On Jan 17, 10:54 pm, The Historian
wrote:

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.

Um, no. Mr. Winter's point, as you say, was
that no "reliable source" exists for this to be
reported as a quotation of Jose Capablanca;
hence, Gary Kasparov erred in presenting it
as such. The proper handling was shown by
the Larry Evans snippet, which treated the
story as a casual anecdote.


The initial post in this
thread, for instance, attributed the quotation to another speaker.

That guy was wacky. Everyone knows that
the anecdote in question generally refers to
none other than The Chess Machine, Jose
Capablanca. In particular, the phrase "always
the best (move)" can hardly be applied to the
common rabble, or even to mediocre
grandmasters for that matter. If one were to
err in attributing this to another player, it
obviously would have to be a player of the
very finest caliber-- not some random wood-
pusher or second-rate GM. The story needs
to be believable, or it just won't sell.


-- help bot

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
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.

It was not. Should Winter actually have a point he should question the
anecdote as perhaps being apochyphal, not that it not not happen, which is
how we talk about matters of questionable attribution. To expunge commentary
because of questable attribution is a great nonsense!

People even laughed at the very idea of Troy until that enterprising German
fella dug it up.

Now this is a very simple idea in criticism - that if you have doubts, then
you record them to qualify your opinion - just as you have done with the
Bard's nags - since otherwise you erase even references to what is wrong or
uncertain. And this is most important! Since how should we understand
previous writers' orientations except we look at the reliability and
veracity of their own sourcing?

But Winter is /not/ qualifying his opinion. He cannot prove that this was
not Capa [since he can't prove a negative] so he needs to use normal means
to speak his opinion - the same as you have done, by indicating it "without
putting much stock in its authenticity."

Which is plain different than saying it is wrong or untrue!

Phil Innes


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.

On Jan 19, 9:35*am, "Chess One" wrote:

But Winter is /not/ qualifying his opinion. He cannot prove that this was
not Capa [since he can't prove a negative] so he needs to use normal means
to speak his opinion - the same as you have done, by indicating it "without
putting much stock in its authenticity."

Which is plain different than saying it is wrong or untrue!

Phil, you are misrepresenting Winter's words here. Winter did not
say the quote was "wrong or untrue," or anything to that effect. Here
are his exact words, from the OP:

"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?"

Clearly, Winter is saying that in his opinion, only
*_authenticated_* statements should be presented as quotes attributed
to a given person. Since no authentication exists for this one, he
believes it should not have been used, much less attributed to
Capablanca.
One may certainly feel that Winter here is being overly rigorous,
even pedantic, but one should not misrepresent him.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 9:35 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But Winter is /not/ qualifying his opinion. He cannot prove that this was
not Capa [since he can't prove a negative] so he needs to use normal means
to speak his opinion - the same as you have done, by indicating it
"without
putting much stock in its authenticity."

Which is plain different than saying it is wrong or untrue!

Phil, you are misrepresenting Winter's words here. Winter did not
say the quote was "wrong or untrue," or anything to that effect.

**Neither did I say he did, but his /behavior/ was as if it was. Since after
all, why expunge something admitted to be not wrong or untrue? Winter needs
to state that it is uncertainly true. If I can do it with 2 words, what's
his problem?

Here
are his exact words, from the OP:

"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.

**Well - I challenge that imperative, 'should', and also his sense of
consequence, 'expunged.'

Are there not enough
authenticated chess observations to choose from?"

**A rhetorical statement? Here is another: Are there not enough history
observers who stated Troy did not exist? But it does!

Clearly, Winter is saying that in his opinion, only
*_authenticated_* statements should be presented as quotes attributed
to a given person.

**Yes, I understand his opinion. I do not agree with it. But why make this
an attack on Winter? Since the guy raised a /good/ point, in that the quote
is of uncertain provenance - but his concluding on it commits the same sort
of error Kasparov makes - a lack of critical value placed on the remark is
indicated for //both// of them.


Since no authentication exists for this one, he
believes it should not have been used, much less attributed to
Capablanca.

**He 'believes' is not a justification.

One may certainly feel that Winter here is being overly rigorous,
even pedantic, but one should not misrepresent him.

**And is one? This is simple historical naivety and subject to fadism of
writers. For 300 years school kids were taught that Chaucer doesn't scan,
but it does! We merely found out beginning 1986 that those line endings,
especially in words ending 'e' can, like in French, add another syllable.
Neil Brennan makes the fair point on another issues regarding Shakespeare
holding horses, a piece of fadism passed on and on and repeated as lore -
the truth being that no one knows - and it is /likely/ apochryphal.

**Winter is over-fixed on texts, and this is a weakness. Even in language
studies text-to-speech differences are enormous, and texts rarely, except in
the most recent age, give any indication of how people spoke. To say that if
speech is not written we should think it did not occur, is not any
perception historians would concur with.

**While this spat is but another Winter cavil with a 'Great', it is merely
typical of Winter not to supply just TWO words to substantiate his own point
about origins, and instead there is this sour 'expunging' of material, which
clarifies nothing whatever.

**What you got here, Taylor, is Blairian 'correction' which means to destroy
completely, rather to amend sensibly.

Phil Innes

On Jan 19, 1:06 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**And is one? This is simple historical naivety and subject to fadism of
writers. For 300 years school kids were taught that Chaucer doesn't scan,
but it does! We merely found out beginning 1986 that those line endings,
especially in words ending 'e' can, like in French, add another syllable.

P Innes is about two centuries behind the times. People knew Chaucer
scanned in the 18th century. But news travels to Cornwall slowly....

On Jan 23, 10:49 am, The Historian
wrote:
On Jan 19, 1:06 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**And is one? This is simple historical naivety and subject to fadism of
writers. For 300 years school kids were taught that Chaucer doesn't scan,
but it does! We merely found out beginning 1986 that those line endings,
especially in words ending 'e' can, like in French, add another syllable.

P Innes is about two centuries behind the times. People knew Chaucer
scanned in the 18th century. But news travels to Cornwall slowly....

I was taught that George Washington cut down
a cherry tree. Years later, some folks claimed
that cherry trees did not arrive in the USA until
long afterward, so he must have traveled to
Japan, cut the tree, then grabbed the red eye
back here before admitting to the crime. (So
much for "history".)

Q: If Shakespeare was so smart, how come
(that's Hoosier-speak for "why is it that") he was
no good at chess? Perhaps he was one of those
idiot savants-- a man who was only good at life,
but who was mediocre, at best, when it comes
to the important stuff, like chess.


-- help bot