Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 18th 05, 03:01 PM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default Open Letter to Chessville


(sent to the editor of Chessville and the columnist for "Alekhine's
Parrot" 18 May 2005)

Dear Alekhine's Parrot,

I read the recent interview with Taylor Kingston on your website. It is
one of the better pieces of journalism to appear at Chessville. But I
wonder if you can clarify something for me.

The interviewer, Phil Innes, asked the following question of Mr.
Kingston.

***********
Chessville: Now and again you have addressed international chess
issues in your writing, particularly concerning Botvinnik and
Soviet-era manipulations. What is it like researching this material,
and can you characterize your own level of confidence in the result?

Kingston: ...with the dissolution of the USSR, some new testimony has
come from old-time Soviet GMs now free to speak, such as Bronstein
about Z=FCrich 1953, or Yuri Averbakh, whom I interviewed not long
ago....

Chessville: Okay!
**************

It seems Mr. Innes was satisfied with Mr. Kingston's response, since
there was no follow-up question. But for the past two months Mr. Innes
has been attacking Mr. Kingston's interview with Averbakh and his
research ability in general on the newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics
and rec.games.chess.misc. A sample of Mr. Innes' charges are below.

"For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian players."
- Phil Innes, 25 March 2005

"And why are you changing the subject from Taylor Kingston's article
sourcing the KGB?" - Phil Innes, 26 March 2005

"Is this an admission of anything Taylor? You did sole source right?
And
surely you know the danger of that. And perhaps you even knew who you
were
sourcing? And you did snip my post again right? And you still don't
understand my objection because you selectively snip it - not unlike
the
article itself, which selectively rats." - Phil Innes, 15 May 2005

My question is, have Mr. Innes and Chessville repudiated the interview
with Taylor Kingston they published, since Mr. Innes obviously holds
such a low opinion of Mr. Kingston's ability? Or if they haven't, how
do they explain a Chessville writer attacking his interview subject on
a public newsgroup a scant four months after the interview was
published?

Cordially,
Neil Brennen

  #2   Report Post  
Old May 19th 05, 03:20 AM
Matt Nemmers
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The Historian wrote:
(sent to the editor of Chessville and the columnist for "Alekhine's
Parrot" 18 May 2005)

Dear Alekhine's Parrot,

I read the recent interview with Taylor Kingston on your website. It

is
one of the better pieces of journalism to appear at Chessville. But I
wonder if you can clarify something for me.

The interviewer, Phil Innes, asked the following question of Mr.
Kingston.

***********
Chessville: Now and again you have addressed international chess
issues in your writing, particularly concerning Botvinnik and
Soviet-era manipulations. What is it like researching this material,
and can you characterize your own level of confidence in the result?

Kingston: ...with the dissolution of the USSR, some new testimony has
come from old-time Soviet GMs now free to speak, such as Bronstein
about Z=FCrich 1953, or Yuri Averbakh, whom I interviewed not long
ago....

Chessville: Okay!
**************

It seems Mr. Innes was satisfied with Mr. Kingston's response, since
there was no follow-up question. But for the past two months Mr.

Innes
has been attacking Mr. Kingston's interview with Averbakh and his
research ability in general on the newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics
and rec.games.chess.misc. A sample of Mr. Innes' charges are below.

"For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian players."
- Phil Innes, 25 March 2005

"And why are you changing the subject from Taylor Kingston's article
sourcing the KGB?" - Phil Innes, 26 March 2005

"Is this an admission of anything Taylor? You did sole source right?
And
surely you know the danger of that. And perhaps you even knew who you
were
sourcing? And you did snip my post again right? And you still don't
understand my objection because you selectively snip it - not unlike
the
article itself, which selectively rats." - Phil Innes, 15 May 2005

My question is, have Mr. Innes and Chessville repudiated the

interview
with Taylor Kingston they published, since Mr. Innes obviously holds
such a low opinion of Mr. Kingston's ability? Or if they haven't, how
do they explain a Chessville writer attacking his interview subject

on
a public newsgroup a scant four months after the interview was
published?

Cordially,
Neil Brennen


We all know Phil's a loose canon, Neil. Given your own experiences
with him, are you surprised? Given mine, I'm not.

Of course, Phil will now conclude that my using the phrase "loose
canon" is some sort of repressed, quasi-homosexual innuendo and mark me
as gay, but I can live with it. I think he'ss ssexy anywayss.

Regards,

Matt

  #3   Report Post  
Old May 19th 05, 05:20 AM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Matt Nemmers wrote:

My question is, have Mr. Innes and Chessville repudiated the

interview
with Taylor Kingston they published, since Mr. Innes obviously

holds
such a low opinion of Mr. Kingston's ability? Or if they haven't,

how
do they explain a Chessville writer attacking his interview subject

on
a public newsgroup a scant four months after the interview was
published?

Cordially,
Neil Brennen


We all know Phil's a loose canon, Neil. Given your own experiences
with him, are you surprised? Given mine, I'm not.


I agree. But I thought it best to address the matter. This is actually
my second letter to Chessville - I wrote to them last year advising
them to drop Innes because he was such a crank and he would come back
to hurt them. This latest Phil Phiasco proves I was correct to do so.

Of course, Phil will now conclude that my using the phrase "loose
canon" is some sort of repressed, quasi-homosexual innuendo and mark

me
as gay, but I can live with it.


When it comes to dimestore Freud and Jung dispensed on the newsgroups,
Phil is not only a loose canon, he's a large bore one at that.

I think he'ss ssexy anywayss.


Now now, Matt. Down boy!

  #4   Report Post  
Old May 19th 05, 08:18 PM
Larry Tapper
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The Historian wrote:
Matt Nemmers wrote:
We all know Phil's a loose canon, Neil. Given your own experiences
with him, are you surprised? Given mine, I'm not.


... When it comes to dimestore Freud and Jung dispensed on the

newsgroups,
Phil is not only a loose canon, he's a large bore one at that.


I would have thought a loose canon would be something like Row Row Row
Your Boat sung slightly out of tune. In Cornish perhaps.

  #5   Report Post  
Old May 19th 05, 09:26 PM
Mark Houlsby
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would have thought a loose canon would be something like Row Row
Row
Your Boat sung slightly out of tune. In Cornish perhaps.

I wonder how: "Hey solid citizen, We just pinched your boat..." (to the
tune of "Adeste Fidelis") would sound as a loose canon?

Actually, in my mind's ear, just now, it sounds pretty darned good....



  #6   Report Post  
Old May 20th 05, 01:30 AM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Larry Tapper" wrote in message
oups.com...

The Historian wrote:
Matt Nemmers wrote:
We all know Phil's a loose canon, Neil. Given your own experiences
with him, are you surprised? Given mine, I'm not.


... When it comes to dimestore Freud and Jung dispensed on the

newsgroups,
Phil is not only a loose canon, he's a large bore one at that.


I would have thought a loose canon would be something like Row Row Row
Your Boat sung slightly out of tune. In Cornish perhaps.


The bind moggles.

Anyone singing that in a boat is going to be put over the side, no? I mean,
such songs as found in Gilbert and Sullivan are okay for jocose young
Victorian chaps, and improbable virgins to warble in their baths, but who
ever heard any of it sang outside a theatre?

I will pass on any comment based on Corporal Clegg's appreciation of Freud
and Jung in much the same air of polite amazement.

I should like to dispute with Larry Tapper, but do not know him well enough,
and can find nothing strange in his current appreciation of things, not that
he is not strange, only that I do not say so - [O that Larry Parr were
here!]

Elsewhere Liam has fallen out with Jerry and Mark, and the ng can only hope
that they will provide more shadenfreude than Kingston/Innes - which is dry
stuff about people we would prefer to be dead, and in fact are dead, but are
too boring to mention, even for Kingston/Innes.

Failing all this, we must all return our attention to the dreary rainy
season of chess politics in full pelt

No wonder we are all nuts and biting each other. Someone should write to
Chessville and suggest a good barking session out in the woods as a general
tonic to the woes of the season. Other remedies will also be considered.

Woof Woof! Phil


  #7   Report Post  
Old May 20th 05, 10:29 PM
Liam Too
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chess One wrote:
Elsewhere Liam has fallen out with Jerry and Mark


Hey, you're barking up the wrong tree. I think the Innes/Kingston saga
is juicier. Plus, this Tapper guy just wrote something mind-boggling. I
thought he is a master in North Carolina, but perhaps a singer too
who's out of tune?

I know what he meant though, he got the loose canon definition from
James Durst who said, "And, with staggered entrances =E1 la 'Row Your
Boat', harmony and polyphony occur effortlessly in what I call a 'Loose
Canon'"

  #8   Report Post  
Old May 21st 05, 01:27 PM
Mark Houlsby
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nice post, Lance!

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fischer gets more support in Japan parliament / the 'UN' point banana rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 46 March 24th 05 03:35 PM
Fischer gets more support in Japan parliament / the 'UN' point banana rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 46 March 24th 05 03:35 PM
Great Money Making Opportunity gh rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 24th 05 04:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017