I post this in reply to GM Raymond Keene's thread "Keene reviews
Kingston." There, Keene commented on my review of his book "Aron
Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal" (3rd edition, Batsford 1999), which
appeared at www.ChessCafe.com in March 2000. The review can be seen
he http://www.chesscafe.com/text/reapp.txt, however, for the sake of
clarity it appears below (each portion headed "Review:"),
punctuated by Keene's comments (headed "Keene:") and my replies
(headed "TK:"). Except for omitting one long irrelevant digression
about another book, I have retained all Keene's comments.
I set a precondition that Keene must first respond in detail to a set
of questions I posted several days ago. He has not done so in full, but
I see no reason to delay my reply any further. Especially since
Keene's comments proved generally quite easy to refute.
Because of the length of the review and the number of Keene's
comments, this is necessarily a long post. Those sincerely interested
in understanding the issues between Keene and myself are encouraged to
read all the way through. On some servers, such as Google, this may
require using the "read more" icon.

Review:
Along with Morphy, Steinitz, Tarrasch, and a very few others, the
Latvian master Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935) is considered a major
contributor to the theoretical foundation of chess. His writings, such
as My System and Chess Praxis, are considered essential to a full
understanding of the game. At his peak (circa 1926-31) he was one of
the top four or five players in the world, and was always one of the
game's more colorful and controversial personalities. It is a measure
of his impact that books continue to be written about him.

Keene: Excellent start. I like it. Concisely written, to the point
and well done.
TK: Thank you.

Review:
This one is making its third appearance. Earlier editions were
published in 1974 and 1991, both in descriptive notation. This edition
has algebraic notation and some additional games, some as recent as
1995, that show Nimzowitsch's influence. British grandmaster Raymond
Keene, an extremely prolific but often careless author (he admits to
having written entire books in a few days) this time appears to have
some genuine passion and respect for his subject, and has taken more
than usual care (though perhaps still not enough). Though this is a
third edition, your reviewer will approach it as he would a new work.

Keene: Hang on a moment. What are these generalisations about being
careless?
TK: I find this comment extremely disingenuous. I cannot believe that
GM Keene is oblivious to his own reputation.

Keene: I imagine he will soon be trying to produce some evidence for
this libellous assertion.
TK: An absurd statement. Pointing out factual errors is not libel.
Concerning evidence, Keene need merely look at the thread "Keene on
Chessic Omniscience" for a few of the many known instances.

Keene: His evidence so far is that I admit to having written a book
in a few days.
TK: The bulk of the evidence is not relevant to a review of the
Nimzovitch book, and so is not recapitulated there. I again recommend
that GM Keene refresh his memory from my recent posts, or check the
many instances cited by various commentators over the past 25 years or
so.

Snip long story about writing a book over a weekend.

Review:
In his first chapter, Keene notes that Nimzowitsch's own major
written works stopped before the most successful phase of his career
(ca. 1929-31). Keene intends Reappraisal as "a continuation of his
Chess Praxis covering the years 1928-1934." Even for someone of Keene's
pretensions this is a tall order, but he does have some success. The
result is an interesting though uneven work, part biography, part games
collection, part historical and
theoretical survey.

Keene: Damning with faint praise. Okay. Let's see what else he has to
say.
TK: Actually I'm giving the book high praise by comparison with
other Keene works.

Review:
Chapter 2 is of historical interest, consisting of excerpts from
Nimzowitsch's hard-to-find autobiography "How I Became a
Grandmaster." It introduces us to his somewhat grandiose writing
style and conception of himself, and goes far to explain the antipathy,
both professional and personal, that developed between him and German
grandmaster Siegbert Tarrasch. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of
positional themes in Nimzowitsch's games, and a conversation with
Danish GM Bent Larsen (logical, since Nimzowitsch lived in Denmark for
years, and Larsen is considered something of a spiritual descendant).

Keene: Very good. Remember that point about Nimzo living in Denmark.
It's relevant to what follows.
TK: But not relevant to the book, as we will see.

Review:
Chapter 4, "The Influence of Nimzowitsch on Modern Opening Play",
discusses lines he either originated or enhanced, among them the
Philidor-Hanham (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nf6 4 Nc3 Nbd7); the Nimzowitsch
Defence (1 e4 Nc6); various lines, for both colors, in the French; the
Caro-Kann, especially (after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4) the
lines 4...Nf6 and 4...Nd7; some lines of the Sicilian, e.g. 1 e4 c5 2
Nf3 Nf6; the Queen's Indian (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf6 b6); the
Nimzo-Indian (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4); and the Nimzowitsch Attack
(1 b3, or 1 Nf3 and 2 b3). Keene makes some interesting points along
the way, e.g. "many of the original strategic ideas stem from
Nimzowitsch himself while ... the actual variations we still employ
were elaborated by the arch-realist Alekhine." However, as we will see,
Keene's factual support for such points is spotty.

Keene: Spotty? We shall see!
TK: Indeed we will.

Review:
Like some other writers, notably Fred Reinfeld in "The Human Side
of Chess" or Reuben Fine in various works, Keene occasionally
purports to psychoanalyze or even peer into "the very heart" of his
subject and relate the insights thus gained to chess style. Chapter 5,
"The Duality of Nimzowitsch" does this in a somewhat overblown
manner, quoting Goethe (Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach! in meiner Brust / Die
eine will sich von der andern trennen) and trying to illustrate how
these 'two souls living within his breast' ("Prophylaxis" and "Heroic
Defence") manifested themselves in Nimzowitsch's games. Such armchair
insights are not always valid, but if handled with sufficient style
they make for interesting reading. Whether one agrees that "with
Nimzowitsch, we see a powerful awareness of the presence of the
opponent as someone who must be restrained or provoked," or one
associates "the direct, positive action of an Alekhine, or a Fischer,
with a homogeneous, harmonious unity of chess style as opposed to the
duality and indirection which pervade Nimzowitsch," one can at least
enjoy Keene's polysyllabic prose. And an occasionally overblown style
is perhaps appropriate when discussing Nimzowitsch.

Keene: Yes. Fair enough. TK even picks up my stylistic homage to
Nimzo.
TK: Thank you.
Keene: So are we back on track?
TK: I was not aware that the review had left its track.

Review:
Chapters 6 through 11 are (along with chapter 4) the best sections of
the book: about 70 games, most of them deeply annotated, from different
phases of Nimzowitsch's career: First Steps 1904-06, Established Master
1907-14, Disaster and Recovery 1920-24, World Championship Candidate
1925-28, The Crown Prince 1929-31, and The Final Years 1932-35. They
are accompanied by tournament crosstables. The games often feature
Nimzowitsch's own notes, which are among the most stylized,
idiosyncratic, hyperbolic, and least humble ever written; as Keene's
Danish translators put it, "each game [is] turned into a drama -- more
than that, into a morality play -- in which Nimzowitsch becomes a very
special character: an almost invincible crusader, an embodiment of all
sapient virtues." For example, of this position (See Diagram).

Keene: Good. Well quoted! TK really seems to be getting into the
spirit of things now! Now he discusses a position from Nimzo-Romih, San
Remo 1930 after 22 Bd5-c6.
TK: Yes, the position is:
1r2kr2/p2bq1bp/1pBp4/nPp5/Q1P1Pp2/P1NP1P1p1/3KN3/1R5R.

Review:
While grandmasters tend to be an egotistical lot, it's hard to think
of many who would, with a straight face, describe their own moves as
"awe-inspiring." Elsewhere Nimzowitsch rejoices in the "thorn-infested
path to victory" that the complexity of his style forced upon him,
masochistically regarding the "renunciation of lunch" as "a thoroughly
welcome intensification of the pleasure". Not without reason was he
considered a bit strange.
Still, the instructive value of Nimzowitsch's games and the complex
intelligence behind them cannot be denied. Keene perceptively points
out many features of Nimzowitsch's play, such as the concept of
"ambush." This means more than just a trap or combination, rather it is
"a deep refutation of a course of action which the opponent is under no
compulsion to adopt," yet one toward which Nimzowitsch's play strongly
leads him. A prime example is Rubinstein-Nimzowitsch, Marienbad 1925
(See Diagram) where the key was the unusual and not at all obvious
18...Rfe8!!. ... The games section, the bulk of the book, features many
such instructive, perhaps even "awe-inspiring" moments.
In other areas Reappraisal comes off less well. While emulating
Reinfeld in the "psychological insight" department, Keene criticizes
Reinfeld's book on Nimzowitsch (Hypermodern Chess, a/k/a Nimzovich the
Hypermodern, 1948). For example, discussing the game Nimzowitsch-Salwe,
Carlsbad 1911 (See Diagram), Reinfeld wrote that for playing 7 dxc5,
"one of the deepest [moves] ever played, Nimzowitsch was roundly damned
by the chess world." Keene cites Vidmar to show that "Unfortunately,
the facts contradict this pleasantly romantic view." However, Keene has
often been shown by Edward Winter and others to be one of chessdom's
worst offenders against historical accuracy. Though in the above matter
he may be right, for him to criticize Reinfeld is rather like Jackie
Gleason admonishing someone to lose weight.

Keene: Hang on. What's this? I'm one of the worst offenders against
historical accuracy!
TK: Yes.
Keene: I trust he's going to produce some evidence for this libel.
TK: Again, I can only regard Keene's attitude as extremely
disingenuous.

Keene: And what's this about being right but now allowed to correct
Reinfeld ...
TK: Wrong end of the stick. I did not say that Keene is forbidden to
correct Reinfeld. The attentive reader will notice that Keene's
comment about Reinfeld merely provides the review with a convenient
segue to a discussion of Reappraisal's historical problems.
Keene: ... a gifted player who had a plus score against Reshevsky,
beat Fine and drew with Alekhine?
TK: Reinfeld's playing strength or career scores are entirely
irrelevant here.
Keene: Reinfeld wrote some potboilers but also some very good books
including his studies of Nimzo and Tarrasch.
TK: Again, quite irrelevant. At least Keene does acknowledge that a
"very good book" (e.g. Reinfeld's on Nimzovich) may also have
some errors (e.g. the "romantic" illusion to which Keene referred).
Reinfeld is not alone in this.

Keene: TK's remarks are a crude slur which utterly fails to produce
any worthwhile reason why I should not criticise anyone or anything I
find to be in error.
TK: Keene has the right to criticize error, but his authority to do
so is weakened by the high incidence of error in his own work. It is
wrong to drink and smoke to excess, but the guy to say this is not
Mikhail Tal. It is wrong to cheat on one's wife, but I could only
laugh if told this by Bill Clinton or Jack Kennedy. Religious and
racial bigotry is wrong, but for Bobby Fischer to tell me that would be
ludicrous hypocrisy. I trust my point is clear now.

Keene: I also find this kind of criticism by innuendo highly
distasteful and unworthy of any decent reviewer who is supposed to be
objective. Ah, but is objectivity TK's real goal?
TK: As a matter of objective fact, yes, it is.

Keene: Now we come to his so-called evidence of my offenses against
historical accuracy.
TK: Only those I found in "Reappraisal." There are many others in
other books.

Keene: This will be interesting. Winter has decreed that Keene is a
bad writer ...
TK: Interesting. Keene is aware of what Winter has written about him,
yet is somehow unaware of the many historical errors Winter has pointed
out?

Keene: (let's try to forget or spin the old Winter description of my
book on Nimzo as "splendid").
TK: No, let's not. In some ways it is a splendid book. But
"some" does not mean "all."

Keene: Now TK must fine [sic] something wrong with my book to justify
the new dictates of his stern lord and master.
TK: Hmmm ... Keene claims I have made a "crude slur," yet he
follows this with - a crude slur! Concerning my "stern lord and
master," the plain fact is my wife does not even know how to play
chess, and has no role at all in my reviews.
I now add a portion of my review which GM Keene failed to include in
his post. Please keep this mind further on; it's highly relevant:

Portion of review omitted by Keene:
For example, in discussing the Panov-Botvinnik variation of the
Caro-Kann (1 e4 2 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4) Keene says "Nimzowitsch
used this against Alekhine at Bled 1931, and then Alekhine himself
became its most enthusiastic practitioner. Why on earth we call it the
Panov-Botvinnik I shall never understand!" (p. 77). Questions of
opening nomenclature are often tricky; this line actually was first
analyzed by Orland Krause of Denmark in 1911.

Keene: Yes, we know about Dr. Krause, the Danish theoretician --
remember Denmark? --where Nimzo emigrated after the first World War.
Nimzo even gives a game by Krause with this very line in his Chess
Praxis.
TK: It's too bad that this relevant information is not mentioned in
"Reappraisal."

Review:
-- and played and analyzed further by Russian Vasily Panov ca. 1929-30.


Keene: Much later.
TK: 1929-30 is still earlier than any date the book gives on this
subject.

Review:
But as far as it concerns Nimzowitsch and Alekhine, Keene appears to
have cause and effect reversed! As far as I can find, their actual
chronology with the line is: (1) Alekhine-Tartakower, Paris 1925; (2)
Tartakower-Nimzowitsch, Liege 1930; and only then (3)
Nimzowitsch-Alekhine, Bled 1931. In other words, Nimzowitsch may well
have learned of the line from Alekhine, and not the other way around.

Keene: Try Nimzo-Jokstad, Bergen 1921 which as far as I can see
normally comes BEFORE 1925 and 1930.
TK: It's a funny thing, but when I review a book, I evaluate it
based on the information actually in the book. I don't recall the
Jokstad game being mentioned at all in "Reappraisal." On the matter
of the Panov-Botvinnik Attack, Keene gives only one paragraph, just
three sentences, and mentions no date except 1931.
Keene: It seems pretty likely that when Nimzo went to Denmark he
became interested in this line by association with Dr. Krause, whom he
writes of very positively in Chess Praxis.
TK: A plausible hypothesis, but again *_not_* mentioned in
"Reappraisal." Here again is what Keene wrote: "Nimzowitsch used
this against Alekhine at Bled 1931, and then Alekhine himself became
its most enthusiastic practitioner." That's it.
That's a clear chain of events: (1) First, Nimzovitch plays the
Panov-Botvinnik against Alekhine in 1931, then (2) Alekhine likes it
and plays it. That's all the evidence Keene gives *_in the book_* on
the issue of who showed whom the PBA. Alekhine in fact played it at
least six years earlier. Keene does not mention this. Maybe Nimzovitch
showed it to him before that, but "Reappraisal" does not say so.
As I said, I judge a book by what's *_in the book_*. Whatever else
Keene may know has no bearing. Even overwhelming evidence has no effect
on a case if it's not presented in court.
Perhaps GM Keene can produce a fourth edition, and include what
he's shown here, in which case I will give _that_ book full credit
for doing so, but not the third edition, the book under discussion
here.

Review:
The Panov-Botvinnik might be more accurately called the Krause-Panov,
but for Keene to imply that it should be named for Nimzowitsch is
ludicrous.

Keene: I did not write this at all!
TK: It seemed to be Keene's clear implication. First he says
Nimzovitch used it, then says it should not be named for Panov or
Botvinnik. So if not Nimzovitch, who else did Keene mean?
Keene: I merely wrote that I was surprised it was christened after
Panov and Botvinnik.
TK: But you gave no reason why it should not be so named, except that
Nimzovitch played it in 1931 against Alekhine, who then took it up.
Keene: But to call it the Panov-Botvinnik as I supposed we now must
-- as sanctioned by usage --is just another sad example of Soviets
hacks hijacking an opening system worked out by others. It reminds of
of Commander Chekhov, the Russian Star Trek officer who automatically
claims that everything was invented in Moscow.
TK: A valid point about the Soviets, but not really relevant to
"Reappraisal."

Review:
Other errors are more subtle.

Keene: What other errors? He hasn't found any at all yet!!
TK: Suit yourself.

Review:
While Reappraisal is better researched than many other Keene books,
it still shows a certain superficiality, for example in its discussion
of the genesis of the Nimzo-Indian Defense.

Keene: Superficiality is it now ? This had better be good!

Review:
Nimzowitsch first played 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 against Janowsky
at St. Petersburg 1914. Keene rightly notes that it had been played
earlier (with a slight transposition), in Englisch-Blackburne, London
1883, but neglects to state that it had appeared even earlier, in
Singleton-Casswell, correspondence, England 1854.

Keene: I neglect to mention a game from 1854!
TK: I agree, you neglected to mention it. Personally, I thought
readers of the review would find my added information interesting. And
the fact that Keene mentioned only the 1883 game makes it seem he
considers it the first. Keene's exact phrasing is that the
"Nimzo-Indian Defense [is] Nimzowitsch's most famous strategic
invention, although it had been played previously (by accident!?) in
1883!"
Would not a better phrasing have been "although it had been played
previously, in such games as ..." followed by relevant examples from
several years.

Keene: I am here saying that Nimzo neither invented the opening nor
had a monopoly on its development. Both true!
TK: Agreed. However, in the book Keene clearly is trying to trace the
Nimzo-Indian's ancestry, asking "is it possible that Nimzowitsch
was influenced by some of Tartakower's games from Carlsbad 1911? ...
Clearly there was some cross-fertilization between the livelier minds
of the pre-1914 chess world."
Indeed there was such cross-fertilization; I just don't think this
part of "Reappraisal" does a very thorough job tracing it - much
relevant information was missing. That is why I characterized it as
having "a certain superficiality."

Review:
Admittedly not a point of great importance, but a harbinger of
further omission when Keene discusses the Nimzo-Indian's strategic
ancestry. He correctly notes that an important theme of the defense,
Black's pressure against White'sc3/c4/d4 pawn complex, may not have
been completely original with Nimzowitsch, citing this position (See
Diagram), from a Dutch Defense, Salwe-Tartakower, Carlsbad 1911. Keene
says "the manner of play against the doubled c-pawns and the whole
concept of blockade ... [clearly shows] there was some
cross-fertilization between the livelier minds of the pre-1914 chess
world. The new ideas were not the sole intellectual property of
Nimzowitsch!"
True indeed, but Keene seems completely unaware that the idea can be
traced back much further. Consider this position (See Diagram).

Keene: And now I am allegedly unaware of an even more important
mirror image -- this time from 1867.
TK: Well, it sure ain't in the book.

Review:
Interested readers please consult the database

TK: What's this? I wrote no such thing in my review. Below is the
correct continuation:

Review:
Consider this position from Winawer-Neumann, Paris 1867 [Note: in the
original review a diagram appeared, but unfortunately that was lost
when the review was archived as a .txt file. Here is the position:
1nbdqkr/r3b1p1/p1p1p1Q1/2ppPp2/2P2P2/1P1P1N2/P6P/RQBN2RK] where the
Polish master continued 22 Ba3 Qf7 23 Nc3 a5 24 Na4 Na6 25 Rac1,
pressuring the c5-pawn in a perfect mirror image of the Nimzo-Indian
strategy, nearly 50 years before Nimzowitsch "originated" it. This is
not the only Winawer game with such ideas. As we noted in the February
1999 Inside Chess, it is very hard to believe that Winawer's games were
unknown to the Latvian Nimzowitsch (not to mention the Pole
Tartakower), especially since (1) they all moved in Russian chess
circles at the time Nimzowitsch was formulating his opening ideas; and
(2) Nimzowitsch was very fond of the line 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4,
i.e., the Winawer French. Nimzowitsch's affinity for Knights over
Bishops is another sign of Winawer influence. Winawer lived until 1920
and Nimzowitsch almost surely knew him personally. I strongly doubt
Nimzowitsch was ignorant of Winawer's games, but it's clear Keene is.

Keene: No, Keene is not ignorant.
TK: Then I suggest Keene show that by including relevant information
when he is aware of it. As I said, I can judge a book only by what the
author puts in, not by what else he might know but omits.

Keene: I just thought everyone knew about Staunton's win vs. the
Bristol Chess Club of 1844-45 by correspondence -- a game far predating
any references cited by TK! It's #25 in my book on Howard Staunton, a
pure mirror image Nimzo-Indian.
TK: A shame it was not mentioned in "Reappraisal," then.
Keene: TK misses the point. I wasn't trying to find the earliest
reference, which is in fact Staunton's game, but simply showing that a
well known 1883 game had reached the Nimzo basic position, which GMs of
that era would probably know and that others (Tartakower) also deserved
some credit. I am sure Winawer does too, but if we are playing the game
of going as far back as we can I doubt anyone will trump Staunton vs.
Bristol.
TK: Immaterial. I am not "playing the game of going as far back as
we can," I am showing information I considered relevant to the topics
in "Reappraisal," but which was not given in "Reappraisal."

Review:
He is further guilty of worse superficiality in discussing the
Advance French (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5), calling it "another of
Nimzowitsch's brain children," when it is well known that Louis Paulsen
(1833-91) was playing it years before Nimzowitsch was born.

Keene: Wake up Taylor Kingston. Anyone at home up there? Paulsen vs.
Tarrasch is on page 53 of my book!
TK: I do not consider a brief fragment (moves 15-19) buried in a note
to Nimzovich-Tarrasch, San Sebastian 1912, adequate to counteract the
impression given by calling the Advance French "Nimzowitsch's
brainchild."

Keene: And brain child doesn't mean Nimzo played it first ...
TK: Really? My Webster's Dictionary defines "brainchild" as
"a person's invention (often of a practical order)." No other
definitions are given. To say the Advance French was "Nimzovich's
brainchild" is like saying "The airplane was Charles Lindbergh's
invention."
Keene: ... though it could.
TK: Only if one makes up one's own definition. Larry Parr does that
a lot. You don't want to be like him.
Keene: It means that Nimzo nurtured and proselytised for it like no
other GM ever did. He worked out a complete theory for 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5
3 e5 in the French, contributing more than anyone else.
TK: If that's what Keene meant, then Keene should have said that,
rather than "another of Nimzowitsch's brain children."

Review:
Keene has at least deleted one error from his 1974 edition (repeated
from Reinfeld), that New York 1927 was a "candidates tournament" in
which, had Nimzowitsch finished first, or second to Capablanca, he
could have gained a world title match. While it is a pleasant surprise
to see Keene correcting himself, on the whole one should not read
Reappraisal as an historical work without substantial salt at hand.

Keene: Salt? The belief that New York 1927 was a candidates'
tournament was widespread when I wrote the first edition. And no, I did
not get it from Reinfeld. In fact I accepted the truth of a memoir of
Capablanca by J. DuMont.
TK: I stand corrected on your source. But the salt remark was not
directed at NY 1927.
Keene: It is now believed that New York 1927 was almost certainly NOT
a candidates' tournament as we now understand the phrase, though heaven
knows how they would have handled matters had Nimzo won or come second.

TK: Capablanca would have played the match with Alekhine, as had
already been contractually agreed.
Keene: But I certainly felt it safer to delete this based on what had
been unearthed since the first edition.
TK: Good. Why does GM Keene not show a similar willingness to correct
and/or admit other errors?

Keene: Now what's this assertion about "at least deleted one
error," implying there were lots more. I have proved here that there
aren't.
TK: I suppose we will continue to differ on that.
Keene: I would even say, given the state of knowledge at the time of
writing, that referring to New York 1927 as a candidates' tournament
was NOT an error. Changing the description showed an awareness of and
sensitivity to more recent research. This slur about a pleasant
surprise to see Keene correcting himself is unworthy of an objective
reviewer. It would be more typical of a reviewer with a preset agenda.
TK: On the contrary, I feel it would show a complete lack of
objectivity to ignore Keene's record of factual errors.

Keene: I am always ready to correct something if it can be done. For
example, if a mistake occurs in my daily Times column I always try to
get it corrected as quickly as possible. Anyone who reads it can verify
this fact.
TK: Not being a regular reader of the Times, I cannot address that
from personal knowledge. However, I will say that Keene's claim
differs sharply from most reports I have read.

Keene: TK's pleasant surprise insult is just another generalised
attack without foundation.
TK: It's not an insult, it's my genuine feeling. Perhaps GM Keene
could cause me to feel it more often?

Review:
As an instructional book, it is somewhat problematic, though not
through any fault of Keene's. As R. E. Fauber said, "If there were a
difficult way to play a chess game, Nimzovich would find it." Few
masters are harder for the amateur to emulate than the
eccentric Latvian. However, Keene deserves credit for making some
Nimzowitsch concepts easier to understand, and for providing relevant
illustrative examples. By itself, or used as Keene recommends, in
concert with My System and/or Chess Praxis, Reappraisal should have
instructive value, at least for players of above-average strength. For
less advanced players I would recommend (at the risk of making
Nimzowitsch spin in his grave!) that they first try a book by his
arch-rival Tarrasch, whose more direct theory of the game is easier to
grasp.

Keene: This bit is more or less okay. TK even admits I mention Praxis
where the 1924-25 Krause game occurs, thus conceding that I did know
about Krause's contribution to the so-called Panov-Botvinnik Attack.
TK: Again, whatever Keene may have known but left out is irrelevant
to my review. All that matters is what he put *_in the book_*.

Review:
It is as a games collection that this book stands out: about 100
Nimzowitsch games, both famous and little-known, some with his own
annotations (hard to find anywhere else), others with good notes by
Keene. For all his eccentricity and bombast, Nimzowitsch loved and
understood chess as few men have ever done, and for all his usual
sloppiness ...

Keene: For all his usual sloppiness?? Outrageous slur with no
evidence at all. Who has been sloppy here with his research? Me or the
reviewer who overlooked Nimzo vs. Jokstad 1921 and Staunton vs. Bristol
1844?
TK: The author who neglected to mention them in his book is the guy I
had in mind.
Keene: Come off it. TK has not found one single instance of so-called
sloppiness, whereas I have unearthed several in his review.
TK: Again, it appears we must agree to differ.

Review:
Keene's respect and enthusiasm for Nimzowitsch have motivated him to
produce a book well above his norm. As long as one does not regard it
as an historical reference, Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal will do
little harm, and will provide a good deal of interesting reading and
educational study material.

Keene: Damning with faint praise yet again. No historical reference?
What about all the tournament tables. What about unearthing Nimzo's
"How I Became a GM" with his fabulous early game with Tarrasch?
TK: I have already made clear what I regard as salient historical
errors. Those two things were not among them.
Keene: Yet TK mentions respect and enthusiasm. My verdict on his
review? Three on a scale of ten. Not yet ready for prime time (as GM
Evans puts it in his 4/24/06 column at WCN). Taylor Kingston is
evidently lying throughout.
TK: I hope I may be forgiven if I feel a strong sense of irony.
Keene: Even worse, he is lying to himself, thus defeating the purpose
of his review.
TK: The irony deepens.

Keene: His language at times betrays that he likes my book but he
knows that Winter now disapproves of Keene and he must toe the party
line or be hurled himself into outer darkness with the non-Winterians
-- Parr, Evans, and the redoubtable Innes.
TK: Oh ... my ... Gawd.

Keene: TK tried desperately to demolish my book ...
TK: By giving it a positive final verdict? Seems a funny way to
demolish. And in what sense was I "desperate"? Desperate means
without hope. My hopes have nothing to do with your books.

Keene: ... in spite of the fact that in truth he liked it! But he had
to dance to the official tune, hurl slurs and fire insults. He either
has to invent claims I patently never made and says I overlooked games
that are in my book (Paulsen vs. Tarrasch) and alleges I showed
historical ignorance. He could actually make a decent chess writer if
he didn't have such an agenda.

TK: Ah, now the cat's out of the bag. Keene claims that like some
Nazi minion, I have blindly followed orders from an evil Führer, like
a ringwraith I am slave to a Dark Lord. Talk about (to use Keene's own
words) an "outrageous slur with no evidence at all"!

Ray, I'm afraid the gloves have to come off now. To put it bluntly,
on this matter you're full of it. ABSOLUTELY FULL OF IT. And I'm
being nice by omitting the two letters that come before the "it."

Keene: Finally I ask you, Mr. Kingston, what have I done to deserve
this attack from you? You don't know me and I certainly had no idea of
who you were before I noticed your insulting material. What is wrong
with my book, which many consider a classic. and which has gone through
three editions to deserve this kind of shoddy treatment at your hands?

TK: Please, spare us the melodrama. You sound like a ham actor on an
off night.

Help bot finds this longwinded discussion between the two world's
greatest authorities on chess to be chock full of egregious errors.

For example, almost everyone knows that ensign *Chekov* was the
navigator on the USS Enterprise, not some imaginary commander
"Chekhov".

"TK: Keene has the right to criticize error, but his authority to do
so is weakened by the high incidence of error in his own work. It is
wrong to drink and smoke to excess, but the guy to say this is not
Mikhail Tal. It is wrong to cheat on one's wife, but I could only
laugh if told this by Bill Clinton or Jack Kennedy."

I hate to be the one to break bad news but... some of these guys are
no longer among the living. But suppose they were -- would it not be
unwise to ignore a warning from Tal not to drink and smoke excessively?
Experience is the best teacher.

"It is as a games collection that this book stands out: about 100
Nimzowitsch games, both famous and little-known, some with his own
annotations (hard to find anywhere else), others with *good* notes by
Keene."

According to Keene & the ratpackers, Taylor Kingston is simply not
qualified to make such a judgement; you see, as a mere 1800 player, TK
could not possible know for certain whether GM Keene's notes were any
good or not. In fact, we will have to rely upon Ray Keene himself to
make this judgement, as hardly anyone else here qualifies.

Keene: And now I am allegedly unaware of an even more important
mirror image -- this time from 1867.
TK: Well, it sure ain't in the book.

Correction: proper Murican requires "shore ain't" in the book.

"Keene: Finally I ask you, Mr. Kingston, what have I done to deserve
this attack from you? You don't know me and I certainly had no idea of
who you were before I noticed your insulting material."

What sort of disingenuous person would ask such a question after
stating that TK is a mind-slave of Edward Winter? Winter's mind-slaves
have no need of reasons for attacking Keene; it is sufficient that they
have been ordered by their master to do so. To suggest otherwise is to
completely ignore the POWER of the DARK SIDE.

-- help bot