On Jan 23, 9:00 am, "SBD" wrote:
On Jan 23, 6:19 am, "Rob" wrote:

Intimating that TK is a poor writer is also a low blow - not done by
you bot of course - especially by someone who can't seem to piece a
coherent sentence together more than twice in a row.

That is your take. I simply said what was being written by current
historians was not stimulating any intrest in chess,generally speaking.
I also said I didn't know if what Taylor would submit would be
published because I am unsure if he can write anything that is
interesting as literature


History is not literature. This seems to be a sticking point for you.

You are quite mistaken here; history is -- or at least can be --
literature.

Second, perhaps if you took the time to read some of the things TK has
written, instead of speculating on his abilities, you- wait - no, you
wouldn't be able to - that is, most discerning readers could tell he is
an excellent writer.

Rob Mitchell seems unfamiliar with TK's writings, apart from his all
too frequent clashes with IM Innes (who RM follows around like a
puppy dog, barking loudly when a stranger "threatens" his master).

It seems as though both IM Innes and RM are in "safe mode"; that
is to say, they *can't* read TK's criticisms, for his stuff is much too
abrasive, too threatening. So, if TK were to write that some article
at Chessville had a small typo, the discussion which follows here
would *automatically* become just another exchange of fire in the
ongoing war between the two opposing sides. Sometimes, these
wars can last for decades, but in the end there are no winners, only
losers and bigger losers. OTOH, the price of ammo is driven sky-
high, and those who get in early can profit handsomely!

-- help bot

One remarkable illustration of the destructive attitude here to writing
about chess was the citation of Kingpin by Lord Kingston.

The last edition of that chess magazine took 2 years to emerge to paying
subscribers, and was so full of errors it had to be withdrawn and reprinted.
2 years in the making, and still without sufficient editorial attention!

I note a lack he IM Innes seems reluctant to specify *who* was
responsible
for this mess at Kingpin. What of responsibility -- is it rejected by
IM Innes?


Chessville is not looking for error-free work, since no such thing exists -
nor material to please all viewers, since that it in effect a compendium of
articles which no single article/perspective can achieve.

It is looking for a fair attempt at a subject, which can be improved upon
/as necessary/. Its not looking for special people to write, but people who
wouldn't mind sincere corrections or amendments being made.


Yes, yes. But this misrepresents things, for TK was hardly noting a
mere lack of perfection, a desire for completely error-free work. On
the
contrary, he was pointing out the fact that the writer had taken his
"facts"
rather lightly, not bothering to check them or to even write in such a
way
as to be clearly understood. Off the cuff, I would give the example of
the match won "handily", which was not. Enough said. You two need
to go and sharpen your axes, I'm sure.

-- help bot

On Jan 23, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"David Kane" wrote in messagenews:Ot6dncjG4sOp3ivYnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@comca st.com...

Are your mindless defenses of Innes' pathological dishonesty
also to stimulate interest in chess?Care to be specific, or just shout your mouth off in public?

HERE IS THE CHALLENGE
-again, for slow people-

Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player or
event? Of course, that's hard, and subject to criticism. But not to your
taste? I would take anyone who actually tried to write material themselves
much more seriously than these pretenders. What are these standards that
people want /other/ people to uphold, [ROFL] when they write this watery
drizzle themselveves?

Speaking of watery drizzle, how about sharpening up your own pen,
IM Innes? Of all the writers here, you least of all have earned the
right
to complain about others having a watery style. I have seen you write
on certain subjects -- unrelated to chess -- in which you choose to
write with clarity and intelligence, yet here in rgc you always seem to
lapse into a drunken daze of babble and obfuscation, apparently by
deliberate choice. Maybe it's your speech recognition experiment, or
maybe you have nothing worthwhile to say about chess. Maybe you
are afraid that if you are clearly understood, you might get shot down
by some Lord Kingston, shouting from his tower of facts curating.
Whatever the reason, it's a watery style if ever there was one. Try
to cut back a little on the hypocrisy, please.

Lord Kingston has issued the following edict, to be read by the
town cryer:

Edit that stuff on Chessville! Edit it. Be it so ordered from on
high,
from up in the sky!

-- help bot

On Jan 23, 5:45 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player
or event?

This assumes that those capable of
writing an exemplary essay would want
it associated with the Innes lie machine.

Huh? The Innes lie machine? But doesn't that operate mainly right
here,
in rgc?


yes assumes, yet i do not edit a single word of it

Somehow such subtleties escape those with Tickle IQs under 150.
So there.


- but any excuse for bitching is good, no?

War is war.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Taylor
Kingston even admits to reading the swill.

Better to sneak onto the site and check its contents on the sly? Ah,
but
then TK would ever after have to remember not to mention having seen it
--
and there's the rub. Much easier to take the high road, my friend.
Less
work, less worry, less chance of messing up. And did I mention that it
requires less work?

Frankly? You mean the guy who bad-mouths other people nonstop for his
preferred meanings - themselves without substance? You set your own standard
with both comments, citizen.

Frankly, if you have something to say, and I say this as a chess player,
show me, don't bull**** about your hidden magnificence

It's not hidden. Any fool can pay Tickle fifty bucks and get my
score.
But I'm not a facts curator! I'm not! That's for those "dry" writers,
like TK.
I'm really a philosopher chess genius, but they weren't smart enough to

include that one.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Jan 23, 9:00 am, "SBD" wrote:
On Jan 23, 6:19 am, "Rob" wrote:

Intimating that TK is a poor writer is also a low blow - not done by
you bot of course - especially by someone who can't seem to piece a
coherent sentence together more than twice in a row.

That is your take. I simply said what was being written by current
historians was not stimulating any intrest in chess,generally speaking.
I also said I didn't know if what Taylor would submit would be
published because I am unsure if he can write anything that is
interesting as literature


History is not literature. This seems to be a sticking point for you.

You are quite mistaken here; history is -- or at least can be --
literature.

Second, perhaps if you took the time to read some of the things TK has
written, instead of speculating on his abilities, you- wait - no, you
wouldn't be able to - that is, most discerning readers could tell he is
an excellent writer.

Rob Mitchell seems unfamiliar with TK's writings, apart from his all
too frequent clashes with IM Innes (who RM follows around like a
puppy dog, barking loudly when a stranger "threatens" his master).

Kennedy says this about any 2 people who are in some sort of agreement. Or
any 2 people who do not share his own views or inclinations. He spends more
time writing about other writers than he does about chess, and is quite
happy to be the sort of arbiter of opinion while himself calling others 'a
dog', or somesuch stuff, which is literally dehumising ****.

It seems as though both IM Innes and RM are in "safe mode"; that
is to say, they *can't* read TK's criticisms, for his stuff is much too
abrasive, too threatening. So, if TK were to write that some article
at Chessville had a small typo, the discussion which follows here
would *automatically* become just another exchange of fire in the
ongoing war between the two opposing sides.

Nonsense! Kingston's objections are petty and they are also based on the
massive lie that his site and heros do not commit mistakes, and his
intercessions are always competitive references to his own favorites, which
hover far above we, the people. If Kingpin is the comparison - what a
nonsense it is to make these plaints here about Chessville! When the issue
is Chesscafe's forum policy, he just can't recall if he thought his
disspaointment over CL was reason not to allow Evans the right of reply.

Kennedy's objections are like those of patzers to a game of chess - the
players should have done this, should have done that, is his constant
comment. But such a sour-puss will never get more satisfaction than that if
he doesn't submit himself to actually playing the game. Same thing with
writing - sorry, if you won't do it, maybe you can't do it [?] and your
opinions ain't worth much.

Sometimes, these
wars can last for decades, but in the end there are no winners, only
losers and bigger losers. OTOH, the price of ammo is driven sky-
high, and those who get in early can profit handsomely!

The only war going on is about promoting chess, and with those who do that
and those who can't be bothered to do anything. Kennedy hides his own
affiliation in this war - which he must really like, since this cheers up
his day by giving him something to write about without risking winning or
losing - see! look at the silly human beings out there!

It must choke such people to see the series being so successful - and even
to admit errors, and even a willingness to correct them! I think that's the
issue! Jealous!

Instead Kennedy and Kingston have to crab by inventing stuff to dislike,
like its 'my' site, or that I even have an editorial role in thsi series -
and this is plain as your face writing /envy/ - the same as Kennedy's 'IM'
jibs, which is so obviously a ratings-envy.

Just for once I would like to read a criticism that does not hate the fact
that other people have made a contribution to chess, and not based on such
obvious envy and competition. And --here's the kicker-- the challenge is to
write your own piece, and let others read it and comment on it without
yourself defending it.

Otherwise chess is similar to writing, if you don't play the game, you don't
know how it is to play it, and have to speculate instead, and pretend you
can play and know what that's like. For chess, like writing, acquires a
positive feeling by engagement. Any such love or even liking of the game is
absent from many people's expression here - and such folks are imposters.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

On Jan 23, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player or
event?

I thought I would try my hand at this, carefully keeping to a level
of thoroughness and accuracy similar to what we've seen at ChessVile so
far, and trying to write in the same style:

CHESSVILLE BAGUETTES: DWIGHT EISENHOWER

Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1968) was born in Abilene, Kansas. In 1925
he graduated from the US Military Academy at Annapolis. He served in
the army during World War II, primarily in Europe. War is a lot like
chess.
After the war he was discharged from the army, and entered politics.
He tied Adlai Stevenson in the 1952 presidential election, but was
declared the winner because he had a higher grade-point average in the
Electoral College. Eisenhower served as US President for 10 years,
1953-1961, tieing Stevenson again in 1956. During his administration,
some things were the same, some were different.
When ill health forced Eisenhower to withdraw from the 1960 election,
his vice-president Richard Nixon was proclaimed to succeed him.

LOL

Cute. Glad Vignettes isn't like that at all.

On Jan 24, 8:22 am, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" wrote:



Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player or
event? I thought I would try my hand at this, carefully keeping to a level
of thoroughness and accuracy similar to what we've seen at ChessVile so
far, and trying to write in the same style:

CHESSVILLE BAGUETTES: DWIGHT EISENHOWER

Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1968) was born in Abilene, Kansas. In 1925
he graduated from the US Military Academy at Annapolis. He served in
the army during World War II, primarily in Europe. War is a lot like
chess.
After the war he was discharged from the army, and entered politics.
He tied Adlai Stevenson in the 1952 presidential election, but was
declared the winner because he had a higher grade-point average in the
Electoral College. Eisenhower served as US President for 10 years,
1953-1961, tieing Stevenson again in 1956. During his administration,
some things were the same, some were different.
When ill health forced Eisenhower to withdraw from the 1960 election,
his vice-president Richard Nixon was proclaimed to succeed him.

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


On Jan 23, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Why don't you write us your own exemplary essay on your favorite player
or
event?

I thought I would try my hand at this, carefully keeping to a level
of thoroughness and accuracy similar to what we've seen at ChessVile so
far, and trying to write in the same style:

I am not sure if Lord Kingston is aware that he is criticising writing of
the chess public from his haughty tower. But I think its time to examine if,
in his opinion, chess writing is the sacred preserve of the few who may not
be examined, or if indeed many views are useful.

I had the same concerns 5 years ago and copy my own words below to a Certain
Writer from 2/16/2002 on this very topic:-

A running series of caustic comments on several subjects, mostly Russian
topics, have passed between Chesscafe's Edward Winter and Larry Evans often
involving the interpretation and implication of material by other writers.

It may seem from the above that Chesscafe has the greater role in
suppressing unwelcome opinions,

Larry Evans supported by Larry Parr have experienced difficulty in having
their views fairly expressed at Chesscafe, citing editorial interference and
abstructions by its publisher Hanon Russell.

4) Will Chesscafe allow any views to be expressed other than those
favoured by its own columnists, or that reference their views? Chesscafe
seems to experience difficulty in differentiating the partisan journalism of
those it publishes with anything more robust that can be considered
history.

What my correspondent answered to these concerns is private!

5) That there may be other views to those expressed principally by
Evans/Winter does not necessarily detract from either of their work.
Lionising either of them does reduce both their researches into partisan
journalism,

And so is the answer to that private.

---
When people rag on other people's work, being destructively critical, we
have to assess to what degree they will even allow others to have any say at
all !

And these citations of my own concerns are fair questions about chess
writing, and now written here fair and square and in the open. They do not
insist on any one point of view, but actually encourage dialog rather than
partisan approaches.

Chesscafe's forum is now shut down, since such narrow and partisano views
eventually bored what was once a fine forum into its own grave.

Readers interested in the origin of this longtiome antagonism will note it
was about the degree of Soviet coercian in chess, citing one example
Keres/Botvinnik. No one much has liked Evans' suggestions that it was so,
and even very extensively so.

About a week later on 2/18/2002 I received this note from a Russian
historian, who reports another historian plus this snippet about [the now
late] David Bronstein:

//Recently in our magazine "64"
was published an extract from Bronstein's future book where he
accuses the Soviet chess officials of compulsion several soviet
chess players in Smyslov's favour.//

Following these scandals which had become for a few seasons 'popular' in
Russian chess circles; who talk about these issues much more freely than we
do, BTW, I was able to achieve some confirmations from Mark Taimanov,
objectively substantiated by KGB records - which are now published.

Whether Keres/Botvinnik can be specifically resolved is perhaps a matter of
qualified opinion, certainly of further investigations - but that was NOT
the issue, just an example of it.The arguments were that no systemic
'management' was taking place.

The difficulty in having a discussion, rather than diatribes and assertions
proposing views of favorites, was a seeming denial on the part of Chesscafe
writers that such a Soviet-era factor was in fact widespread and quite
systematic, while resisting views to the contrary - resisting even having
other views appear! In short - Chesscafe became a partisan advocate for one
opinion only.

As we see now, Bronstein and Taimanov have also spoken - and not only them.
So below the surface of this current correspondance is the issue of a form
of cheating and whether we in the West could be allowed to discuss it as
Russians themselves could. [see 64 ref above]. Or if we should accept the
opinions of chess writers who do not intend to have their own views fairly
examined, while they attack the writing of others, non-stop.

This is now, as was then, an issue!

Phil Innes

CHESSVILLE BAGUETTES: DWIGHT EISENHOWER

Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1968) was born in Abilene, Kansas. In 1925
he graduated from the US Military Academy at Annapolis.

Jeez Chriss -- it took him *35 years* to get through school?

He served in
the army during World War II, primarily in Europe.

Well, after struggling through school for 35 years, he was probably
lucky to get *any* job.

War is a lot like chess.

Yeah -- lousy "playing" conditions, the money funneled up to the
"officers", etc.

After the war he was discharged from the army,

Uh-oh. Too dumb to get through school 'till he was already middle
age, and can't
even keep a job in the army -- what's the poor guy gonna do now?

and entered politics.

Of course! I should have known this. Duh....

He tied Adlai Stevenson in the 1952 presidential election, but was
declared the winner because he had a higher grade-point average in the
Electoral College.

So he went back to school again, at E.U., eh?


Eisenhower served as US President for 10 years,

Two five-year terms, I suppose.

1953-1961,

Phhmph! Even a putz like me knows that 1961 minus 1953 is only
eight years, not ten!

tieing Stevenson again in 1956.

Same guy as what run agin' Abe Linkin! Determined fella, ain't he?

During his administration,
some things were the same, some were different.

The best of times, the worst of times -- your writing style is right
up
there with the best!

When ill health forced Eisenhower to withdraw from the 1960 election,

Whoops: just above you said he served as president through 1961,
remember?

his vice-president Richard Nixon was proclaimed to succeed him.

Yes, succeed -- not replace. Nobody could replace a man what barely
got through school at age 35, dropped out of the army, and had to enter
politics or starve. I reckon he beat that Stevenson fella on account
of
him being, what, 100 years old by then? Women will always go for the
younger, better-looking fella, even if he ain't too smart. Well,
except fer
that one time when Mr. Nixon got elected.

-- bot

On Jan 25, 1:34 am, "help bot" wrote:
CHESSVILLE BAGUETTES: DWIGHT EISENHOWER

Eisenhower served as US President for 10 years,

Two five-year terms, I suppose.

1953-1961,

Phhmph! Even a putz like me knows that 1961 minus 1953 is only
eight years, not ten!

Bot, I quote from the great sage Rob Mitchell: "It is not incorrect.
8 is nearly 10 given it's proximity to 10 and it's distance from 1. It
could be said more precisely but to do so would in no way alter or
improve what was written. I think it would render it more clinical and
less interesting to read."

So you see, by saying Ike was president for 10 years, rather than the
actual 8, I made the article more interesting. I have learned a great
deal about "interesting" writing from the Chess Vignettes school, and
so tried to incorporate the "rounding-up" trick and all the other CV
tricks in my baguette.