes so that you avoid putting out an inferior product and acquire a poor reputation. |
|
| Dec-28-05 | | chessmaster pro: is eric schiller a gm?? |
|
Dec-28-05
 | | WannaBe: <chessmaster pro> No. |
|
| Jan-02-06 | | Chopin: <Eric Schiller> Who do you consider to be the greatest chess player of all time? |
|
Jan-02-06
| | Eric Schiller: <chopin> As in music, where I consider Bach to have a unique place at the top, I believe Garry Kasparov is the greatest player of all time, by almost any standard. I think that Fischer is a clear second, well ahead of the rest. But of course it is mostly a matter of taste, of what counts as most important. I hold Bach above all other composer because he produced over 1000 pieces of music, every single one worth listening to (and I have). Kasparov can't meet the same standard, not all of his games are great, but he has produced so many masterpieces and succeeded competitively in an unprecedented way. If Fischer hadn't quit the game he might have given Kasparov a run for the money, but he didn't, Kasparov's retirement comes after a much lengthier career. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | KingG: <Eric Schiller> <I believe Garry Kasparov is the greatest player of all time, by almost any standard. I think that Fischer is a clear second, well ahead of the rest.> What about Karpov? I don't think there was that much of a difference between him and Kasparov, so i don't see how Fischer could be well ahead of Karpov, but behind Kasparov. I wouldn't place Fischer that far ahead of Lasker either(if at all). Personally, my top 3 would be:
1.Kasparov
2.Karpov
3.Lasker/Fischer(not sure which one, but leaning towards Lasker) |
|
Jan-03-06
 | | Oginschile: Karpov was definitely a great one. It is sad that many people neglect his greatness due to the fact that he played second fiddle to Kasparov for so long. Fact remains that for a very long time he was the second best player in the world, and behind Kasparov (who most people agree to be the greatest of all time). But I must admit, I place Fischer second as well, though I'm not exactly sure why. Eric, would you mind expanding on the Fischer/Karpov comparison a little? I'm curious what criteria you have in mind to put Fischer ahead of him. Unfortunately, I go mostly by "feel". |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | whatthefat: <KingG>
I'm glad to see you mention Lasker. He's frequently forgotten about in these greatest of all time discussions. Yet there's a fair case for putting him ahead of the lot. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | paybacks: I seriously wouldn't want to bet against a well-prepared Fischer with him in a long match against ANYONE! How could i after what he did against the Soviet School in 1972? The same might be said of Morphy or Capablanca...give them enough time to prepare & i think they would be close to being unstoppable. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | refutor: lasker played 8 serious tournaments in the 27 years he was champion. comparing him to karpov or kasparov is apples and oranges |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | KingG: <refutor> Lasker lived in different times. The length of time he remained a serious contender in top-level tournaments is remarkable. In any case, i'm not comparing him to Kasparov and Karpov, i'm comparing him to Fischer. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | whatthefat: <refutor>
I'm not sure that's fair on Lasker. Simply because chess wasn't played on such a large scale in his day, in no way diminishes the quality of his play, or the originality of his ideas. And in any case, he did play 12 matches as well during that period. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | fred lennox: This boycotting is clearly not done for good intentions. Growth depends on abundancy and freedom of choice. This boycotting undermines both. The uscf job is to promote, not to tyranize or it's future will be grim. |
|
Jan-03-06
| | Eric Schiller: <KingG>Karpov dominated competitively but has produced far fewer masterpieces at the board, IMHO. If I were stuck on a desert island, Karpov's greatest games wouldn't be my first choice of reading matter. There are also lingering questions about whether all the tournament victories were merited, with serious allegations raised by some other Soviet players. And in general, having the massive support of the Soviet Empire had an effect too.
Karpov was certainly a worthy World Champion, but I see nothing that elevates him to the level of the all-time best. For those who believe in statistical analyses, Keene and Divinsky are doing a new edition of their Warriors of the Mind, which set forth a statistical basis for naming Kasparov as the best ever. Those interested in such statistical mathematics can argue over their methdology and conclusions. I consider them irrelevant, because contributions to chess must include artistic achievement. Morphy is remembered not for the quantity of his wins, but for the brilliance of his play. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | square dance: <eric schiller> <There are also lingering questions about whether all the tournament victories were merited, with serious allegations raised by some other Soviet players.> could you go into more detail here. these are the kind of statements that chess fans always read with no substance to back them up. i believe the chess community deserves to know if these sorts of allegations have any basis in truth. im immediately reminded of topalov-san luis for example. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | Akavall: <Eric Schiller> <Karpov dominated competitively but has produced far fewer masterpieces at the board, IMHO. If I were stuck on a desert island, Karpov's greatest games wouldn't be my first choice of reading matter.> But this depends a lot on a matter of taste, doesn't it? <square dance> Good Point! Also, IMO Steinitz can be considered one of the greatest. His ideas about postional play (accumulation of small advantages) had a huge impact on understanding of chess. I don't think any other chessplayer can come close to Steinitz here. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | veigaman: Morphy, capablanca, fischer!... No support from authorities as kremnlin, no computer analisys as kasparov! |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | ughaibu: Capablanca, "no support from authorities", you're joking of course. |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | veigaman: he never received a support to win games! |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | ughaibu: Well, Fischer certainly did, he was supported to the extent of entirely bypassing the qualifier for the interzonal. How many games did that amount to? |
|
| Jan-03-06 | | veigaman: mr. ughaibu, i think fischer won the champion and also beat the soviet machinary! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
