Louis Blair wrote:
Larry Parr reported (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
that GM Keene wrote:
Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ...

I did not see anything in the 1984 CHESS material faxed by GM Keene
that breaks any new ground on this issue, beyond what was already
discussed on this forum some time ago. Winter basically gives a summary
of what he had already published in Chess Notes, which has already been
quoted and discussed here, IIRC. I personally do not construe Winter's
comments as a charge of "ghost-writing" as it is usually understood.
I will be happy to reproduce Winter's comments re BCO in full, but
frankly I am too tired right now. It's been one of those "Thank you,
Lord" sort of spring days here in Vermont, beautiful beyond my power to
describe. I've spent most of it working in the garden, and I have no
interest in or energy for chess-related controversy for the moment.

I wrote (25 Jan 2006 10:04:33 -0800):
Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone else back
this up with a quote from a verifiable source?
_
Larry Parr reported (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
that GM Keene wrote:
winter clearly impugned authorship in chess notes
_
I wrote (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800):
A much more vague claim
_
Phil Innes reported (Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES
RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
_
letter from ed winter signed "edward winter geneva"
_
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned "the exact role of kasparov in the
whole business--"
_
in an earlier communication-winter refers to:
_
"my doubts about whether kasparov had been
sufficiently involved in bco to merit one of the
two author credits"
_
and
_
"batsfords exaggerated use of a name is not
limited to bco"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 23:03:06 -0700):
[1984 quotes] would not have been "THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 22:33:03 -0700):
Does GM Keene contend that these quotes can
be fairly described as a "claim" "that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Sun, 07 May 2006 20:11:27 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
i personally believe [material sent to Taylor Kingston]
to amount to an allegation by winter that kasparovs
name was put on bco for show not substance-ie his
material was ghosted. others may disagree but i think
the intention behind the words is evident.

_
Is it fair for GM Keene to present his personal belief as
if it were unquestioned fact when he is aware that "others
may disagree"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Sun, 07 May 2006 20:11:27 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
i would like to add, and i am sure TK wd confirm this,
that re bco winter in the same articles also referred to
_
1) his doubts --re kasparovs involvement in bco

_
Where is there a reference to a doubt about whether or
not Kasparov wrote his contribution?

_
Phil Innes reported (Sun, 07 May 2006 20:11:27 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
re bco winter in the same articles also referred to
...
2) his suspicions confirmed --again re above

_
Where is there a reference to a suspicion that
Kasparov's contribution to bco was ghosted?
Where is there a reference to such a suspicion
being confirmed?

_
Phil Innes reported (Sun, 07 May 2006 20:11:27 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
re bco winter in the same articles also referred to
...
3) batsfords exaggerated use of a name-referring once
again to kasparov and bco

_
Is ghosting-Kasparov's-contribution the only possibility
that could be described as exaggerated use by Batsford
of Kasparov's name?

_
Phil Innes reported (Sun, 07 May 2006 20:11:27 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
subsequent events of course proved beyond all doubt
that kasparovs contribution to bco was genuine and
extensive.

_
What "subsequent events"? Was the auction of
"kasparov's handwritten contribution" before or after
these 1984 comments of Edward Winter?

Mr. Blair, I fear this may be a parting message - it seemed up to me to post
it here or not, so I decided to do so, but with the caveat that there may be
no direct replies. Should you wish to write further to Mr. Keene, perhaps do
e-mail?

4/7/06 //Phil Innes

------------------------------


Larry Parr reported (6 May 2006 17:33:25 -0700)


that GM Keene wrote:
I also explain why the tournament records of Steinitz
and Botvinnik are abysmal because -- and this is
stated very clearly -- they were both very active in
match play instead!


_
Is GM Keene willing to reproduce this clearly stated
explanation?


yes of course i am!-i have had a very good experience with taylor kingston
and the winter papers which i faxed to him. if he wd also be prepared to
bear witness for the remaining doubters , then i will also gladly fax
him the relevant pages from my book moscow challenge which contains the
assessment of the tournament records of both steinitz and botvinnik.i
will -however-only do this with taylor kingstons express permission since i
dont want to clog up his fax machine with unwanted paperwork .


Larry Parr reported (7 May 2006 05:47:55 -0700)


that GM Keene wrote:
Help Bot claims that a certain math professor, one
of the ratpackers, has me "tagged and bagged,"
which I find confusing. If it refers to my use of
"abysmal," then it is clearly wrong. If, however, it
refers to something else which has hitherto eluded
me, please point it out so that I can address that
too as part of my systematic demolition of ratpacker
charges.


_
I can not write for helpbot, but here are some items
to which he might have been referring:
_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)




that GM Keene wrote:
I mentioned the frequency of Taylor Kingston's reviews
of my books. I found two on the ChessCafe archive,
both reviewed by him. This looks like 100% to me.


_
Here, GM Keene, fails to deal with what he actually
originally wrote:


_
"Why, by the way, does [Taylor Kingston]
SO OFTEN seem to review my books."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Does GM Keene claim that "so often" is a fair way
to characterize a mere two reviews?
_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)

two out of two on one particular site seemed like often to me. i dont see
i can add much to this point-it tends to fail the so what factor!


that GM Keene wrote:
I continue to maintain that TK should have spotted
the blunder in Duras vs. Teichmann.


_
"Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor
Kingston decided to "concentrate" on
Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)?"
- Louis Blair (30 Apr 2006 19:28:59 -0700)
_
If not, why hasn't GM Keene apologized for his original
comments (reported by Phil Innes on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
11:50:08 GMT)?
_
As for what GM Keene "[continues] to maintain",
this quote has been repeatedly mentioned:
_
"No one expects [Taylor Kingston] to go
through every single game in the book
when reviewing it." - Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
Also, it has been repeatedly noted that, if one
plays through only a selection of games in a book,
it can turn out that a blunder is in one of the games
that the reviewer did not play through.
_
Chanting "TK should have ..." is not exactly a very
impressive debating style.
_
At one time, GM Keene tried to have us believe:
_
"Anyone who knows anything real about
chess would know that this Duras rook
sac has been busted for ages."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
However, he does not seem eager to continue to
maintain that assertion, and, in any event, it would
not justify his Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT
attempt to cast doubt on the "chess strength" of
Taylor Kingston.
_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)




that GM Keene wrote:
... a class reviewer, having had that game swim
into his ken, would have spotted ...


_
GM Keene is reduced to indicating that Taylor
Kingston is not a "class reviewer". This seems
like quite a vague charge compared to all that
previous talk about a lack of chess strength
and the suggestion that Taylor Kingston does
not know anything real about chess.
_
If GM Keene does not feel he can defend his
previous attacks, why doesn't he apologize
for them instead of quietly substituting
watered down assertions?
_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)

first of all let me say that with all due respect to igm soltis, whom i
find a thought provoking writer, that i was shocked to see duras-teichmann
in his selection of best games at all. the sacrifice of the rook on f5 has
been known as unsound for around a century and soltis quotes at least one
book in his own bibliography which unequivocally indicates the refutation.
when i am considering a book for review, and i tend only to review ones i
like, or at worst consider a worthy effort, i spend around five minutes
speed reading for a general impression.if the book survives this process
then i may review it in the times, the spectator or the sunday times. during
my speed read of soltis 100 best games i quickly spotted the inclusion of
this unsound game.

i am primarily seeking to prove in this august forum that allegations
concerning errors in my books and articles are false and in some cases
winter fuelled propaganda- given that-- i think it fair to say that taylor
kingstons review would have been improved had he pointed out the unsoundness
of the rook sac in a game he was already mentioning --if in passing.i think
the debate here has taken a very positive turn, a tone of civility , balance
and both helpful and honest comment has characterised recent posts by both
help bot and taylor kingston, not to mention igm levitt, which i very much
appreciate. hence, i wd prefer to avoid inflaming feelings by scoring
debating points--in particular alleged errors, formerly dumped at my
doorstep, have been successfully and systematically cleared up and
acknowledged as cleared up!


that GM Keene wrote:
I am criticised for writing that only in the late 18th
century were games recorded. Again a little context
would be helpful, but I still maintain that this is broadly
true.


_
Does GM Keene claim that it is broadly true that
"chess games were first recorded towards the end of
the eighteenth century"?
_
_
yes i do and the oxford companion supports me in this-if anything placing
the formal recording of names , dates and players of games for publication
even slightly later.there may be isolated cases before this time-see the
oxford encyclopaedia of chess games-but the cases were rare-on this topic
the two main scholarly resources are both on my side!



Taylor Kingston wrote (7 May 2006 07:14:13 -0700):


... I have read the materials GM Keene faxed to me.
... There was no charge of ghost-writing ...


_
I have repeatedly posted the question:
_
"Does GM Keene contend that these
quotes can be fairly described as a
'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted'?" - Louis Blair (27 Apr 2006
22:33:03 -0700)
_
If GM Keene really wants to "address"
"ratpacker charges", he should answer
this question. He should also acknowledge
that the 1984 quotes were not "THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE AUTHORSHIP
OF BCO".
_
Perhaps now is a good time to review the state
of the discussion of GM Keene's ghost claim
evidence. Notice the watered down 25 Jan 2006
17:28:36 -0800 GM Keene assertion.
_
"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 clearly impugned authorship in
chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
_
_
"A much more vague claim than the one
from eleven and a half hours earlier."
- Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -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'?" - Louis
Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
_
After about two and a half months:
_
"Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
_
Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
_
I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
words mean? He is saying as evidently
as possible that BCO was ghosted and
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
_
_
"If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
(15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen Larry Parr say whether or not
he agrees that the Edward Winter 'sales ... merit'
quote can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco ... was ghosted'.
_
"I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE
AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
....
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned 'the exact role of
kasparov in the whole business--'
_
in an earlier communication-winter
refers to:
_
'my doubts about whether kasparov
had been sufficiently involved in bco to
merit one of the two author credits'
_
and
_
'batsfords exaggerated use of a name
is not limited to bco'"
- GM Keene quote reported by Phil Innes
(Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
_
_
"[1984 quotes] would not have been 'THE
ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES RE THE
AUTHORSHIP OF BCO'" - Louis Blair
(27 Apr 2006 23:03:06 -0700)
_
_
"Does GM Keene contend that these
quotes can be fairly described as a
'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted'?" - Louis Blair (27 Apr 2006
22:33:03 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen GM Keene answer that question.
For that matter, Larry Parr also does not seem to be
eager to say whether or not he thinks these latest
quotes can be fairly described as a "claim" "that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford chess openings
was ghosted".

as taylor kingston has generously verified these are certainly original
winter quotes from his own hand- indeed, is there some strange semantic
construction whereby directly attributable quotes might not be considered
original? i faxed them through to tk to verify this fact which he has done
publicly and honourably on this forum. to recap -in these papers:

1 winter called my nimzowitsch book splendid
2 winter praised bco
3 winter 3 times impugned kasparovs authorship of bco-he may have been
careful with his wording -in order to avoid charges of libel -but the
cumulative effect of doubting kasparovs authorship amounts in my view to a
charge of ghosting-which-thankfully has subsequently been totally
disproved.it is of course vital for a publisher who has netted a star author
to strongly disprove any such allegation!

the tone of the public debate here has elevated considerably with the
interesting intervention of igm levitt,as well as the kind assistance of
helpbot and taylor kingston-and i hope i have responded in the same way.
might i now suggest to mr blair-whose research i have favourably
animadverted upon in my own books in the past- that he could also contribute
to such an elevation by accepting that the above points have been
answered-not repeating them endlessly or looking for interesting semantic
interpretations of my writing. why not move on from areas which i have dealt
with and try something more illuminating or exciting-for example i now
believe that de labourdonnais is the first player who might legitimately
have called himself world champion. i am sure mr blair and his research
might have something penetrating and illuminating to add to that
proposition which would be of far more interest to the audience of this
forum rather than flogging a number of horses which appear to be exhibiting
fewer vital signs than monty pythons parrot..

ray keene igm obe

Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I mentioned the frequency of Taylor Kingston's reviews
of my books. I found two on the ChessCafe archive,
both reviewed by him. This looks like 100% to me.
_
I wrote (2 May 2006 15:31:31 -0700):
Here, GM Keene, fails to deal with what he actually
originally wrote:
_
"Why, by the way, does [Taylor Kingston]
SO OFTEN seem to review my books."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Does GM Keene claim that "so often" is a fair way
to characterize a mere two reviews?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

two out of two on one particular site seemed like often
to me. i dont see i can add much to this point-it tends
to fail the so what factor!

_
GM Keene could add an apology for a misleading statement.
Still, it must be acknowledged that GM Keene has now put
his explanation in the vicinity of the quote that he is explaining.
_
_
I wrote (2 May 2006 15:31:31 -0700):
Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor Kingston decided
to "concentrate" on Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)?
_
If not, why hasn't GM Keene apologized for his original
comments (reported by Phil Innes on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
11:50:08 GMT)?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

... [taylor kingston] ... was ... mentioning [Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906)] --if in passing. ...

_
I am glad that GM Keene is now careful with his language
on the matter, but this does not change the fact of his
previous reference to a decision to "concentrate" on the
game - a reference that GM Keene made in a note
commenting on a lack of chess strength.
_
If GM Keene does not feel that he can defend what he
previously wrote, why doesn't he apologize?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

the sacrifice of the rook on f5 has been known as unsound
for around a century and soltis quotes at least one book in
his own bibliography which unequivocally indicates the
refutation. ... during my speed read of soltis 100 best
games i quickly spotted the inclusion of this unsound game.

_
Does GM Keene claim that "anyone who knows anything
real about chess" would know that this Duras rook sac has
been busted for ages? If not, wouldn't a retraction and
apology be appropriate?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

i think it fair to say that taylor kingstons review would
have been improved had he pointed out the unsoundness
of the rook sac

_
Unfortunately, GM Keene chose to say something
somewhat different in his comments reported on
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT and on 26 Apr 2006
23:23:33 -0700 (by Phil Innes and Larry Parr,
respectively).
_
_
I wrote (30 Apr 2006 19:28:59 -0700):
Does GM Keene claim that it is broadly true that
"chess games were first recorded towards the end
of the eighteenth century"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

yes i do and the oxford companion supports me in
this-if anything placing the formal recording of names,
dates and players of games for publication even slightly
later.

_
Is the time of the establishment of "the custom of recording
games" the same as the time when "chess games were first
recorded"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

there may be isolated cases before this time-see the oxford
encyclopaedia of chess games-but the cases were rare-on
this topic the two main scholarly resources are both on my
side!

_
Why should "rare" cases not count? Rare or not, if the
Oxford Encyclopaedia indicates that games were recorded
before the time "towards the end of the eighteenth century",
then it is NOT indicating that "chess games were first
recorded towards the end of the eighteenth century".
_
_
Larry Parr reported (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
that GM Keene wrote:
Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ...
_
I wrote (25 Jan 2006 10:04:33 -0800):
Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone else back
this up with a quote from a verifiable source?
_
Phil Innes reported (Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES
RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
_
letter from ed winter signed "edward winter geneva"
_
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned "the exact role of kasparov in the
whole business--"
_
in an earlier communication-winter refers to:
_
"my doubts about whether kasparov had been
sufficiently involved in bco to merit one of the
two author credits"
_
and
_
"batsfords exaggerated use of a name is not
limited to bco"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 23:03:06 -0700):
[1984 quotes] would not have been "THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 22:33:03 -0700):
Does GM Keene contend that these quotes can
be fairly described as a "claim" "that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

is there some strange semantic construction whereby
directly attributable quotes might not be considered
original?

_
If there exist pre-1984 Edward Winter quotes "re the
authorship of BCO", then 1984 quotes would not be
"the original Edward Winter quotes re the authorship
of BCO".

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

winter 3 times impugned kasparovs authorship of bco-

_
As I have noted before, this is a much more vague claim
and NOT what we were told by GM Keene/Larry Parr on
25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

[Winter] MAY have been careful with his wording -in
order to avoid charges of libel
(Emphasis added.)

_
On 25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800, we did not see a
statement that Edward Winter "may" have claimed
that Kasparov's contribution to BCO was ghosted.
We were told that the claim WAS made. There
was nothing to indicate that GM Keene was
presenting a theory about what Edward Winter
"may" have been thinking, but not writing. Is it fair
for GM Keene to present his personal belief as
if it were unquestioned fact?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

-but the cumulative effect of doubting kasparovs authorship
amounts in my view to a charge of ghosting

_
Where is there a quote of Edward Winter doubting
the authorship of "Kasparov's contribution to BCO"?
All I see is discussion about the extent of that
contribution.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

a charge of ghosting-which-thankfully has subsequently
been totally disproved.

_
What "subsequent" event is GM Keene referring to? Was
the auction of "kasparov's handwritten contribution" before
or after these 1984 comments of Edward Winter?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

the tone of the public debate here has elevated considerably
... might i now suggest to mr blair-whose research i have
favourably animadverted upon in my own books in the
past- that he could also contribute to such an elevation
by accepting that the above points have been answered-

_
As I have tried to indicate above, I feel that many points
remain to be answered.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

might i now suggest to mr blair ... that he could also
contribute to such an elevation by ... not repeating
[the above points] endlessly or looking for interesting
semantic interpretations of my writing.

_
GM Keene has, from time to time, chosen to bring
up past controversies. I do not see why I should be
obliged to refrain from such an activity. I am not looking
for interesting semantic interpretations of GM Keene's
writing.
_
One more thought: If GM Keene sincerely seeks an
elevated tone of public debate, he might consider
saying something to Larry Parr on the subject.

RAY KEENE IN THE BAG, with a TOE-TAG

Apparently, Ray Keene is "unclear" as to what is meant by the phrase
"tagged and bagged". I first heard this used by another chess player,
who was winning a blitz game as I vaguely recall. His comment in full
was "Rack 'em; stack 'em; tag 'em and bag 'em!" Sounds a bit like a
reference to billiards -- except for the stack 'em part.

The point is that both Larry Parr and Ray Keene have been nailed to
the wall on certain issues by the Nutty Professor.

Even if we were to erase the one regarding Keene's use of the term
abysmal, and even if we were to strike any issues relating *directly*
to Keene's highly praised books, there remain other issues where Louis
Blair has "tagged and bagged" him.

Surely I do not need to provide examples, as that is done -- over and
over -- by the Nutty Professor himself. Even so, I can easily provide
this one offhand: RK lied about Taylor Kingston's review of one of his
books, infering that TK was not strong enough to spot pxN (very deep!),
and that a certain chess game is so well known that even a duffer book
reviewer ought not to have failed to point out the flaw in -- wait for
it -- GM Andy Soltis' work! Nevermind the fact that a GM, Soltis,
missed this himself. And nevermind that this particular game is not
really all that famous. And nevermind that this was a lowly ad hominem
style attack on the messenger, Taylor Kingston, who commented on the
intro to that game -- not the moves themselves.
Tagged and bagged, Mr. Keene; you have only yourself to blame here.


IMO, a *valid* criticism of TK's review is that after reading it, I
still have no idea whether I should buy the book by Ray Keene on
Nimzowitch, or some other book on Nimzo by some other author, which may
be even better. TK goes over the book in question, chapter by chapter,
but he does not really compare it to the competition, except perhaps a
few references to Reinfeld's old book. Perhaps this is because there
is no such competition, but it's not clear. FWIW, I already have My
System and Praxis, so I don't exactly need ten more books about
Nimzowitch.

-- help bot

Nick posted:

"By the way, John Keats made a factual error in describing
Cortez rather than Balboa as the Spanish conquistador who
'discovered' the Pacific Ocean (or 'el mar del sul' as Balboa
called it), yet Keats's poem can still be appreciated."


So, the Spanish take (by the sword, presumably) credit for
"discovering" the largest ocean on Earth? Right. When Marco Polo
(another European) first saw the vast seas off the coast of China, he
said to himself, "Self, that is one *reely big*, salty pond! But
everyone knows there is only one true ocean, the Atlantic."

Of course, it goes without saying that the Chinese, Japanese, native
Australians, Native Americans, Africans and Pacific Islanders'
knowledge of this ocean doesn't count ('cause they weren't Europeans,
like "us").

Not long ago, I "learned" (much to my surprise) here that Norwegians
and Icelanders knew nothing of America's existence, until another
Spanish/Portugese/Italian fellow came along and showed it to them!
It's fairly obvious which groups were doing the writing of our world
history.

-- help bot

As promised, I now present the portions of letters, originally
published in the magazine CHESS, from Raymond Keene and Edward Winter,
that pertain to Batsford Chess Openings (BCO). In the 10/1984 issue,
Keene wrote:

"Mr. Winter doubts the role of Kasparov in Batsford Chess Openings.
There are two cast-iron remedies: he can either contact Dutch IM Gert
Ligterink, who was present in my room in the Moscow Sport Hotel during
the 1982 Interzonal, when Kasparov brought in his contribution. Or he
can ask any of those invited (Harry Golombek, Bill Hartston, David
Spanier, Peter Shaw) to the Batsford auction of the original BCO
typescript which raised £300 for the Friends of Chess. All invitees
were welcome to inspect the original before we packed it off to the
auction winner in Singapore.
"On one matter, though, Mr. Winter is owed an apology. He also
donated £50 to the F of C to obtain a photocopy of Kasparov's work.
Unfortunately, it was sent to Singapore before this was done. If he can
wait till I next go to Singapore, fair enough, if not - I'm sure
the F of C will be glad to return his donation."

Winter's reply appeared in the 12/1984 CHESS:

"I also thank Mr. Keene for the belated apology for his inability
to provide the Kasparov photocopies which I bought from him, and at his
suggestion, well over a year ago. Perhaps he could inform me whether he
plans an early visit to Singapore.
"The question of photocopies arose when Mr. Keene reacted to my
doubts about whether Kasparov had been sufficiently involved in BCO to
merit one of the two author credits. These suspicions have now been
confirmed by a letter received from Eric Schiller, the book's
'research editor', which I give in full in Issue 18 of my Chess
Notes."

wrote:
Mr. Skeptic complained about GM Keene spelling his name
incorrectly. When GM Keene tried to correct this error, our resident
troll (avital.pil) still has not provided the correct spelling.

He's provided it in every article he's posted here. It's in his
E-mail address, as I've pointed out before.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Crystal Book (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel but it's completely
transparent and it wants to kill you!

Louis Blair wrote:
[stuff]

Louis, almost everything you post here is appearing twice or more.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Newspaper (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ daily broadsheet but it's also a crime
against nature!

"help bot" writes:

...
It's fairly obvious which groups were doing the writing of our world
history.

As always, the winners get to write the history.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Dear Louis,

One reason that reasonable questions are not answered is that they are at
the bottom of 1,000 word posts, made in duplicate, and which often have the
same beginning.

Make a more direct - if perforce cursory - reference to your inquiry?

Phil Innes

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I mentioned the frequency of Taylor Kingston's reviews
of my books. I found two on the ChessCafe archive,
both reviewed by him. This looks like 100% to me.
_
I wrote (2 May 2006 15:31:31 -0700):
Here, GM Keene, fails to deal with what he actually
originally wrote:
_
"Why, by the way, does [Taylor Kingston]
SO OFTEN seem to review my books."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Does GM Keene claim that "so often" is a fair way
to characterize a mere two reviews?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

two out of two on one particular site seemed like often
to me. i dont see i can add much to this point-it tends
to fail the so what factor!

_
GM Keene could add an apology for a misleading statement.
Still, it must be acknowledged that GM Keene has now put
his explanation in the vicinity of the quote that he is explaining.
_
_
I wrote (2 May 2006 15:31:31 -0700):
Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor Kingston decided
to "concentrate" on Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)?
_
If not, why hasn't GM Keene apologized for his original
comments (reported by Phil Innes on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
11:50:08 GMT)?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

... [taylor kingston] ... was ... mentioning [Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906)] --if in passing. ...

_
I am glad that GM Keene is now careful with his language
on the matter, but this does not change the fact of his
previous reference to a decision to "concentrate" on the
game - a reference that GM Keene made in a note
commenting on a lack of chess strength.
_
If GM Keene does not feel that he can defend what he
previously wrote, why doesn't he apologize?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

the sacrifice of the rook on f5 has been known as unsound
for around a century and soltis quotes at least one book in
his own bibliography which unequivocally indicates the
refutation. ... during my speed read of soltis 100 best
games i quickly spotted the inclusion of this unsound game.

_
Does GM Keene claim that "anyone who knows anything
real about chess" would know that this Duras rook sac has
been busted for ages? If not, wouldn't a retraction and
apology be appropriate?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

i think it fair to say that taylor kingstons review would
have been improved had he pointed out the unsoundness
of the rook sac

_
Unfortunately, GM Keene chose to say something
somewhat different in his comments reported on
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT and on 26 Apr 2006
23:23:33 -0700 (by Phil Innes and Larry Parr,
respectively).
_
_
I wrote (30 Apr 2006 19:28:59 -0700):
Does GM Keene claim that it is broadly true that
"chess games were first recorded towards the end
of the eighteenth century"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

yes i do and the oxford companion supports me in
this-if anything placing the formal recording of names,
dates and players of games for publication even slightly
later.

_
Is the time of the establishment of "the custom of recording
games" the same as the time when "chess games were first
recorded"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

there may be isolated cases before this time-see the oxford
encyclopaedia of chess games-but the cases were rare-on
this topic the two main scholarly resources are both on my
side!

_
Why should "rare" cases not count? Rare or not, if the
Oxford Encyclopaedia indicates that games were recorded
before the time "towards the end of the eighteenth century",
then it is NOT indicating that "chess games were first
recorded towards the end of the eighteenth century".
_
_
Larry Parr reported (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
that GM Keene wrote:
Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ...
_
I wrote (25 Jan 2006 10:04:33 -0800):
Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone else back
this up with a quote from a verifiable source?
_
Phil Innes reported (Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES
RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
_
letter from ed winter signed "edward winter geneva"
_
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned "the exact role of kasparov in the
whole business--"
_
in an earlier communication-winter refers to:
_
"my doubts about whether kasparov had been
sufficiently involved in bco to merit one of the
two author credits"
_
and
_
"batsfords exaggerated use of a name is not
limited to bco"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 23:03:06 -0700):
[1984 quotes] would not have been "THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 22:33:03 -0700):
Does GM Keene contend that these quotes can
be fairly described as a "claim" "that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

is there some strange semantic construction whereby
directly attributable quotes might not be considered
original?

_
If there exist pre-1984 Edward Winter quotes "re the
authorship of BCO", then 1984 quotes would not be
"the original Edward Winter quotes re the authorship
of BCO".

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

winter 3 times impugned kasparovs authorship of bco-

_
As I have noted before, this is a much more vague claim
and NOT what we were told by GM Keene/Larry Parr on
25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

[Winter] MAY have been careful with his wording -in
order to avoid charges of libel
(Emphasis added.)

_
On 25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800, we did not see a
statement that Edward Winter "may" have claimed
that Kasparov's contribution to BCO was ghosted.
We were told that the claim WAS made. There
was nothing to indicate that GM Keene was
presenting a theory about what Edward Winter
"may" have been thinking, but not writing. Is it fair
for GM Keene to present his personal belief as
if it were unquestioned fact?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

-but the cumulative effect of doubting kasparovs authorship
amounts in my view to a charge of ghosting

_
Where is there a quote of Edward Winter doubting
the authorship of "Kasparov's contribution to BCO"?
All I see is discussion about the extent of that
contribution.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

a charge of ghosting-which-thankfully has subsequently
been totally disproved.

_
What "subsequent" event is GM Keene referring to? Was
the auction of "kasparov's handwritten contribution" before
or after these 1984 comments of Edward Winter?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

the tone of the public debate here has elevated considerably
... might i now suggest to mr blair-whose research i have
favourably animadverted upon in my own books in the
past- that he could also contribute to such an elevation
by accepting that the above points have been answered-

_
As I have tried to indicate above, I feel that many points
remain to be answered.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

might i now suggest to mr blair ... that he could also
contribute to such an elevation by ... not repeating
[the above points] endlessly or looking for interesting
semantic interpretations of my writing.

_
GM Keene has, from time to time, chosen to bring
up past controversies. I do not see why I should be
obliged to refrain from such an activity. I am not looking
for interesting semantic interpretations of GM Keene's
writing.
_
One more thought: If GM Keene sincerely seeks an
elevated tone of public debate, he might consider
saying something to Larry Parr on the subject.