* No mystery at all, Larry -- the post has nothing to do with chess
politics. It has to do with chess history and literature. Therefore it
does not belong on rgcp. As for your allegation of "old tricks," my
hypocrisy-meter just went off the scale. * (Kingston)

This unnecessary confusion was caused by Kingston himself
by not posting his reply in both forums.

I also missed his reply because I only check rgcp and it didn't appear
there. The guy has a long history of changing thread names in midstream

and of posting under phony screen names.

It's rather astonishing that Kingston takes it upon himself to
decree it "has nothing to do with chess politics" when the
whole battle is a political attempt to smear GM Keene by
Winter's brigade.

I'm looking forward to Keene's response which I hope is
posted on BOTH forums where it belongs.

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

wrote:
KINGSTON UP TO HIS OLD TRICKS

Perhaps now we have the reason Keene's books have so many mistakes --
he doesn't read! If GM Keene will be so kind as to look at the thread
with the mysterious title "Kingston replies to Keene," he will see that
it answers him point by point, and was posted on 1 May, 5:22 PM eastern
daylight time, i.e. over 5 hours BEFORE Keene posted the above claim to
be "still waiting." -- Taylor Kingston

Instead of responding in the thread "Keene reviews Kingston" which
appears
on both rgcp and rgcm we missed his response because it appears ONLY at
rgcm and not in both places.

The thread "Kingston replies to Keene" was not posted to rgcp where
it belongs.
Why Mr. Kingston did not post it to BOTH forums is a mystery indeed.

No mystery at all, Larry -- the post has nothing to do with chess
politics. It has to do with chess history and literature.

Isn't 'history and literature' also a record of chess politics? Besides, if
people have acted on the basis of reviews to assess the worth of books they
carry, especially if a national federation did that via its vendor... could
be politcs!

Therefore it
does not belong on rgcp. As for your allegation of "old tricks," my
hypocrisy-meter just went off the scale.

I don't know how liberally calibrated that scale is. Out of 10 does it
extend from (1) to (3) ? with

(1) refer to information 'elsewhere', leave forum in huff
(2) refer to even greater [but vaguer] crimes of correspondent
(3) accuse critics of taking peyote

Howdeee! Peyote-Phil

jr writes:

jr It's rather astonishing that Kingston takes it upon himself to
decree it "has nothing to do with chess politics" when the
whole battle is a political attempt to smear GM Keene by
Winter's brigade.

Oh really? What political agenda is Winter's brigade pursuing, exactly?
Are they trying to take over some federation? Are they in cahoots with
the evil Kirsan?

This whole "Winter and his evil minions" idea, which has been an
ongoing theme in hundreds if not thousands of rgcp posts, has been a
constant source of amusement to those who are familiar with the players
(and probably bafflement to those who are not). It's almost as if the
reclusive Winter has been elevated to the status of a James Bond
villain, hatching diabolical plots deep within his Swiss mountain
retreat.

jr I'm looking forward to Keene's response which I hope is posted on
BOTH forums where it belongs.

I see no logical reason myself why a debate about Kingston's review of
Keene's book on Nimzowitsch should belong in rec.games.chess.politics
as well as rec.games.chess.misc. On the other hand, it's not surprising
to find it here, because rgcp happens to be a place where many of the
regulars are willing to spill an enormous amount of virtual ink about
any and all points d'honneur, political or not. It's a bit like the old
German duelling societies, perhaps.

Larry T.

wrote:
The thread "Kingston replies to Keene" was not posted to rgcp where
it belongs.

Larry, your happiness is always my first concern. The thread is now
on both groups.

XOXOXOXO, TK

"Larry Tapper" wrote in message
oups.com...
jr writes:

jr It's rather astonishing that Kingston takes it upon himself to
decree it "has nothing to do with chess politics" when the
whole battle is a political attempt to smear GM Keene by
Winter's brigade.

Oh really? What political agenda is Winter's brigade pursuing, exactly?
Are they trying to take over some federation? Are they in cahoots with
the evil Kirsan?

This whole "Winter and his evil minions" idea, which has been an
ongoing theme in hundreds if not thousands of rgcp posts, has been a
constant source of amusement to those who are familiar with the players
(and probably bafflement to those who are not). It's almost as if the
reclusive Winter has been elevated to the status of a James Bond
villain, hatching diabolical plots deep within his Swiss mountain
retreat.

Wouldn't that be a more Blöfeld-archetype, Larry?

jr I'm looking forward to Keene's response which I hope is posted on
BOTH forums where it belongs.

I see no logical reason myself why a debate about Kingston's review of
Keene's book on Nimzowitsch should belong in rec.games.chess.politics
as well as rec.games.chess.misc. On the other hand, it's not surprising
to find it here, because rgcp happens to be a place where many of the
regulars are willing to spill an enormous amount of virtual ink about
any and all points d'honneur, political or not. It's a bit like the old
German duelling societies, perhaps.

If it was indeed a moot point to what we have to read, and how we decide on
it, but it ain't. Book distribution is more than a little politicised.

What we have here is nothing other than an unusual self-assessment of our
own industry which supplies the chess people with information. The only
unusual factor is that it is taking place in public [which horrifies
politicians! who deny that organisation and distribution of information has
anything to do with themselves g] and Keene's remarks are hardly unusual,
and compared with several book-writers they are mild in tone.

Its not necessary to even take sides in this, to appreciate a rift between 4
constituencies: (1) politicos and other chess managers [who can be
commercial, or 'hybrid'], (b) writers, (c) critics, and (d) the chess
public, who are quite literally the vox-polis of the issue.

Unless there is some extra-ordinary reason not to celebrate all participants
points of view, lets give this unusual circumstance a try, and see if a
little sunshine can improve our view of chess publishing and reviewing.

Larry T.

Cordially, Ernst Stavro Innes

"jr" wrote in message
oups.com...
I also missed his reply because I only check rgcp and it didn't appear
there. The guy has a long history of changing thread names in midstream

and of posting under phony screen names.


Am I the only one noticing the hypocrisy of an anonymouse criticizing
the use of phony screen names?

g4 wrote:
"jr" wrote in message
oups.com...
I also missed his reply because I only check rgcp and it didn't appear
there. The guy has a long history of changing thread names in midstream

and of posting under phony screen names.


Am I the only one noticing the hypocrisy of an anonymouse criticizing
the use of phony screen names?

Oh, it's been noticed many times, but our little jr has no shame.

I'm glad to see that Mr. Parr, at long last, admits the obvious:
Keene's books are of low quality. The only remaining issue is whether
he has some excuse--e.g., there's a market for it. Obviously, Mr. Parr
thinks making a quick buck is more imprtant than making sure one's
books are free of errors.

just state that most of the works written by the
famous GM are hack jobs. Which is nonsense on its face.

Oh really? Let us look at, say, Keene's latest ten books and see what
the critics said about them.

It's true that not all of Keene's books are "instant books", but
unfrotunately one cannot turn off "hacking mode" at will. When one is
used to writing insta-books using inaccurate cut-and-paste methods,
this method of "writing" infects one's non-instant books as well.

"g4" wrote in message ...

"jr" wrote in message
oups.com...
I also missed his reply because I only check rgcp and it didn't appear
there. The guy has a long history of changing thread names in midstream

and of posting under phony screen names.


Am I the only one noticing the hypocrisy of an anonymouse criticizing
the use of phony screen names?

no. is louse no? like you?

the m*sk*d v*rm*nt*r

"Skeptic" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm glad to see that Mr. Parr, at long last, admits the obvious:
Keene's books are of low quality. The only remaining issue is whether
he has some excuse--e.g., there's a market for it. Obviously, Mr. Parr
thinks making a quick buck is more imprtant than making sure one's
books are free of errors.

just state that most of the works written by the
famous GM are hack jobs. Which is nonsense on its face.

Oh really? Let us look at, say, Keene's latest ten books and see what
the critics said about them.

you don't want to do that. i have remarkable evidence that many reviewers
don't even read the books they review - really!

if you think ray keene is being tough on you, adorjan and timman are beasts!
and they can prove it - they have a hilarious collection of reviews which
never penetrated past the introduction, and sometimes not past the back
cover - at least taylor kingston has read some of the book he comments on,
if not actually the difficult to understand chess moves

It's true that not all of Keene's books are "instant books", but
unfrotunately one cannot turn off "hacking mode" at will. When one is

but one isn't! one cannot even write one's name, so one's opinion matters
nothing much to those who can, since many ones hide from shame [admitted,
some are merely paranoid], and other one's are injured, or competitors, or
both, or worse.

used to writing insta-books using inaccurate cut-and-paste methods,
this method of "writing" infects one's non-instant books as well.

really? one is a writer of books? is one admitting this tendency from one's
experience or from one's speculation on how it must be?

will one want to whine on when they wread the book, and what it was to one
when actually playing chess?

phil innes