Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

I am winning this debate hands down, if I must say
so myself. Not with bluster, but by dealing with each
issue as it arises.

_
I think it is worthwhile to take a close look at some
of this dealing.

_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

I mentioned the frequency of Taylor Kingston's reviews
of my books. I found two on the ChessCafe archive,
both reviewed by him. This looks like 100% to me.

_
Here, GM Keene, fails to deal with what he actually
originally wrote:
_
"Why, by the way, does [Taylor Kingston]
SO OFTEN seem to review my books."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Does GM Keene claim that "so often" is a fair way
to characterize a mere two reviews? If GM Keene
does choose to deal with this matter, he should
mention the words, "so often", that he formerly
chose to use.

_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

I continue to maintain that TK should have spotted
the blunder in Duras vs. Teichmann.

_
"Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor
Kingston decided to "concentrate" on
Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)?"
- Louis Blair (30 Apr 2006 19:28:59 -0700)
_
If not, why hasn't GM Keene apologized for his original
comments (reported by Phil Innes on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
11:50:08 GMT)?
_
As for what GM Keene "continue[s] to maintain",
this quote has been repeatedly mentioned:
_
"No one expects [Taylor Kingston] to go
through every single game in the book
when reviewing it." - Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
Also, it has been repeatedly noted that, if one
plays through only a selection of games in a book,
it can turn out that a blunder is in one of the games
that the reviewer did not play through.
_
In this note, GM Keene's method for "dealing" with
these points is to fail to mention them, and to
continue to chant "TK should have ...". My own
feeling is that that is not exactly a very impressive
debating style.
_
At one time, GM Keene tried to have us believe:
_
"Anyone who knows anything real about
chess would know that this Duras rook
sac has been busted for ages."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
However, he does not seem eager to repeat that
assertion, and, in any event, it would not justify
his Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT attempt to
cast doubt on the "chess strength" of Taylor
Kingston.

_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

... a class reviewer, having had that game swim
into his ken, would have spotted ...

_
GM Keene is reduced to indicating that Taylor
Kingston is not a "class reviewer". This seems
like quite a vague charge compared to all that
previous talk about a lack of chess strength
and the suggestion that Taylor Kingston does
not know anything real about chess.
_
If GM Keene does not feel he can defend his
previous attacks, why doesn't he apologize
for them instead of quietly substituting
watered down assertions?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I excoriated Steinitz's tournament record during
a certain period. I described it as abysmal. Well
it was during this periodbecause he didn't play
any tournaments at all. I have used the same
word, or one similar, to describe Bobby Fischer's
record as world champion because hd did not play
at all. I fail to see what's wrong with that.

_
Writing that someone had an abysmal record as
world champion is not the same as writing that
someone had an abysmal tournament record.
Larry Parr seems to fancy himself as an expert
on what "99 percent of chessplayers" would
conclude when reading an "unadorned assertion".
Does Larry Parr want to say something about
what they would conclude after reading an
assertion that Steinitz had an abysmal
tournament record over the years 1886-1894?

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (29 Apr 2006 06:52:31 -0700):
[GM Keene reported]:
...
Kasparov was "the first player in more than 75 years to
come from behind to win the world chess championship"
(The Times, 21 December 1987).
... comebacks occurred in about half of the title contests
of that period, starting with Alekhine-Capablanca 1927,
and including both Alekhine-Euwe matches, Botvinnik
-Bronstein 1951, Botvinnik-Smyslov 1954, Botvinnik
-Smyslov 1957, Petrosian-Botvinnik 1963, Petrosian
-Spassky 1969, and Fischer-Spassky 1972.
_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
It is ... important for obvious reasons that the
surrounding text [of the "from behind" statement]
be identified.

_
Will GM Keene be identifying the surrounding text
for his recently posted Edward Winter sentence
fragments?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I am criticised for writing that only in the late 18th
century were games recorded. Again a little context
would be helpful, but I still maintain that this is broadly
true.

_
Does GM Keene claim that it is broadly true that
"chess games were first recorded towards the end of
the eighteenth century"?
_
_
Perhaps now is a good time to review the state
of the discussion of GM Keene's ghost claim
evidence. Notice the watered down 25 Jan 2006
17:28:36 -0800 GM Keene assertion.
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"winter clearly impugned authorship in
chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
_
_
"A much more vague claim than the one
from eleven and a half hours earlier."
- Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?" - Louis
Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
_
After about two and a half months:
_
"Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
_
Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
_
I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
words mean? He is saying as evidently
as possible that BCO was ghosted and
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
_
_
"If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
(15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen Larry Parr say whether or not
he agrees that the Edward Winter 'sales ... merit'
quote can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco ... was ghosted'.
_
"I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE
AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
...
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned 'the exact role of
kasparov in the whole business--'
_
in an earlier communication-winter
refers to:
_
'my doubts about whether kasparov
had been sufficiently involved in bco to
merit one of the two author credits'
_
and
_
'batsfords exaggerated use of a name
is not limited to bco'"
- GM Keene quote reported by Phil Innes
(Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
_
_
"[1984 quotes] would not have been 'THE
ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES RE THE
AUTHORSHIP OF BCO'" - Louis Blair
(27 Apr 2006 23:03:06 -0700)
_
_
"Does GM Keene contend that these
quotes can be fairly described as a
'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted'?" - Louis Blair (27 Apr 2006
22:33:03 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen GM Keene answer that question.
For that matter, Larry Parr also does not seem to be
eager to say whether or not he thinks these latest
quotes can be fairly described as a "claim" "that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford chess openings
was ghosted".