"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:35 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

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.

That's right! But Winter would expunge even a Shakespeare on this basis.

My apologies to the newsgroup for not catching the flaw in your
argument that allowed you to practice your "fact-kitting" once again.
Comparing the authenticity of the alleged Capablanca remark to the
documentation establishing authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a
highly flawed analogy. A better one is to compare the alleged Capa
remark to one of the legends of Shakespeare, such as the well-worn
story of Shakespeare holding horses outside a theater. Most
biographers mention the horse-holding without putting much stock in
its authenticity.

However, the horse-holding story is at least specific to Shakespeare.
The alleged Capa quotation is one that gets assigned to different
speakers as needed, which was Winter's point.

It was not. Should Winter actually have a point he should question the
anecdote as perhaps being apochyphal, not that it not not happen, which is
how we talk about matters of questionable attribution. To expunge commentary
because of questable attribution is a great nonsense!

People even laughed at the very idea of Troy until that enterprising German
fella dug it up.

Now this is a very simple idea in criticism - that if you have doubts, then
you record them to qualify your opinion - just as you have done with the
Bard's nags - since otherwise you erase even references to what is wrong or
uncertain. And this is most important! Since how should we understand
previous writers' orientations except we look at the reliability and
veracity of their own sourcing?

But Winter is /not/ qualifying his opinion. He cannot prove that this was
not Capa [since he can't prove a negative] so he needs to use normal means
to speak his opinion - the same as you have done, by indicating it "without
putting much stock in its authenticity."

Which is plain different than saying it is wrong or untrue!

Phil Innes


The initial post in this
thread, for instance, attributed the quotation to another speaker.

If we must suggest an improvement to Kasparov's prose, I second David
Richerby's contribution.