Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 15, 2:34 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history.

If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
be done.

What a bizarre statement. Your ability to mishandle logic is truly
dazzling.

It's almost at the level of Sam Sloan or the Nearly an IM 2450.

As for Mitchell's feeble addition to Chessvile, it's right up there
with Philsy's Christmas quiz as one of the funniest examples of
cluelessness writ large.

The Historian wrote:

As for Mitchell's feeble addition to Chessvile, it's right up there
with Philsy's Christmas quiz as one of the funniest examples of
cluelessness writ large.

Dear Neil,
I didn't write the article in question.
LOLOLOL!

Rob

On Jan 15, 3:41 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 15, 2:34 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

TK: I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history.

RM: If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
be done. That is a very arrogant position to take.

TK: What a bizarre statement ... It would be, but I know of no one who takes it, least of all myself.

RM: Perhaps you think you didn't take it. In My opinion, you did ...
Now you have accused me personally of something called "intellectual
dishonesty". What exactly do you think that is? Down here someone is
either a liar or not. Seems to me that to call someone a liar without
proof is something a bit worse. But please, prove to me that I am a
liar.

"Intellectual dishonesty" is not necessarily the same as lying, Rob,
although it can be. For now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
assume yours was unintentional. As far an example is concerned, one is
immediately at hand:

I wrote: "The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history."

You characterized that as: "If that were true... then only one volume
or account of anything need be done. That is a very arrogant position
to take."

Which is a complete misrepresentation of my statement. You commit a
logical fallacy known as a "straw-man argument," trying to refute a
position one's opponent has not taken. It is one form of intellectual
dishonesty.
I don't consider this a conscious lie on your part, Rob. Rather, I
would guess that your understanding of the principles of logical
argument is so poor that you write this sort of nonsense in the
mistaken belief that you are scoring a valid rhetorical point.
I've spent enough time on this; I don't intend to argue with you
further. If you prefer your chess history sloppy and full of errors,
then by all means enjoy the "Chessville Vignettes" site, and defend its
honor against evil, arrogant fact-checkers like myself.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

"Intellectual dishonesty" is not necessarily the same as lying, Rob,
although it can be. For now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
assume yours was unintentional. As far an example is concerned, one is
immediately at hand:

I wrote: "The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history."

You characterized that as: "If that were true... then only one volume
or account of anything need be done. That is a very arrogant position
to take."

Which is a complete misrepresentation of my statement. You commit a
logical fallacy known as a "straw-man argument," trying to refute a
position one's opponent has not taken. It is one form of intellectual
dishonesty.


Taylor,
I believe that any contribution can be useful. It is hepful if the
information is more factually accurate. Where is disagree is in
claiming it is "irresponsible and injurious to chess history". If
something is "wrong" then it's just "wrong". It isn't evil. And if it
makes someone want to learn and read more about the person or the
subject, then it's a good thing. As I see it, the currentchess
literature is playing to the choir and doing little to engage the
general public. If chess is to grow, then the general public to the
direction historians /autohors should direct their efforts. Otherwise
we simply have only boring,dry colorless textbooks to read from instead
of colorful engaging novels.

I don't consider this a conscious lie on your part, Rob. Rather, I
would guess that your understanding of the principles of logical
argument is so poor that you write this sort of nonsense in the
mistaken belief that you are scoring a valid rhetorical point.


Probably right. I hate to argue.

I've spent enough time on this; I don't intend to argue with you
further.

Okay by me!

Rob

Taylor Kingston wrote:snipped.
6) I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.

Taylor, you are correct in that the Chess Review was begun even before
the European outbreak of WWII. But according to my limited knowledge I
found this about the Chess Review's co-founder:
Horowitz was the editor of The Chess Review until 1969, co-founding the
magazine with Kashdan in 1932.

Thanks. I was not absolutely sure on this point, hence my qualifying
it with the tentative "I believe ..." Checking further, I see that your
source seems to be confirmed by Arnold Denker, who wrote: "In 1933, at
the height of the Great Depression, [Horowitz] got the idea that chess
would have a much larger following if it had a modern magazine ... He
took on Isaac Kashdan as his partner ..." (The Bobby Fischer I Knew and
Other Stories, p. 201). So perhaps Horowitz might even be considered
more of a founder than Kashdan.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:snipped.
6) I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.

Taylor, you are correct in that the Chess Review was begun even before
the European outbreak of WWII. But according to my limited knowledge I
found this about the Chess Review's co-founder:
Horowitz was the editor of The Chess Review until 1969, co-founding the
magazine with Kashdan in 1932.


Thanks. I was not absolutely sure on this point, hence my qualifying
it with the tentative "I believe ..." Checking further, I see that your
source seems to be confirmed by Arnold Denker, who wrote: "In 1933, at
the height of the Great Depression, [Horowitz] got the idea that chess
would have a much larger following if it had a modern magazine ... He
took on Isaac Kashdan as his partner ..." (The Bobby Fischer I Knew and
Other Stories, p. 201). So perhaps Horowitz might even be considered
more of a founder than Kashdan.

I agree. I think today there is still that struggle going on to create
a "modern" magazine.(whatever that is) to interest the general public
into wanting to learn more about the game.

Additionally I found some interesting information concerning Tarrasch
and Lasker and their opposing styles and methods of thinking. If you
like I would be happy to include a link.

Rob

Additionally I found some interesting information concerning Tarrasch
and Lasker and their opposing styles and methods of thinking. If you
like I would be happy to include a link.

http://tinyurl.com/ybejof


Rob

On Jan 15, 4:56 pm, "Rob" wrote:

I believe that any contribution can be useful. It is hepful if the
information is more factually accurate.

This is rather like saying "Any kind of restaurant is useful. It is
helpful if they actually serve edible food."

Where is disagree is in
claiming it is "irresponsible and injurious to chess history". If
something is "wrong" then it's just "wrong". It isn't evil.

Rob, I would have hoped that since I just pointed out your habitual
tendency toward the straw-man fallacy, you would have the good sense to
avoid it. Have I (or anyone) said the of sort factual error seen in
"Chessville Vignettes" is "evil"? No. But it is error.

And if it
makes someone want to learn and read more about the person or the
subject, then it's a good thing.

Are you seriously trying to claim that error is just as good as fact
if it inspires interest? I hope not. Sounds like the sort of argument
the supermarket tabloids would make, that unfounded gossip about movie
stars is better than truth because more people like to read it.

As I see it, the currentchess [sic]
literature is playing to the choir and doing little to engage the
general public.

Rob, having read countless chess books of all types over a span of
more than 40 years, and having reviewed over 120 books for
ChessCafe.com, I think in all humility I may reasonably suggest that I
know a bit more about "currentchess literature" than you or the average
bear. I also submit that you are again displaying your not
inconsiderable ignorance.

If chess is to grow, then the general public to the
direction historians /autohors should direct their efforts.

Babelfish again fails me on this.

Otherwise
we simply have only boring,dry colorless textbooks to read from instead
of colorful engaging novels.

"Engaging novels"?? So you admit that you want to promote fiction
rather than fact? As far as "boring, dry colorless texbooks" are
concerned, you once again demonstrate a staggering ignorance of recent
chess literature. You also seem totally unaware of the strong recent
surge in general-interest chess books. And to think that "Chess
Vignettes" is contributing to that trend is like a child thinking its
bathtub waves have augmented a Pacific Ocean tsunami.
Rob, to paraphrase Churchill, seldom has someone so uninformed made
such sweeping claims based on so little knowledge. I strongly advise
you to refrain from posting on rgc until you learn at least to
differentiate the distal end of the humerus from the gluteus maximus.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 15, 4:56 pm, "Rob" wrote:

I believe that any contribution can be useful. It is hepful if the
information is more factually accurate.

This is rather like saying "Any kind of restaurant is useful. It is
helpful if they actually serve edible food."

Where is disagree is in
claiming it is "irresponsible and injurious to chess history". If
something is "wrong" then it's just "wrong". It isn't evil.

Rob, I would have hoped that since I just pointed out your habitual
tendency toward the straw-man fallacy, you would have the good sense to
avoid it. Have I (or anyone) said the of sort factual error seen in
"Chessville Vignettes" is "evil"? No. But it is error.

And if it
makes someone want to learn and read more about the person or the
subject, then it's a good thing.

Are you seriously trying to claim that error is just as good as fact
if it inspires interest? I hope not. Sounds like the sort of argument
the supermarket tabloids would make, that unfounded gossip about movie
stars is better than truth because more people like to read it.

As I see it, the currentchess [sic]
literature is playing to the choir and doing little to engage the
general public.

Rob, having read countless chess books of all types over a span of
more than 40 years, and having reviewed over 120 books for
ChessCafe.com, I think in all humility I may reasonably suggest that I
know a bit more about "currentchess literature" than you or the average
bear. I also submit that you are again displaying your not
inconsiderable ignorance.

If chess is to grow, then the general public to the
direction historians /autohors should direct their efforts.

Babelfish again fails me on this.

Otherwise
we simply have only boring,dry colorless textbooks to read from instead
of colorful engaging novels.

"Engaging novels"?? So you admit that you want to promote fiction
rather than fact? As far as "boring, dry colorless texbooks" are
concerned, you once again demonstrate a staggering ignorance of recent
chess literature.

oh no, Mr. Scarecrow, You did not interpret what I said.I did not say I
promote fiction. I said the current state of dry factual reporting is
about as exciting as reading a text book.

You also seem totally unaware of the strong recent
surge in general-interest chess books. And to think that "Chess
Vignettes" is contributing to that trend is like a child thinking its
bathtub waves have augmented a Pacific Ocean tsunami.
Rob, to paraphrase Churchill, seldom has someone so uninformed made
such sweeping claims based on so little knowledge. I strongly advise
you to refrain from posting on rgc until you learn at least to
differentiate the distal end of the humerus from the gluteus maximus.

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Taylor, It is you who did this. Rather than concede that a statement
like "right behind" means 1/2 point or 5 pts is silly.

The intent of the Vignette was plain enough - the player was the next best
scorer compared with the lead scorer, and he wan't 8 places behind, but
immediately behind. Maybe other Californians can say if 'right behind' only
means half a point behind in their system of speaking?

After first raising this point

[half-point? grin]

and carping on it, and as seems necessary for him these days, declaring his
correspondent dishonest [presumably not as dishonest as Mussolini], stating
that his attention span is exhausted by dealing with mortals, etc, as usual
our precision-merchant has run off, declaring himself victorious - somewhat
negating his other writing to the subject, as if, that too, might be subject
to one and only one perspective.

What unusual behavior!

Phil Innes

To have
mentioned it within the context of a meaningful and useful critique was
to call into question the sincerity of your entire critique.