MOUNTAINS OUT OF MOLEHILLS

That's Eddie Winter's stock in trade.

But at one point in the book Kasparov attempts to quote Capablanca: 'I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one.' And Winter comments: 'No source is given, of course, because none is known...The quote should have been expunged!? I think that is a bit drastic. -- offramp

Such a comment is not at all strange for Winter. Regarding quotes,
Winter always prefers, even insists, that they (1) be something
actually said or written, not a garbling, concatenation, or invention
(2) are rendered accurately, (3) are attributed correctly. As you can
read he http://tinyurl.com/35chbj, in Chess Notes 4483, there is no
evidence that Capablanca ever said this. Nor is anyone known to have
said it in the way Kasparov phrased it. The closest seems to be a
statement by Jaffe.
So Kasparov's "quote" fails on all three counts. I'd hardly consider
it "wacky" to point this out. -- Taylor Kingston, again rushing to
the defense of his hero

No evidence Capa didn't say it either. Contrary to the dynamic duo of
Winter and Kingston, it IS drastic to suggest it be expunged from
Kasparov's book.

GM Larry Evans usually puts it this way: "When asked how far he saw
ahead, the mightly Capablanca reputedly said: 'Only one move. The best
one.'"




for a neat phrase (which I thought was by Réti, but that's not
important)


It isn't?? (See below)


wrote:
KINGSTON DEFENDS HIS HERO

How can you consider "well known" something that in fact never existed? --TK

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." -- The Man Who Shot
Liberty Valance

Writing under his own name this time (not Xylothist, Paulie Graf or
Niemand) Mr. Kingston sings the praises of that paragon of virtue who
claimed a copyright on chess photos in the public domain.

So what else is new?


Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 9, 9:00?am, Offramp wrote:
I normally agree with everything Edward Winter says, but in his recent
Chess Note, number 5375 (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html
), he says something quite wacky.
The item is a review of Kasparov's book How Life Imitates Chess, and
Winter is, in all, a fan of the book.
But at one point in the book Kasparov attempts to quote Capablanca:
'I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one.'

And Winter comments:
'No source is given, of course, because none is known (see, for
instance, the discussion in C.N. 4483), and that of itself should have
resulted in the quote being expunged. Are there not enough
authenticated chess observations to choose from?'

Such a comment is not at all strange for Winter. Regarding quotes,
Winter always prefers, even insists, that they (1) be something
actually said or written, not a garbling, concatenation, or invention
(2) are rendered accurately, (3) are attributed correctly. As you can
read he http://tinyurl.com/35chbj, in Chess Notes 4483, there is no
evidence that Capablanca ever said this. Nor is anyone known to have
said it in the way Kasparov phrased it. The closest seems to be a
statement by Jaffe.
So Kasparov's "quote" fails on all three counts. I'd hardly consider
it "wacky" to point this out.

The quote should have been expunged!? I think that is a bit drastic
for a neat phrase (which I thought was by R?ti, but that's not
important)

It isn't?? (See below)

which is well known to most chess players.

How can you consider "well known" something that in fact never
existed? And the fact that you attributed it to R?ti is further
evidence of the confusion about such things among the general chess
public. What you probably had in mind there is from "Modern Ideas in
Chess" where on page 5 R?ti wrote:

"Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I usually calculate in
advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I
reply, quite truthfully, 'as a rule, not a single one.' Formerly, in
Anderssen's time, the ability to make chess combinations was in fact
the very essence of chess talent. Since then, however, the chess mind
has further developed, and the power of accurately calculating moves
in advance has no greater place in chess than, perhaps, skillfull
calculation has in mathematics."

As you can see, R?ti's statement is quite different from Kasparov's
apocryphal Capablanca "quote." You may consider this "not important,"
and in, say, casual conversation I'd agree such misconceptions
probably don't matter much. But a prominent book author has a bit more
of a duty to get things right in print.

On Jan 15, 4:38 pm, " wrote:

But at one point in the book Kasparov attempts to quote Capablanca:
'I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one.' And
Winter comments: 'No source is given, of course, because none is
known...The quote should have been expunged!? I think that is a bit
drastic. -- offramp


No evidence Capa didn't say it either. Contrary to the dynamic duo of
Winter and Kingston, it IS drastic to suggest it be expunged from
Kasparov's book.

GM Larry Evans usually puts it this way: "When asked how far he saw
ahead, the mightly Capablanca reputedly said: 'Only one move. The best
one.'"

Precisely. It is just plain silly to maintain that
Jose Capablanca "never said" anything like this
(unless of course it is the ghost of JC making
such a claim). No one could possibly know
everything ever said (or not said) by someone
else, unless they are connected at the hip and
always awake at the same time; it is also
essential that the Siamese twin be a *superb
listener*.

What Larry Evans treated as an anecdote,
Gary Kasparov rendered as a quotation, and
that is where Edward Winter jumped in with a
correction. What is learned here is that the
standards of GK are rather low; he feels that
whatever he may render off-the-cuff is worthy
of attribution to others, since of course he is
an infallible genius, sent here to save the world.

In sharp contrast, Edward Winter follows the
conventional thinking that "quotations" ought
to have real sources, that they ought to be
rendered identically as in the source, and
what's more, that the source be specified so
it can be checked and verified by mere mortals.

These kinds of problems often arise when the
gods try to converse with their vast inferiors. In
this case, a chess match between GK and EW
would settle the matter; we would soon learn
that EW has no "source" for some of his chess
moves; that they are erroneous and based on
a shallow approach which fails to account for
tricky tactics that only the chess gods can see.

Seriously though, it appears that Mr. Kasparov's
writing skills need sharpening; he is getting a bit
sloppy. There simply is no excuse for a former
world champion to make the sort of mistakes
which can be spotted easily by any random
chess historian. People who write a lot of chess
books would do well to learn from GK's
elementary blunder.


-- help bot

On Jan 15, 4:38*pm, " wrote:

So Kasparov's "quote" fails on all three counts. I'd hardly consider
it "wacky" to point this out. -- Taylor Kingston

No evidence Capa didn't say it either.

Jeez, Larry, this is dumb even for you, and especially embarrassing
for a guy who tries to pass himself off as an expert in logic. By that
standard, Kasparov could with equal validity have attributed the quote
to Socrates, Atilla the Hun, or Shirley Temple. Or to anyone.

On Jan 16, 8:08 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Jeez, Larry, this is dumb even for you

Nonsense; if you adjust your dubth-detector to LP's
subterranean level, you will see that this is about
middle-of-the-road for him.


and especially embarrassing
for a guy who tries to pass himself off as an expert in logic. By that
standard, Kasparov could with equal validity have attributed the quote
to Socrates, Atilla the Hun, or Shirley Temple. Or to anyone.

Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.

"A titanic waste of time-- like listening to the babblings
of Sophists."


What amazes me is that according to the report by
Larry Parr, Larry Evans got it right, while Gary Kasparov
goofed! (What does this tell us about GK's standards,
if he can be bested by the likes of LE?)

Really TK, you do realize that it is ridiculous to assert
that "no source exists" instead of recognizing that GK's
source was one or more of the anecdotes which have
appeared countless times in the press? It's all a
mountainous molehill, in which GK made the mistake
of "quoting" an anecdote from memory. Edward Winter's
need to demonstrate just how superior he is resulted in
bulldozers being called up from as far away as China
for this job. "Higher!", the man kept shouting. "Make a
mountain out of it! A TALL mountain!


-- help bot

On Jan 16, 9:54*am, help bot wrote:

* Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.

To paraphrase LP, there's no evidence that he didn't! ;-)

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 9:54 am, help bot wrote:

Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.

To paraphrase LP, there's no evidence that he didn't! ;-)

----

Taylor - the /biggest/ resentment of Winter is that he bitches on utterly
inconsequential trivium of Greats - even when he is wrong! Winter is
logically wrong - not factually wrong - and therefore specially stubborn in
correcting himself. ))

You have taken to defending his logical error in Winter's thought here by
rubbishing someone who points it out - - since after all, the decent thing
would have been for him to improve the statement, and accommodate his /own
objection/ by adding those two words, 'possibly apochryphal,' rather than
this vainglorious pedantry.

Just because the source is not written, does not mean it was not said, and
that does not mean that it didn't happen, and there is no reason it should
be 'expunged'.

There is not the slightest written proof in his own hand that Shakespeare
composed his Works. Should that too be expunged? A basis for making
statements therefore simply needs to have a /qualification/ attached, rather
than destroying the materials as unprovenanced.

If Winter wants to write about /our/ social history in chess, then I do hope
that his is not the standard that is employed. In fact it rather diminishes
him, and thus disqualifies him from the /social/ duty of interacting with
others in a reasonable way on what is, after all, a socially owned product.
Instead he veres the other way and takes to copyrighting public property.

Simply indicating that the source was uncertain is sufficient. Since's
Winter's English is better than Kasparov's, then let him deploy his own wit,
rather than this endless carping on the supposed absense and deficiencies of
others.

Do /you/ understand the difference between expunging unprovenanced material
and simply qualifying it with a reservation? So much history and
anthropology resolves around these matters, including that what is written
can also be false - and just because Nennius said it, don't make it so.

Whereas what Caedmon said, we don't really know, since Bede thought the
Anglo Saxon too racy, so gave it to us in Latin.

I merely appeal to you to socialise all these histories out of warring camps
of champions - but especially to take a deeper look at the scope of what
they report, and even if it hits the center of the target?

Phil Innes

On Jan 16, 11:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 9:54 am, help bot wrote:



Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.

To paraphrase LP, there's no evidence that he didn't! ;-)

----

Taylor - the /biggest/ resentment of Winter is that he bitches on utterly
inconsequential trivium of Greats - even when he is wrong! Winter is
logically wrong - not factually wrong - and therefore specially stubborn in
correcting himself. ))

You have taken to defending his logical error in Winter's thought here by
rubbishing someone who points it out - - since after all, the decent thing
would have been for him to improve the statement, and accommodate his /own
objection/ by adding those two words, 'possibly apochryphal,' rather than
this vainglorious pedantry.

P Innes expects Mr. Winter to run around with a pen correcting by hand
every copy of Kasparov's book?!?

Just because the source is not written, does not mean it was not said, and
that does not mean that it didn't happen, and there is no reason it should
be 'expunged'.

What records do we have that the alleged Capablanca remark was spoken?
Who has reported the words being said?

There is not the slightest written proof in his own hand that Shakespeare
composed his Works.

No, but there's a sizable amount of evidence he did 'compose' the
Shakespeare canon.

Should that too be expunged? A basis for making
statements therefore simply needs to have a /qualification/ attached, rather
than destroying the materials as unprovenanced.

If Winter wants to write about /our/ social history in chess, then I do hope
that his is not the standard that is employed. In fact it rather diminishes
him, and thus disqualifies him from the /social/ duty of interacting with
others in a reasonable way on what is, after all, a socially owned product.
Instead he veres the other way and takes to copyrighting public property.

Simply indicating that the source was uncertain is sufficient. Since's
Winter's English is better than Kasparov's, then let him deploy his own wit,
rather than this endless carping on the supposed absense and deficiencies of
others.

Do /you/ understand the difference between expunging unprovenanced material
and simply qualifying it with a reservation? So much history and
anthropology resolves around these matters, including that what is written
can also be false - and just because Nennius said it, don't make it so.

Whereas what Caedmon said, we don't really know, since Bede thought the
Anglo Saxon too racy, so gave it to us in Latin.

I merely appeal to you to socialise all these histories out of warring camps
of champions - but especially to take a deeper look at the scope of what
they report, and even if it hits the center of the target?

Phil Innes

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 11:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 9:54 am, help bot wrote:



Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.

To paraphrase LP, there's no evidence that he didn't! ;-)

----

Taylor - the /biggest/ resentment of Winter is that he bitches on utterly
inconsequential trivium of Greats - even when he is wrong! Winter is
logically wrong - not factually wrong - and therefore specially stubborn
in
correcting himself. ))

You have taken to defending his logical error in Winter's thought here by
rubbishing someone who points it out - - since after all, the decent
thing
would have been for him to improve the statement, and accommodate his
/own
objection/ by adding those two words, 'possibly apochryphal,' rather than
this vainglorious pedantry.

P Innes expects Mr. Winter to run around with a pen correcting by hand
every copy of Kasparov's book?!?


The usual immature tripe from one Neil Brennan. Winter already runs around
carping about 'corrections' which are not 'corrections' at all. They would
provide further information to the quotation. Expunging materials being not
the same as correcting them - except perhaps if your name is Brennan or
Blair.

Just because the source is not written, does not mean it was not said,
and
that does not mean that it didn't happen, and there is no reason it
should
be 'expunged'.

What records do we have that the alleged Capablanca remark was spoken?
Who has reported the words being said?

There is not the slightest written proof in his own hand that Shakespeare
composed his Works.

No, but there's a sizable amount of evidence he did 'compose' the
Shakespeare canon.

That's right! But Winter would expunge even a Shakespeare on this basis.

But I ask Taylor Kingston a question here, since he is at least already up
to speed, and besides, while we may not agree, I do not call him fatuous. I
hope he will not evade the issue, since as below, it is /our/ chess history,
and it is our due diligence to assess if its writ fair or not.

That does not mean that anyone is exempt from criticism, neither Kasparov
nor Winter.

Phil Innes

Should that too be expunged? A basis for making
statements therefore simply needs to have a /qualification/ attached,
rather
than destroying the materials as unprovenanced.

If Winter wants to write about /our/ social history in chess, then I do
hope
that his is not the standard that is employed. In fact it rather
diminishes
him, and thus disqualifies him from the /social/ duty of interacting with
others in a reasonable way on what is, after all, a socially owned
product.
Instead he veres the other way and takes to copyrighting public property.

Simply indicating that the source was uncertain is sufficient. Since's
Winter's English is better than Kasparov's, then let him deploy his own
wit,
rather than this endless carping on the supposed absense and deficiencies
of
others.

Do /you/ understand the difference between expunging unprovenanced
material
and simply qualifying it with a reservation? So much history and
anthropology resolves around these matters, including that what is
written
can also be false - and just because Nennius said it, don't make it so.

Whereas what Caedmon said, we don't really know, since Bede thought the
Anglo Saxon too racy, so gave it to us in Latin.

I merely appeal to you to socialise all these histories out of warring
camps
of champions - but especially to take a deeper look at the scope of what
they report, and even if it hits the center of the target?

Phil Innes

On Jan 16, 11:04*am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.

* To paraphrase LP, there's no evidence that he didn't! ;-)

You have taken to defending his logical error in Winter's thought here

Actually, Phil, I'm not really interested in or trying to defend
Winter in this particular instance. I largely agree with the OP,
Offramp, that Winter's insistence on "expungement" is making too much
of this. A minor rephrasing would have been adequate. However, I did
think it worthwhile to note what real evidence Winter had published
about the actual provenance of this apocryphal and/or misattributed
statement.

by
rubbishing someone who points it out - -

All I'm "rubbishing" here, Phil, is LP's puerile 'But there's no
proof Capa didn't say it!' comment. It was Offramp who first pointed
out Winter's statement, and I did not "rubbish" him.

On Jan 16, 12:35 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

Just because the source is not written, does not mean it was not said,
and
that does not mean that it didn't happen, and there is no reason it
should
be 'expunged'.

What records do we have that the alleged Capablanca remark was spoken?
Who has reported the words being said?

There is not the slightest written proof in his own hand that Shakespeare
composed his Works.

No, but there's a sizable amount of evidence he did 'compose' the
Shakespeare canon.

That's right! But Winter would expunge even a Shakespeare on this basis.

My apologies to the newsgroup for not catching the flaw in your
argument that allowed you to practice your "fact-kitting" once again.
Comparing the authenticity of the alleged Capablanca remark to the
documentation establishing authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a
highly flawed analogy. A better one is to compare the alleged Capa
remark to one of the legends of Shakespeare, such as the well-worn
story of Shakespeare holding horses outside a theater. Most
biographers mention the horse-holding without putting much stock in
its authenticity.

However, the horse-holding story is at least specific to Shakespeare.
The alleged Capa quotation is one that gets assigned to different
speakers as needed, which was Winter's point. The initial post in this
thread, for instance, attributed the quotation to another speaker.

If we must suggest an improvement to Kasparov's prose, I second David
Richerby's contribution.