Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

I am winning this debate hands down, if I must say
so myself. Not with bluster, but by dealing with each
issue as it arises.

_
I think it is worthwhile to take a close look at some
of this dealing.

_
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? If GM Keene
does choose to deal with this matter, he should
mention the words, "so often", that he formerly
chose to use.

_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
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 "continue[s] 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.
_
In this note, GM Keene's method for "dealing" with
these points is to fail to mention them, and to
continue to chant "TK should have ...". My own
feeling is that that 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 repeat 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)
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?

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (29 Apr 2006 06:52:31 -0700):
[GM Keene reported]:
...
Kasparov was "the first player in more than 75 years to
come from behind to win the world chess championship"
(The Times, 21 December 1987).
... comebacks occurred in about half of the title contests
of that period, starting with Alekhine-Capablanca 1927,
and including both Alekhine-Euwe matches, Botvinnik
-Bronstein 1951, Botvinnik-Smyslov 1954, Botvinnik
-Smyslov 1957, Petrosian-Botvinnik 1963, Petrosian
-Spassky 1969, and Fischer-Spassky 1972.
_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
It is ... important for obvious reasons that the
surrounding text [of the "from behind" statement]
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:
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"?
_
_
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".

Larry Parr wrote (1 May 2006 21:57:11 -0700):

... NM Kingston, who made the charge, is under
obligation to provide the context.

_
Is GM Keene under obligation to provide the context
for his recently posted Edward Winter sentence
fragments?

I don't have time right now to reply to all of Keene's excuses, but
some of them are priceless.

I am truly grateful to
those who have pointed out typos -- it's a wonderful free proofreading
service.

Of course, unlike Keene, most authors tend to proofread their work
*BEFORE* it is published, not *AFTER*. That GM Keene calls readers
pointing out howlers in his book "free proofreading" is either a rather
pathetic attempt at reverse psychology, or shows us more than we want
to know about Keene's disrespect for his readers.

How on earth do they know my motives for writing

Usually, one's motives can be seen by looking at one's actions. When a
person writes numerous instant books without the least concern for
quality of the analysis, spelling, history, or style--as long as they
come out as soon as possible--one can reasonably conclude that the
person is far more concerned with making a quick buck than with the
quality of the writings.

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING HONESTLY... I felt a tremendous sense of fulfillment. A burst of energy. I doubt I could have written better notes for my book
than if I took 10 years.

Are you suggesting you had reached some sort of higher level of
consciousness, which allowed you to do in two weeks of part-time work
what usually months of care and attention from us lesser mortals?

3. Indeed, that was the official title of the match agreed by Campomanes
at the time as part of the sponsorship deal, ,justified by the fact
that the contest was an official part of the world championship cycle.
If you dont like it, please complain to campo and not to me.

Oh, I see: you were only following orders. Campomanes commands, Keene
must follow. No, I'm complaining to you, Mr. Keene, because quite
obviously it was *not* a world championship match. Even if
Campomanes--which you notoriously despise--was dishonest enough to give
the Kasparov-Korchnoi match that "official" title, nothing forced you
to follow suit and repeat Campomanes' misleading title on the front
cover.

I am winning this debate hands down, if I must say so myself.

As, indeed, you must.

When I am wrong, I say so.

Really? Let's recall the time you called a Russian player a
"grandmaster" who didn't actually have a FIDE title. Your reply to that
criticism was to say that FIDE is not the only body to award titles.

Or let's take the case of you calling "abyssimal" the tournament record
of Steinitz as world champion (I think--too tired to recall at the
moment if it wasn't another player) when he never played in tournaments
during that time. Your explanation was that this is a perfectly
accurate use of the word "abyssimal". Of course common sense (not to
mention the OED) disagree, but again the world is wrong, not Mr. Keene.


(Now that we have this cleared up, I suppose you wouldn't mind if I
said you have an "abyssimal record as an actor in pronographic films",
under the equally valid reasoning that, to my knowledge, you never
acted in any such films at all.)

What about you writing an illict book about the Karpov-Korchnoi match
and being severly criticized by Korchnoi for it? No, he was totally
wrong and misuderstood everything. Er, plagiarizing four pages of John
Donaldson's analysis and printing it in one of your books? Oh
wait--that was the typsetter's fault, of course, who mistakenly printed
Donaldson's work, which you had with your notes, as if it was yours
(strangely enough, this sort of "unfortunate error" *NEVER* happens to
other authors.)

In fact, Mr. Keene, you have often been caught in inexcusable actions,
and you virtually never admit you did anything wrong. When you are
wrong, you almost never say so.

I don't have time right now to reply to all of Keene's excuses, but
some of them are priceless.

I am truly grateful to
those who have pointed out typos -- it's a wonderful free proofreading
service.

Of course, unlike Keene, most authors tend to proofread their work
*BEFORE* it is published, not *AFTER*. I suppose that this was Keene's
attempt at reverse psychology or saracasm, but it fits with reality
more than he would like to admit.

How on earth do they know my motives for writing

Usually, one's motives can be seen by looking at one's actions. When a
person writes numerous instant books without the least concern for
quality of the analysis, spelling, history, or style--as long as they
come out as soon as possible--one can reasonably conclude that the
person is far more concerned with making a quick buck than with the
quality of the writings.

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING HONESTLY... I felt a tremendous sense of fulfillment. A burst of energy. I doubt I could have written better notes for my book
than if I took 10 years.

Are you suggesting you had reached some sort of higher level of
consciousness, which allowed you to do in two weeks of part-time work
what requires months of care and attention from us lesser mortals?

3. Indeed, that was the official title of the match agreed by Campomanes
at the time as part of the sponsorship deal, ,justified by the fact
that the contest was an official part of the world championship cycle.
If you dont like it, please complain to campo and not to me.

Oh, I see: you were only following orders. Campomanes commands, Keene
must follow.

No, I'm complaining to you, Mr. Keene, because quite obviously it was
*not* a world championship match. Even if Campomanes--which you
notoriously despise--was dishonest enough to give the Kasparov-Korchnoi
match that "official" title, nothing forced you to follow suit and
repeat Campomanes' misleading title on the front cover. At most it
shows you are *both* at fault.

I am winning this debate hands down, if I must say so myself.

As, indeed, you must.

When I am wrong, I say so.

Really? Let's recall the time you called a Russian player a
"grandmaster" who didn't actually have the FIDE title. Your reply to
that criticism was to say that FIDE is not the only body to award
titles so he is, too, a grandmaster.

Or let's take the case of you calling "abyssimal" the tournament record
of Steinitz as world champion (I think--too tired to recall at the
moment if it wasn't another player) when he never played in tournaments
during that time. Your explanation was that this is a perfectly
accurate use of the word "abyssimal". Of course common sense (not to
mention the OED) disagree, but again the world is wrong, not Mr. Keene.


(Now that we have this cleared up, I suppose you wouldn't mind if I
said you have an "abyssimal record as an actor in pronographic films",
under the equally valid reasoning that, to my knowledge, you never
acted in any such films at all.)

What about you writing an illict book about the Karpov-Korchnoi match
and being severly criticized by Korchnoi for it? Oh, as usual, he was
totally wrong and misuderstood your pure and innocent actions. How
about plagiarizing four pages of John Donaldson's analysis and printing
it in one of your books? Oh wait--that was the typsetter's fault, of
course, who mistakenly his work as if it was yours because you had it
bundled together (strange how this sort of "unfortunate overshight"
*NEVER* happens to other authors.)

In fact, Mr. Keene, you have often been caught in the wrong, but when
you are, you almost invariably claim you didn't do anything wrong at
all. It's always an unfortunate misunderstanding of your pure
intentions.

wrote:
ANOTHER LULU
We are still waiting to find out if a quotation
attributed to Keene has been yanked out of context --
namely, whether he wrote accurately that Kasparov
became the player to come from behind in a title match
to win or keep the title in three-quarters of a
century. Context is all here. NM Kingston, who made
the charge, is under obligation to provide the context.

You know, Larry, there's not much point to this discussion if you and
Keene are just going to ignore what people post, and then claim they
never posted it. The exact provenance of that particular Keene
statement was given with it. For someone who likes to claim others
don't do enough research, you're looking rather ridiculous here. Use
Google the way God intended. Does Dr. Blair have to spoon-feed you
everything? It seems that you're helpless without him.

WHERE DID I ADMIT WHAT?

I'm glad to see that Mr. Parr, at long last, admits
the obvious: Keene's books are of low quality. -- Skeptic

Mr. Pipel or Skeptic states that I admit
something or other about the books of GM Ray Keene.
That's a troll writing.

Once again, the vast majority of readers on this
forum understand that instant books get written to
meet specific needs. John Buchan, the great British
statesman, historian, literrateur and novelist, wrote
his Nelson's History of the War during the war, making
many errors when producing 20-plus volumes under
enormous pressure. Yet his books served a purpose at
that time, and no idiot ever imagined that because
Buchan was meeting a market demand, he did not also
write a fine biography of Montrose and another of
Walter Scott, to mention just two.

Ray Keene is a polymath. He writes to meet
market needs for a match just concluded, and he writes
serious histories. These two kinds of books are
judged by different standards because they serve
different purposes.

Ray's Manoeuvres in Moscow, an instant match book,
stands comparison to more considered works written
over a long period of time; yet he could undoubtedly
have added to that volume if the market would have allowed
him, say, six months.

Ray's Illustrated History of Chess, a brilliant and
beautiful work, could never have been produced
vernight And it wasn't.

The issue is whether Ray provides value for money
in his books, which he does. His illustrated history
costs a lot more dough than an insta-match book and
rightly so. But both books have their place.

Larry Parr wrote (2 May 2006 19:39:27 -0700):

Ray's Illustrated History of Chess, a brilliant and
beautiful work, ...

_
"Do we have anything other than the word
of Larry Parr to indicate that the illustrated
history was 'wonderful'?" - Louis Blair
(13 Apr 2006 16:40:05 -0700)
_
It is, perhaps, instructive to look at a small part
of a previous discussion where Larry Parr was
posting note after note listing and praising
GM Keene books. In one of those lists, we
saw:
_
"I have alluded to Ray Keene's detailed
and fascinating books on several
Olympiads; to his histories such as
the Illustrated History and the award
-winning Staunton's London; to his ..."
- Larry Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:17:12 -0700)
_
I asked:
_
"What award? Who chose the winner of
this award?" - Louis Blair (15 Apr 2006
18:47:15 -0700)
_
In a subsequent Larry Parr list, we saw:
_
"First, you have the histories. I found his
Illustrated History (Simon &Schuster) to be
not only the most visually stunning chess
book ever printed but also the most elegantly
written book of its kind, nipping even the
shimmering Saidy-Lessing work. Another
celebrated Keene history is his Staunton's
London, though not having read it, I cannot
praise it beyond quoting others." - Larry
Parr (16 Apr 2006 20:03:45 -0700)
_
I noted:
_
"Now Larry Parr avoids mentioning any award."
- Louis Blair (16 Apr 2006 21:21:29 -0700)
_
I also asked:
_
"Where are these quotes of others?" - Louis
Blair (16 Apr 2006 21:21:29 -0700)
_
The next time Larry Parr started listing, he decided
not to mention "Staunton's London":
_
"Those books on the Olympiads are fine; at
least one of GM Keene's histories is stunningly
done; his instant-books on title matches have
been decent at the low end to extraordinarily
ambitious in the case of Manoeuvres ..."
- Larry Parr (17 Apr 2006 14:49:54 -0700)

Larry Parr wrote (2 May 2006 19:39:27 -0700):

Ray's Illustrated History of Chess, a brilliant and
beautiful work, ...

_
"Do we have anything other than the word
of Larry Parr to indicate that the illustrated
history was 'wonderful'?" - Louis Blair
(13 Apr 2006 16:40:05 -0700)
_
It is, perhaps, instructive to look at a small part
of a previous discussion where Larry Parr was
posting note after note listing and praising
GM Keene books. In one of those lists, we
saw:
_
"I have alluded to Ray Keene's detailed
and fascinating books on several
Olympiads; to his histories such as
the Illustrated History and the award
-winning Staunton's London; to his ..."
- Larry Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:17:12 -0700)
_
I asked:
_
"What award? Who chose the winner of
this award?" - Louis Blair (15 Apr 2006
18:47:15 -0700)
_
In a subsequent Larry Parr list, we saw:
_
"First, you have the histories. I found his
Illustrated History (Simon &Schuster) to be
not only the most visually stunning chess
book ever printed but also the most elegantly
written book of its kind, nipping even the
shimmering Saidy-Lessing work. Another
celebrated Keene history is his Staunton's
London, though not having read it, I cannot
praise it beyond quoting others." - Larry
Parr (16 Apr 2006 20:03:45 -0700)
_
I noted:
_
"Now Larry Parr avoids mentioning any award."
- Louis Blair (16 Apr 2006 21:21:29 -0700)
_
I also asked:
_
"Where are these quotes of others?" - Louis
Blair (16 Apr 2006 21:21:29 -0700)
_
The next time Larry Parr started listing, he decided
not to mention "Staunton's London":
_
"Those books on the Olympiads are fine; at
least one of GM Keene's histories is stunningly
done; his instant-books on title matches have
been decent at the low end to extraordinarily
ambitious in the case of Manoeuvres ..."
- Larry Parr (17 Apr 2006 14:49:54 -0700)

While I seriously doubt the threads in question are directly related
to politics, there is another reason to post them on both groups: to
make it easier for the braindeaders to find them.

We have seen just how difficult this can be for some of the Keene
ratpackers, who no doubt believe Kingston was "hiding" his response in
order to make them look stupid for insisting he had not responded when
he in fact had. Of course, they fail to consider that when it comes to
making them look dumb, they have no need of outside help.
--

Again, I would point out that Keene is "reviewing" a review by TK of
one of Keene's better works. To the extent that this is one of Keene's
better works there is really no need for TK to poke holes, for the
criticism directed at Keene which originally drew him here was of his
inferior works.
IMO, this psychological need to poke holes even in good books tells
us something about the reviewer, here Taylor Kingston. But I noticed
that John Watson and Edward Winter have the same tendency. It seems as
though they feel a psychological need to establish their superiority by
finding flaws, however insignificant. For example, Keene says his
wrong date for Euwe dethroning Alekhine was a typo, as evidenced by the
fact that the correct dates are given on the very same page. In view
of this, why is this error not treated as a typo, but instead blown up
into a Hindenburg sized thing?

-- help bot

Larry Parr's parrot, Jr, pecked out:

"The guy has a long history of changing thread names in midstream and
of posting under phony screen names."

g4 replied:

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


It makes no sense to accuse a parrot of hypocrisy; a parrot simply
hears, and without thinking, repeats the same sounds back. Here is a
classic example, for if I am not mistaken, the text above is virtually
a direct quote of Larry Parr, but without any attribution. Keep in
mind that a parrot cannot be convicted of plagiarism, copyright
violation, or stealing patents. In fact, the only crime I know of
which a bird can be convicted is carrying the avian flu (punishable by
death).

My take on Jr's post was not that he was being a hypocrite, but
rather I simply don't comprehend the meaning of the phrase "phony
screen name". Sure, someone who impersonates, say, Sam Sloan, could be
accused of posting under a phony name. But apart from this, what can
he possibly mean by "phony" in conjunction with "screen name"? A
screen name is, by definition, not a person's real name. For example,
Larry Parr posts under the screen name "parrthenon"; Phil Innes posts
under the screen name "Chess One"; Taylor Kingston, under "Xylothist"
(Oops!).
Is a "phony" screen name any screen name which is not the primary
screen name used by the poster in question? Who decides how many
different screen name are allowed, and by what authority? The very
concept falls flat on its face.


-- help bot