Yes it does matter - since Kingston himself seemed not to know either the
history. But Kingston did know enough to criticise the analysis of the Author,
Soltis. Except that he chose to be vague about it, and suggested that more
material 'might' have been added.

For the 4th time:

1). Mr. Kinstron didn't "criticize" Soltis' analysis, he simply
informed the readers of how detailed it is. He made clear that it is
legitimate for Soltis to have analyzed at such a length.

2). Mr. Kingston wasn't "vague" about the analysis. He said it is
between "light notes" and "in depth", which already gives some idea,
and then gave two specific examples. The reader gets a pretty good idea
how much analysis Soltis gave.

As a chess player I would want to know why - did the games require more
analysis to be comprehensible?

No, they don't, as Mr. Kingston makes clear.

But we don't know why he makes
his comments,

Yes, we do, since he gives two typical examples from the book to show
why he describes the analysis the way it is.

even they make errors. Nunn left out an entire variation of the French in
NCO, and as Keene notes, "finally john nunn the man who rewrote bobby
fischers analysis for fischer v bolbochan 1962 and left fischers king in
check is quoted as a paragon of chess accuracy"

Yes, he *IS* a paragon of chess accuracy, since--except for the "My 60
Memorable Games" debacle--Nunn has an excellent record of publishing
books with very deep and original analysis, books which are remarkably
free of errors, tired old cliches, the same Morphy-vs.-Duke-and-Count
(or the equivalent) games seen a thousand times, or copying from his
previous books with slight (if any) changes. In short, Nunn is the
anti-Keene.

It is no wonder that Keene, who is notorious for writing (or
cutting-and-pasting) books with numerous factual, analytical, and
typographical errors, is happy to see that other writers, like Nunn,
are not perfect. The vain hope, I presume, is that people will that
just because Nunn and Keene are both not perfect, then Nunn and Keene
are somehow *equivalent* as authors. But there's no comparison. Nunn's
chess analysis, historical knowledge, use of English, and general care
and effort in writing his books are so superior to Keene's comparing
them is simply silly.

who doubts it? someone who cant write his name,

Huh? Where did I actually mention my own name in this thread?

In any case, can you believe the Hutzpah of this guy? GM Keene--of all
people!--is writing to criticize somebody else's spelling. Which is the
equivalent of the fat lady in the circus telling somebody they must go
on a diet.

GM Keene, if you are so shocked by my typos (though I am not sure
where, exactly, I misspelled--or even *mentioned*--my own name in this
thread), just close your eyes and pretend you are reading one of your
own books. Then sit back, relax, and be ready to ignore them: they are
JUST TYPOS, and therefore don't mean anything about how much care and
effort I put into my writing, and ESPECIALLY they don't mean anything
at all about what quality of arguments and research one can expect from
me.

Right?

As you can see, Mr. Keene, spelling and grammar DOES (or is that 'do'?)
matter. Many typos and gammatical errors show the writer simply doesn't
care enough about the accuracy of what he writes to bother to check it.
They are signposts that say, "half-baked effort by an author who
doesn't care".

True, I do NOT care too much about usenet posts to bother re-checking
them for typos. But they're just usenet posts. You, on the other hand,
do not care enough to check books you publish, and expect the public to
buy and take seriously, for obvious grammar and spelling errors. Why
should the public take your books seriously, when it is clear that you
yourself do not?

general statements in the mouths of others,

I'm not PUTTING "statements in the mouths of others", I am QUOTING
others. They themselves have put those statements into their own
mouths. I did not make Korchnoi, or Donaldson, or any of the others,
say what they said. They did it all on their own.

dutch gm hans ree has been quoted by mr pipel as being hostile to me -

No, he is quoted as saying that your books are garbage. Personally, for
all I know, he might be your best friend, and simply think that your
propensity for writing "Keene junk" is an unfortunate flaw in the
character of an an otherwise wonderful man. Are you claiming that he
hadn't made that quote? Do you want its source?

It is true that Ree is probably not hostile to you personally--he
defended you on one issue against Winter's accusations, for example,
recently--but we are not TALKING about personal hostility here, only
about his view of your writings' quality.

Amazing as it might seem to you, Mr. Keene, a low, or even abyssimal,
opinion of your writing does *not* imply personal hostility toward you.
(For that matter the reverse is true as well: one does not have to
believe every tall tale about Alekhine to realize he was probably not a
very nice man, yet one must admit that, however imperfect the man, his
books were for the most part of excellent quality.) Ree, a well-known
chess columnist and reviewer, simply recognizes junk when he sees it,
whatever his feelings about the junk's author.

an earlier poster quoted a negative review of one of my books by dr dave
regis--dr regis now works with me and has typeset several of my recent books
including my forthcoming book on tony miles

Once more, so what? Does the fact that Dr. Regis now retracted his
review (at least, it's no longer online) means that your other critics
are necessarily wrong? You're trying to portray yourself as a victim of
unfair criticism. I'm not buying it. The mere fact that one of your
critics changed his mind hardly means the rest are wrong.

mr skeptic quotes viktor korchnoi-i answered korchnoi in depth in my book
massacre in merano still in print with hardinge simpole

Yes, you sure did. But just because you answered him in depth hardly
means he was wrong, or that your lenghty answer is more correct than
Korchnoi's diagnosis. Length does not equate with truth.

I should note here that this is hardly the only scandal you were
involved in. Neither once nor twice had you been accused by other
players, business partners, or chess officials of outrageous behavior.
You usually have an answer, you usually "reply in length" and explain
patiently why the latest incident was all just a big misunderstanding
and you really did nothing wrong, and that you have no earthly idea why
the people you tried so hard to help are suddenly mad with you.

Yet the fact remains that nobody in British chess has anything like
your scorched earth record of ex-friends and soured relationships.
"How could you?!" is a question that you have heard neither once nor
twice, Mr. Keene. I find it *very* hard to believe that this is all a
big misunderstanding, or a conspiracy, or that (just about) everybody
except poor innocent you is in the wrong.
Tony had one of the worse mouths in chess.

Yes, he did. But then again, so what? That hardly means his review of
Schiller's book is wrong. The book in question recieved similar
horrible reviews from just about *everybody* who reviewed it. Most
reviews of it can be summed up as "utter crap" in all but name. Miles
was simply impolite, or brave, enough to say what everybody else was
thinking about that book, though saying in *slightly* different (and a
larger number of) words.

and Carsten Hansen called
another "the worst book I have ever seen". Hugh Myers called him an
"assassin of chess history" and, as it turned out, proved that Schiller
praised as "best" a book about Nimzowitsch's defense that does not even
exist, apparently in a bungled attempt to "get back" at Myers (who
published a book about same defense) for criticizing him.

****y, eh? I wonder quite how objective all these commentaries are?

Well, let's see. Hansen's comments came at the end of a four-page
review of the said book, about the Frankenstein-Dracula variation in
the Vienna opening. He gives a *lot* of reasons to show the reader
*exactly* why this book is, indeed, the worst book he had seen.

As for Myers, quite apart from the fact that one can easily give a a
list as long as my arm of Schiller's numerous historical blunders,
Schiller himself proved Myers perfectly correct when he "remembered"
having read a book that NEVER ACTUALLY EXISTED and even "remembered"
that it was better than Myers' book on the same opening.

One could hardly be more of an "assassin of chess history" than (a)
inventing a non-existent book, (b) claiming to have read it, and (c)
telling us, "authoritively", that it's "the best" book on the subject.

In any case, if he isn't "objective", then there must be a wide-ranging
conspiracy indeed against Messrs. Keene and Schiller, since--by a
curious coincidence--virtually *every* chess master who *ever* bothered
to review their (post-1980s) books had (unojectively and unfairly, of
course) declared them to be junk.

Timman evidently disagreed with critical reviewers
who thought they have sufficient merit to recommend.

Sure, reviewers disagree. Some think a book is good and some think a
book is bad. But can you give me *any* serious player who *does*
recommend Mr. Keene's (post-1980s) or (and of) Mr. Schiller's books?
Virtually *every* review *ever* written about their books ranges from
"for a change, this book is not THAT bad" to "another horrible
Keene/Schiller potboiler.". Not a single serious reviewer--to my
knowledge--has anything good to say about their work as a whole.

You know, you read the book, you study the lines, you take in the patterns,
you understand the general idea, but not all of it - 'why not this?' you ask
yourself - but eventually you play the opening and THEN the worth of what
you have read it revealed.

And, as you will see if you checked Hansen's review, you will find out
that--among much else--one of the reasons that he said what he said
about Schiller's book is that it is completely useless for the reader,
ignoring numerous variations and giving numerous numerous worthless
ones.

This is, of course, quite typical of the Keene/Schiller opening books.
It is because of this that using their books in just they way you say
opening books should be used that is likely to do more harm than good,
as numerous reviewers noted.

But you are not - you can't even write your name.

Huh? I DIDN'T write my name in these posts AT ALL, correctly or
incorrectly spelled. Please tell me where I misspelled my name.

Quick question, come to think of it: what *is* my name? How *should* it
be spelled, in your opinion?

What is derisory is that anyone can pick up a book and immediately know as
much as its author - especially if they are a strong player. If the
publisher indicates that this is possible on their book covers - then strong
rebuke is necessary - and if non masters write of how to do it, but cannot
prove that they themselves ever did it - Hoohah!- I suggest similar
scepticism.

This paragraph isn't in English.