Dear Louis,

One reason that reasonable questions are not answered is that they are at
the bottom of 1,000 word posts, made in duplicate, and which often have the
same beginning.

Make a more direct - if perforce cursory - reference to your inquiry?

Phil Innes

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
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.
_
I wrote (2 May 2006 15:31:31 -0700):
Here, GM Keene, fails to deal with what he actually
originally wrote:
_
"Why, by the way, does [Taylor Kingston]
SO OFTEN seem to review my books."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Does GM Keene claim that "so often" is a fair way
to characterize a mere two reviews?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

two out of two on one particular site seemed like often
to me. i dont see i can add much to this point-it tends
to fail the so what factor!

_
GM Keene could add an apology for a misleading statement.
Still, it must be acknowledged that GM Keene has now put
his explanation in the vicinity of the quote that he is explaining.
_
_
I wrote (2 May 2006 15:31:31 -0700):
Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor Kingston decided
to "concentrate" on Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)?
_
If not, why hasn't GM Keene apologized for his original
comments (reported by Phil Innes on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
11:50:08 GMT)?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

... [taylor kingston] ... was ... mentioning [Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906)] --if in passing. ...

_
I am glad that GM Keene is now careful with his language
on the matter, but this does not change the fact of his
previous reference to a decision to "concentrate" on the
game - a reference that GM Keene made in a note
commenting on a lack of chess strength.
_
If GM Keene does not feel that he can defend what he
previously wrote, why doesn't he apologize?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

the sacrifice of the rook on f5 has been known as unsound
for around a century and soltis quotes at least one book in
his own bibliography which unequivocally indicates the
refutation. ... during my speed read of soltis 100 best
games i quickly spotted the inclusion of this unsound game.

_
Does GM Keene claim that "anyone who knows anything
real about chess" would know that this Duras rook sac has
been busted for ages? If not, wouldn't a retraction and
apology be appropriate?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

i think it fair to say that taylor kingstons review would
have been improved had he pointed out the unsoundness
of the rook sac

_
Unfortunately, GM Keene chose to say something
somewhat different in his comments reported on
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT and on 26 Apr 2006
23:23:33 -0700 (by Phil Innes and Larry Parr,
respectively).
_
_
I wrote (30 Apr 2006 19:28:59 -0700):
Does GM Keene claim that it is broadly true that
"chess games were first recorded towards the end
of the eighteenth century"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

yes i do and the oxford companion supports me in
this-if anything placing the formal recording of names,
dates and players of games for publication even slightly
later.

_
Is the time of the establishment of "the custom of recording
games" the same as the time when "chess games were first
recorded"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

there may be isolated cases before this time-see the oxford
encyclopaedia of chess games-but the cases were rare-on
this topic the two main scholarly resources are both on my
side!

_
Why should "rare" cases not count? Rare or not, if the
Oxford Encyclopaedia indicates that games were recorded
before the time "towards the end of the eighteenth century",
then it is NOT indicating that "chess games were first
recorded towards the end of the eighteenth century".
_
_
Larry Parr reported (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
that GM Keene wrote:
Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ...
_
I wrote (25 Jan 2006 10:04:33 -0800):
Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone else back
this up with a quote from a verifiable source?
_
Phil Innes reported (Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES
RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
_
letter from ed winter signed "edward winter geneva"
_
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned "the exact role of kasparov in the
whole business--"
_
in an earlier communication-winter refers to:
_
"my doubts about whether kasparov had been
sufficiently involved in bco to merit one of the
two author credits"
_
and
_
"batsfords exaggerated use of a name is not
limited to bco"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 23:03:06 -0700):
[1984 quotes] would not have been "THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 22:33:03 -0700):
Does GM Keene contend that these quotes can
be fairly described as a "claim" "that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

is there some strange semantic construction whereby
directly attributable quotes might not be considered
original?

_
If there exist pre-1984 Edward Winter quotes "re the
authorship of BCO", then 1984 quotes would not be
"the original Edward Winter quotes re the authorship
of BCO".

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

winter 3 times impugned kasparovs authorship of bco-

_
As I have noted before, this is a much more vague claim
and NOT what we were told by GM Keene/Larry Parr on
25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

[Winter] MAY have been careful with his wording -in
order to avoid charges of libel
(Emphasis added.)

_
On 25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800, we did not see a
statement that Edward Winter "may" have claimed
that Kasparov's contribution to BCO was ghosted.
We were told that the claim WAS made. There
was nothing to indicate that GM Keene was
presenting a theory about what Edward Winter
"may" have been thinking, but not writing. Is it fair
for GM Keene to present his personal belief as
if it were unquestioned fact?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

-but the cumulative effect of doubting kasparovs authorship
amounts in my view to a charge of ghosting

_
Where is there a quote of Edward Winter doubting
the authorship of "Kasparov's contribution to BCO"?
All I see is discussion about the extent of that
contribution.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

a charge of ghosting-which-thankfully has subsequently
been totally disproved.

_
What "subsequent" event is GM Keene referring to? Was
the auction of "kasparov's handwritten contribution" before
or after these 1984 comments of Edward Winter?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

the tone of the public debate here has elevated considerably
... might i now suggest to mr blair-whose research i have
favourably animadverted upon in my own books in the
past- that he could also contribute to such an elevation
by accepting that the above points have been answered-

_
As I have tried to indicate above, I feel that many points
remain to be answered.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

might i now suggest to mr blair ... that he could also
contribute to such an elevation by ... not repeating
[the above points] endlessly or looking for interesting
semantic interpretations of my writing.

_
GM Keene has, from time to time, chosen to bring
up past controversies. I do not see why I should be
obliged to refrain from such an activity. I am not looking
for interesting semantic interpretations of GM Keene's
writing.
_
One more thought: If GM Keene sincerely seeks an
elevated tone of public debate, he might consider
saying something to Larry Parr on the subject.

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
wrote:
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.

He's provided it in every article he's posted here. It's in his
E-mail address, as I've pointed out before.

My name is in my email address too, but there is no 8 in it, which is mere
spam-proofing, and neither is my name One. If my pivotal or sceptic or
whatever it is wants to write his own name as he wishes it to be repeated by
others, I assume he will do so.

Phil Innes

Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Crystal Book (TM): it's
like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel but it's
completely
transparent and it wants to kill
you!

Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
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.
_
I wrote (2 May 2006 15:31:31 -0700):
Here, GM Keene, fails to deal with what he actually
originally wrote:
_
"Why, by the way, does [Taylor Kingston]
SO OFTEN seem to review my books."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Does GM Keene claim that "so often" is a fair way
to characterize a mere two reviews?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

two out of two on one particular site seemed like often
to me. i dont see i can add much to this point-it tends
to fail the so what factor!

_
GM Keene could add an apology for a misleading statement.
Still, it must be acknowledged that GM Keene has now put
his explanation in the vicinity of the quote that he is explaining.

I wrote (2 May 2006 15:31:31 -0700):
Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor Kingston decided
to "concentrate" on Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)?
_
If not, why hasn't GM Keene apologized for his original
comments (reported by Phil Innes on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
11:50:08 GMT)?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

... [taylor kingston] ... was ... mentioning [Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906)] --if in passing. ...

_
I am glad that GM Keene is now careful with his language
on the matter, but this does not change the fact of his
previous reference to a decision to "concentrate" on the
game - a reference that GM Keene made in a note
commenting on a lack of chess strength.
_
If GM Keene does not feel that he can defend what he
previously wrote, why doesn't he apologize?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

the sacrifice of the rook on f5 has been known as unsound
for around a century and soltis quotes at least one book in
his own bibliography which unequivocally indicates the
refutation. ... during my speed read of soltis 100 best
games i quickly spotted the inclusion of this unsound game.

_
Does GM Keene claim that "anyone who knows anything
real about chess" would know that this Duras rook sac has
been busted for ages? If not, wouldn't a retraction and
apology be appropriate?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

i think it fair to say that taylor kingstons review would
have been improved had he pointed out the unsoundness
of the rook sac

_
Unfortunately, GM Keene chose to say something
somewhat different in his comments reported on
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT and on 26 Apr 2006
23:23:33 -0700 (by Phil Innes and Larry Parr,
respectively).

Larry Parr reported (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
that GM Keene wrote:
Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ...
_
I wrote (25 Jan 2006 10:04:33 -0800):
Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone else back
this up with a quote from a verifiable source?
_
Phil Innes reported (Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES
RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
_
letter from ed winter signed "edward winter geneva"
_
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned "the exact role of kasparov in the
whole business--"
_
in an earlier communication-winter refers to:
_
"my doubts about whether kasparov had been
sufficiently involved in bco to merit one of the
two author credits"
_
and
_
"batsfords exaggerated use of a name is not
limited to bco"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 23:03:06 -0700):
[1984 quotes] would not have been "THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 22:33:03 -0700):
Does GM Keene contend that these quotes can
be fairly described as a "claim" "that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

is there some strange semantic construction whereby
directly attributable quotes might not be considered
original?

_
If there exist pre-1984 Edward Winter quotes "re the
authorship of BCO", then 1984 quotes would not be
"the original Edward Winter quotes re the authorship
of BCO".

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

winter 3 times impugned kasparovs authorship of bco-

_
As I have noted before, this is a much more vague claim
and NOT what we were told by GM Keene/Larry Parr on
25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

[Winter] MAY have been careful with his wording -in
order to avoid charges of libel
(Emphasis added.)

_
On 25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800, we did not see a
statement that Edward Winter "may" have claimed
that Kasparov's contribution to BCO was ghosted.
We were told that the claim WAS made. There
was nothing to indicate that GM Keene was
presenting a theory about what Edward Winter
"may" have been thinking, but not writing. Is it fair
for GM Keene to present his personal belief as
if it were unquestioned fact?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

-but the cumulative effect of doubting kasparovs authorship
amounts in my view to a charge of ghosting

_
Where is there a quote of Edward Winter doubting
the authorship of "Kasparov's contribution to BCO"?
All I see is discussion about the extent of that
contribution.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

a charge of ghosting-which-thankfully has subsequently
been totally disproved.

_
What "subsequent" event is GM Keene referring to? As
I understand it, the auction of "kasparov's handwritten
contribution" was before these 1984 comments of Edward
Winter.

Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

the tone of the public debate here has elevated considerably
... might i now suggest to mr blair-whose research i have
favourably animadverted upon in my own books in the
past- that he could also contribute to such an elevation
by accepting that the above points have been answered-

_
As I have tried to indicate, I feel that many points
remain to be answered.

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

might i now suggest to mr blair ... that he could also
contribute to such an elevation by ... not repeating
[the above points] endlessly or looking for interesting
semantic interpretations of my writing.

_
GM Keene has, from time to time, chosen to bring
up past controversies. I do not see why I should be
obliged to refrain from such an activity. I am not looking
for interesting semantic interpretations of GM Keene's
writing.
_
One more thought: If GM Keene sincerely seeks an
elevated tone of public debate, he might consider
saying something to Larry Parr on the subject.

I wrote (30 Apr 2006 19:28:59 -0700):
Does GM Keene claim that it is broadly true that
"chess games were first recorded towards the end
of the eighteenth century"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

yes i do and the oxford companion supports me in
this-if anything placing the formal recording of names,
dates and players of games for publication even slightly
later.

_
Is the time of the establishment of "the custom of recording
games" the same as the time when "chess games were first
recorded"?

_
Phil Innes reported (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:

there may be isolated cases before this time-see the oxford
encyclopaedia of chess games-but the cases were rare-on
this topic the two main scholarly resources are both on my
side!

_
Why should "rare" cases not count? Rare or not, if the
Oxford Encyclopaedia indicates that games were recorded
before the time "towards the end of the eighteenth century",
then it is NOT indicating that "chess games were first
recorded towards the end of the eighteenth century".

TAGGED AND BAGGED

RK [GM Keene] lied about Taylor Kingston's
review of one of his books, infering that TK was
not strong enough to spot pxN (very deep!),
and that a certain chess game is so well known that
even a duffer book reviewer ought not to have failed to
point out the flaw in -- wait for it -- GM Andy Soltis' work!
Nevermind the fact that a GM, Soltis, missed this himself.
And nevermind that this particular game is not really all that
famous. And nevermind that this was a lowly ad hominem
style attack on the messenger, Taylor Kingston, who
commented on the intro to that game -- not the moves themselves.
Tagged and bagged, Mr. Keene. -- Help Bot (Greg Kennedy)

Greg Kennedy never knows when to have done. He
garrulously prattles, which he confounds with wit, and
one always ends up waiting for a posting to end.

Nick Bourbaki's point about Keats is obviously
true, and Mr. Kennedy lacks the mother wit to
understand that those who write unsuperseded history
also make it. Only those who write have stories to tell.

Mr. Kennedy now tells us what he meant with his
nasty little tagged-bagged aside tossed at British GM
Ray Keene. Mr. Kennedy tells us in the absence of
reading on his part that Duras-Teichmann is not a
well-known game. In truth, it is one of the more
famous efforts in all of chess history. Ray's point
about Andy Soltis was precisely this: Soltis, for
once and very rarely, nodded; Taylor Kingston plonked
his noggin on the table out of sad habit. Which he
did and does.

GM Keene has given a short course in chess
history to NM Kingston. Mr. Kennedy, the snipe who
hates his job in Indiana nearly as much as he hates
grandmasters, again attacks one of his betters.

In a similar manner our lad from Indiana attacked Larry
Evans for being part of a conspiracy to "brainwash" the American
public into accepting Fischer's conditions against Karpov in 1975
as fair when exactly the opposite was true. GM Evans was virtually
the only columnist in Chess Life who branded Fischer's conditions
as unfair. Needless to say, Mr. Kennedy is silent about that boo-boo.

GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess Life:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[Karpov] will go down in history as the man who
avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and then eluded
him for the next ten years. ... [Karpov] did all in his
power to drive an unstable American genius out of chess.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Larry Parr wrote (8 May 2006 19:41:14 -0700):

Duras-Teichmann ... is one of the more famous
efforts in all of chess history.

_
Previously, Larry Parr told us:
_
"It is listed among the favorites in the
opening section of Wellmuth Golden
Treasury of Chess, one of the best
-selling chess books of all time."
- Larry Parr (28 Apr 2006 19:18:09 -0700)
_
I asked:
_
"How long has it been since the book
was in print?" - Louis Blair (30 Apr 2006
14:52:11 -0700)
_
I saw nothing further from Larry Parr about the Treasury.

_
Larry Parr wrote (8 May 2006 19:41:14 -0700):

Ray's point about Andy Soltis was precisely this: Soltis,
for once and very rarely, nodded; Taylor Kingston plonked
his noggin on the table out of sad habit. Which he did
and does.

_
Did GM Soltis "nod" during the whole time that he was
writing the section of his book on that game?
_
GM Keene's "point" seems to have undergone an evolution.
Originally, he wrote about a lack of chess strength. After
it was pointed out that Taylor Kingston had not
"concentrate"d on the game, GM Keene told us:
_
"Anyone who knows anything real about
chess would know that this Duras rook
sac has been busted for ages."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
I asked if GM Keene claimed that GM Soltis does not
know anything real about chess.
_
Most recently, the claim seems to have become:
_
"i think it fair to say that taylor kingstons
review would have been improved had he
pointed out the unsoundness of the rook
sac" - GM Keene quote reported by Phil
Innes (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
_
_
In his attack on helpbot, Larry Parr does not dispute
the helpbot statement:
_
"Taylor Kingston ... commented on the
intro to that game -- not the moves
themselves." - helpbot (7 May 2006
23:40:58 -0700)
_
Previously, Larry Parr tried to tell us:
_
"NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game." - Larry
Parr (26 Apr 2006 19:05:22 -0700)
_
After some objections, Larry Parr gave us the
noun definition of "highlight". I pointed out
that he needed a verb definition. Since then,
I have not seen anything on the matter from
Larry Parr. An inspection of the actual review
reveals that Taylor Kingston actually "highlighted"
a sentence from the introduction, noting only
that it had little to do with the game.