Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
we refer you to:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html

This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
"Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
describes. As a sample, I present its conclusion below:

"As matters stand, in 2005, is any consensus possible about the
Termination, despite all the claims and counter-claims? We believe that
few readers will disagree with the following summation:

* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
* Regardless of whether the decision taken by Campomanes was right
or wrong, or a mixture of both, he handled the affair incompetently,
both in Moscow and later;
* The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and
self-contradictory;
* Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself
from suspicion;
* A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
falsehoods."