PI has sometimes claimed that he hails from a planet known as "Scot",
or perhaps "Celt". What I find amazing is that these Scots, or
Celtoids, can even comprehend our inferior culture well enough to
communicate with us at all. Standing 6'3" and sporting flame-red hair,
an average Celtoid speaks over 600 languages, though none of them
fluently. As an alien species, their brains are "wired" differently
from ours, so is it any wonder that we have trouble communicating? And
while the average human reputedly uses less than 1% of his brain, a
Celtoid uses anywhere between zero and 24%, depending on circumstances.

PI has sometimes claimed that he hails from a planet known as "Scot",
or perhaps "Celt". What I find amazing is that these Scots, or
Celtoids, can even comprehend our inferior culture well enough to
communicate with us at all. Standing 6'3" and sporting flame-red hair,
an average Celtoid speaks over 600 languages, though none of them
fluently. As an alien species, their brains are "wired" differently
from ours, so is it any wonder that we have trouble communicating? And
while the average human reputedly uses less than 1% of his brain, a
Celtoid uses anywhere between zero and 24%, depending on circumstances.

I think the /precise/ meaning of PI is getting lost in translation
from his native tongue, but I will try to answer -- more or less --
what I *think* he is asking.

No, EW's article does not do the purported issue, that is, the
stopping of the match, justice. EW focuses too narowly on what Keene
and Kasparov have written, while skirting the issue of what really
happenned with self-proclaimed agnosticism. EW finds weaknesses and
errors in the various accounts given by these two with regard to the
match, and revels in recounting them. EW is well-known as not being a
member of the objective set, with regard to Ray Keene; he has a long
history of attacking and nitpicking Keene and his allies.


I was once forbidden to play chess because I am so hopelessly ugly;
yet when one foggy Chessmas night arose, due to the extraordinary
brightness of my (albeit ugly) nose, I was chosen to head up a chess
team, which (it goes without saying) went on to victory, and ever since
I was regarded by the masses as a chessic hero! Did my critics
continue to obsess over my ugly nose? Of course. Wait -- maybe you
were talking about Kasparov? (embarassrd silence)
Ahem: yes, it is well known that Kasparov's true religion is
self-praise, and this his critics have held up against him time and
again. But I don't see how he was stopped from playing chess, unless
you mean what Campomanes did by stopping the match. Wlod has
maintained that GK had absolutely no real power to stop the match, and
so Winter's stuff about Keene and Kasparov is nonsense. Wlod claims
that GK was a hapless victim here, that the evil Karpov and his
sinister team are to blame. But he gives only personal opinions in
support of this theory.


PS: Dearth Vader had a long black cape and picked people up -- by
the throat -- with one hand while interrogating them. Does PI really
believe he can top this?

helpbot )
wrote (11 Mar 2006 22:44:59 -0800):

EW's article does not do the purported issue,
that is, the stopping of the match, justice. EW
focuses too narowly on what Keene and
Kasparov have written, ...

_
I do not think that Edward Winter was claiming to
have done justice to the issue of the stopping of
the match. If he had felt that he had done justice
to that issue there would have been no need for
him to call for "a reliable journalistic write-up of the
entire Termination Affair".
_
Again, it seems to me that Edward Winter was
trying to argue that justice had not yet been done.
For this purpose, it would, of course, be natural to
consider what had already been written by such
authors as Keene and Kasparov.

I like Wlod's postings in general, but he sometimes tosses in some
some junk, right along with the many good points he makes.

For example, opining that Edward Winter did not give Keene's writing
inordinate attention on the matter of the stopping of a match betweene
K & K. Now if the match had been between Kasparov and Keene, I would
have to agree; the space devoted by EW would seem to make sense, in
that case. But this match did not directly involve Keene, he is even
shown as sending messages from afar by EW, so his involvement is not so
great as many others, quite neglected by Winter. Nonetheless, Winter
deals with Keene's writings as if they were the prime source for hard
facts about this match, which is ridiculous. A close examination of
Kasparov's writings makes more sense, but even here Kasparov's muddy
record would seem to indicate that his work should be used as a last
resort in fact-finding missions. Unless ...EW wasn't really on a
fact-finding mission.

Other problems include quick and easy dismissals of Kasparov's lying
(substitute appropriate euphemism if desired), while at the same time
lampooning certain others for their lack of moral character -- this is
not consistent at all. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for
Kasparov.

One other recent gaffe was Wlod's claim regarding Karpov whereby he
was purportedly only bested once off the chessboard, by Kasparov when
he refused to sign a document which Karpov had just signed. C'mon!
Has Wlod "forgotten" how this scenario was instant-replayed between
Karpov and Fischer? Karpov signed a document agreeing to a match with
Fischer, whereupon Fischer insisted the word "professional" be inserted
into the contract, breaking the deal. Not to mention Campomanes, first
getting Karpov's signature, and then annihilating his two-point lead by
surprise! LOL


Some of Wlod's theories make sense, but they are mere speculation
without supporting evidence.

helpbot )
wrote (11 Mar 2006 23:45:19 -0800):

A close examination of Kasparov's writings makes
more sense [than a close examination of Keene's
writings], but even here Kasparov's muddy record
would seem to indicate that his work should be
used as a last resort in fact-finding missions.
Unless ...EW wasn't really on a fact-finding mission.


_
Again, it seems to me that Edward Winter's primary
"mission" was to argue that there was a need for "a
reliable journalistic write-up of the entire Termination
Affair". For the purpose of making such an argument,
it would, of course, be natural to consider what had
already been written by such authors as Keene and
Kasparov.

"help bot"

Really? I wonder why Baturinsky has tried to steal the credit by
getting others to quote *him* (when eveybody and his brother already
knew)?


No, official statements always are lagging behind unofficial ones



If *I* had been there in place of Karpov, it would have been over
(snaps fingers) like that! No nervous breakdowns, and no draws. A
clean score.

"Nomorechess, I think that you are a little bit weaker player than
Karpov
and, of course, the score would be clean in Kasparov`s favour ;-)"


That's precisely what I said -- a *clean score* and no nervous
breakdowns! Did you think I meant I would have beaten Garry Kasparov?
Anyhow, if I had, I would have gladly granted him a rematch under the
London conditions.

No, you pretended that you could win with Kasparov and it`s not possible.
You are too weak.

help bot wrote:

I still believe that EW was in no way attempting to discover the real
truth about the issue in question (i.e. the stopping of the match). In
order to do that, one simply *must* look further than the writings of
men such as Keene and Kasparov.

He is no detective, running around making investigations. He never
pretended doing such a thing. He just looked at the available
publications and statements.

In fact, I don't see any particular need to read what Keene wrote on
the matter;

Many people take the author of a lot of books and of a chess column in
the Times serious. It is not self-evident that you can simply discard
his writings.

Let me see ...there was a match arbiter, the
organisers, and approximately six million others who *might* come ahead
of Keene. Heck, let's consier what Fischer had to say. And Larry
Evans. And Karpov's seconds. And the guy who swept the floor.

Obviously nobody of them wrote books about this.

No, Winter is quite peculiarly fixated upon Ray Keene, which forces
me to evaluate EW as horribly inferior at "detective work" to, say,
Sherlock Holmes.

I think the critics here are fixated on Keene. About half the article of
Winter is about Kasparov's writings. So, is he also fixated on him?

Greetings,
Ralf

LB opined:

"I do not think that it would be quite right to characterize
Edward Winter's writings on this subject as purporting
to be an "attempt" "to discover the real truth". I think
it would be more accurate to say that Edward Winter
was trying to argue that there was still a need for the
real truth to be found. For this purpose, it would, of
course, be natural to consider what had already been
written by such authors as Keene and Kasparov."


My take is in partial agreement with LB: Winter in no way handled
this in a thorough-going manner, but settled for poking holes in
certain published accounts by certain writers.
However, his *choice* of writers reveals more about EW than it does
about "The Termination". Perhaps EW himself does not imply in the
article in question to have really examined the wider issue, but only
to have weeded out some chaff; but then we still have the issue of his
peculiar selection of chaffs to sift through, searching for
contradictions.
If I were a quote bot, I would point out that, after having found all
sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies (read: lies) in the
accounts of Keene, Kasparov, and Campomanes (among others), EW
nonetheless issues words like these:


Karpov -- "inadequate" and not "exonerated" [what, no greasy-hair
reproach?]

Kasparov -- "untruthful" and "self-contradictory" [go easy on this
particular liar]

and Keene?

"abject falsehoods" [outright lies]


The question remains: why the narrow focus upon Kasparov *and Keene*?
I can only offer that Kasparov's 8-0 victory over his opponent, GM
Keene, left but two witnesses: the contestants themselves. Karpov may
have been the official arbiter, but he was not allowed to observe the
games. (Campomanes only intervened to save RK from further beatings.)

Okay, Keene was *one of* the popular British writers on chess, but
certainly not the only one who knew there was a WC match going on, not
the only one to capitalise on it.


And were I merely a quote bot, I would note very carefully the
following comment by EW:

"A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
falsehoods."


"Above all"? A careless Freudian slip!

LB wrote:
---
Again, it seems to me that Edward Winter's primary
"mission" was to argue that there was a need for "a
reliable journalistic write-up of the entire Termination
Affair"."
---

And I would simply point out that the comment about a need for a
"reliable" journalistic write-up falls neatly into place with EW's
pattern of ridiculing the "unreliable" Raymond Keene.
There is no reason why Edward Winter could not do a "reliable"
write-up on the issue, if in fact he were the slightest bit interested
in it; however, what he seems to be much more interested in is
attacking Raymond Keene (and why not, he's an easy mark). What seems
strange to me is the often very narrow focus of EW's criticism; surely
there are plenty of others besides Keene who need to be nitpicked. It
lends the appearance of jealousy; jealousy I presume of Keenes great
commercial success in writing, due in part to his GM title I suppose,
as well as his focus on chess openings and Kasparov. By contrast EW,
who undoubtedly considers himself vastly superior as a writer, has
focused on chess history and nitpicking others, which doesn't pay
nearly as well.


After browsing Winter's article once again -- and in the process,
discovering that Louis Blair is right, EW makes no pretense to be ace
detective, Sherlock Holmes, intent on solving the case -- I clicked on
an archive link on that Web site, and a long list came up. Famous
chessplayers, many of them world champions, etc., etc., etc. But
wait -- here is a link to an old article by EW about -- wait for it --
Ray Keene and Eric Schiller! Naturally, I expected a rave review of
one of their many "flawless" works, but lo and behold:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html


The man simply *revels* in demolishing every tiny detail of every
itty-bitty slip, even a few which do not even exist. Winter lashes out
at the authors for giving the location of a chessgame as "USA", when in
fact it was New York. (Last time I checked, New York -- despite
centuries of plate tectonic shifting -- was still inside the USA).
Perhaps not giving the precise city is considered "substandard" or just
plain lazy.

Be that as it may, I found the article to be downright hilarious.
Keene (and here, Schiller too) makes an excellent target. I *like*
EW's writing. I just think he is sometimes lacking perspective,
focusing too narrowly on details. For example, part way through his
"book review" at the above link, I found myself wondering whether or
not Winter was ever going to even mention the *contents* of the book,
when he was through lambasting its authors. "It is only considerations
of space which prevent me from...."
From lambasting Keene (and his associates) endlessly, I expect. That
last quote was from his other article, but it seems to apply
universally.