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

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?"

So Sam Sloan is right claiming that you are the only person who claims to
know E.Winter personally :-)


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.

No doubt E.Winter is over-pedantic in his pursuit for details what is his
main obstacle in finding the truth.

The devil hides himself in details.

Jerzy wrote:
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?"

So Sam Sloan is right claiming that you are the only person who claims to
know E.Winter personally :-)

Non sequitur, Jerzy. He told me by e-mail. That and letters have been
my only means of communication with him.

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

Jerzy wrote:
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?"

So Sam Sloan is right claiming that you are the only person who claims to
know E.Winter personally :-)

Non sequitur, Jerzy. He told me by e-mail. That and letters have been
my only means of communication with him.

Yes, that's right. Taylor Kingston did say that, and didn't indicate
anything else. I have also encountered him in e-mails, to Adorjan, for
example.

Phil Innes

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?"

So Sam Sloan is right claiming that you are the only person who claims
to
know E.Winter personally :-)

Non sequitur, Jerzy. He told me by e-mail. That and letters have been
my only means of communication with him.

Yes, that's right. Taylor Kingston did say that, and didn't indicate
anything else. I have also encountered him in e-mails, to Adorjan, for
example.

I`ve seen lately the classic film by Alfred Hitchcock North By Northwest.

I can feel the same suspense here. We are chasing an unseen entity whose
realms are far beyond our imperfect humane recognition :-)

Taylor Kingston wrote:


Yes, a great film, one of several about invisible and/or fictitious
men. Inspires me to pose a multiple-choice quiz:

Q: "Edward Winter" actually is:

You forgot one obvious choice! Come on, an Englishman in Switzerland -
this can only be

Professor Moriarty

Greetings,
Ralf