On Jan 16, 11:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 9:54 am, help bot wrote:



Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.

To paraphrase LP, there's no evidence that he didn't! ;-)

----

Taylor - the /biggest/ resentment of Winter is that he bitches on utterly
inconsequential trivium of Greats - even when he is wrong! Winter is
logically wrong - not factually wrong - and therefore specially stubborn in
correcting himself. ))

You have taken to defending his logical error in Winter's thought here by
rubbishing someone who points it out - - since after all, the decent thing
would have been for him to improve the statement, and accommodate his /own
objection/ by adding those two words, 'possibly apochryphal,' rather than
this vainglorious pedantry.

P Innes expects Mr. Winter to run around with a pen correcting by hand
every copy of Kasparov's book?!?

Just because the source is not written, does not mean it was not said, and
that does not mean that it didn't happen, and there is no reason it should
be 'expunged'.

What records do we have that the alleged Capablanca remark was spoken?
Who has reported the words being said?

There is not the slightest written proof in his own hand that Shakespeare
composed his Works.

No, but there's a sizable amount of evidence he did 'compose' the
Shakespeare canon.

Should that too be expunged? A basis for making
statements therefore simply needs to have a /qualification/ attached, rather
than destroying the materials as unprovenanced.

If Winter wants to write about /our/ social history in chess, then I do hope
that his is not the standard that is employed. In fact it rather diminishes
him, and thus disqualifies him from the /social/ duty of interacting with
others in a reasonable way on what is, after all, a socially owned product.
Instead he veres the other way and takes to copyrighting public property.

Simply indicating that the source was uncertain is sufficient. Since's
Winter's English is better than Kasparov's, then let him deploy his own wit,
rather than this endless carping on the supposed absense and deficiencies of
others.

Do /you/ understand the difference between expunging unprovenanced material
and simply qualifying it with a reservation? So much history and
anthropology resolves around these matters, including that what is written
can also be false - and just because Nennius said it, don't make it so.

Whereas what Caedmon said, we don't really know, since Bede thought the
Anglo Saxon too racy, so gave it to us in Latin.

I merely appeal to you to socialise all these histories out of warring camps
of champions - but especially to take a deeper look at the scope of what
they report, and even if it hits the center of the target?

Phil Innes