Again, I wanted to find out what Garry thought about his
predecessors,


Did you? Did Garry pour his heart and soul into this project, while leaving
only the cover design to whatshisface? The evidence shows otherwise.
Perhaps "Fighting Chess: My Games and Career" is more what you were looking
for?




I can understand that a lot of the basic 'situation' commentary and
primary analysis was done by Plisetsky,


But you did not buy the book because the name "Plisetsky" was on the cover.
Kasparov is the key name, and if he is going to start rolling out ghost-written
potboilers, it is best that everyone knows about this as soon as possible.
Then people (like you) who enjoy them can do so, while others can safely steer
clear.


When it was learned that MSMG was co-written by Larry Evans, there were some
who feared that Fischer had not done all the analysis, even though Evans was a
strong GM.
They bought the book because they thought it had been written by a particular
player. The case of Kasparov vs. Plisetsky is similar.



What defense?


An attack on the critics is the usual form of so-called "defense" here.
By basicly ignoring the actual criticisms and instead focusing upon the
critics, you can not only avoid further embarassment (by acknowledging and
repeating the flaws you try to defend) , but create a diversion which tries
desperately to focus attention on the critics, and their many motives/flaws.
Oh, what fun! And no real skill required!!



I'm just saying I liked the book and didn't see the point in a
lot of the criticism that was aimed at it.


One such point would be to discourage future plagerism by any authors, by
showing that it can and will be *exposed*.

Another point might be to show that a work which is expected by purchasers to
be of superb quality in terms of analysis, falls short -- in part because this
expectation was derived from the assumption that the famous name on the book's
cover was the true author, the actual analyst.



It was a little too vehement and
overblown in its delivery and basically uncalled for,...again, a little too
persnickety. As Winter would say, I caught a "whiff" of enmity in his review


I agree completely. Winter is too persnickety, and overblown, just as you
say.
On top of this, his main focus is on dragging others down by pointing out a
multitude of errors. I would prefer someone who churns out a multitude of
near-perfect works, setting an example and showing not only that it can be
done, but precisely how to do it.

Does this make "Kasparov's" book any better?

Why have you refrained from personally attacking other critics of this book?
Don't you know that you need to bowl them *all* down in order to get "a
strike"?
Actually, even if you proved that every critic of this book was a detestable
freak of nature, you would still have failed utterly in your task of justifying
plagerism and sloppiness.



Hehe,...you really like to see your own words in these newsgroups, don't you?


Would you believe that NoMoreChess is the ONLY entry in my own killfile? I
didn't think so. Would you believe that Kasparov didn't really write most of
that book with his name pasted on the cover? I didn't think so.



but he can
never bring to the table what Garry, the greatest player ever, can.


What's that -- 2900 rating points? Would you be satisfied if Winter brought
*half* that many points with him? After all, you said you were not very
demanding, and 2900 is *a lot* of rating points!




Again, have you read the book?


Have you read the reviews? You seem to be down on reviewers who have
discovered what you overlooked, and I expect they had not enough time to finish
this book. In fact, Winter says outright that he merely scanned through it,
and his focus was not on the game analysis, which another reviewer had already
tackled. Winter, by no means had sufficient time to find all the errors in
this book which he was capable of uncovering, yet he did not lack for material.
Strange, no? And, nitpicker that he is, he still endorsed the criticisms of
another writer, of this book's analysis, rather than poking holes in them
(which is his favorite thing to do!) Again, very strange if this book is of
star quality.



the Forster ANALysis is ridiculous


Aha! You now have more than just Winter and me to *personally attack*, as a
way of avoiding the tougher job of tackling specific criticisms of this book,
or admitting they are valid.
As for me, I will check out Forster's analysis for myself, and report back.
I already saw Winter's many criticisms, and only a couple would qualify as mere
nitpicking.
In particular, the charges of plagerism and multi-authoring are disturbing to
anyone who expects they are buying a book written by the great Kasparov, with
his analytical skill.

As for the personal enmity between Winter and Kasparov, I would go along with
this, knowing that Winter HAS TO BE enemies with Raymond Keene, who is closely
tied to Kasparov. Of course, any discussion of plagerism cannot be considered
complete without mention of Keene. Even if Keene and Winter are bitter
enemies, and even if Winter and Kasparov are bitter enemies, this cannot bring
about the problems which Winter pointed out in his article, which stand *on
their own merits*.




Otherwise, you should STFU and get back to me only when you
have


Kiss my ass, Mr. Dictator!

"I answer to only one person -- me." - Han Solo

"You're going to have to come down here, Khan. If you want to kill-file me,
you're going to have to come *down here*!" -Kaptain Kirk

"I've done far worse than kill-file you. I've embarassed you. And I wish to
go on *embarassing* you." -Khan



The attempt to justify plagerism by personally attacking those who catch
the plageriser, is really reaching.


No answer whatever to this charge of plagerism from Mr. Dictator.

Of course, Winter knew that such a charge would place him in a horrible
position financially -- UNLESS it were demonstrably true.
If I want to read what others have written, I would much prefer to know who
they are, and have it in their own words. And what's more, if I am going to
buy a patchwork book buy a plethora of authors, I will pay somewhat less than
what I might be willing to pay for a quality work by the one and only, Garry
Kasparov.

Heehehe,...Mr. Dictator,...?...What the hell is that,...heehe,...I'm gonna
start calling you "Mr.Gimpy",...'cause your arguments are LAME! In fact, your
arguing with yourself: "it's plagurism, I say, plagurism!!",...and all I've
said is, "I don't really care about that,...it's a good book,...I liked it,...I
think Winter's review is too persnickety,...you should read it yourself and
form your own opinion,...what's the problem, man,...just put down the gun, and
step away from the ledge,...it's gonna be alright,..."

You should really read your own stuff,...Actually,...before that, you should
read ALL of the stuff you're responding to and try to quote it verbatim as I do
- not pull pieces and parts out of context and nitpick it as you criticize
Winter of doing You seem to have skimmed through my response and only focused
on bits and parts you can pick at regarding "Plagurism, PLAGURISM!!!" 'cause I
pretty much fried your fussy little ass, otherwise didn't I?..heehe.

Again, I wanted to find out what Garry thought about his
predecessors,


Did you? Did Garry pour his heart and soul into this project, while
leaving
only the cover design to whatshisface? The evidence shows otherwise.
Perhaps "Fighting Chess: My Games and Career" is more what you were looking
for?


Again,...pretty selective on the quotes here,...you're not including my
acknowledgement of Plisetsky's influence, but that was never the issue. Sure,
he probably wrote the majority of it,...Hell, he could have written the whole
damn thing for all I know,...but it's still a good book,...Do you understand? I
liked the book,...that's all,...I think Winter's criticism was over the top and
the criteria with which he judged it (with which he judges everybodies work) is
too demanding for the context.

As for 'Fighting Chess,..." I have a copy and have played through some of the
games, but it's of fairly high-density,...much like your head ...and I'll get
to it one of these days,...similar to Nunn's ''Secrets of Grandmaster Chess"
which nearly made my head explode,...you gotta be in the right mood for that
stuff.

I can understand that a lot of the basic 'situation' commentary and
primary analysis was done by Plisetsky,


But you did not buy the book because the name "Plisetsky" was on the
cover.
Kasparov is the key name, and if he is going to start rolling out
ghost-written
potboilers, it is best that everyone knows about this as soon as possible.
Then people (like you) who enjoy them can do so, while others can safely
steer
clear.

I don't know about other buyers, but I knew Plisetsky was involved months
ago,...so?...it's a book! Not a holy-relic! What do you want, a certificate of
authenticity? Even though he (Plisetsky) was involved, I knew anything with
Garry's name on it would have to get the OK from the big-boss, and having READ
the book, I'm perfectly satisfied that it has not only his stamp of approval,
but a large amount of his influence if not his prose. It's a GOOD
book,...,...why don't you read it?

When it was learned that MSMG was co-written by Larry Evans, there were
some
who feared that Fischer had not done all the analysis, even though Evans was
a
strong GM.
They bought the book because they thought it had been written by a particular
player. The case of Kasparov vs. Plisetsky is similar.


OK,...I'm with ya,...I see the parallel,...but does it really matter 'that'
much?...To me, it doesn't,...Listen, if it was obviously 'dialed-in' by Garry,
I would say as much,...really! I'm not the president of his fan club!...but I
genuinely liked the book,...than again, I've actually READ the book haven't
I,...

An attack on the critics is the usual form of so-called "defense" here.
By basicly ignoring the actual criticisms and instead focusing upon the
critics, you can not only avoid further embarassment (by acknowledging and
repeating the flaws you try to defend) , but create a diversion which tries
desperately to focus attention on the critics, and their many motives/flaws.
Oh, what fun! And no real skill required!!

Yeah,...'cause I thought they were too harsh and were judging the work on their
own selective criteria - which you admit they are wont to do - no diversion
here,...So it lacks the scholarship they, the critics, would have put into
it,... I don't care! It's not the criteria I have, or I think I'm pretty safe
in saying GARRY has for this book! You see, that's ALL they have to offer -
scholarship. They don't have the experience of sitting across from Karpov in
game 24 in Seville '87 fighting for your life. That's what I love about Garry,
he's been there,...he's felt it,...he's had it ALL riding on ONE game,...Winter
and ALL his scholarship can not even compare to that!...and yeah,...heehe,...it
was fun and easy,...heehe,...

I'm just saying I liked the book and didn't see the point in a
lot of the criticism that was aimed at it.


One such point would be to discourage future plagerism by any authors, by
showing that it can and will be *exposed*.

Another point might be to show that a work which is expected by purchasers
to
be of superb quality in terms of analysis, falls short -- in part because
this
expectation was derived from the assumption that the famous name on the
book's
cover was the true author, the actual analyst.

Heehe,...there you go again,...heehe,..."Plagurism, PLAGURISM!!",...How the
hell is Garry and Plisetsky supposed to get through a book on Champions whose
careers were 70+ years ago, and whose games have been analysed by countless
analysts? It would require another whole BOOK just to cite the sources! And the
major point of contention that I have with Winter, and you, is that I don't
agree with the criteria with which you are judging it...It's far too strict and
defy's the point of the work. The title is "Garry Kasparov On My Great
Predecessors" and that's what it is! It's Garry, discussing the influence the
Champions had on their times and the contribution HE feels they made to
chess,...that's exactly what I expected and desired,...Of course, I've actually
read the book, so what do I know

It was a little too vehement and
overblown in its delivery and basically uncalled for,...again, a little too
persnickety. As Winter would say, I caught a "whiff" of enmity in his review


I agree completely. Winter is too persnickety, and overblown, just as you
say.
On top of this, his main focus is on dragging others down by pointing out a
multitude of errors. I would prefer someone who churns out a multitude of
near-perfect works, setting an example and showing not only that it can be
done, but precisely how to do it.

Does this make "Kasparov's" book any better?

Why have you refrained from personally attacking other critics of this
book?
Don't you know that you need to bowl them *all* down in order to get "a
strike"?
Actually, even if you proved that every critic of this book was a
detestable
freak of nature, you would still have failed utterly in your task of
justifying
plagerism and sloppiness.

I'm glad that we agree on something (Mr. Winter), and can only guess that we
might agree on other issues raised if you read the book,...but it seems we will
never know.

I've only read one other review on it. From someone who, in my mind, has a
little more credibility than Mr. Winter. This guys actually a GM,...you might
have heard of him, GM Matthew Sadler,...Yeah,...the guy who won the British
Chess Federation's "Book Of The Year",...and I quote:

"If you haven't got the message already - this is a fantastic book. The sort of
book that I will have to lock away for fear of spending too much time reading
and re-reading it! I can't wait for the next installment!" - New In Chess, 2003
Issue 4, pg. 92.,...How 'bout them apples?...what little crack do you have for
Mr. Sadler? Guess he's a sucker for "ghost-written potboilers" to, huh? Oh
wait,...he actually READ the book didn't he,...hmmm...

Hehe,...you really like to see your own words in these newsgroups, don't
you?


Would you believe that NoMoreChess is the ONLY entry in my own killfile? I
didn't think so.

But I'd bet you would be on plenty of others killfile if you'd crawl out from
under your rock...

Would you believe that Kasparov didn't really write most of
that book with his name pasted on the cover? I didn't think so.

Yeah,...I'd believe that. It's been done before, but it doesn't change the fact
that I think it's a good book...

but he can
never bring to the table what Garry, the greatest player ever, can.


What's that -- 2900 rating points? Would you be satisfied if Winter
brought
*half* that many points with him? After all, you said you were not very
demanding, and 2900 is *a lot* of rating points!

Huh,...what point are you making? That Garry has countless hours of over the
board experience with the greatest players on earth?,...OK, I guess we agree!
Take a picture!

Have you read the reviews? You seem to be down on reviewers who have
discovered what you overlooked, and I expect they had not enough time to
finish
this book. In fact, Winter says outright that he merely scanned through it,
and his focus was not on the game analysis, which another reviewer had
already
tackled. Winter, by no means had sufficient time to find all the errors in
this book which he was capable of uncovering, yet he did not lack for
material.
Strange, no? And, nitpicker that he is, he still endorsed the criticisms of
another writer, of this book's analysis, rather than poking holes in them
(which is his favorite thing to do!) Again, very strange if this book is of
star quality.

As I explained above, I've only seen one other review by a respected GM, and it
was pretty glowing as you can see from my above quote. Your right, Winter
didn't read it,...and that's my point,...He selectively threw it through the
'Winter-Filter' and picked it apart,...you even state this "...is his favorite
thing to do!" so why do you defend the reviewer so adamantly,...you admittedly
haven't even "skimmed" the book, so why do you take Winter's "nitpicker that he
is" word to be gospel? You're chopping off the legs your standing on...

the Forster ANALysis is ridiculous


Aha! You now have more than just Winter and me to *personally attack*, as
a
way of avoiding the tougher job of tackling specific criticisms of this book,
or admitting they are valid.
As for me, I will check out Forster's analysis for myself, and report
back.
I already saw Winter's many criticisms, and only a couple would qualify as
mere
nitpicking.
In particular, the charges of plagerism and multi-authoring are disturbing
to
anyone who expects they are buying a book written by the great Kasparov, with
his analytical skill.

Personally, I find Forster's ANALysis ridiculous,...it is WAY off point.
Again,...if you'd read the book you'd see why! It's not ABOUT analysis. As we
both know, Garry can do analysis with the best of them. Again, these games have
been analytically driven into the dirt in the past 70+ years by many, many
others,...and there isn't much, if anything, that Kasparov and Co. could add to
that,...but it's not the premise of the book to begin with,...Here,...this is
the first chapter heading of the book,..."The Champions as Symbols of their
Time",...and that's basically the whole theory behind the work! Garry and Co.
elaborating on THAT assumption and providing examples of such...you should read
it.

As for the personal enmity between Winter and Kasparov, I would go along
with
this, knowing that Winter HAS TO BE enemies with Raymond Keene, who is
closely
tied to Kasparov. Of course, any discussion of plagerism cannot be
considered
complete without mention of Keene. Even if Keene and Winter are bitter
enemies, and even if Winter and Kasparov are bitter enemies, this cannot
bring
about the problems which Winter pointed out in his article, which stand *on
their own merits*.

Again,...his criteria is far too stringent,...which you would understand had
you read the book. It's not about 'scholarly accuracy' and 'dense
analysis',...it's about the legacy of the Champions and their contributions to
the game,...that's all - if you can call that a menial task!

Otherwise, you should STFU and get back to me only when you
have


Kiss my ass, Mr. Dictator!

Heehe,...that is so lame,...heehe...


"I answer to only one person -- me." - Han Solo

"You're going to have to come down here, Khan. If you want to kill-file
me,
you're going to have to come *down here*!" -Kaptain Kirk

"I've done far worse than kill-file you. I've embarassed you. And I wish
to
go on *embarassing* you." -Khan


Haaahaa!!,...heehe,...No,...heehe,...you pretty much did all the embarrassing
to yourself with those 'ZINGERS!',...heehe...


The attempt to justify plagerism by personally attacking those who catch
the plageriser, is really reaching.


No answer whatever to this charge of plagerism from Mr. Dictator.

Of course, Winter knew that such a charge would place him in a horrible
position financially -- UNLESS it were demonstrably true.
If I want to read what others have written, I would much prefer to know
who
they are, and have it in their own words. And what's more, if I am going to
buy a patchwork book buy a plethora of authors, I will pay somewhat less than
what I might be willing to pay for a quality work by the one and only, Garry
Kasparov.

I didn't 'defend' the flaws, which if you had read my response you would have
seen, rather than looking for quotes from the Wrath of Khan & Star
Wars...heehe. Again, the book is not gonna please the fussy little f***'s, like
yourself, but that's OK, Again...it's not the point of the book which you would
KNOW had you READ it,...


Ryan


P.S. See, that's a signature up there,...I showed you mine,...let's see
yours...?...I didn't think so...heehe...READ THE BOOK!...

Mr. Dictator may have overlooked my point, which was that (I hope) Garry's
earlier book, "Fighting Chess, My Games and Career," was actually written by
*him*, and not somebody else. If this is not true, I'm sure there must be
*some* book out there actually written by Kasparov, which would suffice.



Heehe,...there you go again,...heehe,..."Plagurism, PLAGURISM!!"


Nincompoop! He doesn't even know how to properly spell "playguerilizsm"!
Illituritt moron.




the major point of contention that I have with Winter, and you, is that I
don't
agree with the criteria with which you are judging it...It's far too strict
and
defy's the point of the work.


Okie-dokey. Banning outright plagiarism is "too strict" for Mr. Dictator.
Finding factual errors is also "too strict" for him. Thanks for clearing that
up -- we now a much better idea of Mr. Dictator's, shall we say, "standards."



It's a GOOD
book,...,...why don't you read it?


Because Mr. Dictator claims it is a good book, by *his* dispicably low
standards.

My standards of what constitutes a good book, are just a bit higher -- that's
why. Even so, before I realized that this book met Mr. Dictator's particularly
low standards, I read a long review, and a multi-page sample available for
free, on the net. They seemed to jibe.


I expect more than a few readers of this thread will have noted that Mr.
Dictator refuses to address the charge that Kasparov did not really write much
of this book. Worse, he continues to base his worthless praise on the idea
that Kasparov did just that, along with deriding the critics for daring to
examine this work to determine its quality.




"If you haven't got the message already - this is a fantastic book. The sort
of
book that I will have to lock away for fear of spending too much time reading
and re-reading it! I can't wait for the next installment!" - New In Chess,
2003


A quote which clearly demonstrates that its author had NOT already read this
book. Duh!
Learn to read -- and you'll be amazed at the improvement in your
comprehension! GM Sadler fears he may spend too much time READING this book,
for the first time, or even again, afterwards! LOL!




what little crack do you have for
Mr. Sadler?


I'm only a user -- not a pusher! But if I were one, I would undoubtedly go
with the Wal-mart strategy: stack 'em deep, and sell 'em cheap! So, the silly
charge that I tried to sell Sadler "a little" is absurd, in addition to being
groundless ad hominem. Er, just how much is he wiling to pay? ;-)





He selectively threw it through the
'Winter-Filter' and picked it apart,...you even state this "...is his
favorite thing to do!" so why do you defend the reviewer so adamantly,.


Mr. Dictator is *very* confused. I deliberately inserted a criticism of
Winter in order to make crystal-clear the fact that this is an entirely
seperate matter! Criticizing the critic fails utterly to address his
criticisms. Hello? Any intelligent life out there? I thought not. Perhaps
on Mars, then....

Mr. Too much of a pussy to sign his posts,

What?,...That's all?,...is that all you've got to say?,...I take your diatribe
apart and all you can come up with is this...?....WEEEAAAKKK!!! You really do
like to pontificate, don't you? Again, you selectively pick and poke at the
sides, but avoid any of the difficult points,...pathetic,...You try to argue a
point already acknowleged by selectively editing only the bits you can pick
at...lame,...I give you a thorough explantion of my position and all you can do
is clip a couple of lines, take them out of context, and attempt to base an
arguement on them,...weak. And the response to Sadler's review,...and that
'crack' joke,...Uhhggg!...Not even a remotely skillful attempt at evasion. The
fact that you're resorting to your,...dorky?...sense of humor is a sure sign
that your quiver has run out of arrows,...and if you TRULY believe that
interpretation of his statement, than I'd ask that you READ the review
yourself,...Oh, that's right,...you don't actually read any of the stuff you
disparage,...Heeheehe,...

Mr. Dictator? Would you please explain that to me? Is this another 'gem' from
that empty bag of humor you carry? I'm not really sure how I qualify as a
'Dictator',...although I am subjugating your sorry little ass, aren't I..
However, I'm sure you'll have some 'over-blown' explanation that borders on the
melodramatic - you should really read your own words, half the time you sound
like a Shakespearean theatre reject,...it's kinda pathetic.

As to my standards,...I have pretty high standards, really,...but I'm also
reasonable in my expectations. From the beginning of the book,...Oh, that's
right,...you haven't actually read the book, well, let me tell you about it
then,.....From the beginning of the book it's very clear that the authors
were not intending to offer the reader a precise account of the Champion's
lives, or provide exhaustive analysis of their games, and contrary to Winter's
review, they actually do make reference to quite a few sources throughout, but
they don't make the mistake of bogging the reader down with irrelevant,
persnickety references as some would do.....It's a matter of taste, but as a
READER,...I appreciated it,.....What they did do was provide a general
portrait of each Champion, the games they played, the opposition they faced,
the times in which they lived, and the influence their chess had on the game we
know today. In addtion, we're led on this tour by non-other than the greatest
player in the history of the game, Garry Kasparov...that's it...did you get
that?...I'm explaining this again so that you might be able to understand why I
think Winter's criteria was 'off point',...Do you follow? Apples &
Oranges?,...you with me?

I expect more than a few readers of this thread will have noted that Mr.
Dictator refuses to address the charge that Kasparov did not really write
much
of this book. Worse, he continues to base his worthless praise on the idea
that Kasparov did just that, along with deriding the critics for daring to
examine this work to determine its quality.

Did you read ANYTHING I wrote?...for the third time, and I'll try to state it a
different way 'cause the other two times it seemed to soar over your head,...
for all I know Plisetsky wrote the whole damn thing,...and if so, he did a HELL
of a job sounding like Garry, but it's a good book regardless,...do you get
what I'm saying? In my opinion, take it for what it's worth, patzer that I am,
it's a GOOD BOOK! I personally feel that Garry had a LOT to do with this work
and I will willingly plead guilty of being bamboozled should it ever be proven
he didn't. I'm writing my position again, so that you might actually
acknowledge it. Think you can do that this time? Your constant evasion is
getting old.

I look forward to your next lame diatribe,...

Later,...


Ryan
(signature/e-mail,...?...I still haven't seen one...it's a sign of weakness not
to include it, ya know)