Larry Parr reported (29 Apr 2006 06:59:06 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I am always ready to correct something if it can
be done.

_
Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor Kingston
decided to "concentrate" on Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906)?
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (29 Apr 2006 13:50:14 -0700):

[Kingston] hurls more abuse, attacks the messenger,
and changes the subject

_
"What's this? I'm one of the worst offenders against
historical accuracy! I trust he's going to produce
some evidence for this libel." - GM Keene quote
reported by Larry Parr (29 Apr 2006 06:37:57 -0700)

A BIASED REVIEWER

By GM Raymond Keene

Some time after the appearance of my critique of Taylor Kingstons
review of my book on Nimzowitsch -- to which I awarded 3 stars out of
ten -- the gent has still failed to address a single substantial point
I made. Instead he prefers to shift ground and even change the thread
name.

While awaiting a reply, I have no objection to opening a second front
if that will drag TK out of his bunker.

First of all a few general points, one of them being where Edward
Winter described my book as "splendid." One contributor asked if this
encomium was taken out of context. The answer is in the British
magazine CHESS, volume 49, Christmas 1984, page 232, nine lines from
the bottom of the page in the left hand column. Thus Winter's quote was
NOT taken out of context and means exactly what it says.

Meanwhile, something tells me TK has inadequate experience of
professional writing where sub-editors who "know better" intervene and
rewrite your copy. Often proofs are not made available and typesetters
chop things out at the last minute without first checking if it's okay.
One publisher of my acquaintance genuinely tried to put all the
diagrams in a book in the back to save space. He was persuaded against
this course only by a threat to withdraw the manuscript.

My impression is reinforced by Taylor Kingstons review of my book on
the Kasparov vs. Kramnik world chess championship in London 2000. Why,
by the way, does he so often seem to review my books. Is it because he
secretly admires them or because he has a bias and can be guaranteed to
toe the winter line?

As usual the gratuitous insult about me quickly makes its mark. In
this case I stand accused of "a long history of substandard and
self-congratulatory hackwork." No evidence is offered, of course. This
allegation is just baldly stated with no back up whatsoever and just
sits there as a free-floating smear.

As for self congratulation, I raised millions for the London 2000
championship, organised it as match director, wrote daily reports for
the Times, explained the games during play, co-hosted the webcast with
GM Danny King and wrote notes to each game as it was being played for
the book -- sometimes dictating them by mobile phone as I was
explaining moves to the assembled guests

GM Larry Evans was present and can vouch for my various activities,
which also extended to entertaining eminent guest commentators, such as
himself. An instant book appeared soon after the match ended.

Now, along comes Taylor Kingston (or "Nieman" which means nobody in
German) and criticises some of my notes written during the games
without my even having had the advantage of knowing the eventual
outcome of the game in question. He proceeds to compare my instant
impressions with Kramnik's notes that appeared in New In Chess several
months later.

Frankly iIwas overjoyed at how little divergence there was my notes
and Kramnik, who not only played the games and conducted detailed
post-mortems but also had far more time to get things right!

However, Taylor kingston exploits the slightest divergence in our
notes in order to discredit my analysis. His conclusion is: save your
money and wait for something better to come along.

I have news for him. The world moves on and events are swiftly
forgotten. Nothing better came along. My book on that match, graced
with an introduction by prime minister Tony Blair, is the best you are
going to get. By the way, it has been reprinted twice!

Now let me return from this brief digression into TK's non existent
fantasy world which bears no relation to real book publishing to the
other points he raised in order to avoid confronting my criticism of
his Nimzo review.

1. There is a world of difference between a typographical error and
being fundamentally wrong about something. For example, were I to claim
that alekhine had played a world title match against nimzowitsch in
1928, it would be fundamentally wrong. However, if a sentence appears
under my name saying that Euwe's match victory against Alekhine was in
1937 rather then 1935,Ii think the reader might accept this as a typo
and not a fundamentally wrong assertion.

2. I have been accused by TK of all sorts of historical blunders,
involving Alekhine vs. Capablanca, Alekhine vs. Euwe, Botvinnik vs.
Smyslov and so on. If one were to accept everything he alleges then my
books would presumably not be so successful. But the truth is they have
sold well over a million copies and been translated into French,
German, Swedish, Danish, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Turkish,
Hungarian and Spanish.

I have written 130 plus books which may be a world record. And I
probably still hold the record for the number of chess books in print.
I write daily chess columns for the Times and the International Herald
Tribune, as well as weekly in the Sunday Times and the Spectator. I am
probably the most widely read chess writer in the world, apart perhaps
from GM Evans whose book New Ideas in Chess helped me on the path to
becoming a grandmaster, and whom I deeply respect.

Furthermore I have extensive experience with the chess greats. I
visited Buenos Aires and actually handled the board and pieces Alekhine
and Capablanca played with in 1927. I have twice played in
international matches against former world champion Dr. Max Euwe, and I
also used to play alongside him in team matches for a Dutch club. On
many occasions I discussed his matches against Alekhine with him
-- a rare honour! I have defeated former world champion Botvinnik and
drawn with his perennial rival Smyslov.

So does Taylor Kingston really believe in his heart of hearts that
I am so disrespectful to the giants of chess that I don't know how many
games were played in the 1927 world championship and that I really
suffer from the delusion that Euwe dethroned Alekhine in 1937 rather
than 1935? Or that Frank Marshall had not died by 1991? Or does he
know, as I suspect he does, that such errors -- and I agree they are
errors -- are typos rather than fundamentally held misconceptions?

Now let me address all of the various accusations that have been
raised by Taylor Kingston instead of responding to my critique of his
Nimzo review. These may not be in the order they were made but I
nevertheless hope that the list will be complete. If I have omitted
something, I am sure TK will remind me.

a) TK harps on about the new york 1927 tournament not being a
candidates' event. He concedes that I clarified this issue (his point
8).

b) TK further attacks me for something I wrote in a book a quarter of
a century ago where I excoriated Steinitz's tournament record during
a certain period. I described it as abysmal. Well it was during this
periodbecause he didn't play any tournaments at all. I have used the
same word, or one similar, to describe Bobby Fischer's record as world
champion because hd did not play at all. I fail to see what's wrong
with that.

.. c) TK says I wrote that Euwe dethroned Alekhine in 1937. I looked
at the page in world champion combinations and directly above it states
that Euwe was world champion from 1935-1937. However, the sentence
beneath did indeed contain a typo. If Eric Schiller and I ever produce
another edition of this book we will correct it. Thank you TK, I am in
fact grateful for typos to be pointed out in order to correct future
editions. Go ahead -- please point out more!
-
d) The same for two game headings from my complete book of gambits
which places two games in 1991 after the players concerned were dead. I
did not spot this when checking. Thjs book is fortunately going to be
reprinted and I will fix the typos. Thanks again for pointing them out.

e) TK says -- quite rightly -- that my book on Baguio 1978 three times
gives 35 and not 34 as the number of games in the 1927 Capablanca
vs.Alekhine world championship. Since I have never been under any
delusion as to the correct number of games, I suspect that this was
down to last minute editorial interference. The same thing happened to
my book on Kasparov vs. Deep Blue 1997 when an editor "who knew
better" went through it at the last minute changing right through the
book the name of the German chessbase expert Friedel. It made me look
stupid in front of an old friend!

Fortunately this 1978 match book is still in print and I guarantee that
the error will be corrected in future editions. Thanks once again.

f) TK says that I wrongly described Kasparov's match save in 1987 as
the first time in 75 years that a player had come from behind to secure
the title. I would appreciate a little more chapter, verse and context
here. I am confident TK will be able to produce his precise source for
newspaper quotes, which are otherwise notoriously hard to find if they
predate computer indexing. It is also important for obvious reasons
that the surrounding text be identified. For example, had the sentence
gone "the first time a player had come from behind in 75 years to win
the title by winning the final game" then my assertion would be true!

g) TK also mentions an allegedly mistaken reference to the 1983
Kasparov vs. Korchnoi match as a world championship, but no precise
reference or context is supplied. Please do so as I did with Winter and
cite the exact reference. We shall see what emerges. As TK surely
knows, context can make all the difference!
-
h) 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. The habit of writing down a game as
it was being played did not catch on for a long time. The first full
scale recording of a major event was the 1834 Labourdonnais vs.
McDonnell clash, all faithfully written down by the devoted scribe
William Greenwood Walker. Earlier games often lacked full
identification and were probably recalled from memory. To go back to
the Arabic days of shatranj -- as TK ambitiously proposes -- is pure
speculation. We have no guarantee that the surviving moves are game
fragments or analysis or what. We just don't know.

Now I quote from Whyld's and Hooper's Oxford Companion to Chess, who
even put the proper recording of chess games somewhat later than I do.
"George Walker -1803-1879 -- established the custom of recording games
-- for the first time players could study the game as it was played and
not as authors, each with his own bias, supposed it should be played"
(444-5).

While on the topic of early references Help Bot seems to demur from my
use of the term grandmaster in the early 20th century. Well, in Kagan's
"Neueste Schachnachrichten" it is recorded that Tartakower used to
address Nimzowitsch as "herr grosskollega" (my grand colleague). But
more seriously the first use of the word grandmaster in a chess context
comes from Bell's Life (2/18/1838). Again see the Oxford Companion.

i) Next TK squeals that by quoting his review of my Nimzo book in depth
that his copyright was infringed. I would reply that in his original
review of my book he quoted far more than would until recently have
been the permissible norm in the UK, and he didn't ask me first! I
should mention that the recent Da Vinci copyright case in London
appeared, however, to establish that copyright cannot be breached if
the author is supplying fact. If fiction, then that is another matter.

Since I am sure of the facts in my book on Nimzo I actually dont
mind if TK quotes it at vast length. If he admits his review was
largely fiction, then he might have a case!

Finally, I never claimed to be infallible. I know I make mistakes and
have overlooked checkmates, occasionally hung pieces in notes and
missed all sorts of things which I should have spotted at proof stage.
When I find such mistakes or others point them out, I try to correct
them. "Errare humanum est."

I certainly do not demand impossible standards of accuracy from TK
and others. I would merely like to point out that in this
"infallibility contest" (for want of a better phrase) that I did not
cast the first stone! TK came to my attention notice because of what I
consider to be his unjustified prior attacks on me and his own
fundamental errors -- not just typos -- in these attacks.

jr wrote:
* This is really odd. Keene & the dunderheads have
anaged to trick the so-called ratpackers into discussing
one of Keene's better works...* (Help Bot)

Mr. Bot finally got something right.

* And speaking of "answering point by point," I repeat my statement of

yesterday: I will be happy to respond to Keene's comments about my
review of his book, on one condition -- that he first acknowledge and
explain, in detail and without evasion, his many documented factual
errors that I have here pointed out, errors which he seems to claim
were never made.* (Kingston)

Translation: This phony will never respond to Keene's devastating
critique of his putrid review because Keene is right.

As I recall, part of Keene's critique was a complaint about the lack of
specificity regarding his historical inaccuracies. I don't see why
Keene should not be expected to respond to previously documented
errors.

Of course, when Bauer criticized Keene, he also demanded chapter and
verse, but he has never responded to those specifications either.

wrote:

(Snip tiresome Keene drivel)

i) Next TK squeals that by quoting his review of my Nimzo book in depth
that his copyright was infringed.

It appears Mr. Keene, or rather his waterboy Mr. Parr, in fact
republished the entire review, infringing Mr. Kingston's copyright.

I would reply that in his original
review of my book he quoted far more than would until recently have
been the permissible norm in the UK, and he didn't ask me first!

I'd suggest Mr. Keene consider that US copyright law might apply to a
US publication or website. Mr. Kingston's quotations from Mr. Keene's
book are considered "fair use". Now, if Mr. Kingston were to, say,
reprint a John Donaldson article in its entirety, that would be a
different matter.

wrote:

(Snip tiresome Keene drivel)

i) Next TK squeals that by quoting his review of my Nimzo book in depth
that his copyright was infringed.

It appears Mr. Keene, or rather his waterboy Mr. Parr, in fact
republished the entire review, infringing Mr. Kingston's copyright.

I would reply that in his original
review of my book he quoted far more than would until recently have
been the permissible norm in the UK, and he didn't ask me first!

I'd suggest Mr. Keene consider that US copyright law might apply to a
US publication or website. Mr. Kingston's quotations from Mr. Keene's
book are considered "fair use". Now, if Mr. Kingston were to, say,
reprint a John Donaldson article in its entirety, that would be a
different matter.

Of course Keene still hasn't addressed the chapter and verse he
demanded and received concerning his works, so who cares what he wants.
At least Kingston did not insult his readers.

Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
His conclusion is: save your money and wait for
something better to come along. ... Nothing better
came along. My book on that match, graced with
an introduction by prime minister Tony Blair, is
the best you are going to get.

_
Is GM Keene confident that his book will not be
surpassed by whatever Kasparov writes about the
match?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I excoriated Steinitz's tournament record during
a certain period. I described it as abysmal. Well
it was during this periodbecause he didn't play
any tournaments at all. I have used the same
word, or one similar, to describe Bobby Fischer's
record as world champion because hd did not play
at all. I fail to see what's wrong with that.

_
Writing that someone had an abysmal record as
world champion is not the same as writing that
someone had an abysmal tournament record.
Larry Parr seems to fancy himself as an expert
on what "99 percent of chessplayers" would
conclude when reading an "unadorned assertion".
Does Larry Parr want to say something about
what they would conclude after reading an
assertion that Steinitz has an abysmal
tournament record over the years 1886-1894?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
TK says that I wrongly described Kasparov's match
save in 1987 as the first time in 75 years that a player
had come from behind to secure the title. I would
appreciate a little more chapter, verse and context
here. I am confident TK will be able to produce his
precise source for newspaper quotes,

_
"The Times, 21 December 1987" - Taylor
Kingston (29 Apr 2006 06:52:31 -0700)

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
It is also important for obvious reasons that the
surrounding text be identified.

_
Will GM Keene be identifying the surrounding text
for his recently posted Edward Winter sentence
fragments?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
TK also mentions an allegedly mistaken reference
to the 1983 Kasparov vs. Korchnoi match as a world
championship, but no precise reference or context
is supplied.

_
I would guess that this is what Taylor Kingston had in
mind:
_

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=87471929 70
_

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...ayphotohosting

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
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"?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I should mention that the recent Da Vinci copyright
case in London appeared, however, to establish that
copyright cannot be breached if the author is
supplying fact.

_
Does this mean that anyone can post as much as they
want of any Keene books?

_
Larry Parr reported (29 Apr 2006 06:59:06 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I am always ready to correct something if it can
be done.

_
Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor Kingston
decided to "concentrate" on Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906)?
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
His conclusion is: save your money and wait for
something better to come along. ... Nothing better
came along. My book on that match, graced with
an introduction by prime minister Tony Blair, is
the best you are going to get.

_
Is GM Keene confident that his book will not be
surpassed by whatever Kasparov writes about the
match?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I excoriated Steinitz's tournament record during
a certain period. I described it as abysmal. Well
it was during this periodbecause he didn't play
any tournaments at all. I have used the same
word, or one similar, to describe Bobby Fischer's
record as world champion because hd did not play
at all. I fail to see what's wrong with that.

_
Writing that someone had an abysmal record as
world champion is not the same as writing that
someone had an abysmal tournament record.
Larry Parr seems to fancy himself as an expert
on what "99 percent of chessplayers" would
conclude when reading an "unadorned assertion".
Does Larry Parr want to say something about
what they would conclude after reading an
assertion that Steinitz had an abysmal
tournament record over the years 1886-1894?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
TK says that I wrongly described Kasparov's match
save in 1987 as the first time in 75 years that a player
had come from behind to secure the title. I would
appreciate a little more chapter, verse and context
here. I am confident TK will be able to produce his
precise source for newspaper quotes,

_
"The Times, 21 December 1987" - Taylor
Kingston (29 Apr 2006 06:52:31 -0700)

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
It is also important for obvious reasons that the
surrounding text be identified.

_
Will GM Keene be identifying the surrounding text
for his recently posted Edward Winter sentence
fragments?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
TK also mentions an allegedly mistaken reference
to the 1983 Kasparov vs. Korchnoi match as a world
championship, but no precise reference or context
is supplied.

_
I would guess that this is what Taylor Kingston had in
mind:
_

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=87471929 70
_

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...ayphotohosting

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
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"?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I should mention that the recent Da Vinci copyright
case in London appeared, however, to establish that
copyright cannot be breached if the author is
supplying fact.

_
Does this mean that anyone can post as much as they
want of any Keene books?

_
Larry Parr reported (29 Apr 2006 06:59:06 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I am always ready to correct something if it can
be done.

_
Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor Kingston
decided to "concentrate" on Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906)?
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

GM Keene: Please stop confusing Winter's brigade with facts.
There is nothing you can write or do that will stop their smears.

We now await Mr. Kingston's attempt to shift ground and
change the subject (perhaps even the name of the thread
again) instead of responding to your critique of his review
of your book on Nimzo.