"Years later in 1988 Karpov's manager Victor Baturinsky
revealed that his man was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
He said he pleaded with Karpov over and over to continue, but in
vain....

Yes, it was a well-known statement. Here we can find the truth.

Of course it`s worth revealing all secrets of this very long match. For
example : what led to the nervous breakdown.

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

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
WINTER'S ANTI-KASPAROV BIAS

I shall be reviewing Campomanes' outrageous
termination of the match shortly and examining all
the things that Edward Winter left out.

Feel free, Larry. I'm sure Winter left out various things, and may
well be wrong about some, even many perhaps.

What do TK mean by, "I'm sure"? Does he mean that he doesn't know or he
does? Is the final word 'perhaps' an admission, or is it a supposition?

No, Phil, it's an adverb.

Taylor Kingston doesn't understand the question relates how he uses his
'adverb'.

He is not very honest either, this is what he snipped:-

----
Then they could also assess if what Winter proposed about the affair was
fair, by the same measure of your logic. This need to be tested:

TESTING, TESTING

Parenthetically: If a chess player is not allowed to play chess because of
his ethnicity or religion, do you personally think that it is fair to report
that the player was 'away from chess'? Now, of course he /was/ away from
chess, but not by his own choosing.

Perhaps if you could answer that question, then your sense of fair reporting
elsewhere could be measured by the same standard?
----

Of course, if Kingston wants to be a snipper on the level of a Brock,
Brennan or a Blair, in order to pervert any and all contextuality, that is
his demonstrated choice. But why anyone should behave like this, while
thinking that their public trashing of other people is of some value, is
unclear.

Phil Innes



That ain't my point.
My point is that Parr claimed the article was aimed at "justifying
Campo's" actions. It is not.

Larry Parr wrote (9 Mar 2006 18:37:46 -0800):

I shall be reviewing Campomanes' outrageous
termination of the match shortly and examining
all the things that Edward Winter left out.

_
And rigidly avoiding another subject?

_
"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'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'?
_
If they do, why doesn't either of them say so
explicitly? If they don't, why don't they admit
that they still have not produced a record of
such a claim?" - Louis Blair (28 Jan 2006
16:03:20 -0800)
_
Thirty days later:
_
"GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings
with Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I."
- Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800)
_
_
"Larry Parr fails to mention that he posted
this claim in a note with the heading
'EDWARD WINTER'S TRIPE (Continued)'.
Does Larry Parr claim that he had no
obligation to deal with the issue of
evidence? Did he make any attempt to
ask GM Keene for a quote of the supposed
Edward Winter claim? In the past, in
response to attacks by others, Larry Parr
has written things like:
_
'The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof' - Larry Parr (21 Sep 2005
20:39:02 -0700)
_
and:
_
'[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear.' - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think it was acceptable
for him to be a party to that sort of thing?"
- Louis Blair (27 Feb 2006 22:46:33 -0800)

YAWN

More predictable boilerplate from the Blairbot that has
nothing to do with the termination topic in this thread.

Edward Winter's work provides a great service
to the chess community and to the process of
recording the chess history. His speciality,
using a cliched metaphor, is not forests but
trees. While we need the "big picture", the foundation
of the big picture consists of singular pixels.
Edward Winter's goal is to remove the false
pixels and the noise, and to provide the true
pixels whenever possible or otherwise to
leave blank spots (rather than to fill them
up arbitrarily). I was impressed on several
occasions with Winter's dealing with some urban stories.

******
Wlod

GM Keene was one of memebrs the Brittish grandmaster
explosion, and he also had committed himself to be
a prolific writer, he made it to be his lucrative business.
So far so good. However he also chose to expand his
business potential by becoming something of a
personality himself, riding on the sensational happenings
in chess, related to the political situation in those post-Fischer
years.

In this he was ruthless, totally unethical.
He's one of those who bring shame to chess.

Be it as it was, he was highly visible and vocal
during the K-K-K matches, his pronouncements
were widely quoted.

*****

I don't see any obsession or preccupation
of Winter with Keene in the context of the
termination of the Karpov-Kasparov match.
Winter is addressing Kleene's statements
not more than proportionally.

*****

Wlod

Edwared Winter didn't have much to say
about A.Karpov in the context of the
termination of Karpov-kasparov match
because Karpov didn't provide much
material. Karpov is clever this way--
he does what he does and he does not
explain, he does not justifies himself,
he is just doing his thing. He doesn't
care much how it looks, he doesn't
care much about anybody's opinion,
he just cares about Karpov.

However, Edward Winter and Winter like
historians, who try to identify all available
material, should catch, as I did, one of
the statements by Karpov in which he
clearly says that he wanted/expected
a postponement of the match. after
which the match would resume with
his 5:3 advantage intact. From what I
remember, he expected that to the last
moment, and was quite shocked when
things went differently. Campo did quite
a number on Karpov and his camp.

(Without the mentioned Karpov's statement
the discussion about the termination must
\be incomplete. If I remember correctly,
Karpov gave an interview for "Chess Life",
in which he had also expressed his
frustration about the signing the agreement,
which he did sign, while Kasparov surprised
Karpov by refusing--I thing this was the only
time that Karpov was overplayed outside
the chess board).

*****

Wlod

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:

GM Keene was one of memebrs the Brittish grandmaster
explosion, [...]

Read:

GM Keene was one of the members
of the Brittish grandmaster explosion, [...]

Sorry for the typos,

Wlod

During the first Karpov-Kasparov match
Kasparov was still a youngster, he was
still politically unimportant. On the top
of it he was losing the match 4:0, than
5:0, or 5:1. He had no say until the
very end, when finally, at the most crucial
point, when match after his two fresh victories
was at 5:3 for Karpov, finally he could
make his preference heard and count.

Whatever Kasparov said AFTER the
match is of course very interesting
but not really too important.

Somehow Edward Winter does not seem
to understand these simple truths. He's
hunting contradictions in Kasparov's
statements like they could explain what
had happened before the match. It's
so funny.

I remember a game by young Kasparov
(I don't remember the tournament, nor the
opponent's name) in which it looked like
the middle game was perfectly even, except
that after it was over, Kasparov had pawn
advantage 3:2 on the remote wing, and was
obviously going to promote his pawn. His
opponent immediately resigned.

The game spoke by itself, there was no
need to expplain anything to the readers.

Outside the chessboard Kasparov is much less
rational. He cares a lot about the appearence
(in a contrast to Karpov who doesn't give a damn).
He wants to appear a winner of every battle and
of every stage of the battle and of everything--
philosophically and morally and intellectually and
sport wise. He wants us, the chess public,
to believe that he won the opening and the
middlegame and the ending and every maneuver,
or rather that he understood everything better than
anybody else, that he was in full control (at least
intellectually). Kasparov is a chess genius who
is full of himself.

As the result Kasparov contradicts himself
a lot. But who cares? It doesn't mean anything
since it's mostly psychology. Kasparov wants
to have the cake and eat it too, while being
a moral victim EITHER way! (indeed, he had a
chance to be World Champion earlier, thus
posting still a better record in the Guiness book
of the youngest champions; but then he could
lose the match too).

Thus on one hand the match was stopped to save
Karpov who was exhausted (I understand that
Karpov lost a lot of weight and was at the end in poor
shape/health). On the other hand Kasparov wants
also to claim the high level of his final victories.
To this end he has to say something like: oh, NO,
Karpov was not that exhausted, he still played very
strongly but I played extraordinarily well, I played
magnificantly.

Kasparov tries to tell us that Karpov was afraid
of the high level of chess presented by Kasparov
-- this certainly is an explanation which makes
Kasparov look and feel better (otherwise he is
reduced to a poorer than Karpov chess player,
who just has more physical stamina).

Then comes Edward Winter and tells
Kasparov: hey man, you can't have it both
ways--you may be a chess genius but the
standard boolean logic applies to you all the same.

And what's the conclusion? Not much.
All this tells us something about Kasparov
and Winter, while very little about the
termination of the match.

*****

Wlod

RC asks:
"What other sources for the facts than testimonies of the witnesses do
you expect in this case?"


The key word here, "facts", leads us far, far away from "testimonies"
by people like Keene and Kasparov. I might suggest first determining
precisely where those two are located, and then flying to the opposite
end of the Earth to begin one's search.

Seriously, where do you see a real connection between the objective
facts, and the writings of Keene or Kasparov? Is Kasparov not biased
in his own favor? Did he not have an ongoing "war" with Campomanes
which "might" affect his objectivity? Did he not personally attack
Karpov, viewing him as "the enemy" not merely from across the
chessboard? Can you trust him to be objective on the matter?

And is your question not a silly one, in view of Edward Winter's
compilation of evidence that both of them have written lies (i.e.
self-contradictory claptrap) regarding the matter?

I reiterate: when EW "inquires" about Karpov's health, he might look
to Karpov's doctors, and not to Raymond Keene or Peter Pan for that
matter. Having examined Keene's claptrap and finding it wanting, a
true detective would have simply continued his search for the facts --
if indeed, that is what he had set out to do.
There are sources which are not so biased and self-contradictory.
There were other accounts of what happenned. The very strange focus
upon Keene speaks for itself.