wrote:
WINTER'S RATPACKERS

By GM Raymond Keene

This is the third part of my recent extended involvement in the
deliberations of this august forum. First of all, I would like to make
a number of general points before I go through everything that has
been introduced -- some might say rehashed without supporting evidence
-- since my last contribution.

I am enjoying this debate immensely and find the mental exercise
exhilarating. It provides useful copy for my forthcoming book WINTER OF
DISCONTENT, RAY KEENE AND THE RATPACKERS on which I am currently
working (to be published by HARDINGE SIMPOLE). I am truly grateful to
those who have pointed out typos -- it's a wonderful free proofreading
service. In fact some ratpackers have shown that chess proofreading
might have been their true calling in life.

Next I must remind everyone, as othersalready pointed out, that we are
still waiting for TAYLOR KINGSTONS promised response to my critique of
his review of my book on Nimzowitsch.

Next someone called Skeptic (a certain Mr. Pipel) has complained that
I am inaccurate compared with Alekhine, Purdy, Botvinnik, etc., etc.,
etc. Sadly this gent instantly undermines his own case by spelling
Purdy as Prudy and Alekhine as Alehkine. However, I won't make a
ratpackerish fuss about his typos.

A number of ratpackers have ganged up to prove that I am inaccurate,
careless, sloppy, and a hack just writing for the money. Some even
claim I am one of the wealthiest chessplayers around. I find this
amazing. How on earth do they know my motives for writing or details of
my bank account? Beats me. This is frankly idle speculation or smears.
I fear that chess defeats all of us in the end. It's a quasi infinite
activity that leaves the human brain struggling. If we know anything
about chess, it is next to nothing.

Just look at the computer-checked notes in Kasparovs Great
Predecessors series. Hallowed masterpieces and comments considered
sacrosanct for decades have now been exposed as fallible by Fritz.
Anyone who claims that perfection is possible when tackling the
immensity that is chess is either a fool or a knave. We humans do our
best, but it's seldom good enough.

KINGPIN, for example, is a magazine that has been very hostile to
me, taking the Winter stance/ It's a small circulation magazine whose
current issue indicates it may now appear perhaps three times a year.

Today I saw issue 38 for spring/summer 2006, the first one since issue
37 for 2003/2004. So it took around two years to produce 64 pages,
much less than any of my books. A swift 90 second glance reveals the
following mistakes -- who knows how many more had I spent another 30
seconds on this task.

No fewer than eight diagrams have the black queen missing

Page 43 suffers from the curious blunder of having most of the 3s
missing in a game that goes through moves 30 -39 WITH NOTES. Highly
disconcerting.

Page 25 performs a similar trick with the letter S.

Both diagrams on page 16 have great white chunks imposed on them, thus
rendering them unintelligible

How the ratpackers would howl if I committed such errors in so small
a space!

Let me bring more blunders to your attention. Mr. Skeptic quoted
Alekhine (sorry "alehkine") as a paragon. Don't get me wrong. I adore
him and prefer him to Capablanca because I see a huge element of human
striving as opposed to Capa's God given talent. To me Capa is the
mozart of chess and Alekhine the Beethoven.

Anyway, with profuse apologies to the immortal Alekhine, I must point
out that on pages 26 and 27 of the tournament book of London 1932
(Koltanowski vs. Sultan Khan) one of his notes just hangs a piece.
Larry Evans points out other errors by the great man in WHAT CAN WE WE
TRUST? at WCN on 4/3/06.

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....s&file=article
&sid=664

Jennifer Shahade's new book CHESS BITCH can't even spell
Gaprindashvili, the
former women's world champion correctly, as Sarah Hurst pointed out.
Andy Soltis' book on Frank Marshall hangs a knight to a simple queen
check on page 268. These two items that passed over my desk today!.

BUT NO. According to the ratpackers Ray Keene is the quintesssential
demon who commits numerous errors, writes much too quickly, and is a
hack. Does this also imply that KINGPIN is a hack magazine or that
Alekhine, Soltis and Shahade also show contempt for the public?

Of course not.

And when errors are pointed out I am sure that the editor of
KINGPIN
will be mortified and upset that these typos escaped him.

As far as contempt for the public goes, yesterday I received a quite
unsolicited email from the Icelandic Chess Federation thanking me for
my work in general. Last week W. Smith, England's largest book
retailer, ordered thousands of copies of one of my recent books. And my
mailbag from appreciative readers of my columns grows each week!

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING HONESTLY. When I put together the 2000 world
chess championship, raised the money, organised the match, met my daily
deadline with Times reports, wrote the book, did theTV webcast with GM
Danny King and then still had energy to enjoy a fine dinner with an all
time great like GM Evans, I felt a tremendous sense of fulfillment. A
burst of energy. I doubt I could have written better notes for my book
than if I took 10 years. When I saw Kramnik's improvement for Kasparov
in game ten at move 15 published a few months later, I realised that
this was something beyond my powers. That's why Kramnik became world
champion and I am only a grandmaster.

I should add that Kramnik did not cover the whole match in his
article, just extracts. But what extracts! Anyone expecting Kasparov to
go into detail about this contest where he lost the title may have to
wait a very long time.

Now let's turn to other concrete points

1. I mentioned the frequency of Taylor Kingston's reviews of my books.
I found two on the ChessCafe archive, both reviewed by him. This looks
like 100% to me.

2. Copyright violation. I pointed out that much of his Nimzo review
was a quote from my material. Ditto for my 2000 book on the world
championship.

3. The vital importance of context is demonstrated by the next charge,
that I personally described the 1983 Kasparov vs. Korchnoi match as a
world championship. Well a TK cohort helpfully pointed out the origin
of this is the foto and subheading on the front cover of my match book.
Indeed, that was the official title of the match agreed by Campomanes
at the time as part of the sponsorship deal, ,justified by the fact
that the contest was an official part of the world championship cycle.
If you dont like it, please complain to campo and not to me.

4. Typos. Thanks, guys, it's a really useful free service for the new
editions of my books. Perhaps you should also volunteer your services
to the editor of KINGPIN. He needs it -- and how!

5. I continue to maintain that TK should have spotted the blunder in
Duras vs. Teichmann. Lots of squirming and wiggle room is indeed
possible but a class reviewer, having had that game swim into his ken,

Of course, 'that game swim into his ken' is an allusion to this line
from John Keats's sonnet, "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer":
'When a new planet swims into his ken'.

By the way, John Keats made a factual error in describing
Cortez rather than Balboa as the Spanish conquistador who
'discovered' the Pacific Ocean (or 'el mar del sul' as Balboa
called it), yet Keats's poem can still be appreciated.

--Nick

would have spotted it and pointed it out. The debates have gone beyond
thatnow, but I wager that TK with hindsight is sorry he omitted
reference to the flawed combination. Yes, Soltis should have spotted it
too.

I could go on and on. But where do we stand now?

TK has promised a response to my critique of his Nimzo review. So
far nobody has pointed out a single substantial mistake. Instead--

Keene is very rich
Keene needs the money
Keene writes too fast
Keene does too much
Keene is careless
The quality must suffer

An amazing litany of smears and unproved assertions! Hot air and
whaffle.

I am winning this debate hands down, if I must say so myself. Not
with bluster, but by dealing with each issue as it arises. I have one
advantage over the ratpackers. They desperately must prove their
infallibility, a trait inherited from their guru Edward Winter, who
finds it hard to admit he ever makes a mistake. His insulting letter to
IM Anthony Saidy. who pointed one out, is a case in point.

When I am wrong, I say so. Typos have been found. I prefer to know
and correct them in the next edition, if possible.

Finally, best wishes and thanks to all those who criticised me or
wrote positively on my behalf.

-- GM Ray Keene

LOUIE'S LANCE

I do not think Keene should have described
Steinitz's record as `abysmal' when he meant
something like shamefully non-existent'. But,
in the grand scheme of things, it's not all that
serious: certainly not worth bearing a grudge
about until one of the parties dies. -- Dave Richberby

The issue is whether Louie Blair should hold a
grudge until he dies because Ray Keene described
Steinitz's tournament record as "abysmal." I agree
that other words would be better, but "abysmal" in its
first definition means "bottomless" and "fathomless,"
and GM Keene's description of a world champion who
plays in no tournaments is not, therefore, completely
inapt. In Ray's usage "abysmal" becomes not merely a
description of a record; it becomes a judgment on a
non-record.

I favor Louie holding a grudge on the matter
until he dies. There is malignant, cankered verse
(the Inferno without the art) in the man's efforts. He
has no Beatrice, but he does have his questions,
laden with innuendo, which are so often innocent of
tense progression and the subjunctive.

Our Quixote on a hobbyhorse, lacking lance or windmill.

"The issue is whether Louie Blair should hold a
grudge until he dies because Ray Keene described
Steinitz's tournament record as "abysmal." "

Every time Keene makes an error and is called on it, first he denies it
is an error at all, then he claims it is somebody else's fault, then he
claims his critics aren't strong enough players to appreciate what he
really meant, and finally he claims that his critics are fanatics for
taking such a small error so seriously.

This way, Keene considers himself safe from all criticism: either the
critic buys one of the numerous excuses he offers for why the error
occured, and if he doesn't, the critic is a fanatic who is pursuing the
poor, innocent Keene unreasonably.

Perhaps if Keene could simply admit a simple error instead of using any
excuse to deny it, he would find people are less "fanatic" in trying to
get him to admit the obvious.

Sustitute Keene with Parr and the paragragh still makes sense.


Perhaps if Keene could simply admit a simple error instead of using any
excuse to deny it, he would find people are less "fanatic" in trying to
get him to admit the obvious.

PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES

Perhaps if Keene could simply admit a simple error instead of using
any
excuse to deny it, he would find people are less "fanatic" in trying to
get him to admit the obvious. -- Skeptic


Mr. Skeptic complained about GM Keene spelling his name
incorrectly. When GM Keene tried to correct this error, our
resident troll (avital.pil) still has not provided the correct
spelling.

People in glass houses....

Larry Parr wrote (5 May 2006 19:28:20 -0700):

The issue is whether Louie Blair should hold a
grudge until he dies because Ray Keene described
Steinitz's tournament record as "abysmal."

_
Larry Parr, of course, produces no quote of anyone
advocating holding a grudge until he dies because
GM Keene described Steinitz's tournament record
as "abysmal".

_
Larry Parr wrote (5 May 2006 19:28:20 -0700):

I agree that other words would be better, but
"abysmal" in its first definition means "bottomless"
and "fathomless," and GM Keene's description of
a world champion who plays in no tournaments is
not, therefore, completely inapt. In Ray's usage
"abysmal" becomes not merely a description of a
record; it becomes a judgment on a non-record.

_
Not surprisingly, Larry Parr does not address the
specific issue of whether or not GM Keene wrote
something that was misleading. Does Larry Parr
want to say something about what chessplayers
would be likely to conclude after reading an
assertion that Steinitz had an abysmal tournament
record over the years 1886-1894?

WHAT AND WHO IS ABYSMAL?

By GM Raymond Keene

Larry Parr wrote (5 May 2006 19:28:20 -0700):

I agree that other words would be better, but
"abysmal" in its first definition means "bottomless"
and "fathomless," and GM Keene's description of
a world champion who plays in no tournaments is
not, therefore, completely inapt. In Ray's usage
"abysmal" becomes not merely a description of a
record; it becomes a judgment on a non-record.

Well put! A judgement on a non record.

Let's now clear up Louis Blair's nonsense about my use
of the word abysmal in relation to Steinitz's career:

I believe that those who are trying to prove I made a mistake by
describing Steinitz's tournament record from 1886-1894 as "abysmal" are
guilty of the old crime of taking my words out of context. My meaning
was so clear that these people have either failed to read the original
or are just plain lying!

1. what is the source -- my book Moscow Challenge page 9

2. what do i say - I list strong tournaments of minimum 9 rounds won
outright by each champion during his reign. I note that the records of
both Steinitz and Botvinnik were abysmal in this respect given the
length of their reigns

3. I also give the length of reign and the number of tournaments won by
each champion

4. this is very clear and not misleading -- the figures are there for
all to see

5. I also explain why the tournament records of Steinitz and Botvinnik
are abysmal because -- and this is stated very clearly -- they were
both very active in match play instead!

6. the actual figures are one tournament win by Steinitz from
1886-1894 and one first prize outright to Botvinnik in a strong GM
event from 1948-1963 covering his various periods as champion.

In fact I was overly lenient to Steinitz since his sole win came in
1894 -- the year he was still champion -- but it came after he lost to
Lasker, so he should have been credited with no tournament victories
during the period.

Chessplayers who can read undoubtedly would doubtless conclude from
what I wrote that Steinitz was busy playing matches and therefore had
little time for tournaments in that period. I took great pains to be
very clear on such points, always explaining my reasons. Anyone who
denies this has either not seen what I wrote and is thus unaware of the
context or is simply lying!
__________________________________________________ _____

Not surprisingly, Larry Parr does not address the
specific issue of whether or not GM Keene wrote
something that was misleading. Does Larry Parr
want to say something about what chessplayers
would be likely to conclude after reading an
assertion that Steinitz had an abysmal tournament
record over the years 1886-1894? -- Louis Blair
__________________________________________________ ________

TAGGED AND BAGGED


Louis Blair:

It seems to me that misleading-is-fair is the sort of attitude
that can lead to talk of a reviewer deciding to "concentrate"
on a game, when, in reality, all the reviewer did was mention
a sentence from the INTRODUCTION to the game, and
comment on how little it had to do with the game.

Phil Innes:

"When I previously asked Louis Blair to say what he meant by fair
[about
Winter's comment on BCO], he declined to do so and referred me to a
dictionary. I suppose I could read the range of meanings of 'fair'
there,
but what Blair thinks fair is obscure."

You know, it's funny how Mr. Innes is constantly "challeneging"
critics of LP, LE, and now RK, to define their terms. If Mr. Innes
were to do this in a fair manner, he would need to quite frequently
"challenge" the other side as well. It comes off looking as though
Innes were a toady, a mindless crony who serves his master(s) by
harrassing their critics endlessly with these silly "demands". I'm not
sure where a toady ranks -- is it a notch above or below a parrot, I
wonder.

One problem with being a toady is that, when one's masters are hung
out to dry, there is usually no escape for the toadys -- they go down
with the ship, right along with its captain. Here we have a classic
case in point; the Nutty Professor has both Ray Keene and Larry Parr
"tagged and bagged" for their lies and hypocrisy. The only "escape"
would be to kill-file him and pretend like nothing happenned. LOL


-- help bot

Skeptic wrote:

"Perhaps if Keene could simply admit a simple error instead of using
any
excuse to deny it, he would find people are less "fanatic" in trying to
get him to admit the obvious."


Can a zebra change his stripes?


-- help bot

Larry Parr wrote:

"Mr. Skeptic complained about GM Keene spelling his name
incorrectly. When GM Keene tried to correct this error,"

Note how much easier it is for *someone else* to admit an error made
by Keene. Even his allies can sometimes admit he errs -- if only in
hopes of garnering personal info to use in future ad hominem attacks.
I expect this admission of error is payback for Keene not mentioning
Larry Parr along with himself, Evans, and Schiller.

-- help bot