Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
... Taylor Kingstons review of my book on Nimzowitsch
...
... Taylor Kingstons review of my book on the Kasparov
vs. Kramnik world chess championship in London 2000.
Why, by the way, does he so often seem to review my
books. ...

_
Can GM Keene name any book of his other than the
above two that was reviewed by Taylor Kingston? Is
"so often" going to turn out to be another phrase like
"decides to concentrate on a particular game"?

GM Keene: "Casting pearls before swine" is the expression that comes to
mind.

When Kingston returns (and he will) you can expect more abuse.

Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
... Taylor Kingstons review of my book on Nimzowitsch
...
... Taylor Kingstons review of my book on the Kasparov
vs. Kramnik world chess championship in London 2000.
Why, by the way, does he so often seem to review my
books. ...
_
I wrote (30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700):
Can GM Keene name any book of his other than the
above two that was reviewed by Taylor Kingston? Is
"so often" going to turn out to be another phrase like
"decides to concentrate on a particular game"?

_
My 30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700 note had Message-ID:
_
.com

_
jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700):

GM Keene: "Casting pearls before swine" is the
expression that comes to mind.
_
When Kingston returns (and he will) you can expect
more abuse.

_
The heading for the 1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700 jr
note specifies that it is In-Reply-To:
_
.com

_
For some time now, jr has been telling us:
_
"this forum has become a more pleasurable
place for me since I plonked the nutty
professor. If Blair says ..." - jr
(16 Mar 2006 09:12:12 -0800)

Larry Parr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
... Taylor Kingstons review of my book on Nimzowitsch
...
... Taylor Kingstons review of my book on the Kasparov
vs. Kramnik world chess championship in London 2000.
Why, by the way, does he so often seem to review my
books. ...
_
I wrote (30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700):
Can GM Keene name any book of his other than the
above two that was reviewed by Taylor Kingston? Is
"so often" going to turn out to be another phrase like
"decides to concentrate on a particular game"?

_
My 30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700 note had Message-ID:
_
.com

_
jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700):

GM Keene: "Casting pearls before swine" is the
expression that comes to mind.
_
When Kingston returns (and he will) you can expect
more abuse.

_
The heading for the 1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700 jr
note specifies that it is In-Reply-To:
_
.com

_
For some time now, jr has been telling us:
_
"this forum has become a more pleasurable
place for me since I plonked the nutty
professor. If Blair says ..." - jr
(16 Mar 2006 09:12:12 -0800)

Larry Parr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
... Taylor Kingstons review of my book on Nimzowitsch
...
... Taylor Kingstons review of my book on the Kasparov
vs. Kramnik world chess championship in London 2000.
Why, by the way, does he so often seem to review my
books. ...
_
I wrote (30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700):
Can GM Keene name any book of his other than the
above two that was reviewed by Taylor Kingston? Is
"so often" going to turn out to be another phrase like
"decides to concentrate on a particular game"?

_
My 30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700 note had Message-ID:
_
.com

_
jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700):

GM Keene: "Casting pearls before swine" is the
expression that comes to mind.
_
When Kingston returns (and he will) you can expect
more abuse.

_
The heading for the 1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700 jr
note specifies that it is In-Reply-To:
_
.com

_
For some time now, jr has been telling us:
_
"this forum has become a more pleasurable
place for me since I plonked the nutty
professor. If Blair says ..." - jr
(16 Mar 2006 09:12:12 -0800)

wrote:
A BIASED REVIEWER

By GM Raymond Keene
My impression is reinforced by Taylor Kingstons review of my book on
the Kasparov vs. Kramnik world chess championship in London 2000. Why,
by the way, does he so often seem to review my books.

I cannot imagine how GM Keene came to this conclusion. Over the last
7 or 8 years I have written about 120 reviews for ChessCafe.com. If
memory serves, only two were on books by Keene.

Now let me return from this brief digression into TK's non existent
fantasy world which bears no relation to real book publishing to the
other points he raised in order to avoid confronting my criticism of
his Nimzo review.

Excuse me? "To avoid confronting"?? I raised my points well
*_before_* this "Keene reviews Kingston" thread began. Please check the
header dates on the thread "Keene on Chessic Omniscience."

I have been accused by TK of all sorts of historical blunders,
involving Alekhine vs. Capablanca, Alekhine vs. Euwe, Botvinnik vs.
Smyslov and so on. If one were to accept everything he alleges then my
books would presumably not be so successful.

Much wiser men than I punctured that sort of logic long ago. Relevant
quotes from Lincoln and Barnum come to mind, for example.

But the truth is they have
sold well over a million copies and been translated into French,
German, Swedish, Danish, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Turkish,
Hungarian and Spanish.

So, is GM Keene saying that an error in those languages is no longer
an error?

So does Taylor Kingston really believe in his heart of hearts that
I am so disrespectful to the giants of chess that I don't know how many
games were played in the 1927 world championship and that I really
suffer from the delusion that Euwe dethroned Alekhine in 1937 rather
than 1935? Or that Frank Marshall had not died by 1991? Or does he
know, as I suspect he does, that such errors -- and I agree they are
errors -- are typos rather than fundamentally held misconceptions?

What GM Keene may or may not know is not the issue. The important
thing is what gets in the book. I'm kind of funny that way -- when I
review a book, I evaluate what's in the book, not what the author may
know that is not in the book.

f) TK says that I wrongly described Kasparov's match save in 1987 as
the first time in 75 years that a player had come from behind to secure
the title. I would appreciate a little more chapter, verse and context
here. I am confident TK will be able to produce his precise source for
newspaper quotes, which are otherwise notoriously hard to find if they
predate computer indexing.

Why does GM Keene need to read everything twice? Here is the relevant
sentence from my original post: "Kasparov was 'the first player in more
than 75 years to come from behind to win the world chess championship'
(The Times, 21 December 1987)."

g) TK also mentions an allegedly mistaken reference to the 1983
Kasparov vs. Korchnoi match as a world championship, but no precise
reference or context is supplied.

Dr. Blair has kindly supplied a link to a photo of the cover in
question elsewhere in this thread.

h) I am criticised for writing that only in the late 18th century were
games recorded. Again a little context would be helpful ...

This is getting tiresome. Here we go again: "In The Times, November
16 1991, Keene reported that 'chess games were first recorded towards
the end of the eighteenth century.'"

It will be difficult to conduct a meaningful discussion if GM Keene
fails to read what I have actually posted here. Is he not reading for
himself, but getting only what Larry Parr supplies? If so, he must
realize that he is not being fully informed.
Still, I appreciate him taking the time to respond and actually
address at least some of the issues, which is more than I can say of
some others here. I will reply on the subject of "Aron Nizowitsch: A
Reappraisal" here soon, and on other issues as time permits.

Taylor Kingston

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

FAIR CHALLENGE?

I strongly suggest that Russel should be contacted - in fact if Taylor
Kingston doesn't I will.

I already have, Phil, but feel free to contact him yourself if you
like. However, I suggest you spell his name correctly.

What we would like to know about where Kingston wrote his
article -Chesscafe - and about the CJA Code of Ethics, that Kingston
cites
as authority

I did not cite the CJA.

To whom? I thought that was the basis of Brennan's objection? Let me look it
up - why! here it is:-

Technically, it's Larry Parr that violated your copyright, Taylor,
since Mr. Keene didn't reprint the review. In addition to any legal
line Mr. Parr crossed, he seems to have violated the Code of Ethics of
the Chess Journalists of America. Mr. Parr is a CJA member.

I therefore wonder what you wrote to him? I myself wrote tot he CJA
president this morning in response to a dialogue he initiated with me.

, is if Hanon Russel, who controls both,

You are saying that Hanon Russell controls the CJA??

No, he controls what may be said about it.

thinks Keene's
copyright was abridged by Kinston's review.

Hitting the peyote again, Phil?

Is that a Californian term?

I'll tell you what - I'll write to CJA on this matter directly and ask what
guidelines they have for protection of copyright, citing this instance of
your review of Keene. I will mention that your comment seems to be a
drug-culture one, and this was the entire sunstantive reply you made.

The issue is whether Keene/Parr's
posting of a large part of *my* copyrighted review, without receiving
or asking permission, is a copyright violation.

What could be fairer than that? )

Probably any number of things, but to be sure it would first be
necessary for your position to be comprehensible.

Which is why you snipped it? ROFL

Phil Innes

I have been accused by TK of all sorts of historical blunders,
involving Alekhine vs. Capablanca, Alekhine vs. Euwe, Botvinnik vs.
Smyslov and so on. If one were to accept everything he alleges then my
books would presumably not be so successful. (Keene quoted by Kingston)

* Much wiser men than I punctured that sort of logic long ago.
Relevant
quotes from Lincoln and Barnum come to mind, for example. * (Kingston)

As I predicted, GM Keene can expect more abuse from Taylor
Kingston. This time Kingston is trying to mask his bile.

The quote from Lincoln to which he refers is "You can't fool all
of the people all of the time." And the quote from Barnum is "A
sucker is born every minute." Please correct me if I'm wrong, sir.

Finally, I wish that both Kingston and Innes would stop confusing
the
issue by changing the name of this thread.

Over and out.

GM Larry Evans was present and can vouch for my various activities,
which also extended to entertaining eminent guest commentators, such as
himself. An instant book appeared soon after the match ended.

Did it occur to you, GM Keene, that this is PRECISELY THE PROBLEM?

You write a book during a match in which you you are also busy doing a
zillion other things and then "instantly" publish it. But writing a
good book requires taking your time writing, paying close attention to
what you write, and above all, *after* a rough draft is finished, great
effort to find mistakes, typos, omissions, and inaccuracies.

These are all things you obviously did not--and could not--do when you
write a book in the above manner. And most of your books are written in
just this way: on the fly, while doing a zillion other things, for
instant publication, before the public forgets about the
match/game/tournament in question.

It is a small wonder than you managed to write 130 books--and it is
also a small wonder that they are mostly crap. I mean, what else can
one expect from instant books written on the fly?

Frankly iIwas overjoyed at how little divergence there was my notes
and Kramnik, who not only played the games and conducted detailed
post-mortems but also had far more time to get things right!

But once more, Mr. Keene, this is PRECISELY THE PROBLEM.

Sure, a GM like yourself is likely to get, say, 90% of the analysis
more-or-less correct even without putting any effort into it, just
writing on-the-fly notes during the game, like you did.

But the whole point of good writing, or good analysis, is to take the
trouble to make sure the analysis is not 80% or 90% correct, but 100%
correct, or at least as close to that as possible. Kramnik took care
and effort to do so. You couldn't be bothered.

You are a hack writer because you much prefer to have a book with 90%
correct analysis without any effort than to have a book with 100% (or
99%) correct analysis that DOES require effort.

It's the same with the typos in your book: you much prefer to make no
effort at all and get 99% of the words spelled correctly, than to make
an effort and make sure 99.9% are. Which means that your book will
contain (as they often do) ten times as many typos as books by more
careful writers.

This "close enough for government work", "I can't be expected to get
*everything* right", "hurry hurry hurry, let's publish before the
public loses interest" attitude, GM Keene, is *PRECISELY* what makes
you a hack writer. The result, naturally, are books which are full of
analytical, historical, and typographical howlers.

am so disrespectful to the giants of chess that I don't know how many
games were played in the 1927 world championship and that I really
suffer from the delusion that Euwe dethroned Alekhine in 1937 rather
than 1935? Or that Frank Marshall had not died by 1991?

No, you are so disrespectful to *YOUR READERS* that you don't care if
books which appear under your name say that Euwe dethroned Alekhine in
1937 and that Marshall died in 1991, in the same way you don't care if
they have numerous other typos, or feature hit-and-miss, on-the-fly
analysis dictated into your cell phone while doing a zillion other
things at the same time.

* An instant book appeared soon after the match ended. Did it occur to
you, GM Keene, that this is PRECISELY THE PROBLEM? * (Skeptic)

Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Pipel, that it is almost impossible
to earn a living from chess and that instant books are a cash cow
that pay the rent for chess pros?

Like your hero Edward Winter, you guys make mountains out of
tpos and wrong dates which are not fundamental errors (as Keene
pointed out). Often these are not even the fault of the authors who
don't always see the final proofs before articles go to press.

Many instant books appeared after Fischer-Spassky in 1972
(Gligoric, Reshevsky, etc.) which outsold more serious works
that hit the market later by Byrne, Evans, etc.

* But the whole point of good writing, or good analysis, is to take
thetrouble to make sure the analysis is not 80% or 90% correct,
but 100%correct, or at least as close to that as possible. Kramnik
took careand effort to do so. You couldn't be bothered.* (Skeptic)

Kramnik's notes came out much later in New In Chess which
pays a fraction of what instant books bring in. If you want 100%
perfection, leave the real world and try living on another planet.