David Richerby wrote:
David Ames wrote:
David Richerby wrote (to 'Miriling'):
If that's the biggest problem you can find
in the latest _Chess Life_, I'd say it sounds
like a pretty good edition. I mean, really.
Have you nothing better to do with your time?

The issue is the knowledge and competence of the
editor, not what a reader of Chess Life does with
his time.

Again, if the biggest deficit in his knowledge and
competence is that he occasionally uses the word
`round' where `game' would be more appropriate,
I'd say he sounds like a pretty good editor. ...

I have read at least several articles of 'Chess Life'
(forwarded to me) that have been written or edited
by Kalev Pehme. In addition, I have read much of
several threads in rec.games.chess.politics about
Kalev Pehme's performance as the 'Chess Life' editor.

So I feel sufficiently qualified to state that it's
*not* "the biggest deficit in his (Kalev Pehme's)
knowledge and competence".

Has David Richerby read any issue(s) of 'Chess Life'
edited by Kalev Pehme or any article(s) written by
him in it?

Has David Richerby read any of the threads in
rec.games.chess.politics in which Kalev Pehme's
performance as 'Chess Life' editor has been
discussed at length, sometimes with substantial
amounts of 'Chess Life' text being quoted?
Would David Richerby be aware of the criticisms
of Kalev Pehme as expressed by such diverse writers
as George Mirijanian, 'The Masked Bishop', and
'DoctorSBD'?

To his credit, David Richerby did make a qualification
before expressing his opinion that Kalev Pehme 'sounds
like a pretty good editor'. May I suggest, however,
that David Richerby's opinion would have more value
if he could become better informed about the broader
context of a discussion when he enters that discussion?

--Nick