SPEAKING OF SMEARS

Several comments by Taylor Kingston as quoted here by Ray Keene seem
to give very negative opinions without accompanying, supporting
evidence to back them up. Innuendo, as RK puts it.
I wonder if a book review really has the time and the space to back
up all such opinions? Some reviewers, let's say John Watson, for
example, often make the time and the space to back everything up. Some
such reviews can become very lengthy, yet they are well worth the time
it takes to read them; unfortunately, the reviewer is not well-paid for
his efforts -- unlike the author of a published book.

When I read this kind of opinion, expressed with nothing whatever to
back it up, I take note both of the expressed opinion, and of the fact
that nothing presented alongside backs it up. Research may or may not
uncover further facts relating to or in support of the opinion in
question. For example, one could do a Google search for other reviews
on the same book. In this particular case TK did mention Edward
Winter, who has a Web site in which further research might prove
interesting.

"TK's remarks are a crude slur which utterly fails to produce
any worthwhile reason why I should not criticise anyone or
anything I find to be in error."

This would appear to work both ways. If Ray Keene can
psychoanalyse Nimzowitch, why can't Taylor Kingston
assess Keene's historical accuracy? It's just giving one's
opinions, either way. I suppose the complaint is that TK
did not place several direct quotes of Edward Winter into his
book review. Earlier, Keene was complaining the reviews
were too long; now he has reversed himself.



"I also find this kind of criticism by innuendo highly distasteful
and unworthy of any decent reviewer who is supposed to be
objective. Ah, but is objectivity TK's real goal? Now we come to
his so-called evidence of my offenses against historical accuracy.
This will be interesting. Winter has decreed that Keene is a bad
writer (let's try to forget or spin the old Winter description of my
book on Nimzo as "splendid")."


Is Ray Keene suggesting that this (i.e. "splendid") was at one
time or is still Edward Winter's *overall assessment* of the book
in question? Or was this single word snatched out of context?
There is no way to tell from reading RK's post; he even fails to
explain how a single such word might prove sufficient to
encompass such a fine work as this one, noted for garnering
many positive reviews.


"Now TK must fine [=find] something wrong with my book to
justify the new dictates of his stern lord and master."


Another smear. Where has Ray Keene presented any real
evidence to back up this preposterous assertion? I would, for
example, like to see where TK has (carelessly) disagreed with
EW, then been given the "order" to stand down, and followed it
just as any mindless slave would.

On the contrary, it seems to me that what has happenned here
is that, like many others, Taylor Kingston found Winter's
arguments about Keene's work convincing, and now references
them as supporting evidence for his own opinions. Unfortunately,
this seems to affect even his review of one of Keene's best works.

This last smear of TK by Keene follows others, such as the
nitwitted idea that an OTB 1800 cannot see ...pxR, because he's
not a strong enough player. Nevermind that the 1800 relates to
competing OTB, while reviewing a chess book is done under
very different circumstances, such as skipping over the game
in question, reading only the intro. These mental lapses by
Keene remind us of the truism that his many works are of widely
varying quality.

Personally, I would find it far more interesting to read Keene's
(criticised) psychoanalysis of Nimzowitch than to replay all of the
master's old games (which I find dismal in comparison to many
other masters). Some of Nimzo's 80+ movers faintly remind me
of two total patzers lost in a chessic fog.


-- help bot