You know, Keene is "winning" this debate, in his own eyes, this debate
by having an answer to *everything*. Plagiarized material? The
typsetter's fault. Writing a book in a few days without checking it?
Well, he was "full of energy" and had "an incredible sense of
accomplishment" at the time, which for some reason releases him of the
obligation to double-check his work or be careful about it. Calling the
Semi-final the "world championship" on the front cover? Campo did it
too! Numerous typos? Other makes typos as well, and besides, it's
prefectly legitimate to write error-ridden instabooks for the mass
market: there's a demand, so it's OK to fill it, as the prostitute
said. An illicit book on the Korchnoi-Karpov match? An innocent
misunderstanding.

And so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

But in virtually *no* case does Keene actually deny the *facts* of the
criticism; he only offers *explanations* as to why the criticism isn't
as bad as it seems. The fact remains that when one buys one of Keene's
books, one is virtually guaranteed it's going to be full of mistakes in
history, analysis, and typography, and often also of misleading, to say
nothing of outright false, puffery and hype. Keene's "others make
mistakes too" and "I don't see what's wrong with doing X" excuses
simply don't matter.

help bot writes:

HB Again, I would point out that Keene is "reviewing" a review by TK
of one of Keene's better works. To the extent that this is one of
Keene's better works there is really no need for TK to poke holes, for
the criticism directed at Keene which originally drew him here was of
his inferior works.

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.

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.

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. On the whole, then, I
agree with help bot that on this occasion, TK was overzealous in his
attempts to find fault with Keene. But the numerous typos and howlers
in Keene's later work make a different kettle of fish.

Larry T.

wrote in message
oups.com...
WHERE DID I ADMIT WHAT?

I'm glad to see that Mr. Parr, at long last, admits
the obvious: Keene's books are of low quality. -- Skeptic

Mr. Pipel or Skeptic states that I admit
something or other about the books of GM Ray Keene.
That's a troll writing.

Once again, the vast majority of readers on this
forum understand that instant books get written to
meet specific needs. John Buchan, the great British
statesman, historian, literrateur and novelist, wrote
his Nelson's History of the War during the war, making
many errors when producing 20-plus volumes under
enormous pressure. Yet his books served a purpose at
that time, and no idiot ever imagined that because
Buchan was meeting a market demand, he did not also
write a fine biography of Montrose and another of
Walter Scott, to mention just two.

In the West Country, Waugh took himself off to a hotel on the Exmoor coast
and wrote Brideshead in 20 days on a manual typewriter - NO revisions were
necessary, none. Even Orwell concedes this was the most remarkable and
unequaled feat of writing in the creation of a seminal book which descrbed
the passing of an age, and apprehensions on the cusp of a new one.

Buchan mentioned that T.E. Lawrence could translate almost faultless Greek
at a similar rate.

Let us assume that both gents did their homework before, rather than during,
writing - and that these considerable means and achievements are largely
unknown to modern commentators 'in the information age'.

Its interesting that a more prolific writer than either, perhaps the most
read author of any quality book in the last quarter of the C20th, did not
set his historical novels in this time, but utilised a dramatic theatre from
another age, while still basing every encounter on scrupulously researched
fact, and aside from a necessary compression of chronologies, and
'hypothetical years', also wrote in the same way - according to his
son-in-law Nikolai Tolstoi. In fact the first two and a half books were
written 'blind', that is, without a publishing contract.

Not to digress g but these works were not understood at first, and it took
an American, Lawrence Starling, chief editor of Norton, to promote them in
the US before they could be launched to overwhelming [and unprecedented]
success in the UK. To some degree this was a matter of confidence, that
serious attention would be rewarded.

Speed-of-writing can indicate a solid foundation of research, a clarity of
design & intent, plus a fluent capability to relate the matter.

Phil Innes

Ray Keene is a polymath. He writes to meet
market needs for a match just concluded, and he writes
serious histories. These two kinds of books are
judged by different standards because they serve
different purposes.

Ray's Manoeuvres in Moscow, an instant match book,
stands comparison to more considered works written
over a long period of time; yet he could undoubtedly
have added to that volume if the market would have allowed
him, say, six months.

Ray's Illustrated History of Chess, a brilliant and
beautiful work, could never have been produced
vernight And it wasn't.

The issue is whether Ray provides value for money
in his books, which he does. His illustrated history
costs a lot more dough than an insta-match book and
rightly so. But both books have their place.

wrote:
WINTER'S RATPACKERS

By GM Raymond Keene
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.

I must remind GM Keene that it's been here for two days now. Here it
is again:

I post this in reply to GM Raymond Keene's thread "Keene reviews
Kingston." There, Keene commented on my review of his book "Aron
Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal" (3rd edition, Batsford 1999), which
appeared at www.ChessCafe.com in March 2000. The review can be seen
he http://www.chesscafe.com/text/reapp.txt, however, for the sake of

clarity it appears below (each portion headed "Review:"), punctuated by

Keene's comments (headed "Keene:") and my replies (headed "TK:").
Except for omitting one long irrelevant digression about another book,
I have retained all Keene's comments.
I set a precondition that Keene must first respond in detail to a set

of questions I posted several days ago. He has not done so in full, but

I see no reason to delay my reply any further. Especially since Keene's

comments proved generally quite easy to refute.
Because of the length of the review and the number of Keene's
comments, this is necessarily a long post. Those sincerely interested
in understanding the issues between Keene and myself are encouraged to
read all the way through. On some servers, such as Google, this may
require using the "read more" icon.

Review:
Along with Morphy, Steinitz, Tarrasch, and a very few others, the
Latvian master Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935) is considered a major
contributor to the theoretical foundation of chess. His writings, such
as My System and Chess Praxis, are considered essential to a full
understanding of the game. At his peak (circa 1926-31) he was one of
the top four or five players in the world, and was always one of the
game's more colorful and controversial personalities. It is a measure
of his impact that books continue to be written about him.


Keene: Excellent start. I like it. Concisely written, to the point
and well done.
TK: Thank you.


Review:
This one is making its third appearance. Earlier editions were
published in 1974 and 1991, both in descriptive notation. This edition
has algebraic notation and some additional games, some as recent as
1995, that show Nimzowitsch's influence. British grandmaster Raymond
Keene, an extremely prolific but often careless author (he admits to
having written entire books in a few days) this time appears to have
some genuine passion and respect for his subject, and has taken more
than usual care (though perhaps still not enough). Though this is a
third edition, your reviewer will approach it as he would a new work.


Keene: Hang on a moment. What are these generalisations about being
careless?
TK: I find this comment extremely disingenuous. I cannot believe that

GM Keene is oblivious to his own reputation.


Keene: I imagine he will soon be trying to produce some evidence for
this libellous assertion.
TK: An absurd statement. Pointing out factual errors is not libel.
Concerning evidence, Keene need merely look at the thread "Keene on
Chessic Omniscience" for a few of the many known instances.


Keene: His evidence so far is that I admit to having written a book
in a few days.
TK: The bulk of the evidence is not relevant to a review of the
Nimzovitch book, and so is not recapitulated there. I again recommend
that GM Keene refresh his memory from my recent posts, or check the
many instances cited by various commentators over the past 25 years or
so.


Snip long story about writing a book over a weekend.


Review:
In his first chapter, Keene notes that Nimzowitsch's own major
written works stopped before the most successful phase of his career
(ca. 1929-31). Keene intends Reappraisal as "a continuation of his
Chess Praxis covering the years 1928-1934." Even for someone of Keene's

pretensions this is a tall order, but he does have some success. The
result is an interesting though uneven work, part biography, part games

collection, part historical and
theoretical survey.


Keene: Damning with faint praise. Okay. Let's see what else he has to

say.
TK: Actually I'm giving the book high praise by comparison with other

Keene works.


Review:
Chapter 2 is of historical interest, consisting of excerpts from
Nimzowitsch's hard-to-find autobiography "How I Became a Grandmaster."
It introduces us to his somewhat grandiose writing style and conception

of himself, and goes far to explain the antipathy, both professional
and personal, that developed between him and German grandmaster
Siegbert Tarrasch. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of positional themes

in Nimzowitsch's games, and a conversation with Danish GM Bent Larsen
(logical, since Nimzowitsch lived in Denmark for
years, and Larsen is considered something of a spiritual descendant).


Keene: Very good. Remember that point about Nimzo living in Denmark.
It's relevant to what follows.
TK: But not relevant to the book, as we will see.


Review:
Chapter 4, "The Influence of Nimzowitsch on Modern Opening Play",
discusses lines he either originated or enhanced, among them the
Philidor-Hanham (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nf6 4 Nc3 Nbd7); the Nimzowitsch

Defence (1 e4 Nc6); various lines, for both colors, in the French; the
Caro-Kann, especially (after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4) the
lines 4...Nf6 and 4...Nd7; some lines of the Sicilian, e.g. 1 e4 c5 2
Nf3 Nf6; the Queen's Indian (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf6 b6); the
Nimzo-Indian (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4); and the Nimzowitsch Attack
(1 b3, or 1 Nf3 and 2 b3). Keene makes some interesting points along
the way, e.g. "many of the original strategic ideas stem from
Nimzowitsch himself while ... the actual variations we still employ
were elaborated by the arch-realist Alekhine." However, as we will see,



Keene's factual support for such points is spotty.


Keene: Spotty? We shall see!
TK: Indeed we will.


Review:
Like some other writers, notably Fred Reinfeld in "The Human Side of
Chess" or Reuben Fine in various works, Keene occasionally purports to
psychoanalyze or even peer into "the very heart" of his subject and
relate the insights thus gained to chess style. Chapter 5,
"The Duality of Nimzowitsch" does this in a somewhat overblown manner,
quoting Goethe (Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach! in meiner Brust / Die eine
will sich von der andern trennen) and trying to illustrate how these
'two souls living within his breast' ("Prophylaxis" and "Heroic
Defence") manifested themselves in Nimzowitsch's games. Such armchair
insights are not always valid, but if handled with sufficient style
they make for interesting reading. Whether one agrees that "with
Nimzowitsch, we see a powerful awareness of the presence of the
opponent as someone who must be restrained or provoked," or one
associates "the direct, positive action of an Alekhine, or a Fischer,
with a homogeneous, harmonious unity of chess style as opposed to the
duality and indirection which pervade Nimzowitsch," one can at least
enjoy Keene's polysyllabic prose. And an occasionally overblown style
is perhaps appropriate when discussing Nimzowitsch.


Keene: Yes. Fair enough. TK even picks up my stylistic homage to
Nimzo.
TK: Thank you.
Keene: So are we back on track?
TK: I was not aware that the review had left its track.


Review:
Chapters 6 through 11 are (along with chapter 4) the best sections of

the book: about 70 games, most of them deeply annotated, from different

phases of Nimzowitsch's career: First Steps 1904-06, Established Master

1907-14, Disaster and Recovery 1920-24, World Championship Candidate
1925-28, The Crown Prince 1929-31, and The Final Years 1932-35. They
are accompanied by tournament crosstables. The games often feature
Nimzowitsch's own notes, which are among the most stylized,
idiosyncratic, hyperbolic, and least humble ever written; as Keene's
Danish translators put it, "each game [is] turned into a drama -- more
than that, into a morality play -- in which Nimzowitsch becomes a very
special character: an almost invincible crusader, an embodiment of all
sapient virtues." For example, of this position (See Diagram).


Keene: Good. Well quoted! TK really seems to be getting into the
spirit of things now! Now he discusses a position from Nimzo-Romih, San

Remo 1930 after 22 Bd5-c6.
TK: Yes, the position is:
1r2kr2/p2bq1bp/1pBp4/nPp5/Q1P1Pp2/P1NP1P1p1/3KN3/1R5R.


Review:
While grandmasters tend to be an egotistical lot, it's hard to think
of many who would, with a straight face, describe their own moves as
"awe-inspiring." Elsewhere Nimzowitsch rejoices in the "thorn-infested
path to victory" that the complexity of his style forced upon him,
masochistically regarding the "renunciation of lunch" as "a thoroughly
welcome intensification of the pleasure". Not without reason was he
considered a bit strange.
Still, the instructive value of Nimzowitsch's games and the complex
intelligence behind them cannot be denied. Keene perceptively points
out many features of Nimzowitsch's play, such as the concept of
"ambush." This means more than just a trap or combination, rather it is



"a deep refutation of a course of action which the opponent is under no

compulsion to adopt," yet one toward which Nimzowitsch's play strongly
leads him. A prime example is Rubinstein-Nimzowitsch, Marienbad 1925
(See Diagram) where the key was the unusual and not at all obvious
18...Rfe8!!. ... The games section, the bulk of the book, features many

such instructive, perhaps even "awe-inspiring" moments.
In other areas Reappraisal comes off less well. While emulating
Reinfeld in the "psychological insight" department, Keene criticizes
Reinfeld's book on Nimzowitsch (Hypermodern Chess, a/k/a Nimzovich the
Hypermodern, 1948). For example, discussing the game Nimzowitsch-Salwe,

Carlsbad 1911 (See Diagram), Reinfeld wrote that for playing 7 dxc5,
"one of the deepest [moves] ever played, Nimzowitsch was roundly damned

by the chess world." Keene cites Vidmar to show that "Unfortunately,
the facts contradict this pleasantly romantic view." However, Keene has

often been shown by Edward Winter and others to be one of chessdom's
worst offenders against historical accuracy. Though in the above matter

he may be right, for him to criticize Reinfeld is rather like Jackie
Gleason admonishing someone to lose weight.


Keene: Hang on. What's this? I'm one of the worst offenders against
historical accuracy!
TK: Yes.
Keene: I trust he's going to produce some evidence for this libel.
TK: Again, I can only regard Keene's attitude as extremely
disingenuous.


Keene: And what's this about being right but now allowed to correct
Reinfeld ...
TK: Wrong end of the stick. I did not say that Keene is forbidden to
correct Reinfeld. The attentive reader will notice that Keene's comment

about Reinfeld merely provides the review with a convenient segue to a
discussion of Reappraisal's historical problems.
Keene: ... a gifted player who had a plus score against Reshevsky,
beat Fine and drew with Alekhine?
TK: Reinfeld's playing strength or career scores are entirely
irrelevant here.
Keene: Reinfeld wrote some potboilers but also some very good books
including his studies of Nimzo and Tarrasch.
TK: Again, quite irrelevant. At least Keene does acknowledge that a
"very good book" (e.g. Reinfeld's on Nimzovich) may also have some
errors (e.g. the "romantic" illusion to which Keene referred). Reinfeld

is not alone in this.


Keene: TK's remarks are a crude slur which utterly fails to produce
any worthwhile reason why I should not criticise anyone or anything I
find to be in error.
TK: Keene has the right to criticize error, but his authority to do
so is weakened by the high incidence of error in his own work. It is
wrong to drink and smoke to excess, but the guy to say this is not
Mikhail Tal. It is wrong to cheat on one's wife, but I could only laugh

if told this by Bill Clinton or Jack Kennedy. Religious and racial
bigotry is wrong, but for Bobby Fischer to tell me that would be
ludicrous hypocrisy. I trust my point is clear now.


Keene: I also find this kind of criticism by innuendo highly
distasteful and unworthy of any decent reviewer who is supposed to be
objective. Ah, but is objectivity TK's real goal?
TK: As a matter of objective fact, yes, it is.


Keene: Now we come to his so-called evidence of my offenses against
historical accuracy.
TK: Only those I found in "Reappraisal." There are many others in
other books.


Keene: This will be interesting. Winter has decreed that Keene is a
bad writer ...
TK: Interesting. Keene is aware of what Winter has written about him,

yet is somehow unaware of the many historical errors Winter has pointed

out?


Keene: (let's try to forget or spin the old Winter description of my
book on Nimzo as "splendid").
TK: No, let's not. In some ways it is a splendid book. But "some"
does not mean "all."


Keene: Now TK must fine [sic] something wrong with my book to justify

the new dictates of his stern lord and master.
TK: Hmmm ... Keene claims I have made a "crude slur," yet he follows
this with - a crude slur! Concerning my "stern lord and master," the
plain fact is my wife does not even know how to play chess, and has no
role at all in my reviews.
I now add a portion of my review which GM Keene failed to include in
his post. Please keep this mind further on; it's highly relevant:


Portion of review omitted by Keene:
For example, in discussing the Panov-Botvinnik variation of the
Caro-Kann (1 e4 2 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4) Keene says "Nimzowitsch
used this against Alekhine at Bled 1931, and then Alekhine himself
became its most enthusiastic practitioner. Why on earth we call it the
Panov-Botvinnik I shall never understand!" (p. 77). Questions of
opening nomenclature are often tricky; this line actually was first
analyzed by Orland Krause of Denmark in 1911.


Keene: Yes, we know about Dr. Krause, the Danish theoretician --
remember Denmark? --where Nimzo emigrated after the first World War.
Nimzo even gives a game by Krause with this very line in his Chess
Praxis.
TK: It's too bad that this relevant information is not mentioned in
"Reappraisal."


Review:
-- and played and analyzed further by Russian Vasily Panov ca. 1929-30.



Keene: Much later.
TK: 1929-30 is still earlier than any date the book gives on this
subject.


Review:
But as far as it concerns Nimzowitsch and Alekhine, Keene appears to
have cause and effect reversed! As far as I can find, their actual
chronology with the line is: (1) Alekhine-Tartakower, Paris 1925; (2)
Tartakower-Nimzowitsch, Liege 1930; and only then (3)
Nimzowitsch-Alekhine, Bled 1931. In other words, Nimzowitsch may well
have learned of the line from Alekhine, and not the other way around.


Keene: Try Nimzo-Jokstad, Bergen 1921 which as far as I can see
normally comes BEFORE 1925 and 1930.
TK: It's a funny thing, but when I review a book, I evaluate it based

on the information actually in the book. I don't recall the Jokstad
game being mentioned at all in "Reappraisal." On the matter of the
Panov-Botvinnik Attack, Keene gives only one paragraph, just three
sentences, and mentions no date except 1931.
Keene: It seems pretty likely that when Nimzo went to Denmark he
became interested in this line by association with Dr. Krause, whom he
writes of very positively in Chess Praxis.
TK: A plausible hypothesis, but again *_not_* mentioned in
"Reappraisal." Here again is what Keene wrote: "Nimzowitsch used this
against Alekhine at Bled 1931, and then Alekhine himself became its
most enthusiastic practitioner." That's it.
That's a clear chain of events: (1) First, Nimzovitch plays the
Panov-Botvinnik against Alekhine in 1931, then (2) Alekhine likes it
and plays it. That's all the evidence Keene gives *_in the book_* on
the issue of who showed whom the PBA. Alekhine in fact played it at
least six years earlier. Keene does not mention this. Maybe Nimzovitch
showed it to him before that, but "Reappraisal" does not say so.
As I said, I judge a book by what's *_in the book_*. Whatever else
Keene may know has no bearing. Even overwhelming evidence has no effect

on a case if it's not presented in court.
Perhaps GM Keene can produce a fourth edition, and include what he's
shown here, in which case I will give _that_ book full credit for doing

so, but not the third edition, the book under discussion here.


Review:
The Panov-Botvinnik might be more accurately called the Krause-Panov,



but for Keene to imply that it should be named for Nimzowitsch is
ludicrous.


Keene: I did not write this at all!
TK: It seemed to be Keene's clear implication. First he says
Nimzovitch used it, then says it should not be named for Panov or
Botvinnik. So if not Nimzovitch, who else did Keene mean?
Keene: I merely wrote that I was surprised it was christened after
Panov and Botvinnik.
TK: But you gave no reason why it should not be so named, except that

Nimzovitch played it in 1931 against Alekhine, who then took it up.
Keene: But to call it the Panov-Botvinnik as I supposed we now must
-- as sanctioned by usage --is just another sad example of Soviets
hacks hijacking an opening system worked out by others. It reminds of
of Commander Chekhov, the Russian Star Trek officer who automatically
claims that everything was invented in Moscow.
TK: A valid point about the Soviets, but not really relevant to
"Reappraisal."


Review:
Other errors are more subtle.


Keene: What other errors? He hasn't found any at all yet!!
TK: Suit yourself.


Review:
While Reappraisal is better researched than many other Keene books,
it still shows a certain superficiality, for example in its discussion
of the genesis of the Nimzo-Indian Defense.


Keene: Superficiality is it now ? This had better be good!


Review:
Nimzowitsch first played 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 against Janowsky
at St. Petersburg 1914. Keene rightly notes that it had been played
earlier (with a slight transposition), in Englisch-Blackburne, London
1883, but neglects to state that it had appeared even earlier, in
Singleton-Casswell, correspondence, England 1854.


Keene: I neglect to mention a game from 1854!
TK: I agree, you neglected to mention it. Personally, I thought
readers of the review would find my added information interesting. And
the fact that Keene mentioned only the 1883 game makes it seem he
considers it the first. Keene's exact phrasing is that the
"Nimzo-Indian Defense [is] Nimzowitsch's most famous strategic
invention, although it had been played previously (by accident!?) in
1883!"
Would not a better phrasing have been "although it had been played
previously, in such games as ..." followed by relevant examples from
several years.


Keene: I am here saying that Nimzo neither invented the opening nor
had a monopoly on its development. Both true!
TK: Agreed. However, in the book Keene clearly is trying to trace the

Nimzo-Indian's ancestry, asking "is it possible that Nimzowitsch was
influenced by some of Tartakower's games from Carlsbad 1911? ...
Clearly there was some cross-fertilization between the livelier minds
of the pre-1914 chess world."
Indeed there was such cross-fertilization; I just don't think this
part of "Reappraisal" does a very thorough job tracing it - much
relevant information was missing. That is why I characterized it as
having "a certain superficiality."


Review:
Admittedly not a point of great importance, but a harbinger of
further omission when Keene discusses the Nimzo-Indian's strategic
ancestry. He correctly notes that an important theme of the defense,
Black's pressure against White'sc3/c4/d4 pawn complex, may not have
been completely original with Nimzowitsch, citing this position (See
Diagram), from a Dutch Defense, Salwe-Tartakower, Carlsbad 1911. Keene
says "the manner of play against the doubled c-pawns and the whole
concept of blockade ... [clearly shows] there was some
cross-fertilization between the livelier minds of the pre-1914 chess
world. The new ideas were not the sole intellectual property of
Nimzowitsch!"
True indeed, but Keene seems completely unaware that the idea can be
traced back much further. Consider this position (See Diagram).


Keene: And now I am allegedly unaware of an even more important
mirror image -- this time from 1867.
TK: Well, it sure ain't in the book.


Review:
Interested readers please consult the database


TK: What's this? I wrote no such thing in my review. Below is the
correct continuation:


Review:
Consider this position from Winawer-Neumann, Paris 1867 [Note: in the

original review a diagram appeared, but unfortunately that was lost
when the review was archived as a .txt file. Here is the position:
1nbdqkr/r3b1p1/p1p1p1Q1/2ppPp2/2P2P2/1P1P1N2/P6P/RQBN2RK] where the
Polish master continued 22 Ba3 Qf7 23 Nc3 a5 24 Na4 Na6 25 Rac1,
pressuring the c5-pawn in a perfect mirror image of the Nimzo-Indian
strategy, nearly 50 years before Nimzowitsch "originated" it. This is
not the only Winawer game with such ideas. As we noted in the February
1999 Inside Chess, it is very hard to believe that Winawer's games were



unknown to the Latvian Nimzowitsch (not to mention the Pole
Tartakower), especially since (1) they all moved in Russian chess
circles at the time Nimzowitsch was formulating his opening ideas; and
(2) Nimzowitsch was very fond of the line 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4,
i.e., the Winawer French. Nimzowitsch's affinity for Knights over
Bishops is another sign of Winawer influence. Winawer lived until 1920
and Nimzowitsch almost surely knew him personally. I strongly doubt
Nimzowitsch was ignorant of Winawer's games, but it's clear Keene is.


Keene: No, Keene is not ignorant.
TK: Then I suggest Keene show that by including relevant information
when he is aware of it. As I said, I can judge a book only by what the
author puts in, not by what else he might know but omits.


Keene: I just thought everyone knew about Staunton's win vs. the
Bristol Chess Club of 1844-45 by correspondence -- a game far predating

any references cited by TK! It's #25 in my book on Howard Staunton, a
pure mirror image Nimzo-Indian.
TK: A shame it was not mentioned in "Reappraisal," then.
Keene: TK misses the point. I wasn't trying to find the earliest
reference, which is in fact Staunton's game, but simply showing that a
well known 1883 game had reached the Nimzo basic position, which GMs of

that era would probably know and that others (Tartakower) also deserved

some credit. I am sure Winawer does too, but if we are playing the game

of going as far back as we can I doubt anyone will trump Staunton vs.
Bristol.
TK: Immaterial. I am not "playing the game of going as far back as we

can," I am showing information I considered relevant to the topics in
"Reappraisal," but which was not given in "Reappraisal."


Review:
He is further guilty of worse superficiality in discussing the
Advance French (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5), calling it "another of
Nimzowitsch's brain children," when it is well known that Louis Paulsen

(1833-91) was playing it years before Nimzowitsch was born.


Keene: Wake up Taylor Kingston. Anyone at home up there? Paulsen vs.
Tarrasch is on page 53 of my book!
TK: I do not consider a brief fragment (moves 15-19) buried in a note

to Nimzovich-Tarrasch, San Sebastian 1912, adequate to counteract the
impression given by calling the Advance French "Nimzowitsch's
brainchild."


Keene: And brain child doesn't mean Nimzo played it first ...
TK: Really? My Webster's Dictionary defines "brainchild" as "a
person's invention (often of a practical order)." No other definitions
are given. To say the Advance French was "Nimzovich's
brainchild" is like saying "The airplane was Charles Lindbergh's
invention."
Keene: ... though it could.
TK: Only if one makes up one's own definition. Larry Parr does that a

lot. You don't want to be like him. ;-)
Keene: It means that Nimzo nurtured and proselytised for it like no
other GM ever did. He worked out a complete theory for 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5
3 e5 in the French, contributing more than anyone else.
TK: If that's what Keene meant, then Keene should have said that,
rather than "another of Nimzowitsch's brain children."


Review:
Keene has at least deleted one error from his 1974 edition (repeated
from Reinfeld), that New York 1927 was a "candidates tournament" in
which, had Nimzowitsch finished first, or second to Capablanca, he
could have gained a world title match. While it is a pleasant surprise
to see Keene correcting himself, on the whole one should not read
Reappraisal as an historical work without substantial salt at hand.


Keene: Salt? The belief that New York 1927 was a candidates'
tournament was widespread when I wrote the first edition. And no, I did

not get it from Reinfeld. In fact I accepted the truth of a memoir of
Capablanca by J. DuMont.
TK: I stand corrected on your source. But the salt remark was not
directed at NY 1927.
Keene: It is now believed that New York 1927 was almost certainly NOT

a candidates' tournament as we now understand the phrase, though heaven

knows how they would have handled matters had Nimzo won or come second.



TK: Capablanca would have played the match with Alekhine, as had
already been contractually agreed.
Keene: But I certainly felt it safer to delete this based on what had

been unearthed since the first edition.
TK: Good. Why does GM Keene not show a similar willingness to correct

and/or admit other errors?


Keene: Now what's this assertion about "at least deleted one error,"
implying there were lots more. I have proved here that there aren't.
TK: I suppose we will continue to differ on that.
Keene: I would even say, given the state of knowledge at the time of
writing, that referring to New York 1927 as a candidates' tournament
was NOT an error. Changing the description showed an awareness of and
sensitivity to more recent research. This slur about a pleasant
surprise to see Keene correcting himself is unworthy of an objective
reviewer. It would be more typical of a reviewer with a preset agenda.
TK: On the contrary, I feel it would show a complete lack of
objectivity to ignore Keene's record of factual errors.


Keene: I am always ready to correct something if it can be done. For
example, if a mistake occurs in my daily Times column I always try to
get it corrected as quickly as possible. Anyone who reads it can verify

this fact.
TK: Not being a regular reader of the Times, I cannot address that
from personal knowledge. However, I will say that Keene's claim differs

sharply from most reports I have read.


Keene: TK's pleasant surprise insult is just another generalised
attack without foundation.
TK: It's not an insult, it's my genuine feeling. Perhaps GM Keene
could cause me to feel it more often?


Review:
As an instructional book, it is somewhat problematic, though not
through any fault of Keene's. As R. E. Fauber said, "If there were a
difficult way to play a chess game, Nimzovich would find it." Few
masters are harder for the amateur to emulate than the eccentric
Latvian. However, Keene deserves credit for making some Nimzowitsch
concepts easier to understand, and for providing relevant illustrative
examples. By itself, or used as Keene recommends, in concert with My
System and/or Chess Praxis, Reappraisal should have
instructive value, at least for players of above-average strength. For
less advanced players I would recommend (at the risk of making
Nimzowitsch spin in his grave!) that they first try a book by his
arch-rival Tarrasch, whose more direct theory of the game is easier to
grasp.


Keene: This bit is more or less okay. TK even admits I mention Praxis

where the 1924-25 Krause game occurs, thus conceding that I did know
about Krause's contribution to the so-called Panov-Botvinnik Attack.
TK: Again, whatever Keene may have known but left out is irrelevant
to my review. All that matters is what he put *_in the book_*.


Review:
It is as a games collection that this book stands out: about 100
Nimzowitsch games, both famous and little-known, some with his own
annotations (hard to find anywhere else), others with good notes by
Keene. For all his eccentricity and bombast, Nimzowitsch loved and
understood chess as few men have ever done, and for all his usual
sloppiness ...


Keene: For all his usual sloppiness?? Outrageous slur with no
evidence at all. Who has been sloppy here with his research? Me or the
reviewer who overlooked Nimzo vs. Jokstad 1921 and Staunton vs. Bristol

1844?
TK: The author who neglected to mention them in his book is the guy I

had in mind.
Keene: Come off it. TK has not found one single instance of so-called

sloppiness, whereas I have unearthed several in his review.
TK: Again, it appears we must agree to differ.


Review:
Keene's respect and enthusiasm for Nimzowitsch have motivated him to
produce a book well above his norm. As long as one does not regard it
as an historical reference, Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal will do
little harm, and will provide a good deal of interesting reading and
educational study material.


Keene: Damning with faint praise yet again. No historical reference?
What about all the tournament tables. What about unearthing Nimzo's
"How I Became a GM" with his fabulous early game with Tarrasch?
TK: I have already made clear what I regard as salient historical
errors. Those two things were not among them.
Keene: Yet TK mentions respect and enthusiasm. My verdict on his
review? Three on a scale of ten. Not yet ready for prime time (as GM
Evans puts it in his 4/24/06 column at WCN). Taylor Kingston is
evidently lying throughout.
TK: I hope I may be forgiven if I feel a strong sense of irony.
Keene: Even worse, he is lying to himself, thus defeating the purpose

of his review.
TK: The irony deepens.


Keene: His language at times betrays that he likes my book but he
knows that Winter now disapproves of Keene and he must toe the party
line or be hurled himself into outer darkness with the non-Winterians
-- Parr, Evans, and the redoubtable Innes.
TK: Oh ... my ... Gawd.


Keene: TK tried desperately to demolish my book ...
TK: By giving it a positive final verdict? Seems a funny way to
demolish. And in what sense was I "desperate"? Desperate means without
hope. My hopes have nothing to do with your books.


Keene: ... in spite of the fact that in truth he liked it! But he had

to dance to the official tune, hurl slurs and fire insults. He either
has to invent claims I patently never made and says I overlooked games
that are in my book (Paulsen vs. Tarrasch) and alleges I showed
historical ignorance. He could actually make a decent chess writer if
he didn't have such an agenda.


TK: Ah, now the cat's out of the bag. Keene claims that like some
Nazi minion, I have blindly followed orders from an evil Führer, like
a ringwraith I am slave to a Dark Lord. Talk about (to use Keene's own
words) an "outrageous slur with no evidence at all"!


Ray, I'm afraid the gloves have to come off now. To put it bluntly,
on this matter you're full of it. ABSOLUTELY FULL OF IT. And I'm being
nice by omitting the two letters that come before the "it."


Keene: Finally I ask you, Mr. Kingston, what have I done to deserve
this attack from you? You don't know me and I certainly had no idea of
who you were before I noticed your insulting material. What is wrong
with my book, which many consider a classic. and which has gone through

three editions to deserve this kind of shoddy treatment at your hands?


TK: Please, spare us the melodrama. You sound like a ham actor on an
off night.

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

My take on Jr's post was not that he was being a hypocrite, but
rather I simply don't comprehend the meaning of the phrase "phony
screen name". Sure, someone who impersonates, say, Sam Sloan, could be
accused of posting under a phony name. But apart from this, what can
he possibly mean by "phony" in conjunction with "screen name"? A
screen name is, by definition, not a person's real name. For example,
Larry Parr posts under the screen name "parrthenon"; Phil Innes posts
under the screen name "Chess One"; Taylor Kingston, under "Xylothist"
(Oops!).

Cut to it, Ace. Its lying about who you are that's the issue - especially if
you 'write to yourself'.

Some people simply hide their identities because they have hidden interests
in the result of the conversation, or 'are acting for friends' who have.
These Joes are called 'proxies'.

Is a "phony" screen name any screen name which is not the primary
screen name used by the poster in question? Who decides how many
different screen name are allowed, and by what authority? The very
concept falls flat on its face.

You still think you can soft-soap the issue?

People who can identify themselves seem more apt to own their own experience
and write without shame about it, rather than write endless diatribes
regretting the experience of others.

Its an experiential thing. If you don't know about it, will you continue to
speculate on it, like a maid?

Phil Innes


-- help bot

Larry Tapper wrote:
help bot writes:

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. On the whole, then, I
agree with help bot that on this occasion, TK was overzealous in his
attempts to find fault with Keene. But the numerous typos and howlers
in Keene's later work make a different kettle of fish.

Larry T.

You're much too reasonable to be hanging out around here.

Randy Bauer

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

But Larry, how dare you disagree with me??! We ratpackers are all
supposed to exude a malignant unanimity! ;-)
If by "19th-century precedents" you're referring to Paulsen and
Winawer, I happened to be particularly aware of them at the time of the
review, having written an article about them for Inside Chess just the
year before. I made no special effort to find fault with Keene about
them; it's just that his errors, of omission or commission, were
readily apparent because of my earlier research.
In other areas, such as the history of the Panov-Botvinnik Attack, it
took only a few minutes with databases and Skinner & Verhoeven to see
that Keene's treatment was inadequate. So far the only excuse he's
offered is that he actually knew more than went into the book. I can't
accept that -- a review must deal with what's in the book, not what
else the author may know.
Anyway, all that and more (probably more than anyone cares to read)
is dealt with in my full reply to Keene, posted two days ago. So far,
no response from RDK.

Phil Innes, aka Chess One, writes:

PI People who can identify themselves seem more apt to own their own
experience and write without shame about it, rather than write endless
diatribes regretting the experience of others.

Hmm, I don't recall ever "regretting the experience of others", though
in Phil's case I might seriously consider it.

One thing about Phil though --- I'm inclined to rule out the
possibility that he is jr or Wmiketwo, because neither of those
anonymice shows any talent for glossolalia, such as Phil exhibits in
the following trenchant analysis, posted yesterday:

PI ...What we have here is nothing other than an unusual
self-assessment of our own industry which supplies the chess people
with information. The only unusual factor is that it is taking place in
public [which horrifies politicians! who deny that organisation and
distribution of information has anything to do with themselves g] and
Keene's remarks are hardly unusual,
and compared with several book-writers they are mild in tone...

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?

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.

Larry T.

Larry Tapper wrote:
Phil Innes, aka Chess One, writes:

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?

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.

Larry T.

Nominated for a Bruceski!

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

Taylor K But Larry, how dare you disagree with me??! We ratpackers
are all
supposed to exude a malignant unanimity! ;-)

Oh, sorry, Taylor, I had somehow misplaced my latest instructions from
Geneva.

TK If by "19th-century precedents" you're referring to Paulsen and
Winawer, I happened to be particularly aware of them at the time of the

review, having written an article about them for Inside Chess just the
year before. I made no special effort to find fault with Keene about
them; it's just that his errors, of omission or commission, were
readily apparent because of my earlier research.

I was referring to Singleton-Casswell 1854 and your exchange with RK
about the Staunton game.

TK In other areas, such as the history of the Panov-Botvinnik Attack,
it
took only a few minutes with databases and Skinner & Verhoeven to see
that Keene's treatment was inadequate. So far the only excuse he's
offered is that he actually knew more than went into the book. I can't
accept that -- a review must deal with what's in the book, not what
else the author may know.

OK but I think the details about the precise origins of the attack,
Krause, etc. are not very consequential in context. It seems to me
that in chess (as in many other fields, such as philosophy and the
arts) the rediscovery of an idea may often be far more significant than
its original presentation.

Anyway it should not be overlooked that your review was generally
complimentary, if grudgingly so.

Larry T.