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

* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;

As I can see from the article E.Winter hasn`t discovered the truth either.

Quite so, Jerzy, at least not the whole truth. That is undoubtedly an
important reason he makes no attempt to assess the termination as right
or wrong.

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."