Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
we refer you to:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html

This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
"Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
describes. As a sample, I present its conclusion below:

"As matters stand, in 2005, is any consensus possible about the
Termination, despite all the claims and counter-claims? We believe that
few readers will disagree with the following summation:

* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
* Regardless of whether the decision taken by Campomanes was right
or wrong, or a mixture of both, he handled the affair incompetently,
both in Moscow and later;
* The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and
self-contradictory;
* Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself
from suspicion;
* A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
falsehoods."

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html


* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;

As I can see from the article E.Winter hasn`t discovered the truth either.

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html


* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;

As I can see from the article E.Winter hasn`t discovered the truth
either.

If the work of E. Winter is that of a fair minded critic, I should like a
definition of an obsessive.

Kingston cannot admit that Winter is a bit too fixed on certain things, no
matter how trivial, and that Winter cannot admit that he makes mistakes.

No one says Winter must be perfect, and it doesn't take anything away from
his real contributions to chess to admit that he makes mistakes, is somewhat
reluctant to admit them, and has quite evident partialities. Surely any real
consideration of Winter's contributions to chess should fairly mention these
things?

Winter certainly comments on the foibles of other people, real or imagined,
in his own writing, and let's allow the bloke a fair shake by admitting that
he too is entirely capable of making mistakes and obsessing, sometimes ad
infinitum, and sometimes without any objective basis for doing so.

I would like him more if he was not held up to be some saintly clerical
figure, rather than the fallible recorder he is.

Phil Innes

Jerzy wrote:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html

* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;

As I can see from the article E.Winter hasn`t discovered the truth either.

Quite so, Jerzy, at least not the whole truth. That is undoubtedly an
important reason he makes no attempt to assess the termination as right
or wrong.

Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
we refer you to:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html

This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
"Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
describes. As a sample, I present its conclusion below:

"As matters stand, in 2005, is any consensus possible about the
Termination, despite all the claims and counter-claims? We believe that
few readers will disagree with the following summation:

* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
* Regardless of whether the decision taken by Campomanes was right
or wrong, or a mixture of both, he handled the affair incompetently,
both in Moscow and later;
* The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and
self-contradictory;
* Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself
from suspicion;
* A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
falsehoods."

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html

* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;

As I can see from the article E.Winter hasn`t discovered the truth
either.

Quite so, Jerzy, at least not the whole truth. That is undoubtedly an
important reason he makes no attempt to assess the termination as right
or wrong.


No matter if the cancelletaion of the match was right or wrong.

The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the cancellation
of the match. As I can see E.Winter has sunk in details as usual ;-)

Jerzy wrote:
The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the cancellation
of the match.

I quite agree. If you find out, please tell us.
In any event, that's not my point here. The point I am making is that
Parr has misrepresented Winter's writings on this subject. That is why
I provide the link to Winter's article, so that readers can see it for
themselves.


Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
we refer you to:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html

This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
"Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
describes.

The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the
cancellation
of the match.

I quite agree. If you find out, please tell us.
In any event, that's not my point here. The point I am making is that
Parr has misrepresented Winter's writings on this subject. That is why
I provide the link to Winter's article, so that readers can see it for
themselves.

I can see from the aricle that E.Winter did not get things straight but made
them only more complicated.

No matter if the cancelletaion of the match was right or wrong.

The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the
cancellation
of the match.

Maybe. But very often the first step to do so is to exclude unreliable
sources. This Winter has done.

What sources can you exclude for sure ?


As I can see E.Winter has sunk in details as usual ;-)

In this case the details count. If he can give different quotes of
witnesses, where they contradict themselves, this is indeed a matter of
details. But they can not just be ignored. Otherwise some people take
this quote, otheres the other quote, whereas Winter has shown that as
they are contradictory neither should be trusted.

A suspicion has arisen that the article was written solely for purpose of
showing alleged cotradictions in Keene`s writings but not for purpose of
revealing the truth ;-)

This whole business of Parr-Winter, etc., smacks of nothing but child like
gossip. Most folks here don't give a rat's butt.


"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
we refer you to:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...rmination.html

This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
"Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
describes. As a sample, I present its conclusion below:

"As matters stand, in 2005, is any consensus possible about the
Termination, despite all the claims and counter-claims? We believe that
few readers will disagree with the following summation:

* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
* Regardless of whether the decision taken by Campomanes was right
or wrong, or a mixture of both, he handled the affair incompetently,
both in Moscow and later;
* The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and
self-contradictory;
* Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself
from suspicion;
* A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
falsehoods."

Does Winter have any notable background other than the large ad in
Chess Life for his book? Who paid for his ad, and how much was paid?

I won't even try to ask these questions on the USCF web site. I'll get
censored, and start an international chess war. Why make myself mad
when I know what will happen? You know who, the Chess NAZI (I won't say
his name anymore) will CENSOR ME.

We need an INTERNATIONAL CHESS CEASE FIRE. I just want to how these
people get to run these ad's in the USCF magazine - Chess Life. If one
time I could just get a decent deal from the USCF, like not being
banned as a Chess Tournament Direcotor.

It's these damn SNOBS. To be on the US Chess scene, you need to be a
damn SNOB. I am serious. The successful chess polticians, are for the
most part, SNOBS in America. I don't know about Eurpoe. In the West
Indies, the chess politicans are not generally snobs.

So, what does it take to be a SNOB? I want like a typical SNOB
want-to-be resume. Winter, as I see it, has great potential to be a
SNOB in the USCF.

I am not calling Winter a SNOB. I am just saying with that ad in Chess
Life, he becomes SNOB material, if you know what I mean.

Marcus Roberts