OUR GREG FINALLY GETS SOMETHING RIGHT

This is no doubt EW at his very
worst; and at his worst he can be deceitful
and unfair -- just as he was in his character
assassination of Larry Evans. -- Help Bot (aka Greg Kennedy,
nomorechess)

help bot wrote:
On Jan 13, 10:26 am, The Historian
wrote:

While most of Larry Parr's complaints regarding EWs
merciless near-assassination of Larry Evans strained to
find a leg to stand on, an *obvious* weakness was
simply overlooked; in one of his reviews, Mr. Winter
offered a "random sampling" of errors, but closer
examination reveals that he deliberately chose to look
at material relating to his forte: former champion Jose
Capablanca! Coincidence? I think not. It appears a
dishonest ploy to state that he could easily spot as
many errors on any subject, but then to single out the
one area where his recent work placed him at a huge
advantage. If one is familiar with the quality of EW's
research, this advantage over the typical hack writer
being reviewed is impossible to miss. A glance at the
published books by EW reveals that of all subjects, the
odds of "randomly" stumbling into Jose Capablanca are
about a thousand to one; his other books deal with a
wide variety of subjects, like an encyclopedia; but JC
was singled out a for a whole volume, dedicated just
to him.

I can't agree. Is this the review you had in mind?

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html

If so, re-read it. Winter trashes the book for more than just Capa
errors.

I have no desire to (once again) revisit some
assault I have already digested. More to the
issue is that my point was missed entirely; I
don't care a whit if other errors were listed in
a review; the critical issue is that one may not
*honestly* state that any other subject could
have just as easily been picked, with similar
results, but then deliberately choose the one
subject where an entire book was written and
published on a single player (Jose Capablanca).

That is dishonesty; had EW picked, say, E.
Tate, I would have had no objection; but to put
out a well-researched book and then *pretend*
to have no special advantage as a result is a
despicable ploy, not unworthy of an Evans
ratpacker! This is no doubt EW at his very
worst; and at his worst he can be deceitful
and unfair -- just as he was in his character
assassination of Larry Evans.

Were I to write an analysis of LE, I would try
to assess things more objectively, comparing
the quality of his recent work with his former
level, and with other mainstream chess writers
in Chess Lies and its rivals. I would *not* try
to put the man in a mental institution, nor imply
that he was incapable of getting two things right
in a row; that really isn't necessary in order to
demonstrate that his ad hominem attacks are
merely emotional rants, founded on opinions
and personal biases rather than facts and
reason.

It is not difficult to find an article by EW in
which he asserts that he has made no special
effort in regard to Ray Keene, and where it is
claimed that he rarely even mentions RK; the
facts tell the tale once again: he's being
grossly dishonest with his readers. Make no
mistake: EW has his own "issues"; they may
not be as obvious as the issues of the Evans
ratpackers, but they are very real just the same.
(And no, I'm not going to search for the exact
article in which EW claimed to barely know of
the existence of Ray Keene-- do your own
research!)


-- help bot