Talk:Eric Schiller

message: 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)
thread_title:  All those books 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, . The same book got a "thumb's down" when Jeremy Silman reviewed it. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  No Balance