Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 11th 05, 05:44 PM
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Blatant Lie by Parr

In the thread "Misleading Book Tiles," Larry Parr wrote:
The book reviews at CensoredCafe re an Eric Schiller or a Ray
Keene are mainly predestined.


I am not familiar with the web-site "CensoredCafe," but having
written over 100 book reviews for www.ChessCafe.com, I will hazard a
guess that I am in a better position than Mr. Parr to know what goes on
in that area. In my experience, his assertion is absolutely false.
It is ironic (though not unsual) that Mr. Parr, who rises to great
heights of dudgeon when he feels lied about, would so glibly lie on a
subject about which he knows nothing, except perhaps his own malice.

  #2   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 02:09 AM
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rather than reply to this post:

Taylor Kingston wrote:
In the thread "Misleading Book Tiles," Larry Parr wrote:
The book reviews at CensoredCafe re an Eric Schiller or a Ray
Keene are mainly predestined.


I am not familiar with the web-site "CensoredCafe," but having
written over 100 book reviews for www.ChessCafe.com, I will hazard a
guess that I am in a better position than Mr. Parr to know what goes on
in that area. In my experience, his assertion is absolutely false.
It is ironic (though not unsual) that Mr. Parr, who rises to great
heights of dudgeon when he feels lied about, would so glibly lie on a
subject about which he knows nothing, except perhaps his own malice.


in this thread, Larry Parr, in another thread, posted the irrelevancies
which follow. Would it be too much to ask him to address the issue I
have raised, in this thread?

PERSONAL ATTACKS


I am not familiar with the web-site "CensoredCafe," but having
written over 100 book reviews for www.ChessCafe.com, I will hazard a
guess that I am in a better position than Mr. Parr to know what goes
on in that area. -- Taylor Kingston


I based my comments on the gleeful field day of hatred that
reigned in countless messages about Ray Keene and Larry Evans at the
CensoredCafe bulletin board and elsewere.


Some time ago on this forum I posted my own experience at the
Censored Cafe, and you had the usual claque stating that this writer
was obviously not up to the verbal skill level required of many of the
unlettered that cluttered up their bulletin board or that this writer
and many others who sought to defend, say,
Larry Evans against the drivel of Edward Winter (some of whose books
are published by Hanon Russell) were not offering arguments up to the
CensoredCafe's snuff.


In the case of Ray Keene, I offered a major defense re a
long-running issue within the deadline period posted, but in spite of a

receipt and inquiries made thereafter, my essay did not appear. Hanon
Russell did not deem it worthy.


One learns.


Another book that cannnot appear at the CensoredCafe is the work
co-written with the late Arnold Denker, The Bobby Fischer I Knew and
Other Stories (ACF and USCF book of the year in 1996). No one has yet
pointed out a single typo involving a move or a misspelled word in the
entire book (though, heavens knows, there must be ONE), so we assume
that even the Winterian claquistadors have other reasons
why it is not carried by the CensoredCafe.


KINGSTON QUOTES HIS HERO WINTER



As far as I know, Schiller never admitted it was an error, never explained what other author he might have meant, and continued to insist that the Westerinen book did exist, even after the truth was pointed out to him. Therefore I can only regard it



as a lie, rather than an inadvertent error. Read for example:

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


Here is the beauty of these beasts.


Self-proclaimed ELO raging river NM Taylor Kingston now quotes
Edward Winter in order to attack Eric Schiller.


Winter went after GM Larry Evans in an article at the CensoredCafe,

which turned out to have -- after I combed it for errors -- a higher
incidence of sloppy mistakes than he adduced in Evans' work.


Mr. Winter telling us that Eric Schiller got the author of some
book wrong is a lot like the attack on Evans -- Winter adduced some 25
errors out of millions of words
written by the American grandmaster spanning five decades. The man is
unfit even to shine the 5-time U.S. champion's shoes.


Now Taylor Kingston tries to hang the liar's label on Eric
Schiller for refusing to respond to Winter, which has been Eric's
policy for many years. Silence in such an instance is not to be
construed as consent. Or so Jim Eade has told us many times in an
analogous situation.


Mr. Kingston's liar charge against an author who misattributed
a book is a malicious lie in itself -- a conscious stretch of an error

that is conflated in order to defame. As I noted in an earlier post,
these persistent attacks reveal a profound personal animus and go far
beyond the books being reviewed.

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 02:56 AM
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default


In the thread "Misleading Book Tiles," Larry Parr wrote:
The book reviews at CensoredCafe re an Eric Schiller or a Ray
Keene are mainly predestined.


Schiller has already been dealt with at some length elsewhere, but
let's examine Parr's claim with respect to Raymond Keene. Only two
Keene books have been reviewed at www.ChessCafe.com:

"Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal" (2nd edition); see
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/reapp.txt

and

"The Brain Games World Chess Championship; see
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review266.pdf

I wrote both reviews. In neither case was there any attempt to
influence my assessment. The latter review was mostly negative, the
former mostly positive. The situation is rather simple: a bad book gets
panned, a good book gets praised.
In what sense, then, could ChessCafe reviews of Keene books be said
to be "predestined"?

  #4   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 04:42 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A fair review accepts the book on its own terms. Elephants don't
tapdance; it's not fair for the reviewer to compare the elephant's
footwork to Savion Glover's.

Your review of _A Reappraisal_ justly complains about the book's poor
organization--its only major fault, IMO--and it's certainly fair to
correct readily ascertainable factual errors. But the review puts too
much emphasis on the primacy of N's ideas (play against doubled pawn
complexes etc)--N's possible debt to Winawer and Paulsen would make a
fascinating article or two in its own right. But IMO it's not
something for which Keene should be taken to task. (Unlike "Who was
the first to play the Panov-Botvinnik?", these are matters of
historical interpretation--reasonable people can disagree about
them....)

Keene is indeed a hack today--but _Reappraisal_ is IMO a classic of
chess literature, and the review doesn't do it justice. I also have
fond memories of the Kuhnian ("exemplars inculcating paradigms") books
on the Pirc/Modern complex co-authored w/Botterill. I learned more
about endgames than the Pirc from these books....

  #5   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 05:29 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"primacy" of N's ideas s/b originality....



  #6   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 06:50 AM
Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Brock ) wrote (to Taylor Kingston):
A fair review accepts the book on its own terms.
Elephants don't tapdance; it's not fair for the reviewer
to compare the elephant's footwork to Savion Glover's.


Taylor Kingston seems to have criticised Raymond Keene's
book "Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal" (2nd edition)
primarily on account of its real or supposed deficiencies
as a work of chess history.

When I first came across "Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal",
I did not pay too much attention to any chess historical
claims made by Raymond Keene because I did not regard his
book as an intended serious work of chess history.
I was more interested in any insights that Keene could
provide in order to elucidate Nimzowitsch's own books.
In short, I tended to read Raymond Keene's 'reappraisal'
as a supplement to Nimzowitsch's books on chess theory.

I am *not* saying that my approach to "Aron Nimzowitsch:
A Reappraisal" was *intrinsically* 'better' than Taylor
Kingston's approach. Evidently, Taylor Kingston and I
have some different interests in chess, and he seems
to devote more attention than I do to chess history.
Yet I would suggest that many readers may have read Keene's
book not so much because they were hoping to learn something
about chess history but more because they were hoping to
learn something about Nimzowitsch's ideas in chess that
could help them become stronger players.

Your review of _A Reappraisal_ justly complains about the book's
poor organization--its only major fault, IMO--and it's certainly
fair to correct readily ascertainable factual errors. But the
review puts too much emphasis on the primacy of N's ideas (play
against doubled pawn complexes etc)--N's possible debt to Winawer
and Paulsen would make a fascinating article or two in its own right.
But IMO it's not something for which Keene should be taken to task.
(Unlike "Who was the first to play the Panov-Botvinnik?", these are
matters of historical interpretation--reasonable people can disagree
about them....)

Keene is indeed a hack today--but _Reappraisal_ is IMO a classic
of chess literature, and the review doesn't do it justice.
I also have fond memories of the Kuhnian ("exemplars inculcating
paradigms") books on the Pirc/Modern complex co-authored w/Botterill.
I learned more about endgames than the Pirc from these books....


In my view, Raymond Keene was once a good chess writer until he
learned how much the market could tolerate in the way of hasty,
superficial, and recycled work.

--Nick

  #7   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 08:51 AM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
A fair review accepts the book on its own terms. Elephants don't
tapdance; it's not fair for the reviewer to compare the elephant's
footwork to Savion Glover's.

Your review of _A Reappraisal_ justly complains about the book's poor
organization--its only major fault, IMO--and it's certainly fair to
correct readily ascertainable factual errors. But the review puts too
much emphasis on the primacy of N's ideas (play against doubled pawn
complexes etc)--N's possible debt to Winawer and Paulsen would make a
fascinating article or two in its own right. But IMO it's not
something for which Keene should be taken to task.


Nonsense. Keene himself raises the point when he makes the claims he
does about Nimzo's "brainchildren". Kingston's discussion of the
matter is a highpoint in the review, IMHO.

(Unlike "Who was
the first to play the Panov-Botvinnik?", these are matters of
historical interpretation--reasonable people can disagree about
them....)


So when Sam Sloan's book Bill Brock - A Reappraisal comes out, and we
read that '1.e4 e5 2.f4 is another of Brock's brainchildren', the
reviewer shouldn't mention it since its a matter of 'historical
interpretation'?

Keene is indeed a hack today--but _Reappraisal_ is IMO a classic of
chess literature, and the review doesn't do it justice.


Reappraisal ia probably Keene's best book, and Kingston has paid it the
tribute of taking it seriously. I'm uncertain what sort of review you
want to see for Keene's book. I hope its not of the John Eulberg/Ira
Riddle school of one-paragraph puffs, the ones designed to keep the
free review copies coming.

I also have
fond memories of the Kuhnian ("exemplars inculcating paradigms") books
on the Pirc/Modern complex co-authored w/Botterill. I learned more
about endgames than the Pirc from these books....


  #8   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 08:59 AM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Nick wrote:
Bill Brock ) wrote (to Taylor Kingston):
A fair review accepts the book on its own terms.
Elephants don't tapdance; it's not fair for the reviewer
to compare the elephant's footwork to Savion Glover's.


Taylor Kingston seems to have criticised Raymond Keene's
book "Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal" (2nd edition)...


3rd edition.

  #9   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 09:48 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's a question of emphasis. In the history of ideas, it's not unusual
to discover a previously unknown (or half-forgotten) predecessor. When
a diligent researcher rediscovers this connection, that does not make
his predecessor researchers doofuses:

http://generalpicture.typepad.com/le...he_blade_.html

Gay Wilson Allen (still alive, I believe--I had the pleasure of hearing
him speak about ten years ago) is a far better scholar than I am; I
happened to notice one thing he didn't. The linked criticism is IMO
out of line.

Back to chess: earlier Panov-Botvinninks should have easy to find with
the assistance of a good library, even in the 1970s. Facts is facts.
But earlier uses of the same chess idea? That's really a complex set
of facts.

(There's actually a gray area he one could filter a good 19c
database by looking for certain pawn formations--the d4/c4/c3 complex,
e.g., then check all the "hits" for Nimzo-like play avant l'homme. But
jeepers, that's a lot of work, and that's veering into another study:
"Advances before Nimzowitsch.")

Forget reading the darn book like a novel, and get out the chess set.
(Works well with Chess Praxis, too.)

  #10   Report Post  
Old September 12th 05, 12:19 PM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
It's a question of emphasis. In the history of ideas, it's not unusual
to discover a previously unknown (or half-forgotten) predecessor.


Louis Paulsen is "half-forgotten"? Even in the 1970s?

When
a diligent researcher...


Sorry, this is hardly something Taylor Kingston needed to go spelunking
for.

....rediscovers this connection, that does not make
his predecessor researchers doofuses:

http://generalpicture.typepad.com/le...he_blade_.html

Gay Wilson Allen (still alive, I believe--I had the pleasure of hearing
him speak about ten years ago) is a far better scholar than I am; I
happened to notice one thing he didn't. The linked criticism is IMO
out of line.


A. Kingston did not cast Keene as anything close to a "doofus";
B. I don't think the comparison between the Leaves of Grass situation
and the Keene book is particularly helpful, unless you are making the
point Louis Paulsen is as obscure a person as your Fourierists are.
C. I wish I could find your intelligence in your newsgroup posts.

Back to chess: earlier Panov-Botvinninks should have easy to find with
the assistance of a good library, even in the 1970s. Facts is facts.
But earlier uses of the same chess idea? That's really a complex set
of facts.


Debatable, but I won't debate it with you since you are already
repeating yourself.

(There's actually a gray area he one could filter a good 19c
database by looking for certain pawn formations--the d4/c4/c3 complex,
e.g., then check all the "hits" for Nimzo-like play avant l'homme. But
jeepers, that's a lot of work, and that's veering into another study:
"Advances before Nimzowitsch.")


Yes, better for Keene to print false statements since that's what Bill
Brock read in Shamokin 30 years ago.

Forget reading the darn book like a novel, and get out the chess set.
(Works well with Chess Praxis, too.)


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
A Blatant Lie by Parr Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 47 September 21st 05 02:07 AM
Falling into Holes with Parr and Sloan (was: 3 Simple Questions for Larry Parr) Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 22 June 12th 05 02:41 AM
Falling into Holes with Parr and Sloan (was: 3 Simple Questions for Larry Parr) Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 15 June 9th 05 11:14 PM
Dear Taylor Kingston Chess One rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 74 November 18th 04 01:23 AM
Parr on Winter NoMoreChess rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 8 September 9th 03 04:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 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