ray keene has returned the compliment by examining the works of taylor
kingston as book reviewer

i post the original of the is message to chess misc as well as chess
politics, since as we all know, some books, authors and publishing houses
have been and still are banned - and presumably these bannings have
something to do with reviews of the titles, and bring about the policy of
banning.

//Phil Innes

--------------

since i am told how wonderfully experienced some of the book reviewers are
whom we encounter here on a daily basis, and also what wonderfully strong
chessplayers they are with such magnificent ratings, i thought i would
take a look for myself. i found, more or less by random selection, a review
on chess cafe by taylor kingston of the second edition of the andy soltis
book of 100 best games.the review says virtually nothing except to refer the
reader to taylor kingstons first review of the original hardback edition of
the same book- so i checked this out-it is enormous and lists every one of
the 100 games chosen by the grandmaster author.

compiling this list doesnt take much brainpower, but then the reviewer
starts to focus on particular games. what i found simply confirms my view
that many of these so called reviewers are simply too weak as chessplayers
to do a proper job.and the people who employ them dont recognise this
fact-because they lack chess strength as well.

one of the games from the soltis book taylor kingston focussed on was duras
v teichmann ostend 1906. in his notes to this game soltis commits a dreadful
howler--having been strategically crushed duras as white played a
desperation rook sac on move 43.taking the rook wd then win for black but
teichmann declined the sac, panicked and lost. here was a golden opportunity
for taylor kingston to prove his chess ability-he has specifically mentioned
duras-teichmann, the game which probably contains the authors worst blunder
in the entire book. and what does the reviewer say about this? nothing!

this raises a number of questions-first of all, perhaps this game wasnt
really good enough to be chosen as one of the top 100.secondly, of course,
its not fair to expect a reviewer to find all the analytical mistakes in a
book, but when that reviewer decides to concentrate on a particular game,
picks it out by name and then a) fails to understand that one side has an
overwhelming positional plus and b) could have utterly refuted the opponents
desperation attack by taking a rook, then something is wrong somewhere!
perhaps the reviewer just wasnt up to the job.

ray keene

Chess One wrote:

I'm snipping the bulk of this incredibly stupid Keene/Innes post, but
one little point serves to illustrate the whole:

one of the games from the soltis book taylor kingston focussed on was duras
v teichmann ostend 1906.

No, he didn't. All Kingston wrote was that Soltis' comment about Duras'
marriage to a wealthy woman was completely unrelated to the 1906 Duras
game. There is no "focus" on the Duras game.

in his notes to this game soltis commits a dreadful
howler--having been strategically crushed duras as white played a
desperation rook sac on move 43.taking the rook wd then win for black but
teichmann declined the sac, panicked and lost. here was a golden opportunity
for taylor kingston to prove his chess ability-he has specifically mentioned
duras-teichmann,

"Mentioned" is the key word here.

the game which probably contains the authors worst blunder
in the entire book. and what does the reviewer say about this? nothing!

this raises a number of questions-first of all, perhaps this game wasnt
really good enough to be chosen as one of the top 100.secondly, of course,
its not fair to expect a reviewer to find all the analytical mistakes in a
book, but when that reviewer decides to concentrate on a particular game,

I can't tell if this is idiocy or falsehood. Since it's Raymundo
writing, I think it's the latter.

Snip remaining nonsense from Innes and from what once was a good writer.

read it before it becomes disappeared! says Ray Keene in an additional note
below //Phil Innes

---------
oh wiggle wiggle desperation desperation-the first taylor kingston review
of the soltis book is still in the chesscafe archives for all to see -some
games given by soltis are specifically mentioned-as was duras-teichmann-most
dont get a mention at all in the review-except when taylor kingston parrots
and copies the entire list.

if you pick a game out for comment surely thats the time to talk about the
chess! in particular if theres a hole the size of a building site in the
notes.

i didnt btw go hunting for this review-i found it while looking for somethng
else on chess cafe-a very poor taste april fools joke which appears to have
been taken down. i suggest that anyone interested in this review takes a
quick look before it too becomes an embarrassment and is also taken down.

ray keene

---------

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:QLo2g.1048$5z3.259@trndny01...
ray keene has returned the compliment by examining the works of taylor
kingston as book reviewer

i post the original of the is message to chess misc as well as chess
politics, since as we all know, some books, authors and publishing houses
have been and still are banned - and presumably these bannings have
something to do with reviews of the titles, and bring about the policy of
banning.

//Phil Innes

--------------

since i am told how wonderfully experienced some of the book reviewers are
whom we encounter here on a daily basis, and also what wonderfully strong
chessplayers they are with such magnificent ratings, i thought i would
take a look for myself. i found, more or less by random selection, a
review on chess cafe by taylor kingston of the second edition of the andy
soltis book of 100 best games.the review says virtually nothing except to
refer the reader to taylor kingstons first review of the original hardback
edition of the same book- so i checked this out-it is enormous and lists
every one of the 100 games chosen by the grandmaster author.

compiling this list doesnt take much brainpower, but then the reviewer
starts to focus on particular games. what i found simply confirms my view
that many of these so called reviewers are simply too weak as chessplayers
to do a proper job.and the people who employ them dont recognise this
fact-because they lack chess strength as well.

one of the games from the soltis book taylor kingston focussed on was
duras v teichmann ostend 1906. in his notes to this game soltis commits a
dreadful howler--having been strategically crushed duras as white played a
desperation rook sac on move 43.taking the rook wd then win for black but
teichmann declined the sac, panicked and lost. here was a golden
opportunity for taylor kingston to prove his chess ability-he has
specifically mentioned duras-teichmann, the game which probably contains
the authors worst blunder in the entire book. and what does the reviewer
say about this? nothing!

this raises a number of questions-first of all, perhaps this game wasnt
really good enough to be chosen as one of the top 100.secondly, of course,
its not fair to expect a reviewer to find all the analytical mistakes in a
book, but when that reviewer decides to concentrate on a particular game,
picks it out by name and then a) fails to understand that one side has an
overwhelming positional plus and b) could have utterly refuted the
opponents desperation attack by taking a rook, then something is wrong
somewhere! perhaps the reviewer just wasnt up to the job.

ray keene

Chess One wrote:
read it before it becomes disappeared! says Ray Keene

I can't imagine even Raymundo would pen "becomes disappeared"; this can
only be the work of a Nearly an IM.

Chess One wrote:
ray keene has returned the compliment by examining the works of taylor
kingston as book reviewer
--------------
one of the games from the soltis book taylor kingston focussed on was duras
v teichmann ostend 1906.

Would GM Keene care to tell people honestly in what sense I
"focussed" on this game? Does he honestly think that one brief
passing mention constitues any special "focus"?

in his notes to this game soltis commits a dreadful
howler--having been strategically crushed duras as white played a
desperation rook sac on move 43.taking the rook wd then win for black but
teichmann declined the sac, panicked and lost. here was a golden opportunity
for taylor kingston to prove his chess ability-he has specifically mentioned
duras-teichmann, the game which probably contains the authors worst blunder
in the entire book. and what does the reviewer say about this? nothing!

While my review did address the general superficiality of Soltis'
annotations, there was no focus on this particular game in that regard.
The one mention given it pertains only to Soltis' introductory
comments:
"Yet these are often mere window-dressing, giving us no clue what
made the accompanying chess games special. It's interesting that
Oldrich Duras gave up chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy woman, but
this has no relevance to his win over Teichmann at Ostende 1906."

this raises a number of questions-first of all,

Yes, it does raise questions: first of all, about GM Keene's honesty.
Is GM Keene seriously trying to foist the idea that my brief mention of
the intro constitutes any analysis of the game itself? Or that having
mentioned the intro, that I was somehow obliged to undertake a full
analysis?
Playing over the game just now, I would agree that Soltis erred in
his notes to move 43. Had I gone through this particular game in full
six years ago, I would probably have noticed it and mentioned it in the
review. However, it is highly unrealistic to expect a reviewer, in
evaluating of a collection of 100 games, to play over every move of
every game. One plays through a representative sample. I know of no
reviewer who goes the every-move-of-every-game route - including GM
Keene. (Some would even say, especially GM Keene.)
Overall, I would modestly submit that my reviews have a fairly good
track record when it comes to exposing poor analysis. For example, in
this review:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review495.pdf

some serious errors by GM Jan Timman are demonstrated. And he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review297.pdf

some annotations by GM Reuben Fine are refuted. And an interesting
third example is this:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review266.pdf

wherein are shown the skimpiness and superficiality of notes by a
certain prominent British GM.

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

I'm snipping the bulk of this incredibly stupid Keene/Innes post, but
one little point serves to illustrate the whole:

The famous American chess historian rated 1500 see fit to criticise 'the
bulk' of a grandmaster's chessic appreciation - to the extent that he
doesn't even allow it to appear! The subject was originally Taylor Kinston's
similar incompetence to analyse a featured game.

Not that any level of chess commentary seems pertinent to someone who can
write:-

I can't tell if this is idiocy or falsehood. Since it's Raymundo
writing, I think it's the latter.

Snip remaining nonsense from Innes and from what once was a good writer.

And that's chess reviewing USA-style folks! On the scale of evaluations if
it ain't crap, its absolute crap [as expressed by what we must currently
assume to be 'good writers] - and what is far more important abiout chess
books is the sum of typograpcal errors, measured on the famous
Winterian-scale such as Kasparov's introduction to BCO )

One little point may really be enough for little pointy heads to illustrate
the whole, since the whole is very very small indeed as they conceive, and
does not include an appreciation of actual chess analysis in chess books,
which from their perspective only stupid people address by their idiocy and
falsehoods.

Anyone who can write that Jennifer Shahade's book perpetuates the
women-as-airhead stereotype presumably knows no bounds to their wit's
extent, on the subject of refuting women's writing on women, and this new
'peak' - telling a GM that he, 1500-rated, can characterise the GMs analysis
as 'incredibly stupid.'

The subject has turned full circle - and now the uncomfortable spotlight
reflects back to these critics who insist on standards for others that they
don't possess themselves.

What is 'the height of dumbth?'

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

I'm snipping the bulk of this incredibly stupid Keene/Innes post, but
one little point serves to illustrate the whole:

The famous American chess historian rated 1500 see fit to criticise 'the
bulk' of a grandmaster's chessic appreciation - to the extent that he
doesn't even allow it to appear! The subject was originally Taylor Kinston's
similar incompetence to analyse a featured game.

But the game wasn't featured. That was the point. Raymundo, and you,
are lying. Please note I've made up my mind that it's not idiocy.

Not that any level of chess commentary seems pertinent to someone who can
write:-

I can't tell if this is idiocy or falsehood. Since it's Raymundo
writing, I think it's the latter.

Snip remaining nonsense from Innes and from what once was a good writer.

And that's chess reviewing USA-style folks! On the scale of evaluations if
it ain't crap, its absolute crap [as expressed by what we must currently
assume to be 'good writers] - and what is far more important abiout chess
books is the sum of typograpcal errors, measured on the famous
Winterian-scale such as Kasparov's introduction to BCO )

One little point may really be enough for little pointy heads to illustrate
the whole, since the whole is very very small indeed as they conceive, and
does not include an appreciation of actual chess analysis in chess books,
which from their perspective only stupid people address by their idiocy and
falsehoods.

Anyone who can write that Jennifer Shahade's book perpetuates the
women-as-airhead stereotype presumably knows no bounds to their wit's
extent, on the subject of refuting women's writing on women, and this new
'peak' - telling a GM that he, 1500-rated, can characterise the GMs analysis
as 'incredibly stupid.'

Where did I describe Mr. Keene's chess analysis as "incredibly stupid?"
I found his post to be stupid, just as I find most of yours to be
stupid.

The subject has turned full circle - and now the uncomfortable spotlight
reflects back to these critics who insist on standards for others that they
don't possess themselves.

There is no "spotlight"; responding to you is merely a way to kill time
on a rainy Saturday morning. You are the cheapest entertainment around.
"See the monkey Innes examine the watch! Shows hourly, seven days a
week!"

Keene's recent "contributions" to the chess newsgroup tell us a lot about
him. There are many GMs with whom I would relish the opportunity to discuss
chess, their career, maybe even analyze a bit (Evans fits in that category).
Based on his recent comments, I've pretty well lost the desire to ever spend
any time with (to quote the late great Tony Miles) Raymondo.

It's a pity, really. For literally decades, I've appreciated the wonderful
work (clearly a labor of love) that Keene and Botteril put into the books
The Pirc Defense and the Modern Defense. I sincerely believe those books,
and the study they prompted, added 100 points to my rating in my formative
years. The books displayed a hunger for chess and took great care and
delight in ferreting out its many secrets.

Sadly, I cannot say that about several of Keene's later "efforts." The
comments Innes attributes to him display a "know it all" prissy attitude
that is in no way flattering to the man. I can't, for the life of me,
imagine ever paying another dime for something he has written -- it wouldn't
be worth the time, let alone the money.

Randy Bauer

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:QLo2g.1048$5z3.259@trndny01...
ray keene has returned the compliment by examining the works of taylor
kingston as book reviewer

i post the original of the is message to chess misc as well as chess
politics, since as we all know, some books, authors and publishing houses
have been and still are banned - and presumably these bannings have
something to do with reviews of the titles, and bring about the policy of
banning.

//Phil Innes

--------------

since i am told how wonderfully experienced some of the book reviewers are
whom we encounter here on a daily basis, and also what wonderfully strong
chessplayers they are with such magnificent ratings, i thought i would
take a look for myself. i found, more or less by random selection, a
review on chess cafe by taylor kingston of the second edition of the andy
soltis book of 100 best games.the review says virtually nothing except to
refer the reader to taylor kingstons first review of the original hardback
edition of the same book- so i checked this out-it is enormous and lists
every one of the 100 games chosen by the grandmaster author.

compiling this list doesnt take much brainpower, but then the reviewer
starts to focus on particular games. what i found simply confirms my view
that many of these so called reviewers are simply too weak as chessplayers
to do a proper job.and the people who employ them dont recognise this
fact-because they lack chess strength as well.

one of the games from the soltis book taylor kingston focussed on was
duras v teichmann ostend 1906. in his notes to this game soltis commits a
dreadful howler--having been strategically crushed duras as white played a
desperation rook sac on move 43.taking the rook wd then win for black but
teichmann declined the sac, panicked and lost. here was a golden
opportunity for taylor kingston to prove his chess ability-he has
specifically mentioned duras-teichmann, the game which probably contains
the authors worst blunder in the entire book. and what does the reviewer
say about this? nothing!

this raises a number of questions-first of all, perhaps this game wasnt
really good enough to be chosen as one of the top 100.secondly, of course,
its not fair to expect a reviewer to find all the analytical mistakes in a
book, but when that reviewer decides to concentrate on a particular game,
picks it out by name and then a) fails to understand that one side has an
overwhelming positional plus and b) could have utterly refuted the
opponents desperation attack by taking a rook, then something is wrong
somewhere! perhaps the reviewer just wasnt up to the job.

ray keene

This is one of the more amazing posts by a book reviewer in the past 10
years:-

Taylor Kingston somewhere below seems to be saying that his own choice of
feature game did not need to take note of the actual moves in the game
????????

BUT...

.... he commits the guffaw of criticising Soltis for 'superficial
annotations'.

So... how can he possibly know they are superficial? Even in the games he
himself selects, he doesn't think the moves worth playing through! I mean -
think about this - what can be the basis of game selection and Kingston's
commentary on Soltis?

Kingston says that he cannot be expected to play through all the moves of
100 games [a diversion, since we are just talking about his own selection
from 100] - but some people play through all the moves! Not just the moves
but the 'if' positions and analysis too! At least this would a basis for
describing a strong player's analysis as 'superficial', provided of course
your own analysis improved on it in about the same space available.

But no! Apparently Kingston doesn't even need to play through the games he
features as samples to call yet another strong player a derogatory name.

That's Chess Reviews USA style folks!

Phil Innes

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

Chess One wrote:
ray keene has returned the compliment by examining the works of taylor
kingston as book reviewer
--------------
one of the games from the soltis book taylor kingston focussed on was
duras
v teichmann ostend 1906.

Would GM Keene care to tell people honestly in what sense I
"focussed" on this game? Does he honestly think that one brief
passing mention constitues any special "focus"?

in his notes to this game soltis commits a dreadful
howler--having been strategically crushed duras as white played a
desperation rook sac on move 43.taking the rook wd then win for black but
teichmann declined the sac, panicked and lost. here was a golden
opportunity
for taylor kingston to prove his chess ability-he has specifically
mentioned
duras-teichmann, the game which probably contains the authors worst
blunder
in the entire book. and what does the reviewer say about this? nothing!

While my review did address the general superficiality of Soltis'
annotations, there was no focus on this particular game in that regard.
The one mention given it pertains only to Soltis' introductory
comments:
"Yet these are often mere window-dressing, giving us no clue what
made the accompanying chess games special. It's interesting that
Oldrich Duras gave up chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy woman, but
this has no relevance to his win over Teichmann at Ostende 1906."

this raises a number of questions-first of all,

Yes, it does raise questions: first of all, about GM Keene's honesty.
Is GM Keene seriously trying to foist the idea that my brief mention of
the intro constitutes any analysis of the game itself? Or that having
mentioned the intro, that I was somehow obliged to undertake a full
analysis?
Playing over the game just now, I would agree that Soltis erred in
his notes to move 43. Had I gone through this particular game in full
six years ago, I would probably have noticed it and mentioned it in the
review. However, it is highly unrealistic to expect a reviewer, in
evaluating of a collection of 100 games, to play over every move of
every game. One plays through a representative sample. I know of no
reviewer who goes the every-move-of-every-game route - including GM
Keene. (Some would even say, especially GM Keene.)
Overall, I would modestly submit that my reviews have a fairly good
track record when it comes to exposing poor analysis. For example, in
this review:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review495.pdf

some serious errors by GM Jan Timman are demonstrated. And he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review297.pdf

some annotations by GM Reuben Fine are refuted. And an interesting
third example is this:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review266.pdf

wherein are shown the skimpiness and superficiality of notes by a
certain prominent British GM.

Dnia 22-04-2006 o 13:50:08 Chess One napisa³:

ray keene has returned the compliment by examining the works of taylor
kingston as book reviewer

i post the original of the is message to chess misc as well as chess
politics, since as we all know, some books, authors and publishing houses
have been and still are banned - and presumably these bannings have
something to do with reviews of the titles, and bring about the policy of
banning.


Looking at the whole thread I find another confirmation why really good
chess players and chess writers avoid such places as usenet where slanders
and flame wars are overwhelming. Instead of them I can see some dirty
"chess" politicians who want only to discredit all their political
opponents and other chess fans who are in their way.

--
U¿ywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/