Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 3rd 06, 11:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
 
Posts: n/a
Default Winter of Discontent

THE WRATH OF KEENE

By GM Ray Keene

In discussing the Panov-Botvinnik attack I had earlier pointed out it
was just another opening system whose name had been hijacked by the
Soviets. I joked that it was rather like the Russian commander Pavel
Chekhov in Star Trek who claims everything is "invented in moscow." Of
course the ratpackers are so desperate to prove me wrong on any trivial
little thing that one of them pointed out -- with the usual ponderous
irony -- that Chekhov was a navigator and not a commander! Well, it
turns out I am right even on this trivial point. Trekkies know that
Chekhov was promoted to commander in the first movie and became First
Officer in the second movie "The Wrath of Khan."

I have been enjoying an interesting dispute here for the past few
weeks. If I recall, the latest batch of salvoes was triggered when I
objected to some comments made by Randy Bauer apropos my book Winning
with the Nimzo-Indian. After spotting Taylor Kingston's review of my
Nimzo book, my wrath accelerated.

I seldom indulge in such exchanges, partly because on a forum like
this you can prove someone wrong until you're blue in the face but by
and large they will rarely admit it and even repeat their lie. You can
also refute a charge, yet months later it re-emerges as if the
refutation never occurred. Anonymouse Skeptik (Mr. Pipel), who spelled
Alekhine as Alehkine and Purdy as Prudy, actively engages in this type
of legerdemain yet calls me careless. Larry Parr calls him a troll.

In his reply to my critique of Taylor Kingstons review of book, I
thought the poor guy was either going to have a heart attack or burst
into tears and punch the screen -- so great was his fury at having his
bias exposed. He twists and turns in front of obvious facts. His
comeback on the Paulsen - Tarrasch game, which was on the page in front
of him, was so hilarious I almost gagged with laughter.

I have been accused of being a sloppy hack, careless, guilty of
heinous crimes of historical misrepresentation, etc. But compared to
what? If I point out that a writer such as John Nunn left Bobby
Fischer's king in check in his misbegotten attempt to improve on
Bobby's analysis in Fischer-Bolbochan in 1962, I am informed that it's
irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc. Apparently Nunn's
mother of all blunders pales into insignificance compared to my alleged
crimes.

Nunn also rewrote Golombek's notes to Bogolyubov-Capablanca, New York
1924, suggesting an improvement for Capa that would have obliged his
instant resignation. Not important, I am told. Keene's errors are far
worse.

I pointed out that the latest issue of KINGPIN which in the past has
joined in the chorus against me has 10 diagrams horribly misprinted,
all the letters S missing from one page and all the number 3's from
another. This slender volume of 64 pages took two years to prepare and
is a horror arcade of blunders. Irrelevant, I am told. Two wrongs don't
make a right, etc. My instant books are of a far lower quality because
they are written with celeritas rather than bungled over for years. No
ratpacker will ever demolish KINGPIN because that's their home away
from home.

A new book by Neil Macdonald on Spielmann arrived on my desk today He
points out that in his notes to a game from New York 1924 the immortal
Alekhine fell into the Noahs Ark trap. However, a few pages later,
annotating a Spielmann vs. Capablanca game, Macdonald himself has the
black king move from b8 to d8 in one go.

Actually I am amazed at how few typos were unearthed in my 130 plus
works by people who have obviously been using a microscope to find
them. Some issues merely boil down to a matter of opinion, such as was
it better to describe Steinitz's tournament record for a certain period
as abysmal or non-existent? A world champion is expected to play in
tournaments. If he stops for 10 years, I think abysmal is fair. I would
also agree with non-existent or any phrase that implied a failed
expectation in an area where one expects success or at least activity!

I am told I missed a Winawer reference or two when discussing Nimzo's
opening strategy. Maybe so, but it was not a point that I was trying to
make. Irrelevant.

Kasparov vs Korchnoi in 1983 uses the official FIDE approved match
title on the cover, but using that name must be Keene's fault. Winning
with the Nimzo-Indian is in double column format. Terrible. Keene's
fault again. And Keene doesn't repeat his Nimzo analysis from How to
Play. How ghastly!

Ratpackers also hate the fact that I have found embarrassing Winter
quotes praising BCO and my Nimzo book. They bay for more evidence after
I already have provided chapter and verse. If any ratpacker (just one
please, who can vouch for the rest) willl give me an address or fax
number I will send the entire series of Winter articles as evidence
that I wrote the truth.

Conversely ratpackers still scream that I havent justified something I
wrote in the Times in 1987 about a player coming from behind in the
world championship to win. It sounds suspiciously snipped out of
context to me -- sorry, guys. I don't keep back issues for 19 years.
Please supply me with the context and, as I said many times before, I
will reply. No problem. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
-
Then Taylor Kingston takes me to task over the so called
Panov-Botvinnik and
squeals for a reference to positions in use before 1925. But he must
have read the first two editions of my book since he --

a) recites them in his review

b) concedes that in the third edition I eliminated the reference to
New York 1927 as a candidates tournament from the first two editions.

Well the elusive reference to Nimzowitsch - Jokstad, Bergen 1921, which
TK is screaming for, is right there on page 311 of editions one and
two. Yet I am the one who is advised to spend a little more time with
my database.

So what does this all boils down to is a small coterie of soi disant
critics who don't know enough about chess to be qualified to write
serious commentary whether they are in psychic touch with their master
in Geneva or simply in thrall to his way of showing his superiority to
real achievers in chess by nitpicking through their work. Collectively
this little group is known as RATPACKERS

However, they are out of step with the majority of players who vote
with their wallets. Millions of my books have been translated into 11
different languages. I probably have more books in print than any other
chess author. Larry Evans, Eric Schiller and myself are probably the
three most widely read chess authors in the world.

Is it a coincidence that we three are the focus of the ratpacker
attack? Hardly. The motive is ENVY of GM Evans and his distinguished
career as writer and player. ENVY of Eric Schiller who organsies,
teaches, writes, plays and arbits. And, dare I say it, ENVY of me.

Today at lunch GM Murray Chandler, managing director of Gambit
Publications, told me that in his opinion no one should be allowed to
review a chess book who had not written one and who knows the scale of
the problem of getting what you want to say onto the page without
someone else buggering it up first -- be it typesetter, editor, book
jacket designer or printer. Edward Winter at least passes this test,
but have his followers actually written commercial chess books without
blunders or omissions of any sort?

I have decided to write a book called Winter of Discontent. In this
book I will compare ratpacker assertions with my own contributions so
that their empty frothing, their opinions hawked as fact, can be
dragged from obscurity into the light instead of being forgotten and
buried on this electronic forum.

-- GM Ray Keene

  #2   Report Post  
Old May 4th 06, 12:45 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Winter of Discontent


wrote:
THE WRATH OF KEENE

By GM Ray Keene

In discussing the Panov-Botvinnik attack I had earlier pointed out it
was just another opening system whose name had been hijacked by the
Soviets. I joked that it was rather like the Russian commander Pavel
Chekhov in Star Trek who claims everything is "invented in moscow." Of
course the ratpackers are so desperate to prove me wrong on any trivial
little thing that one of them pointed out -- with the usual ponderous
irony -- that Chekhov was a navigator and not a commander! Well, it
turns out I am right even on this trivial point. Trekkies know that
Chekhov was promoted to commander in the first movie and became First
Officer in the second movie "The Wrath of Khan."

I have been enjoying an interesting dispute here for the past few
weeks. If I recall, the latest batch of salvoes was triggered when I
objected to some comments made by Randy Bauer apropos my book Winning
with the Nimzo-Indian. After spotting Taylor Kingston's review of my
Nimzo book, my wrath accelerated.

I seldom indulge in such exchanges, partly because on a forum like
this you can prove someone wrong until you're blue in the face but by
and large they will rarely admit it and even repeat their lie. You can
also refute a charge, yet months later it re-emerges as if the
refutation never occurred. Anonymouse Skeptik (Mr. Pipel), who spelled
Alekhine as Alehkine and Purdy as Prudy, actively engages in this type
of legerdemain yet calls me careless. Larry Parr calls him a troll.

In his reply to my critique of Taylor Kingstons review of book, I
thought the poor guy was either going to have a heart attack or burst
into tears and punch the screen -- so great was his fury at having his
bias exposed. He twists and turns in front of obvious facts. His
comeback on the Paulsen - Tarrasch game, which was on the page in front
of him, was so hilarious I almost gagged with laughter.

I have been accused of being a sloppy hack, careless, guilty of
heinous crimes of historical misrepresentation, etc. But compared to
what? If I point out that a writer such as John Nunn left Bobby
Fischer's king in check in his misbegotten attempt to improve on
Bobby's analysis in Fischer-Bolbochan in 1962, I am informed that it's
irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc. Apparently Nunn's
mother of all blunders pales into insignificance compared to my alleged
crimes.

Nunn also rewrote Golombek's notes to Bogolyubov-Capablanca, New York
1924, suggesting an improvement for Capa that would have obliged his
instant resignation. Not important, I am told. Keene's errors are far
worse.

I pointed out that the latest issue of KINGPIN which in the past has
joined in the chorus against me has 10 diagrams horribly misprinted,
all the letters S missing from one page and all the number 3's from
another. This slender volume of 64 pages took two years to prepare and
is a horror arcade of blunders. Irrelevant, I am told. Two wrongs don't
make a right, etc. My instant books are of a far lower quality because
they are written with celeritas rather than bungled over for years. No
ratpacker will ever demolish KINGPIN because that's their home away
from home.

A new book by Neil Macdonald on Spielmann arrived on my desk today He
points out that in his notes to a game from New York 1924 the immortal
Alekhine fell into the Noahs Ark trap. However, a few pages later,
annotating a Spielmann vs. Capablanca game, Macdonald himself has the
black king move from b8 to d8 in one go.

Actually I am amazed at how few typos were unearthed in my 130 plus
works by people who have obviously been using a microscope to find
them. Some issues merely boil down to a matter of opinion, such as was
it better to describe Steinitz's tournament record for a certain period
as abysmal or non-existent? A world champion is expected to play in
tournaments. If he stops for 10 years, I think abysmal is fair. I would
also agree with non-existent or any phrase that implied a failed
expectation in an area where one expects success or at least activity!

I am told I missed a Winawer reference or two when discussing Nimzo's
opening strategy. Maybe so, but it was not a point that I was trying to
make. Irrelevant.

Kasparov vs Korchnoi in 1983 uses the official FIDE approved match
title on the cover, but using that name must be Keene's fault. Winning
with the Nimzo-Indian is in double column format. Terrible. Keene's
fault again. And Keene doesn't repeat his Nimzo analysis from How to
Play. How ghastly!

Ratpackers also hate the fact that I have found embarrassing Winter
quotes praising BCO and my Nimzo book. They bay for more evidence after
I already have provided chapter and verse. If any ratpacker (just one
please, who can vouch for the rest) willl give me an address or fax
number I will send the entire series of Winter articles as evidence
that I wrote the truth.

Conversely ratpackers still scream that I havent justified something I
wrote in the Times in 1987 about a player coming from behind in the
world championship to win. It sounds suspiciously snipped out of
context to me -- sorry, guys. I don't keep back issues for 19 years.
Please supply me with the context and, as I said many times before, I
will reply. No problem. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
-
Then Taylor Kingston takes me to task over the so called
Panov-Botvinnik and
squeals for a reference to positions in use before 1925. But he must
have read the first two editions of my book since he --

a) recites them in his review

b) concedes that in the third edition I eliminated the reference to
New York 1927 as a candidates tournament from the first two editions.

Well the elusive reference to Nimzowitsch - Jokstad, Bergen 1921, which
TK is screaming for, is right there on page 311 of editions one and
two. Yet I am the one who is advised to spend a little more time with
my database.

So what does this all boils down to is a small coterie of soi disant
critics who don't know enough about chess to be qualified to write
serious commentary whether they are in psychic touch with their master
in Geneva or simply in thrall to his way of showing his superiority to
real achievers in chess by nitpicking through their work. Collectively
this little group is known as RATPACKERS

However, they are out of step with the majority of players who vote
with their wallets. Millions of my books have been translated into 11
different languages. I probably have more books in print than any other
chess author. Larry Evans, Eric Schiller and myself are probably the
three most widely read chess authors in the world.

Is it a coincidence that we three are the focus of the ratpacker
attack? Hardly. The motive is ENVY of GM Evans and his distinguished
career as writer and player. ENVY of Eric Schiller who organsies,
teaches, writes, plays and arbits. And, dare I say it, ENVY of me.

Today at lunch GM Murray Chandler, managing director of Gambit
Publications, told me that in his opinion no one should be allowed to
review a chess book who had not written one and who knows the scale of
the problem of getting what you want to say onto the page without
someone else buggering it up first -- be it typesetter, editor, book
jacket designer or printer. Edward Winter at least passes this test,
but have his followers actually written commercial chess books without
blunders or omissions of any sort?

I have decided to write a book called Winter of Discontent. In this
book I will compare ratpacker assertions with my own contributions so
that their empty frothing, their opinions hawked as fact, can be
dragged from obscurity into the light instead of being forgotten and
buried on this electronic forum.

-- GM Ray Keene


I said it before. I say it again:

Oh ... my ... Gawd.

  #4   Report Post  
Old May 4th 06, 01:49 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default Winter of Discontent

Larry Parr reported (3 May 2006 15:57:36 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

Some issues merely boil down to a matter of opinion,
such as was it better to describe Steinitz's tournament
record for a certain period as abysmal or non-existent?
A world champion is expected to play in tournaments.
If he stops for 10 years, I think abysmal is fair.


_
Is it likely to fairly communicate to the reader? Larry
Parr seems to fancy himself as an expert on what
"99 percent of chessplayers" would conclude when
reading an "unadorned assertion". Does Larry Parr
want to say something about what they would
conclude after reading an assertion that Steinitz had
an abysmal tournament record over the years
1886-1894?

_
Larry Parr reported (3 May 2006 15:57:36 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

Ratpackers also hate the fact that I have found
embarrassing Winter quotes praising BCO and
my Nimzo book. ... If any ratpacker (just one
please, who can vouch for the rest) willl give me
an address or fax number I will send the entire
series of Winter articles as evidence that I wrote
the truth.


_
Is this an offer to send the letters/articles that
contained the "role of kasparov", "my doubts",
and "exaggerated use" quotes? (Those were
not quotes "praising BCO".)

_
Larry Parr reported (3 May 2006 15:57:36 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

... a small coterie of soi disant critics who don't
know enough about chess to be qualified to write
serious commentary ...
_
... Larry Evans, Eric Schiller and myself are
probably the three most widely read chess authors
in the world.


_
In the last decade, what GM Evans, Eric Schiller, or
GM Keene books have been reviewed favorably in
New In Chess?

_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

I mentioned the frequency of Taylor Kingston's reviews
of my books. I found two on the ChessCafe archive,
both reviewed by him. This looks like 100% to me.


_
Here, GM Keene, fails to deal with what he actually
originally wrote:
_
"Why, by the way, does [Taylor Kingston]
SO OFTEN seem to review my books."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Does GM Keene claim that "so often" is a fair way
to characterize a mere two reviews?

_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

I continue to maintain that TK should have spotted
the blunder in Duras vs. Teichmann.


_
"Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor
Kingston decided to "concentrate" on
Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)?"
- Louis Blair (30 Apr 2006 19:28:59 -0700)
_
If not, why hasn't GM Keene apologized for his original
comments (reported by Phil Innes on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
11:50:08 GMT)?
_
As for what GM Keene "[continues] to maintain",
this quote has been repeatedly mentioned:
_
"No one expects [Taylor Kingston] to go
through every single game in the book
when reviewing it." - Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
Also, it has been repeatedly noted that, if one
plays through only a selection of games in a book,
it can turn out that a blunder is in one of the games
that the reviewer did not play through.
_
Chanting "TK should have ..." is not exactly a very
impressive debating style.
_
At one time, GM Keene tried to have us believe:
_
"Anyone who knows anything real about
chess would know that this Duras rook
sac has been busted for ages."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
However, he does not seem eager to continue to
maintain that assertion, and, in any event, it would
not justify his Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT
attempt to cast doubt on the "chess strength" of
Taylor Kingston.

_
Larry Parr reported (1 May 2006 19:45:59 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:

... a class reviewer, having had that game swim
into his ken, would have spotted ...


_
GM Keene is reduced to indicating that Taylor
Kingston is not a "class reviewer". This seems
like quite a vague charge compared to all that
previous talk about a lack of chess strength
and the suggestion that Taylor Kingston does
not know anything real about chess.
_
If GM Keene does not feel he can defend his
previous attacks, why doesn't he apologize
for them instead of quietly substituting
watered down assertions?

_
Larry Parr reported (30 Apr 2006 17:46:21 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I am criticised for writing that only in the late 18th
century were games recorded. Again a little context
would be helpful, but I still maintain that this is broadly
true.


_
Does GM Keene claim that it is broadly true that
"chess games were first recorded towards the end of
the eighteenth century"?
_
_
Perhaps now is a good time to review the state
of the discussion of GM Keene's ghost claim
evidence. Notice the watered down 25 Jan 2006
17:28:36 -0800 GM Keene assertion.
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"winter clearly impugned authorship in
chess notes" - GM Keene quote reported
by Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
_
_
"A much more vague claim than the one
from eleven and a half hours earlier."
- Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?" - Louis
Blair (28 Jan 2006 16:03:20 -0800)
_
After about two and a half months:
_
"Yes. Da. Ja. Oui. SIi.
_
Explicitly: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
_
I am saying so loud and clear. For crying
out loud -- what else do Edward Winter's
words mean? He is saying as evidently
as possible that BCO was ghosted and
that Kasparov was not a genuine author."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (15 Apr 2006 06:46:44 -0700)
_
_
"If I am following GM Keene correctly, he
is saying (at last) that the Edward Winter
'sales ... merit' quote can be fairly described
as [a 'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco ... was ghosted']. Does Larry Parr go
along with that or not?" - Louis Blair
(15 Apr 2006 20:51:11 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen Larry Parr say whether or not
he agrees that the Edward Winter 'sales ... merit'
quote can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco ... was ghosted'.
_
"I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL
WINTER QUOTES RE THE
AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
...
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned 'the exact role of
kasparov in the whole business--'
_
in an earlier communication-winter
refers to:
_
'my doubts about whether kasparov
had been sufficiently involved in bco to
merit one of the two author credits'
_
and
_
'batsfords exaggerated use of a name
is not limited to bco'"
- GM Keene quote reported by Phil Innes
(Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
_
_
"[1984 quotes] would not have been 'THE
ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES RE THE
AUTHORSHIP OF BCO'" - Louis Blair
(27 Apr 2006 23:03:06 -0700)
_
_
"Does GM Keene contend that these
quotes can be fairly described as a
'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted'?" - Louis Blair (27 Apr 2006
22:33:03 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen GM Keene answer that question.
For that matter, Larry Parr also does not seem to be
eager to say whether or not he thinks these latest
quotes can be fairly described as a "claim" "that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford chess openings
was ghosted".

  #6   Report Post  
Old May 4th 06, 02:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Winter of Discontent


wrote:
THE WRATH OF KEENE

By GM Ray Keene

I have been accused of being a sloppy hack, careless, guilty of
heinous crimes of historical misrepresentation, etc. But compared to
what? If I point out that a writer such as John Nunn left Bobby
Fischer's king in check in his misbegotten attempt to improve on
Bobby's analysis in Fischer-Bolbochan in 1962, I am informed that it's
irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc. Apparently Nunn's
mother of all blunders pales into insignificance compared to my alleged
crimes.

Nunn also rewrote Golombek's notes to Bogolyubov-Capablanca, New York
1924, suggesting an improvement for Capa that would have obliged his
instant resignation. Not important, I am told. Keene's errors are far
worse.


I agree with Keene that every book will have typos and errors. I don't
think that my review of his book concentrated on these sorts of
problems. I will grant him that there are errors in Nunn books as well
as Keene books.

The difference between Keene and Nunn as authors is that Nunn rarely,
if ever, appears to be "mailing it in" in his books. Nunn's books are
usually impeccibly researched, full of original analysis, and include
things like detailed indexes, tables of contents, and penetrating
commentary.

(snip the continued discussion of typos)

Kasparov vs Korchnoi in 1983 uses the official FIDE approved match
title on the cover, but using that name must be Keene's fault. Winning
with the Nimzo-Indian is in double column format. Terrible. Keene's
fault again. And Keene doesn't repeat his Nimzo analysis from How to
Play. How ghastly!


I did not object to a double column format. In fact, I find it much
superior to a single column format, which generally wastes even more
space. I objected to carrying out 20 some moves at the end of a game,
without comment, in column format. Other books that use the complete
game, double column format, such as Wells' book on the Semi-Slav, save
this precious space for discussion and analysis. If an author is
wishing to maintain a high content to page ratio, they can do so as
well. My sense from this and similar books is that the author isn't
all that averse to running up the page count on largely extraneous
material.

It is ghastly that you don't provide reasonably full coverage of key
lines, and when that is pointed out, you suggest you had written all
you wanted to say about the line IN A DIFFERENT BOOK! As if the reader
knows this? As if the reader isn't entitled to it? Appalling.

Ratpackers also hate the fact that I have found embarrassing Winter
quotes praising BCO and my Nimzo book. They bay for more evidence after
I already have provided chapter and verse. If any ratpacker (just one
please, who can vouch for the rest) willl give me an address or fax
number I will send the entire series of Winter articles as evidence
that I wrote the truth.


Please don't lump me in your tedious "Winter ratpackers" diatribe. As
I have pointed out several times, I have never read a Winter book, and
I doubt you will find a single quote of mine supporting Winter
specifically. I too have noted my liking your book on Nimzowitsch: A
Reappaisal, as well as your earlier excellent works on the Pirc and the
Modern. I just wish you had kept to that level of excellence in your
later opening books.

(snip)

Today at lunch GM Murray Chandler, managing director of Gambit
Publications, told me that in his opinion no one should be allowed to
review a chess book who had not written one and who knows the scale of
the problem of getting what you want to say onto the page without
someone else buggering it up first -- be it typesetter, editor, book
jacket designer or printer. Edward Winter at least passes this test,
but have his followers actually written commercial chess books without
blunders or omissions of any sort?


I have shared many emails with GM Chandler, and he has been quite
supportive of my chess book reviews. In fact, Gambit Publications
includes quotes from my reviews in its promotional materials for its
books. I guess he doesn't share your disdain for my efforts.

I have decided to write a book called Winter of Discontent. In this
book I will compare ratpacker assertions with my own contributions so
that their empty frothing, their opinions hawked as fact, can be
dragged from obscurity into the light instead of being forgotten and
buried on this electronic forum.


I'm sure you'll sell a couple dozen copies. Feel free to send me a
review copy - my parrot cage needs lining.

Randy Bauer

-- GM Ray Keene


  #7   Report Post  
Old May 4th 06, 04:25 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default Winter of Discontent


Randy Bauer wrote:

Please don't lump me in your tedious "Winter ratpackers" diatribe. As
I have pointed out several times, I have never read a Winter book, and
I doubt you will find a single quote of mine supporting Winter
specifically.


I can vouch for Mr. Bauer's lack of interest in chess history:

I probably do owe you one Jim. Sometime we should discuss the

line of the
MacCutcheon French that has been earning me points for years.


Of course, if we did, Larry Parr would start tossing literary references to
the French revolution.


Randy Bauer


Gentlemen, please, it's "McCutcheon". That's how John L. McCutcheon
spelled his name.


Neil Brennen


Take it up with Tim Harding -- the title of his book on the line is
"French: MacCutcheon and Advance Lines."

The only spelling in that line that matters to me is 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5
3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4.

Randy Bauer

  #9   Report Post  
Old May 4th 06, 02:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Larry Tapper
 
Posts: n/a
Default Winter of Discontent

A simple question here, which has been asked befo

Why does GM Keene find it necessary to funnel his responses through
Innes and Parr? Does he not know how to use the Internet?

If he is concerned about attracting junk mail or obnoxious cranks, it
would be child's play to set up a free and temporary e-mail account
under some such name as or .
As things stand now, it's not clear that Keene is even reading all of
the relevant posts. He says he is enjoying this debate immensely, but
evidently he isn't enjoying it quite enough to participate in it
directly like any other rgcp poster.

Larry T.

  #10   Report Post  
Old May 4th 06, 02:06 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Winter of Discontent

wrote:
THE WRATH OF KEENE

By GM Ray Keene
I have been enjoying an interesting dispute here for the past few
weeks. If I recall, the latest batch of salvoes was triggered when I
objected to some comments made by Randy Bauer apropos my book Winning
with the Nimzo-Indian. After spotting Taylor Kingston's review of my
Nimzo book, my wrath accelerated.

I seldom indulge in such exchanges, partly because on a forum like
this you can prove someone wrong until you're blue in the face but by
and large they will rarely admit it and even repeat their lie.


Yes, we continually have that problem with Larry Parr.

You can
also refute a charge, yet months later it re-emerges as if the
refutation never occurred.


Ray, you describe Parr to a T.

In his reply to my critique of Taylor Kingstons review of book, I
thought the poor guy was either going to have a heart attack or burst
into tears and punch the screen -- so great was his fury at having his
bias exposed.


One wonders where Ray got this information. Did he send spies to peep
through my windows? If so, they misinformed him. Here in the quiet of
Vermont's early spring I actually sat calmly in my study and leisurely
composed my reply.

He twists and turns in front of obvious facts. His
comeback on the Paulsen - Tarrasch game, which was on the page in front
of him, was so hilarious I almost gagged with laughter.


You are easily amused.

I have been accused of being a sloppy hack, careless, guilty of
heinous crimes of historical misrepresentation, etc. But compared to
what? If I point out that a writer such as John Nunn left Bobby
Fischer's king in check in his misbegotten attempt to improve on
Bobby's analysis in Fischer-Bolbochan in 1962, I am informed that it's
irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc. Apparently Nunn's
mother of all blunders pales into insignificance compared to my alleged
crimes.


Ray, why don't you try, just once, taking responsibility for
something? Just accept that you make mistakes, instead of
rationalizing, making lame excuses, or resorting to "tu quoque"
fallacies?

Nunn also rewrote Golombek's notes to Bogolyubov-Capablanca, New York
1924, suggesting an improvement for Capa that would have obliged his
instant resignation. Not important, I am told. Keene's errors are far
worse.


Actually, Nunn's error on Fischer-Bolbochan got a great deal of
attention from many critics, in particular your bete noir Edward
Winter, whom you imagine likes to pick only on you. See for example
"Fischer's Fury" at
www.chesshistory.com.

Then Taylor Kingston takes me to task over the so called
Panov-Botvinnik and squeals ...


Ray, you look silly with all these cheap-shot insult sound-effects.
Frankly, worse than silly -- vulgar and boorish. Insults are not
arguments.

for a reference to positions in use before 1925. But he must have read the first two
editions of my book ...


As a matter of fact, I have not seen either. I made it quite clear
early in my review that I was reviewing the 3rd edition on its own
merits.

since he --

a) recites them in his review


I do? I mention that they exist, and that's about it. Is that what
"recite" means?

b) concedes that in the third edition I eliminated the reference to
New York 1927 as a candidates tournament from the first two editions.


"Concede"? That would imply that first I said it was still there,
then admitted it was not. I did no such thing.

Well the elusive reference to Nimzowitsch - Jokstad, Bergen 1921, which
TK is screaming for ...


There you go again.

is right there on page 311 of editions one and
two.


Why then was it removed from edition three?

However, they are out of step with the majority of players who vote
with their wallets. Millions of my books have been translated into 11
different languages. I probably have more books in print than any other
chess author. Larry Evans, Eric Schiller and myself are probably the
three most widely read chess authors in the world.


Then it sounds like you have what you want most. I'm looking for
high-quality books, you're looking for money. There is often a
trade-off between the two, or at least no definite corelation. Some
highly praised books have dismal sales, some dismal books sell in the
millions. Take your half of the bargain and be happy with it. Let your
money console you for the lack of critical praise, and quit
complaining.

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
Parr on Winter [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 39 April 6th 06 09:05 PM
Parr on Winter [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 38 April 6th 06 09:05 PM
Chess & Wikipedia Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 74 March 22nd 06 06:46 AM
Edward G. Winter from Wikipedia Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 60 March 10th 06 11:46 PM
Edward G. Winter from Wikipedia Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 64 March 10th 06 11:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 AM.

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