Recently, we had attacks here on Taylor Kingston's review of Soltis'
books by Phil Innes and GM Ray Keene, OBE.

The attacks were silly and self-contradictory: first, Kingston was
accused of paying special attention to a specific game (Duras-Teichman
1906) and still missing a mistake in the analysis, no doubt because
Kingston is not of master strength. Then, when it turned out that
Kingston actually only mentioned the historical introduction to the
game in the context of criticizing Soltis' historical writing in the
book, they criticized Kingston for *NOT* paying attention to the game,
no doubt because Mr. Kingston knows he cannot really check analysis,
not being of master strength.

So first Kingston paid special attention to a certain game and then he
didn't pay enough attention to it. Well, which one is it? Doesn't
matter, as long as Kingston can be attacked unfairly.

That aside, The real point of this criticism is nothing that Kingston
wrote or didn't write. It is the "general principle" that one should
ignore book reviews by non-masters (or as as they are known today,
grandmasters...) I admit that there is something to it (the best
reviews, I think, are written today by the likes of John Nunn and
Richard Forster, who are *both* knowledgeable about chess history and
strong players; and a complete patzer will probably not be a good
reviewer.) However, it is simply not true that one cannot be a good
reviewer without being a master, or that masters are necessarily good
reviewers.

But above all, I wonder: does GM Keene, OBE, *REALLY* want us to judge
his books by what masters wrote about them? Does he want his friend and
co-author, Eric Schiller, to have HIS books judged by what masters
wrote about them?

I doubt it.

To give a short selection, Hans Ree claimed Keene cannot be bothered to
spend time in his writing on "trifles such as truth and style"; John
Donaldson called his books "potboilers" and accused him--truthfully--of
plagiarising his work; Paul Lamford accused him of writing "Keene
junk"; B. H. Wood (the editor of CHESS) said he can "claim anything on
the slightest evidence"; Korchnoi (not exactly a patzer) called him "a
man without moral scruples" when it turned out that he was busy--what
else?--writing a book about the Korchnoi-Karpov 1978 match when he was
supposed to be acting as Korchnoi's second. This, of course, doesn't
stop GM Keene, OBE, from bragging that "Grandmaster Ray Keene was
Korchnoi's chief second during this wild chess extravaganza and this
book tells the inside story" in the web page selling the same book on
Hardinge Simpole's web site.

As for his friend Eric Schiller, Tony Miles called one of his book
"utter crap" (this being the complete review) and Carsten Hansen called
another "the worst book I have ever seen". Hugh Myers called him an
"assassin of chess history" and, as it turned out, proved that Schiller
praised as "best" a book about Nimzowitsch's defense that does not even
exist, apparently in a bungled attempt to "get back" at Myers (who
published a book about same defense) for criticizing him.

If I were GM Keene, OBE, I would probably try to get *more* non-masters
to review chess books, not less. If one could get a a total patzer
ignorant of chess history--a member of Keene's and Schiller's target
audience, in other words--a post as a chess book reviewer (presumably
by offering the editor money), then Keene or Schiller's latest book
might have half a chance of being reviewed positively. As far as the
opinion of GMs about their work, however, it is uniformally that of
disgust and justified derision.

Skeptic wrote:
Recently, we had attacks here on Taylor Kingston's review of Soltis'
books by Phil Innes and GM Ray Keene, OBE.

The attacks were silly and self-contradictory: first, Kingston was
accused of paying special attention to a specific game (Duras-Teichman
1906) and still missing a mistake in the analysis, no doubt because
Kingston is not of master strength. Then, when it turned out that
Kingston actually only mentioned the historical introduction to the
game in the context of criticizing Soltis' historical writing in the
book, they criticized Kingston for *NOT* paying attention to the game,
no doubt because Mr. Kingston knows he cannot really check analysis,
not being of master strength.

Mr. Kingston could use a chess program such as Fritz to check analysis.
I agree with the rest of your point.

So first Kingston paid special attention to a certain game and then he
didn't pay enough attention to it. Well, which one is it? Doesn't
matter, as long as Kingston can be attacked unfairly.

That aside, The real point of this criticism is nothing that Kingston
wrote or didn't write. It is the "general principle" that one should
ignore book reviews by non-masters (or as as they are known today,
grandmasters...) I admit that there is something to it (the best
reviews, I think, are written today by the likes of John Nunn and
Richard Forster, who are *both* knowledgeable about chess history and
strong players; and a complete patzer will probably not be a good
reviewer.) However, it is simply not true that one cannot be a good
reviewer without being a master, or that masters are necessarily good
reviewers.

But above all, I wonder: does GM Keene, OBE, *REALLY* want us to judge
his books by what masters wrote about them? Does he want his friend and
co-author, Eric Schiller, to have HIS books judged by what masters
wrote about them?

I doubt it.

To give a short selection, Hans Ree claimed Keene cannot be bothered to
spend time in his writing on "trifles such as truth and style"; John
Donaldson called his books "potboilers" and accused him--truthfully--of
plagiarising his work; Paul Lamford accused him of writing "Keene
junk"; B. H. Wood (the editor of CHESS) said he can "claim anything on
the slightest evidence"; Korchnoi (not exactly a patzer) called him "a
man without moral scruples" when it turned out that he was busy--what
else?--writing a book about the Korchnoi-Karpov 1978 match when he was
supposed to be acting as Korchnoi's second. This, of course, doesn't
stop GM Keene, OBE, from bragging that "Grandmaster Ray Keene was
Korchnoi's chief second during this wild chess extravaganza and this
book tells the inside story" in the web page selling the same book on
Hardinge Simpole's web site.

As for his friend Eric Schiller, Tony Miles called one of his book
"utter crap" (this being the complete review) and Carsten Hansen called
another "the worst book I have ever seen". Hugh Myers called him an
"assassin of chess history" and, as it turned out, proved that Schiller
praised as "best" a book about Nimzowitsch's defense that does not even
exist, apparently in a bungled attempt to "get back" at Myers (who
published a book about same defense) for criticizing him.

If I were GM Keene, OBE, I would probably try to get *more* non-masters
to review chess books, not less. If one could get a a total patzer
ignorant of chess history--a member of Keene's and Schiller's target
audience, in other words--a post as a chess book reviewer (presumably
by offering the editor money), then Keene or Schiller's latest book
might have half a chance of being reviewed positively.

Mr. Innes comes to mind. How long till he raves about the latest Keene
potboiler at Chessville?

As far as the
opinion of GMs about their work, however, it is uniformally that of
disgust and justified derision.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recently, we had attacks here on Taylor Kingston's review of Soltis'
books by Phil Innes and GM Ray Keene, OBE.

The attacks were silly and self-contradictory: first, Kingston was
accused of paying special attention to a specific game (Duras-Teichman
1906) and still missing a mistake in the analysis, no doubt because
Kingston is not of master strength.

Not at all. He didn't even play through the game Mr. Pipel. You can make the
same commentary as a GM or without even knowing the moves.

Then, when it turned out that
Kingston actually only mentioned the historical introduction to the
game in the context of criticizing Soltis' historical writing in the
book,

You could make the same historical error if you didn't know the moves but
not if you were a chess writer - since the game is FAMOUS for the error.

That is the emphasis.

they criticized Kingston for *NOT* paying attention to the game,
no doubt because Mr. Kingston knows he cannot really check analysis,
not being of master strength.

So first Kingston paid special attention to a certain game and then he
didn't pay enough attention to it. Well, which one is it? Doesn't
matter, as long as Kingston can be attacked unfairly.

Yes it does matter - since Kingston himself seemed not to know either the
history nor be able to analyse the game. Maybe Winnie the Pooh should do
reviews?

But Kingston did know enough to criticise the analysis of the Author,
Soltis. Except that he chose to be vague about it, and suggested that more
material 'might' have been added.

As a chess player I would want to know why - did the games require more
analysis to be comprehensible? how much more? what should be left out of the
book in order to accommodate other material. But we don't know why he makes
his comments, since it is entirely unclear to me if he read over more than
half a dozen of the book's 100 games.

That aside, The real point of this criticism is nothing that Kingston
wrote or didn't write. It is the "general principle" that one should
ignore book reviews by non-masters

not true.

(or as as they are known today,
grandmasters...) I admit that there is something to it (the best
reviews, I think, are written today by the likes of John Nunn and
Richard Forster, who are *both* knowledgeable about chess history and
strong players; and a complete patzer will probably not be a good
reviewer.)

even they make errors. Nunn left out an entire variation of the French in
NCO, and as Keene notes, "finally john nunn the man who rewrote bobby
fischers analysis for fischer v bolbochan 1962 and left fischers king in
check is quoted as a paragon of chess accuracy"

However, it is simply not true that one cannot be a good
reviewer without being a master, or that masters are necessarily good
reviewers.

But above all, I wonder: does GM Keene, OBE, *REALLY* want us to judge
his books by what masters wrote about them? Does he want his friend and
co-author, Eric Schiller, to have HIS books judged by what masters
wrote about them?

I doubt it.

who doubts it? someone who cant write his name, and puts absolute and
general statements in the mouths of others, when a specific topic is
addressed !!

To give a short selection, Hans Ree claimed Keene cannot be bothered to
spend time in his writing on "trifles such as truth and style"; John
Donaldson called his books "potboilers" and accused him--truthfully--of
plagiarising his work; Paul Lamford accused him of writing "Keene
junk"; B. H. Wood (the editor of CHESS) said he can "claim anything on
the slightest evidence"; Korchnoi (not exactly a patzer) called him "a
man without moral scruples" when it turned out that he was busy--what
else?

what else indeed?

dutch gm hans ree has been quoted by mr pipel as being hostile to me -hans
, whom i regard as one of my oldest friends ,has gladly accepted my
invitation to hospitality and a gm tournament in london this coming august-i
thought mr pipel might like to know that!

an earlier poster quoted a negative review of one of my books by dr dave
regis--dr regis now works with me and has typeset several of my recent books
including my forthcoming book on tony miles

mr skeptic quotes viktor korchnoi-i answered korchnoi in depth in my book
massacre in merano still in print with hardinge simpole


--writing a book about the Korchnoi-Karpov 1978 match when he was
supposed to be acting as Korchnoi's second. This, of course, doesn't
stop GM Keene, OBE, from bragging that "Grandmaster Ray Keene was
Korchnoi's chief second during this wild chess extravaganza and this
book tells the inside story" in the web page selling the same book on
Hardinge Simpole's web site.

perhaps you will note 2 things - that in this instance we are discussing a
particular instance, and secondly, things are not quite so gloomy, pace
Keene's answers above, as anyone might gain the impression thereof by
reading your material alone

As for his friend Eric Schiller, Tony Miles called one of his book
"utter crap" (this being the complete review)

Tony had one of the worse mouths in chess. He also racially insulted the
entire Indian Chess Federation for similar 'loose talk' and I had to write
them a pious letter saying that no, I didn't think he was making rascist
remarks. While I didn't like what Short said of Tony, Tony said much worse
of him [these were all comptemporaries you know, after the top couple of
spots in the Brit pantheon.]

and Carsten Hansen called
another "the worst book I have ever seen". Hugh Myers called him an
"assassin of chess history" and, as it turned out, proved that Schiller
praised as "best" a book about Nimzowitsch's defense that does not even
exist, apparently in a bungled attempt to "get back" at Myers (who
published a book about same defense) for criticizing him.

****y, eh? I wonder quite how objective all these commentaries are? I could
write an even worse criticism - from Timman, who said that 90% of all
opening books were crap. Timman evidently disagreed with critical reviewers
who thought they have sufficient merit to recommend. But is this
/rhetorical/ level of interaction stanidng in place of what is actually
useful in a chess book?

You know, you read the book, you study the lines, you take in the patterns,
you understand the general idea, but not all of it - 'why not this?' you ask
yourself - but eventually you play the opening and THEN the worth of what
you have read it revealed.

What is lacking in much chess reviewing is thiss sence of needing to digest
the material, then WORK at figuring out its use to your chess game, by
actually persevering with it - maybe for YEARS?

The worth of slight analytical comments, and slighter reviews is less clear.

If I were GM Keene, OBE,

But you are not - you can't even write your name.

I would probably try to get *more* non-masters
to review chess books, not less. If one could get a a total patzer
ignorant of chess history--a member of Keene's and Schiller's target
audience, in other words--a post as a chess book reviewer (presumably
by offering the editor money), then Keene or Schiller's latest book
might have half a chance of being reviewed positively. As far as the
opinion of GMs about their work, however, it is uniformally that of
disgust and justified derision.

What is derisory is that anyone can pick up a book and immediately know as
much as its author - especially if they are a strong player. If the
publisher indicates that this is possible on their book covers - then strong
rebuke is necessary - and if non masters write of how to do it, but cannot
prove that they themselves ever did it - Hoohah!- I suggest similar
scepticism.

Many people resent chess books because the topic is difficult! The topic
demands work! And no instant-stardom is ahievable, and instead of looking to
thmesleves, they blame the author - by way of reacting to the publisher who
wrote in large red type on the cover: Not Losing with the Dunst! The
Creative Defenders Miracle Non-Attack.


Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
You could make the same historical error if you didn't know the moves but
not if you were a chess writer - since the game is FAMOUS for the error.

Hey, Phil -- will you tell us _honestly_ when *you* first became
aware of this FAMOUS error?

Yes it does matter - since Kingston himself seemed not to know either the
history. But Kingston did know enough to criticise the analysis of the Author,
Soltis. Except that he chose to be vague about it, and suggested that more
material 'might' have been added.

For the 4th time:

1). Mr. Kinstron didn't "criticize" Soltis' analysis, he simply
informed the readers of how detailed it is. He made clear that it is
legitimate for Soltis to have analyzed at such a length.

2). Mr. Kingston wasn't "vague" about the analysis. He said it is
between "light notes" and "in depth", which already gives some idea,
and then gave two specific examples. The reader gets a pretty good idea
how much analysis Soltis gave.

As a chess player I would want to know why - did the games require more
analysis to be comprehensible?

No, they don't, as Mr. Kingston makes clear.

But we don't know why he makes
his comments,

Yes, we do, since he gives two typical examples from the book to show
why he describes the analysis the way it is.

even they make errors. Nunn left out an entire variation of the French in
NCO, and as Keene notes, "finally john nunn the man who rewrote bobby
fischers analysis for fischer v bolbochan 1962 and left fischers king in
check is quoted as a paragon of chess accuracy"

Yes, he *IS* a paragon of chess accuracy, since--except for the "My 60
Memorable Games" debacle--Nunn has an excellent record of publishing
books with very deep and original analysis, books which are remarkably
free of errors, tired old cliches, the same Morphy-vs.-Duke-and-Count
(or the equivalent) games seen a thousand times, or copying from his
previous books with slight (if any) changes. In short, Nunn is the
anti-Keene.

It is no wonder that Keene, who is notorious for writing (or
cutting-and-pasting) books with numerous factual, analytical, and
typographical errors, is happy to see that other writers, like Nunn,
are not perfect. The vain hope, I presume, is that people will that
just because Nunn and Keene are both not perfect, then Nunn and Keene
are somehow *equivalent* as authors. But there's no comparison. Nunn's
chess analysis, historical knowledge, use of English, and general care
and effort in writing his books are so superior to Keene's comparing
them is simply silly.

who doubts it? someone who cant write his name,

Huh? Where did I actually mention my own name in this thread?

In any case, can you believe the Hutzpah of this guy? GM Keene--of all
people!--is writing to criticize somebody else's spelling. Which is the
equivalent of the fat lady in the circus telling somebody they must go
on a diet.

GM Keene, if you are so shocked by my typos (though I am not sure
where, exactly, I misspelled--or even *mentioned*--my own name in this
thread), just close your eyes and pretend you are reading one of your
own books. Then sit back, relax, and be ready to ignore them: they are
JUST TYPOS, and therefore don't mean anything about how much care and
effort I put into my writing, and ESPECIALLY they don't mean anything
at all about what quality of arguments and research one can expect from
me.

Right?

As you can see, Mr. Keene, spelling and grammar DOES (or is that 'do'?)
matter. Many typos and gammatical errors show the writer simply doesn't
care enough about the accuracy of what he writes to bother to check it.
They are signposts that say, "half-baked effort by an author who
doesn't care".

True, I do NOT care too much about usenet posts to bother re-checking
them for typos. But they're just usenet posts. You, on the other hand,
do not care enough to check books you publish, and expect the public to
buy and take seriously, for obvious grammar and spelling errors. Why
should the public take your books seriously, when it is clear that you
yourself do not?

general statements in the mouths of others,

I'm not PUTTING "statements in the mouths of others", I am QUOTING
others. They themselves have put those statements into their own
mouths. I did not make Korchnoi, or Donaldson, or any of the others,
say what they said. They did it all on their own.

dutch gm hans ree has been quoted by mr pipel as being hostile to me -

No, he is quoted as saying that your books are garbage. Personally, for
all I know, he might be your best friend, and simply think that your
propensity for writing "Keene junk" is an unfortunate flaw in the
character of an an otherwise wonderful man. Are you claiming that he
hadn't made that quote? Do you want its source?

It is true that Ree is probably not hostile to you personally--he
defended you on one issue against Winter's accusations, for example,
recently--but we are not TALKING about personal hostility here, only
about his view of your writings' quality.

Amazing as it might seem to you, Mr. Keene, a low, or even abyssimal,
opinion of your writing does *not* imply personal hostility toward you.
(For that matter the reverse is true as well: one does not have to
believe every tall tale about Alekhine to realize he was probably not a
very nice man, yet one must admit that, however imperfect the man, his
books were for the most part of excellent quality.) Ree, a well-known
chess columnist and reviewer, simply recognizes junk when he sees it,
whatever his feelings about the junk's author.

an earlier poster quoted a negative review of one of my books by dr dave
regis--dr regis now works with me and has typeset several of my recent books
including my forthcoming book on tony miles

Once more, so what? Does the fact that Dr. Regis now retracted his
review (at least, it's no longer online) means that your other critics
are necessarily wrong? You're trying to portray yourself as a victim of
unfair criticism. I'm not buying it. The mere fact that one of your
critics changed his mind hardly means the rest are wrong.

mr skeptic quotes viktor korchnoi-i answered korchnoi in depth in my book
massacre in merano still in print with hardinge simpole

Yes, you sure did. But just because you answered him in depth hardly
means he was wrong, or that your lenghty answer is more correct than
Korchnoi's diagnosis. Length does not equate with truth.

I should note here that this is hardly the only scandal you were
involved in. Neither once nor twice had you been accused by other
players, business partners, or chess officials of outrageous behavior.
You usually have an answer, you usually "reply in length" and explain
patiently why the latest incident was all just a big misunderstanding
and you really did nothing wrong, and that you have no earthly idea why
the people you tried so hard to help are suddenly mad with you.

Yet the fact remains that nobody in British chess has anything like
your scorched earth record of ex-friends and soured relationships.
"How could you?!" is a question that you have heard neither once nor
twice, Mr. Keene. I find it *very* hard to believe that this is all a
big misunderstanding, or a conspiracy, or that (just about) everybody
except poor innocent you is in the wrong.
Tony had one of the worse mouths in chess.

Yes, he did. But then again, so what? That hardly means his review of
Schiller's book is wrong. The book in question recieved similar
horrible reviews from just about *everybody* who reviewed it. Most
reviews of it can be summed up as "utter crap" in all but name. Miles
was simply impolite, or brave, enough to say what everybody else was
thinking about that book, though saying in *slightly* different (and a
larger number of) words.

and Carsten Hansen called
another "the worst book I have ever seen". Hugh Myers called him an
"assassin of chess history" and, as it turned out, proved that Schiller
praised as "best" a book about Nimzowitsch's defense that does not even
exist, apparently in a bungled attempt to "get back" at Myers (who
published a book about same defense) for criticizing him.

****y, eh? I wonder quite how objective all these commentaries are?

Well, let's see. Hansen's comments came at the end of a four-page
review of the said book, about the Frankenstein-Dracula variation in
the Vienna opening. He gives a *lot* of reasons to show the reader
*exactly* why this book is, indeed, the worst book he had seen.

As for Myers, quite apart from the fact that one can easily give a a
list as long as my arm of Schiller's numerous historical blunders,
Schiller himself proved Myers perfectly correct when he "remembered"
having read a book that NEVER ACTUALLY EXISTED and even "remembered"
that it was better than Myers' book on the same opening.

One could hardly be more of an "assassin of chess history" than (a)
inventing a non-existent book, (b) claiming to have read it, and (c)
telling us, "authoritively", that it's "the best" book on the subject.

In any case, if he isn't "objective", then there must be a wide-ranging
conspiracy indeed against Messrs. Keene and Schiller, since--by a
curious coincidence--virtually *every* chess master who *ever* bothered
to review their (post-1980s) books had (unojectively and unfairly, of
course) declared them to be junk.

Timman evidently disagreed with critical reviewers
who thought they have sufficient merit to recommend.

Sure, reviewers disagree. Some think a book is good and some think a
book is bad. But can you give me *any* serious player who *does*
recommend Mr. Keene's (post-1980s) or (and of) Mr. Schiller's books?
Virtually *every* review *ever* written about their books ranges from
"for a change, this book is not THAT bad" to "another horrible
Keene/Schiller potboiler.". Not a single serious reviewer--to my
knowledge--has anything good to say about their work as a whole.

You know, you read the book, you study the lines, you take in the patterns,
you understand the general idea, but not all of it - 'why not this?' you ask
yourself - but eventually you play the opening and THEN the worth of what
you have read it revealed.

And, as you will see if you checked Hansen's review, you will find out
that--among much else--one of the reasons that he said what he said
about Schiller's book is that it is completely useless for the reader,
ignoring numerous variations and giving numerous numerous worthless
ones.

This is, of course, quite typical of the Keene/Schiller opening books.
It is because of this that using their books in just they way you say
opening books should be used that is likely to do more harm than good,
as numerous reviewers noted.

But you are not - you can't even write your name.

Huh? I DIDN'T write my name in these posts AT ALL, correctly or
incorrectly spelled. Please tell me where I misspelled my name.

Quick question, come to think of it: what *is* my name? How *should* it
be spelled, in your opinion?

What is derisory is that anyone can pick up a book and immediately know as
much as its author - especially if they are a strong player. If the
publisher indicates that this is possible on their book covers - then strong
rebuke is necessary - and if non masters write of how to do it, but cannot
prove that they themselves ever did it - Hoohah!- I suggest similar
scepticism.

This paragraph isn't in English.

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

Chess One wrote:
You could make the same historical error if you didn't know the moves but
not if you were a chess writer - since the game is FAMOUS for the error.

Hey, Phil -- will you tell us _honestly_ when *you* first became
aware of this FAMOUS error?

You are getting a bit desperate with this diversion Mr. Kingston. But its
okay to say you never heard of it and never read through the games.

Really - its okay.

It doesn't depend on how many people are equally unaware of what you report.
The problem is that you do not acknowledge it AFTER you know better.

Since I have been through a similar scenario with you in respect of
interviewing Averbakh, on a more sober subject of ****ing over Soviet Jews,
where you said you were under-researched, but then suggested to this
newsgroup that you could not recall our correspondence, are you quite fit
for the job?

I mean, if you admitted to the group that you did 'recall', then after I
returned your e-mails to you - privately - without disclosing them, though
you called me a liar in public - you then neither retracted your statement,
offered an apology [not that I asked for one] nor corrected any record.

And now this guffaw [however human it is to err], it must be asked: why you
care for any objective truth at all?

Phil Innes

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

Chess One wrote:
You could make the same historical error if you didn't know the moves but
not if you were a chess writer - since the game is FAMOUS for the error.

Hey, Phil -- will you tell us _honestly_ when *you* first became
aware of this FAMOUS error?

It's not a diversion at all, Phil. I'm just testing your claim that
any chess writer should already have known this FAMOUS game. Or do you
no longer claim to be a chess writer?

You are getting a bit desperate with this diversion Mr. Kingston. But its
okay to say you never heard of it and never read through the games.

Really - its okay.

It doesn't depend on how many people are equally unaware of what you report.
The problem is that you do not acknowledge it AFTER you know better.

Since I have been through a similar scenario with you in respect of
interviewing Averbakh, on a more sober subject of ****ing over Soviet Jews,
where you said you were under-researched, but then suggested to this
newsgroup that you could not recall our correspondence, are you quite fit
for the job?

I mean, if you admitted to the group that you did 'recall', then after I
returned your e-mails to you - privately - without disclosing them, though
you called me a liar in public - you then neither retracted your statement,
offered an apology [not that I asked for one] nor corrected any record.

And now this guffaw [however human it is to err], it must be asked: why you
care for any objective truth at all?

So, Phil, despite your claim that this is a FAMOUS position, that any
chess writer should know, you are admitting that you did not know of
it?

"Skeptic" wrote in message
oups.com...

mr skeptic quotes viktor korchnoi-i answered korchnoi in depth in my book
massacre in merano still in print with hardinge simpole

Yes, you sure did. But just because you answered him in depth hardly
means he was wrong, or that your lenghty answer is more correct than
Korchnoi's diagnosis. Length does not equate with truth.

But attention to chess analysis is the point. Did it, or did it not address
Korchnoi's point in chesic terms? Why dodge the issue?


-------

But you are not - you can't even write your name.

Huh? I DIDN'T write my name in these posts AT ALL, correctly or
incorrectly spelled. Please tell me where I misspelled my name.

I wonder if this is the level of interest of this poster? I say he can't
write his name to his comments, and he doesn't understand it - he agrees,
but choses to divert as if what I wrote indicated a misspelling, rather than
cowardice.

Quick question, come to think of it: what *is* my name? How *should* it
be spelled, in your opinion?

?

What is derisory is that anyone can pick up a book and immediately know as
much as its author - especially if they are a strong player. If the
publisher indicates that this is possible on their book covers - then
strong
rebuke is necessary - and if non masters write of how to do it, but cannot
prove that they themselves ever did it - Hoohah!- I suggest similar
scepticism.

This paragraph isn't in English.

Yes it is. You are as unable to understand compound sentences in English as
complex variations in chess. Neither fact inhibits your criticism, and you
ignore mistakes made by your 'paragons'.

We are not looking for saints and sinners here, just a human understanding
of what it is to write a chess book compared to what it is to comment on
one.

Phil Innes

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

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

Chess One wrote:
You could make the same historical error if you didn't know the moves
but
not if you were a chess writer - since the game is FAMOUS for the
error.

Hey, Phil -- will you tell us _honestly_ when *you* first became
aware of this FAMOUS error?

It's not a diversion at all, Phil. I'm just testing your claim that
any chess writer should already have known this FAMOUS game. Or do you
no longer claim to be a chess writer?

I did not 'claim' anything. You made the claim on my behalf, you continue to
skip the main issue with diversion not addressing anything below what is
written here. You are saying in effect that your excuse is that everyone is
as dumb as you were.

Phil Innes

You are getting a bit desperate with this diversion Mr. Kingston. But its
okay to say you never heard of it and never read through the games.

Really - its okay.

It doesn't depend on how many people are equally unaware of what you
report.
The problem is that you do not acknowledge it AFTER you know better.

Since I have been through a similar scenario with you in respect of
interviewing Averbakh, on a more sober subject of ****ing over Soviet
Jews,
where you said you were under-researched, but then suggested to this
newsgroup that you could not recall our correspondence, are you quite fit
for the job?

I mean, if you admitted to the group that you did 'recall', then after I
returned your e-mails to you - privately - without disclosing them,
though
you called me a liar in public - you then neither retracted your
statement,
offered an apology [not that I asked for one] nor corrected any record.

And now this guffaw [however human it is to err], it must be asked: why
you
care for any objective truth at all?

So, Phil, despite your claim that this is a FAMOUS position, that any
chess writer should know, you are admitting that you did not know of
it?

I wonder if this is the level of interest of this poster? I say he can't
write his name to his comments, and he doesn't understand it - he agrees,
but choses to divert as if what I wrote indicated a misspelling, rather than
cowardice.

It never occured to me this is how it is meant for the obvious reason
that it is standard practice on usenet--for a variety of reasons--it is
extremely common to use monikers on the internet, so the accusation of
me "not writing my name" makes no sense.

Yes it is. You are as unable to understand compound sentences in English as
complex variations in chess.

I admit that when Mr. Keene writes the variations, or when you write
the compound sentence, I have extreme difficulty understanding it.
Strangely, though, this doesn't seem to occur nearly as often when
others are the authors of the chess or the English.