Taylor Kingston wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Perhaps if Mr Kingston would follow the usual USENET convention of
posting followups as followups instead of new threads, this
confusion could have been avoided?

I made a new thread for the sake of clarity. This thread has already
drifted off into several irrelevant tangents and petty matters,
clouding the discussion.

But it isn't clearer. With everything in one thread, it's much easier
to navigate around and find the other posts to see what people said.


In any event, if Keene feels entitled to start a new thread titled
"Keene reviews Kingston," I do not see why I should be denied the
right to start a separate thread to reply. There is no evasion in
this; the title "Kingston replies to Keene" makes it *very* clear
what it's about.

I wasn't trying to deny your right to do as you please and I'm not
accusing you of evasion. I'm merely pointing out that, if you'd put
your post where people expected to find it, they would have found it
more quickly.

On the matter of restricting the cross-post, it would have been better
to have set the Followup-To: header to direct followups to your post
to rgc.misc. I completely agree with you that the thread is off-topic
in rgc.politics and doing it this way would have avoided any
allegation that you were trying to hide your response from the rgcp
crowd.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Slimy Old-Fashioned Puzzle (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intriguing conundrum but it's
perfect for your grandparents and
covered in goo!

Larry Tapper wrote:
jr writes:

jr It's rather astonishing that Kingston takes it upon himself to
decree it "has nothing to do with chess politics" when the
whole battle is a political attempt to smear GM Keene by
Winter's brigade.

Oh really? What political agenda is Winter's brigade pursuing, exactly?
Are they trying to take over some federation? Are they in cahoots with
the evil Kirsan?

Parr seems to feel Winter is pro-FIDE, and by his insane "enemy of my
enemy is my friend" logic, anyone who criticizes Innes/Parr/Evans/Keene
is viewed by Parr as both pro-Winter and and pro-FIDE.

This whole "Winter and his evil minions" idea, which has been an
ongoing theme in hundreds if not thousands of rgcp posts, has been a
constant source of amusement to those who are familiar with the players
(and probably bafflement to those who are not). It's almost as if the
reclusive Winter has been elevated to the status of a James Bond
villain, hatching diabolical plots deep within his Swiss mountain
retreat.

Or for a more Victorian reference, 'the Napoleon of chess history?' How
far from Reichenbach Falls does Mr. Winter live?

Larry Tapper wrote:

I must confess I'm beginning to suspect that when you wrote you were
"nearly an IM", you meant that you once stood close enough to an IM to
smell the vodka on his breath.

Wonderful, Larry! I couldn't have done better myself.

Larry Tapper wrote:

jr writes:

jr It's rather astonishing that Kingston takes it upon himself to
decree it "has nothing to do with chess politics" when the
whole battle is a political attempt to smear GM Keene by
Winter's brigade.

Oh really? What political agenda is Winter's brigade pursuing, exactly?
Are they trying to take over some federation? Are they in cahoots with
the evil Kirsan?


This whole "Winter and his evil minions" idea, which has been an
ongoing theme in hundreds if not thousands of rgcp posts, has been a
constant source of amusement to those who are familiar with the players
(and probably bafflement to those who are not). It's almost as if the
reclusive Winter has been elevated to the status of a James Bond
villain, hatching diabolical plots deep within his Swiss mountain
retreat.


Not sure if he is a "James Bond" type villain. Strikes me as more of
the "Austin Powers" type villain. Now.. who would we cast as "minnie-
me?"

Rob
jr I'm looking forward to Keene's response which I hope is posted on
BOTH forums where it belongs.

I see no logical reason myself why a debate about Kingston's review of
Keene's book on Nimzowitsch should belong in rec.games.chess.politics
as well as rec.games.chess.misc. On the other hand, it's not surprising
to find it here, because rgcp happens to be a place where many of the
regulars are willing to spill an enormous amount of virtual ink about
any and all points d'honneur, political or not. It's a bit like the old
German duelling societies, perhaps.

Larry T.

Louis Blair has Ray Keene tagged and bagged. Every time the
Grandmaster thinks he has slipped out of the noose, the Nutty Professor
reappears to remind him there is no escape from lies and hypocrisy,
noted and recorded for posterity. Tagged and bagged.

-- help bot

Larry Tapper wrote:

"Yes, I think the key point is that the Nimzowitsch book was a
revised
edition of a book originally published in 1974, when Keene was a more
careful and focused writer. I still have a copy of the 1974 edition, as
well as Keene's excellent book Flank Openings, an interesting and
original treatise on what was then a relatively obscure topic."


Yes, I remember that Flank Openings received good reviews, along with
the book on Nimzowitch. It seems that for quite some time these flank
openings, much like Rodney Dangerfield, got no respect. Yet Staunton
did very well with them.


"By the way, one thing I learned from the Nimzowitsch book was that
Nimzo was a hell of an endgame player in the 1930s. One could make a
case that his endgame prowess exceeded even Capablanca's."


Ha! As if that were even possible.


"These examples reminded me of the argument
that the 18th-century physicist Boscovich anticipated Einstein."


So, this Boscovich fellow was also confused about time and space?
I'm told that time "slows down" as matter speeds up, so I'm thinking of
moving to the Equator -- perhaps on a mountaintop to really maximize my
lifespan.

-- help bot

Larry Tapper asks:

"By the way, Phil, I don't recall your answering my question about
whether you were indeed ducking our proposed grudge match, even though
the prize fund is generous and I've offered to play the match in your
home state. What have you got to lose?"


Allow me to answer this for him: even though a match may not be
rated, the public will know the result and near-IM Innes stands to lose
his unofficial title. Checking PI's actual results (not his illusions)
reveals that his performances of late have fallen well short of the
near-IM level. Heck, they've even fallen short of the near-SM level,
the near-FM level, and the near-NM level. How strong is Larry Tapper?

-- help bot

Near-IM Innes wrote:

"I replied that its likely I'll be on tour this Summer, and would
look you up in NY city."

Taylor Kingston:

"I believe Mr. Tapper has mentioned that there would be no point to
that, since he lives in North Carolina."


Why is Larry Tapper hiding out way down there, when he knows near-IM
Innes is planning to clean his clock in NY? I say he's ducking the
match.

Larry Tapper wrote:

It seems to me that both sides scored points in the back-and-forth
about the details of TK's review. For example, I think it was
reasonable of TK to bring up the anticipation of some of Nimzo's ideas
by Winawer, but unreasonable to make a fuss about some other obscure
19th-century precedents. These examples reminded me of the argument
that the 18th-century physicist Boscovich anticipated Einstein. This is
true in a way, but largely beside the point.

We should note that Mr. Kingston in his review said this point in
itself was of minor importance.

On the whole, then, I
agree with help bot that on this occasion, TK was overzealous in his
attempts to find fault with Keene.

I might think Mr. Kingston was overzealous if he JUST cited some
"obscure" 19th century game, but I read his criticism as part of a
larger argument.

But the numerous typos and howlers
in Keene's later work make a different kettle of fish.

Larry T.

"Larry Tapper" wrote in message
oups.com...

PI i haven't played serious chess for 25 years or more, but made it to
master as a kid with hardly a book! as black i'll play a pelikan or
against d4, e60. how's your nimzo? i hope you won't be wasting my time.
as white i'll wing it as usual

For my part, alas, I have never played serious chess. I usually play
junk openings as the mood strikes.

I tried playing the Dunst once or twice - lost shirt! Not exactly my style.
As child also tried Old Benoni - lost shirt! Mod Ben better, until learned
first 6 moves of Benko, and tally-ho!

And I'm getting on in years, so my
nimzo aches after a long session. But if you really want to play a
Pelikan or the dreaded e60,

the dreaded E60 is little known, which has the advantage that we will be
both trying not to transpose the lines at move 4

What do you like after:

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. f3 e5!!?



4. ...

What do you like next without looking up Kramnik - Leko Tilburg 98?

we could always arrange to make that happen
in one of our match games. I'm easy. And surprisingly civil too.

I'm not, even wear wode when playing. Of course, slaying opponents is
uncool, but, you know, a win is a win.

PI sorry not to be overly obliging, but bull****ting about chess
instead of playing it is for others and acromaniacs

Exactly. And if we weren't acromaniacs, why would we live in the
mountains?

Because we do not chose to becomed enjeopard of usual mass-psychosis?

So let's play then.

We have been fencing awhile already.

Phil

Larry T.