Hello,

it might be interesting to have a look at the current version of this
article. It underwent some heavy editing the last days, meanwhile nearly
completely emptied. But some anonymous author has provided now a very
well written version from scratch. From the original version just the
first sentence "Edward Winter is a noted journalist and author about
chess." is left. Starting as a completely crappy article it has become
some positive example of what can be found in Wikipedia. The author
seems to be quite fond of Winter, but he provides pro and contra and at
least it's somebody who knows how to write.

Greetings,
Ralf

Ralf Callenberg napisal(a):
Hello,

it might be interesting to have a look at the current version of this
article. It underwent some heavy editing the last days, meanwhile nearly
completely emptied. But some anonymous author has provided now a very
well written version from scratch. From the original version just the
first sentence "Edward Winter is a noted journalist and author about
chess." is left. Starting as a completely crappy article it has become
some positive example of what can be found in Wikipedia. The author
seems to be quite fond of Winter, but he provides pro and contra and at
least it's somebody who knows how to write.

I don`t think so.
The version by Sam Sloan was full of improtant details that are not
shown in this version.
Now Wiki readers do not know where and what E.Winter wrote and writes
and what specifically are pro and cons of his writings.

Jerzy wrote:


I don`t think so.
The version by Sam Sloan was full of improtant details that are not
shown in this version.
Now Wiki readers do not know where and what E.Winter wrote and writes
and what specifically are pro and cons of his writings.


In Sloan's version you could only read, whom he attacked, who was
against him, or not, and there were some speculations about persons who
might be the 'real' Winter. Only gossip. It is now, that you can
actually get an idea what he is writing about, which was only hinted at
in the first version.

I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are joking here.

Greetings,
Ralf

Ralf Callenberg napisal(a):


In Sloan's version you could only read, whom he attacked, who was
against him, or not, and there were some speculations about persons who
might be the 'real' Winter. Only gossip. It is now, that you can
actually get an idea what he is writing about, which was only hinted at
in the first version.

I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are joking here.

No, in Sloan`s version there were important details which are missing
in the present version.

Hypothesis about reality of E.Winter is important too. We do not know
much about him, he is an anonym to most of us. It`s not the case with
majority of real chess writers.

Jerzy wrote:
Ralf Callenberg napisal(a):

In Sloan's version you could only read, whom he attacked, who was
against him, or not, and there were some speculations about persons who
might be the 'real' Winter. Only gossip. It is now, that you can
actually get an idea what he is writing about, which was only hinted at
in the first version.

I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are joking here.

No, in Sloan`s version there were important details which are missing
in the present version.

I agree with Ralf that Jerzy must be joking here. Some of Sam's
"important details" from his original Wikipedia article:

"Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
Vermont." -- Making it sound like the FBI is investigating whether I am
Winter's "real" identity. In fact, the only "attention" thus "focused"
has been Sloan's, because he's the only person deluded enough to think
so.

"Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be." -- Since
Sam does not know Winter's age, how can he be sure? I would guess that
Winter could be anywhere from about 10 years younger to decades older
than I.

"Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to
be
from." - I think Sam must be the only person in the world who thinks
that Vermont (where I live now) and San Diego, California (where I was
born and lived until 1980) are part of England. And what "part of
England" is Winter supposedly from? Sloan does not know.

Hypothesis about reality of E.Winter is important too. We do not know
much about him, he is an anonym to most of us. It`s not the case with
majority of real chess writers.

I will admit to some curiousity myself, but if Winter wishes privacy,
it should be respected. As far as chess literature is concerned, what
matters is the quality of Winter's contribution. That is considerable.

Jerzy schrieb:

No, in Sloan`s version there were important details which are missing
in the present version.

For instance?

Hypothesis about reality of E.Winter is important too.

Not if it is just based on pure phantasy and wild speculations.

Look, Sam spends all his lines with telling about who is attacking
whom, who defends whom, who is saying something about somebody. But
what is this all about, he seems not be interested in. In the current
version we can read:

"In particular, two prolific authors--Raymond Keene and Eric
Schiller--have been severely criticized by Winter for what Winter
claims is an inordinate amount of historical and typographical mistakes
in their books."

Aha, here we see, what the dispute is about, what Sam simply calls
"attacks" without any more details. It is open to the reader to decide
now, whether it is due to Winter's demand of accuracy - or it is
already just pedantry.

The current article provides a much better impression about what Winter
appears like as writer and reviewer. So, we also learn that in his
chess notes Winter "tells us about the existence of an obscure game,
position, player, etc., that deserve to be better known, or proves that
a certain 'well-known fact' about a famous chess player, game, or
position is an invention." Whereas in the original version Sam doesn't
bother to give the reader the slightest idea, what Winter is actually
writing. He is just obessed with disputes around Winter, but not the
slightest interested in what Winter actually stands for.

Greetings,
Ralf

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hypothesis about reality of E.Winter is important too. We do not know
much about him, he is an anonym to most of us. It`s not the case with
majority of real chess writers.

I will admit to some curiousity myself, but if Winter wishes privacy,
it should be respected. As far as chess literature is concerned, what
matters is the quality of Winter's contribution. That is considerable.

How do you know that he wishes privacy ?
He writes about chess books, he criticizes their authors, he criticizes
chess players. How could such a person remain anonymous in the chess world
for so long ?

Jerzy wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hypothesis about reality of E.Winter is important too. We do not know
much about him, he is an anonym to most of us. It`s not the case with
majority of real chess writers.

I will admit to some curiousity myself, but if Winter wishes privacy,
it should be respected. As far as chess literature is concerned, what
matters is the quality of Winter's contribution. That is considerable.

How do you know that he wishes privacy ?

Well, for one thing, he told me. This matter is such common knowledge
that the question is like asking "How do you know that apples grow on
trees?"

He writes about chess books, he criticizes their authors, he criticizes
chess players. How could such a person remain anonymous in the chess world
for so long ?

Anonymous? He is not anonymous -- as far as I know, Edward G. Winter
is his real name. He simply is not forthcoming with personal details.
Compared to, say, Sam Sloan, this is a refreshing contrast.
BTW, criticism constitutes a relatively small part of Winter's
writings. Most of "Chess Notes" deals with interesting games and
positions, historical research, biography, interesting oddities,
memorable quotes, debunking of myths, answers to readers' questions,
etc. Those who characterize Winter as purely a pedantic nit-picker are
uninformed about his work, or misrepresenting it.

Ralf Callenberg wrote:

He is just obessed with disputes around Winter, but not the
slightest interested in what Winter actually stands for.

Greetings,
Ralf

What does Winter actually syand for?

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

What does Winter actually syand for?

For checking carefully the facts of what one publishes, as a contrast to
people who carelessly distribute false claims and lies and don't even
bother commenting when they are openly proven to have talked nonsense.
Otherwise, go and read the article.

Greetings,
Ralf