| |
Main
Date: 09 Jan 2008 06:00:58
From: Offramp
Subject: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
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?'
The quote should have been expunged!? I think that is a bit drastic
for a neat phrase (which I thought was by R=E9ti, but that's not
important) which is well known to most chess players.
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 09:48:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 23, 10:49 am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jan 19, 1:06 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> 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 st, 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
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:49:14
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 19, 1:06 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > 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....
|
| |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 07:07:16
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 19, 9:35=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > 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 "withou=
t
> 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.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 13:06:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2de76670-b443-41d4-8c5e-009bdaa7c6dc@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 9:35 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > 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 rek 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
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 22:09:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 17, 10:54 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
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 rek to the
> documentation establishing authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a
> highly flawed analogy. A better one is to compare the alleged Capa
> rek 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
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 19:54:15
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 16, 12:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> 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 rek 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 rek to the
documentation establishing authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a
highly flawed analogy. A better one is to compare the alleged Capa
rek 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.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 09:35:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:07377b56-4a71-46f1-91e8-7897936182d8@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 12:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> 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 rek 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 rek to the
> documentation establishing authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a
> highly flawed analogy. A better one is to compare the alleged Capa
> rek 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.
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 10:33:30
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 16, 11:04=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.
>
> =A0 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.
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 08:21:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 16, 11:04 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:e0904866-88d1-41cc-b133-65d3cc86ee24@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 9:54 am, help bot <[email protected]> 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 rek 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
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 12:35:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:be01e8eb-463c-462e-922a-7cecffd2f8dc@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 11:04 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e0904866-88d1-41cc-b133-65d3cc86ee24@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 16, 9:54 am, help bot <[email protected]> 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 rek 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
>
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 07:38:46
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 16, 9:54=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 Ah, but Socrates did not play chess.
To paraphrase LP, there's no evidence that he didn't! ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 11:04:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e0904866-88d1-41cc-b133-65d3cc86ee24@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 9:54 am, help bot <[email protected] > 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
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 06:54:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 16, 8:08 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > 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
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 05:08:21
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 15, 4:38=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > 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.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2008 23:14:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 15, 4:38 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > 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
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2008 13:38:32
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
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 ha=
ve 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 here: 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 R=E9ti, but that's not
>important)
It isn't?? (See below)
[email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 here: 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.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 19:50:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Abuseniks among us
|
On Jan 14, 8:50 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I have no idea if Brennan every actually read Orwell or Miller - but this
> > anecdote is contained in a biography of Miller,
>
> wrong! by Meyers, on Orwell, from Miller :)
Apart from Mr. Clemens, have you not overlooked
Nolan Ryan, Sandy Kofax, and others? The term
"of note" is rather vague, but still... .
-- baseball bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 23:29:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
OUR GREG FINALLY GETS SOMETHING RIGHT
<This is no doubt EW at his very
worst; and at his worst he can be deceitful
and unfair -- just as he was in his character
assassination of Larry Evans. > -- Help Bot (aka Greg Kennedy,
nomorechess)
help bot wrote:
> On Jan 13, 10:26 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > > While most of Larry Parr's complaints regarding EWs
> > > merciless near-assassination of Larry Evans strained to
> > > find a leg to stand on, an *obvious* weakness was
> > > simply overlooked; in one of his reviews, Mr. Winter
> > > offered a "random sampling" of errors, but closer
> > > examination reveals that he deliberately chose to look
> > > at material relating to his forte: former champion Jose
> > > Capablanca! Coincidence? I think not. It appears a
> > > dishonest ploy to state that he could easily spot as
> > > many errors on any subject, but then to single out the
> > > one area where his recent work placed him at a huge
> > > advantage. If one is familiar with the quality of EW's
> > > research, this advantage over the typical hack writer
> > > being reviewed is impossible to miss. A glance at the
> > > published books by EW reveals that of all subjects, the
> > > odds of "randomly" stumbling into Jose Capablanca are
> > > about a thousand to one; his other books deal with a
> > > wide variety of subjects, like an encyclopedia; but JC
> > > was singled out a for a whole volume, dedicated just
> > > to him.
> >
> > I can't agree. Is this the review you had in mind?
> >
> > http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html
> >
> > If so, re-read it. Winter trashes the book for more than just Capa
> > errors.
>
> I have no desire to (once again) revisit some
> assault I have already digested. More to the
> issue is that my point was missed entirely; I
> don't care a whit if other errors were listed in
> a review; the critical issue is that one may not
> *honestly* state that any other subject could
> have just as easily been picked, with similar
> results, but then deliberately choose the one
> subject where an entire book was written and
> published on a single player (Jose Capablanca).
>
> That is dishonesty; had EW picked, say, E.
> Tate, I would have had no objection; but to put
> out a well-researched book and then *pretend*
> to have no special advantage as a result is a
> despicable ploy, not unworthy of an Evans
> ratpacker! This is no doubt EW at his very
> worst; and at his worst he can be deceitful
> and unfair -- just as he was in his character
> assassination of Larry Evans.
>
> Were I to write an analysis of LE, I would try
> to assess things more objectively, comparing
> the quality of his recent work with his former
> level, and with other mainstream chess writers
> in Chess Lies and its rivals. I would *not* try
> to put the man in a mental institution, nor imply
> that he was incapable of getting two things right
> in a row; that really isn't necessary in order to
> demonstrate that his ad hominem attacks are
> merely emotional rants, founded on opinions
> and personal biases rather than facts and
> reason.
>
> It is not difficult to find an article by EW in
> which he asserts that he has made no special
> effort in regard to Ray Keene, and where it is
> claimed that he rarely even mentions RK; the
> facts tell the tale once again: he's being
> grossly dishonest with his readers. Make no
> mistake: EW has his own "issues"; they may
> not be as obvious as the issues of the Evans
> ratpackers, but they are very real just the same.
> (And no, I'm not going to search for the exact
> article in which EW claimed to barely know of
> the existence of Ray Keene-- do your own
> research!)
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 21:30:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 13, 1:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> EDDIE WINTER CAN DISH IT OUT BUT....
>
> <Winter has always been willing to publish corrections when
> appropriate.> -- Taylor Kingston
>
> Here is what IM Anthony Saidy noted: "I valued Edward Winter's
> diligent
> work and subscribed to his Chess Notes until it went out of business
> in
> 1989. I was grateful to him for pointing out an embarrassing error in
> my book The World Of Chess (where I missed the location of Cambridge
> Springs only by the width of the Atlantic Ocean). We corresponded for
> several years. However, when I had the audacity to correct one of his
> errors in translating a Spanish phrase, his huffy reply indicated
> that
> he was alien to the concept of receiving constructive criticism. I
> stopped writing after this incident."
That anecdote has been seen here more often
than the Ruy Lopez. The question remains, what
evidence is there (other than hearsay) that EW
in fact mistranslated a Spanish phrase, and that
AS's idea of a correction was both correct and ill-
received? As far as I have seen, AS seemed
reluctant to even specify the precise phrase so
others might weigh in; never mind the obvious
problem of presenting only one side of this story.
Was it Aesop, or perhaps the Brothers Grimm
who crafted an entire story just to make a point
to show how crucial it was to get both sides of
a story before rushing to any judgment? Either
way, we can expect reliance on mere anecdotes
and personal biases as the best the Evans
ratpack has to offer. To me, this is not dissimilar
to the guy who said he "always agrees with" EW;
it amounts to a testamonial, for or against, but it
is lacking in any real substance. Some folks
just accept this sort of fare; but I want meat and
potatoes. I want my stomach to know that I've
eaten something substantive. Give me pot roast!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 21:14:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 13, 11:10 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Brennan's lying is at about the same level as his comprehension - in fact,
> they seem to be related. 6 years of stalking and writing trash qualify his
> personal contributions to chess
I seem to recall an abusenik's paradise in which
the Evans ratpackers spent countless hours on
Mr. Brennan; so devoted were they that many a
thread was dedicated just to the subject of NB's
status as historian, although it may have come up
now and again that he was not a GM in terms of
playing strength. Ah, the good old days. Never
let it be said that nearly-Innes was mentally
coherent enough to grasp his own hypocrisy, not
even for a millisecond.
> Indeed the chief abusenik
> of chess achieves the height of dumbth. Phil Innes
Indeed, the title is hereby conceded. But "we"
reserve the right to challenge again, in say, four
years.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 21:05:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 13, 10:26 am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> > While most of Larry Parr's complaints regarding EWs
> > merciless near-assassination of Larry Evans strained to
> > find a leg to stand on, an *obvious* weakness was
> > simply overlooked; in one of his reviews, Mr. Winter
> > offered a "random sampling" of errors, but closer
> > examination reveals that he deliberately chose to look
> > at material relating to his forte: former champion Jose
> > Capablanca! Coincidence? I think not. It appears a
> > dishonest ploy to state that he could easily spot as
> > many errors on any subject, but then to single out the
> > one area where his recent work placed him at a huge
> > advantage. If one is familiar with the quality of EW's
> > research, this advantage over the typical hack writer
> > being reviewed is impossible to miss. A glance at the
> > published books by EW reveals that of all subjects, the
> > odds of "randomly" stumbling into Jose Capablanca are
> > about a thousand to one; his other books deal with a
> > wide variety of subjects, like an encyclopedia; but JC
> > was singled out a for a whole volume, dedicated just
> > to him.
>
> I can't agree. Is this the review you had in mind?
>
> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html
>
> If so, re-read it. Winter trashes the book for more than just Capa
> errors.
I have no desire to (once again) revisit some
assault I have already digested. More to the
issue is that my point was missed entirely; I
don't care a whit if other errors were listed in
a review; the critical issue is that one may not
*honestly* state that any other subject could
have just as easily been picked, with similar
results, but then deliberately choose the one
subject where an entire book was written and
published on a single player (Jose Capablanca).
That is dishonesty; had EW picked, say, E.
Tate, I would have had no objection; but to put
out a well-researched book and then *pretend*
to have no special advantage as a result is a
despicable ploy, not unworthy of an Evans
ratpacker! This is no doubt EW at his very
worst; and at his worst he can be deceitful
and unfair -- just as he was in his character
assassination of Larry Evans.
Were I to write an analysis of LE, I would try
to assess things more objectively, comparing
the quality of his recent work with his former
level, and with other mainstream chess writers
in Chess Lies and its rivals. I would *not* try
to put the man in a mental institution, nor imply
that he was incapable of getting two things right
in a row; that really isn't necessary in order to
demonstrate that his ad hominem attacks are
merely emotional rants, founded on opinions
and personal biases rather than facts and
reason.
It is not difficult to find an article by EW in
which he asserts that he has made no special
effort in regard to Ray Keene, and where it is
claimed that he rarely even mentions RK; the
facts tell the tale once again: he's being
grossly dishonest with his readers. Make no
mistake: EW has his own "issues"; they may
not be as obvious as the issues of the Evans
ratpackers, but they are very real just the same.
(And no, I'm not going to search for the exact
article in which EW claimed to barely know of
the existence of Ray Keene-- do your own
research!)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 20:41:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
Restoring context that P Innes tried to obscure by top-posting:
P Innes, AKA Chess One:
> > > > But Winter would rather expunge, than improve.
Help-bot:
> > Typically for him, nearly-Innes has somehow managed to
> > get himself terribly confused on a rather simple matter.
> >
> > The elimination of "quotations" which have no known
> > source *is* an improvement! Only by eliminating fake
> > "quotes", can the real ones be distinguished from invented
> > or mis-attributed anecdotes. It's a *quality* thing, which
> > Evans ratpackers just can't seem to grok.
The Historian:
> Especially P Innes, who manufactures quotations whenever he needs one.
> Witness his witless 'quotation' from George Orwell that he attempted
> to impress us with a couple of years ago.
Chess One wrote:
> Brennan's lying is at about the same level as his comprehension - in fact,
> they seem to be related. 6 years of stalking and writing trash qualify his
> personal contributions to chess and literature to the dumpster of history -
> that is, if it could all fit into one dumptster. Indeed the chief abusenik
> of chess achieves the height of dumbth. Phil Innes
And now, the history of P Innes and his bogus George Orwell
"quotation":
_
Some quotes from the rec.games.chess.politics:
_
"... Didn't [Henry Miller] write some medical texts on the topic
of cancer? Or was he a Nin-ny from the 1930s?" - Mike
Murray (Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:14:20 -0800)
_
_
"Good God!
_
He is perhaps the only American writer of note after Clemens.
...
_
An anecdote: When Orwell went to Paris in 1944/45 as
correspondent, he believed [rightly] that the communists were
out to kill him. He asked Miller for protection, and Miller gave
him a pistol and a couple of guys to watch his back. (Orwell
only accepted the pistol.) ..." - Phil Innes (Thu, 04 Dec 2003
21:32:55 GMT)
_
_
"Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Wolfe, Thurber, Vonnegut,
Updike, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Albee - all
also-rans in Phil's book." - Neil Brennen (5 Dec 2003
02:43:00 -0800)
_
_
"I like Vonnegut, and out-of-period particularly like Hawthorne
[but not the new bio]. Recently I read Mitchener's Iberia, a
cultural and travelogue in Spain which he himself thought his
best work. Mitchener liked Spanish-era Hemingway.
_
Fitzgerald is difficult - books you have to read are more
difficult to assess, but possibly the most elegant writer in
your group. Of course, and Eliot, though he lived in London.
..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:39:57 GMT)
_
(Mike Murray indicated that his note was a joke.)
_
Some quotes from humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
_
"Anyone care to guess which HLAS poster wrote the following
mind-boggling statement?
_
'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
only American writer of note after Clemens.'"
- Neil Brennen (6 Dec 2003 15:54:09 -0800)
_
_
"George Orwell! I win :) ..." - Phil Innes (Mon, 08 Dec 2003
12:31:42 GMT)
_
_
"... Anyone care to guess which HLAS poster wrote the
following mind-boggling statement?
_
'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
only American writer of note after Clemens.'
_
..." - Neil Brennen (Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:09:58 GMT)
_
_
"... Perhaps if he completed my phrase by saying, 'according
to George Orwell' and the time he wrote it, which was 1945, it
would have another sense entirely. But of course, although I
had written that originally, and have mentioned it several times
since, there is no intention here to be honest. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:18:55 GMT)
_
_
"... Those with an IQ greater than their shoe size might note
than in [the Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:32:55 GMT] posting Innes
doesn't attribute the rek about Miller to George Orwell.
Instead he passes it off as his own. ..." - Neil Brennen (Tue,
24 Aug 2004 01:16:15 GMT)
-
-
"If there was EVER any doubt that I was quoting Orwell on
Miller <I did not try to pass it off as my own - it is a
relatively
famous quotation! > then that would be removed by some half
dozen corrections I have made to your claims, introduced to
completely irrelevant discussions, and intending to defame
me or other persons. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
11:23:17 GMT)
_
_
"I Googled up your old post last night. Neil quoted it exactly.
No attribution to Orwell was made or implied by you. ...
_
If you are now saying that it's an Orwell quote, you might
give us the title of the essay from which you took it. His
full-length piece on Miller, 'Inside the Whale', contains no
quote like that." - Buffalo (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
17:40:30 +0000 (UTC))
_
_
"You missed 2 things- the posts around it, and the secondly
the frequent corrections to Nil's rendering , which avoids any
context. Besides, he lies when he says I claimed them as
my own words. If I originally cited Orwell on Miller... then...?
_
Why not mention it, or doesn't your curiosity extend that far?
...
Yes I am saying its an Orwell quote - but what matter is it
to you - what depends on it? ..." - Phil Innes (Tue,
24 Aug 2004 20:39:53 GMT)
_
_
"I do not need to look at any corrections to 'Neil's rendering',
since it wasn't Neil that wrote the original post. I also 'read
the posts around it' in the rest of the thread and there is
nothing that connects that quote with George Orwell.
...
You didn't cite Orwell on Miller. You didn't mention Orwell
until the next paragraph. ..." - Buffalo (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
21:30:41 +0000 (UTC))
_
_
"... I said [Neil Brennen] lies that I claimed them as my
own words. And here you cite the context which directly
spoke of Orwell, what a curious inquiry you make. ..."
- Phil Innes (Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:10:19 GMT)
_
_
"... Innes is never going to admit that he did not quote
Orwell, even though anyone can google his post and
ascertain that he did not. ..." - Tom Veal (25 Aug 2004
16:01:42 -0700)
_
_
"... I do and did claim to quote Orwell! I NEVER claimed not
to.
_
In the same piece of writing both Orwell and Miller are
mentioned, as they are in the surrounding posts. ...
...
... It would indeed be a cheap 'deception' to make pretense
such a statement was my own - and a follish one! Especially
since on its face it would be immediately challenged as
peculiar opinion if the circumstances of its writing were not
that Orwell was its author in 1941 [!] ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
26 Aug 2004 12:52:24 GMT)
_
_
"Innes claimed it was a 'quotation' - his word - from Orwell.
The closest Orwell comes to the Innes-anity is the following
from Inside the Whale:
_
'Here in my opinion is the only imaginative
prose-writer of the slightest value who has
appeared among the English-speaking races
for some years past. Even if that is objected
to as an overstatement, it will probably be
admitted that Miller is a writer out of the
ordinary, worth more than a single glance ...'
_
..." - Neil Brennen (Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:13:46 GMT)
_
_
"... Did I say it was a quotation or citation from Orwell, or
about Orwell? ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 27 Aug 2004
20:29:19 GMT)
_
_
"Well, here are your exact words, from this very thread:
_
'I do and did claim to quote Orwell! I NEVER
claimed not to.'
_
..." - David L. Webb (Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:15:01 -0400)
_
_
"Thank you. But this is no answer to the issue. I am quoting
what Orwell said. This was his statement on Miller. There
are several reporters of it. But, as mentioned elsewhere, this
issue has nothing to do with if Orwell ever made this
statement, but that Nil suggested that I claimed it as my
own. ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:47:42 GMT)
_
_
"... If you understood the proper use of quotation ks,
Philsy, then this misunderstanding might never have
happened. Your fabrication of a Orwell quotation, however,
is another matter. ..." - Neil Brennen (Sat, 28 Aug 2004
13:47:07 GMT)
_
(The argument went on through September and into October.)
_
Later, back at rec.games.chess.politics:
_
"Dear Neil, which 'Quotation' do you wish to know about?
..." - Phil Innes (Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:18:41 GMT)
_
_
" 'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
only American writer of note after Clemens.'
_
OK Phil. What is your source for the Orwell 'quotation'? ..."
- Neil Brennen (30 Nov 2004 17:29:38 -0800)
_
_
"Orwell!" - Phil Innes (Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:41:51 GMT)
_
Later:
_
"... perhaps you could provide the source of the following:
_
'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
only American writer of note after Clemens.'"
- Neil Brennen (12 May 2005 05:00:47 -0700)
_
_
"... Orwell made the comment in 1941! ..." - Phil Innes
(Thu, 12 May 2005 13:16:12 GMT)
_
And today we have:
_
"... this was a quotation from Orwell's biographer, ..."
- Phil Innes (Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:53:30 GMT)
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 08:43:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Abuseniks among us
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Restoring context that P Innes tried to obscure by top-posting:
Brennan lies non-stop. Everything he says is twisted - and that means he is
deliberately set to rubbish people, just as the FSS was. Since I usually try
at least once to correct abberant understandings - he continues to distort
them after his own fashion. Since he can't write about chess, this childish
attention getting is all he can do.
Some think this is a 'dispute' but just look at what happened to USCF with
the same sort of 'reporting'. Its a wonder the outfit survived at all. One
does not have a dispute with a fat tick!
Now he is back to plaguing chess groups with gratuitous lies - nothing to do
with chess at all. Just resentment of his betters, who are practically
everyone.
> He is perhaps the only American writer of note after Clemens.
That is the opinion of Henry Miller, written in mid-20th century!
> _
> An anecdote: When Orwell went to Paris in 1944/45 as
> correspondent, he believed [rightly] that the communists were
> out to kill him. He asked Miller for protection, and Miller gave
> him a pistol and a couple of guys to watch his back. (Orwell
> only accepted the pistol.) ..." - Phil Innes (Thu, 04 Dec 2003
> 21:32:55 GMT)
I have no idea if Brennan every actually read Orwell or Miller - but this
anecdote is contained in a biography of Miller, and I already cited Brennan
the source. Jeffrey Meyers, possibly the foremost biographer in Britain.
Brennen demonstrates no intention to be honest - he wishes to decieve people
and cause unnecessary contention among others - especially those who support
progressive elements in chess, those who like women [lol] and strong chess
players generally.
If anyone wanted to profile as the FSS, how much better could they do than
he? Brennan has a pathetic parade of lies. I kid you not - this person is a
malevelent stalker, not just in these newsgroups! He even keeps his record
of lies for years, and his only intent is to rubbish people.
Phil Innes
> _
> "Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Wolfe, Thurber, Vonnegut,
> Updike, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Albee - all
> also-rans in Phil's book." - Neil Brennen (5 Dec 2003
> 02:43:00 -0800)
> _
> _
> "I like Vonnegut, and out-of-period particularly like Hawthorne
> [but not the new bio]. Recently I read Mitchener's Iberia, a
> cultural and travelogue in Spain which he himself thought his
> best work. Mitchener liked Spanish-era Hemingway.
> _
> Fitzgerald is difficult - books you have to read are more
> difficult to assess, but possibly the most elegant writer in
> your group. Of course, and Eliot, though he lived in London.
> ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:39:57 GMT)
> _
> (Mike Murray indicated that his note was a joke.)
> _
> Some quotes from humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
> _
> "Anyone care to guess which HLAS poster wrote the following
> mind-boggling statement?
> _
> 'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
> only American writer of note after Clemens.'"
> - Neil Brennen (6 Dec 2003 15:54:09 -0800)
> _
> _
> "George Orwell! I win :) ..." - Phil Innes (Mon, 08 Dec 2003
> 12:31:42 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... Anyone care to guess which HLAS poster wrote the
> following mind-boggling statement?
> _
> 'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
> only American writer of note after Clemens.'
> _
> ..." - Neil Brennen (Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:09:58 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... Perhaps if he completed my phrase by saying, 'according
> to George Orwell' and the time he wrote it, which was 1945, it
> would have another sense entirely. But of course, although I
> had written that originally, and have mentioned it several times
> since, there is no intention here to be honest. ..." - Phil Innes
> (Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:18:55 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... Those with an IQ greater than their shoe size might note
> than in [the Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:32:55 GMT] posting Innes
> doesn't attribute the rek about Miller to George Orwell.
> Instead he passes it off as his own. ..." - Neil Brennen (Tue,
> 24 Aug 2004 01:16:15 GMT)
> -
> -
> "If there was EVER any doubt that I was quoting Orwell on
> Miller <I did not try to pass it off as my own - it is a
> relatively
> famous quotation!> then that would be removed by some half
> dozen corrections I have made to your claims, introduced to
> completely irrelevant discussions, and intending to defame
> me or other persons. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
> 11:23:17 GMT)
> _
> _
> "I Googled up your old post last night. Neil quoted it exactly.
> No attribution to Orwell was made or implied by you. ...
> _
> If you are now saying that it's an Orwell quote, you might
> give us the title of the essay from which you took it. His
> full-length piece on Miller, 'Inside the Whale', contains no
> quote like that." - Buffalo (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
> 17:40:30 +0000 (UTC))
> _
> _
> "You missed 2 things- the posts around it, and the secondly
> the frequent corrections to Nil's rendering , which avoids any
> context. Besides, he lies when he says I claimed them as
> my own words. If I originally cited Orwell on Miller... then...?
> _
> Why not mention it, or doesn't your curiosity extend that far?
> ...
> Yes I am saying its an Orwell quote - but what matter is it
> to you - what depends on it? ..." - Phil Innes (Tue,
> 24 Aug 2004 20:39:53 GMT)
> _
> _
> "I do not need to look at any corrections to 'Neil's rendering',
> since it wasn't Neil that wrote the original post. I also 'read
> the posts around it' in the rest of the thread and there is
> nothing that connects that quote with George Orwell.
> ...
> You didn't cite Orwell on Miller. You didn't mention Orwell
> until the next paragraph. ..." - Buffalo (Tue, 24 Aug 2004
> 21:30:41 +0000 (UTC))
> _
> _
> "... I said [Neil Brennen] lies that I claimed them as my
> own words. And here you cite the context which directly
> spoke of Orwell, what a curious inquiry you make. ..."
> - Phil Innes (Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:10:19 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... Innes is never going to admit that he did not quote
> Orwell, even though anyone can google his post and
> ascertain that he did not. ..." - Tom Veal (25 Aug 2004
> 16:01:42 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... I do and did claim to quote Orwell! I NEVER claimed not
> to.
> _
> In the same piece of writing both Orwell and Miller are
> mentioned, as they are in the surrounding posts. ...
> ...
> ... It would indeed be a cheap 'deception' to make pretense
> such a statement was my own - and a follish one! Especially
> since on its face it would be immediately challenged as
> peculiar opinion if the circumstances of its writing were not
> that Orwell was its author in 1941 [!] ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
> 26 Aug 2004 12:52:24 GMT)
> _
> _
> "Innes claimed it was a 'quotation' - his word - from Orwell.
> The closest Orwell comes to the Innes-anity is the following
> from Inside the Whale:
> _
> 'Here in my opinion is the only imaginative
> prose-writer of the slightest value who has
> appeared among the English-speaking races
> for some years past. Even if that is objected
> to as an overstatement, it will probably be
> admitted that Miller is a writer out of the
> ordinary, worth more than a single glance ...'
> _
> ..." - Neil Brennen (Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:13:46 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... Did I say it was a quotation or citation from Orwell, or
> about Orwell? ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 27 Aug 2004
> 20:29:19 GMT)
> _
> _
> "Well, here are your exact words, from this very thread:
> _
> 'I do and did claim to quote Orwell! I NEVER
> claimed not to.'
> _
> ..." - David L. Webb (Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:15:01 -0400)
> _
> _
> "Thank you. But this is no answer to the issue. I am quoting
> what Orwell said. This was his statement on Miller. There
> are several reporters of it. But, as mentioned elsewhere, this
> issue has nothing to do with if Orwell ever made this
> statement, but that Nil suggested that I claimed it as my
> own. ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:47:42 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... If you understood the proper use of quotation ks,
> Philsy, then this misunderstanding might never have
> happened. Your fabrication of a Orwell quotation, however,
> is another matter. ..." - Neil Brennen (Sat, 28 Aug 2004
> 13:47:07 GMT)
> _
> (The argument went on through September and into October.)
> _
> Later, back at rec.games.chess.politics:
> _
> "Dear Neil, which 'Quotation' do you wish to know about?
> ..." - Phil Innes (Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:18:41 GMT)
> _
> _
> " 'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
> only American writer of note after Clemens.'
> _
> OK Phil. What is your source for the Orwell 'quotation'? ..."
> - Neil Brennen (30 Nov 2004 17:29:38 -0800)
> _
> _
> "Orwell!" - Phil Innes (Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:41:51 GMT)
> _
> Later:
> _
> "... perhaps you could provide the source of the following:
> _
> 'Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the
> only American writer of note after Clemens.'"
> - Neil Brennen (12 May 2005 05:00:47 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... Orwell made the comment in 1941! ..." - Phil Innes
> (Thu, 12 May 2005 13:16:12 GMT)
> _
> And today we have:
> _
> "... this was a quotation from Orwell's biographer, ..."
> - Phil Innes (Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:53:30 GMT)
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 08:50:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Abuseniks among us
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have no idea if Brennan every actually read Orwell or Miller - but this
> anecdote is contained in a biography of Miller,
wrong! by Meyers, on Orwell, from Miller :)
> and I already cited Brennan the source. Jeffrey Meyers, possibly the
> foremost biographer in Britain.
> Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 19:49:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
WINTER'S BODY OF WORK
Edward Winter has written a couple of essays
that can be called original work. His books are
compilations. He has done virtually no original
history as opposed to original work in antiquarianism.
Readers may consult his "Commentary" in Chess
Exploratons (pp. 216-219) for a sample of what the man
himself evidently regards as his better work. It is
filled with heavy-potato irony and written in
third-rate Victorianese.
"Commentary" is the kind of work that will
occasion praise from an acolyte such as Taylor
Kingston. Readers can judge for themselves.
My view is that the essay is typical Winter
when he moves beyond pure antiquarianism: not very
interesting and intoned more than written.
In the mind of a Greg Kennedy, the only thing that
makes Edward Winter a tad more acceptable than
GM Ray Keene is that the former is a failure in the
ketplace and a weak player. GM Keene is a
best-selling author in chess and other fields as well
as a strong player. Our Greg always hates success.
The truth is that among other works, Keene's
Illustrated History Of Chess is among the finest
ever penned on the royal game. The coffeetable format
is elegant and, quite simply put, beautiful, which is
also enough to occasion the hatred of a Kennedy. In
addition the writing is witty and economical --
indeed, the kind of writing never done by Edward
Winter and other frequent bores about whom Greg pouts
and touts and about.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:68d55bd3-066f-4ac9-8035-35dc3b318828@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 13, 9:07 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You see, while Winter can do as you say, he
> > can also make mistakes - and this is one of them. He is also frankly
> > famous,
> > or better said, infamous, for calling the errors of other people and not
> > owning to his own. The last very great instance of this was Kinpin, where
> > [poetically apt] it was Ray Keene who pointed out so many errors in it,
> > even
> > after 2 and a half years in preparation, that it was withdrawn and
> > corrected.
>
> Winter had nothing to do with that issue of Kingpin, as far as I
> recall. Winter used to be a regular contributor to that magazine, but
> that ceased several years aso. Jonathan Manley is the editor of
> Kingpin. When printer's errors were discovered in that issue, Manley
> got them corrected ASAP, and corrected copies were sent to subscribers
> who had received faulty ones.
>
> **though Winter contributed to it, Taylor, and criticised it not.
>
> So, as far as "owning to his own errors," these particular errors
> (1) were not by Edward Winter at all, and (2) were immediately "owned
> to" and rectified.
>
> ** Sure, tis merely human to do so. The point I think is about whited
> sepulchres.
>
> Winter has always been willing to publish corrections when
> appropriate. For example, an early Chess Notes dealt with a story
> about combined chess-and-billiards match between Capablanca and a pool-
> player named Hagenlocher. The prize supposedly was an ivory trophy, a
> cue-ball surmonted by a chess knight. Winter at first believed the
> story to be factual, but soon after evidence surfaced that it was a
> hoax. Winter published full details.
>
> **In the previously referenced bio of Capa, is there in the index any
> reference to the author of 'Mea Cuba', who reported on the character of
> Capalnaca from a Cuban perspective? I see you omit [without notice you do
> so] the references I make to Life Studies - in criticsim of Winter - as if
> you prefer a curator-mode.
>
> **That is a significant ommission, which creates a certain division in any
> reporting. And this, regarding Winter, is the whole of it.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 02:24:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 14, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote:
> That is a fair example of the "historical standards" of Parr. That
> he has the sheer, unmitigated impudence to adversely comment on Mr
> Winter's historical research and conclusion-drawing defies belief -
> except to those of us who read Chess Life during his infamous reign.
AFAIK, there were no therapy classes and so
the burden of "getting over it" fell upon the hapless
victims themselves. Many still show symptoms... .
> For the sake of posterity - are you truly this stupid, Parr, or is
> it an act? Your illogic denies you any right to make any commentary
> whatever on Mr. Winter, who is a historian, a researcher and someone
> whose logical function is unimpaired. What does Lady Parr see in you?
As Olive Oyle observed of Bluto in the movie
Popeye: he's l-a-r-g-e. L-a-r-g-e!
> The orang-utan is long extinct in the jungle in Malaysia, and is only
> seen over the chessboard. Is that the answer? Was one your love rival?
What about Borneo? Handsome devils those
beefy red-heads. But LP is taller, and in a nice
suit, well, you know what they say: clothes
make the man.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Winter's valid criticisms seem to make
the Evans ratpackers *very* uncomfortable; this
is probably because they know deep down that
their own idols are so vulnerable. That leaves
but one "rational" response: kill the messenger!
Edward Winter must not only be "assassinated",
but even those who dare mention his name or
his valid criticisms must themselves be attacked.
War is hell.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 09:55:03
From:
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 13 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> WINTER'S BODY OF WORK
>
> Edward Winter has written a couple of essays
> that can be called original work. His books are
> compilations. He has done virtually no original
> history
Surely we cannot take seriously the views of one like Parr the
Mediocre, capable as he is of the following monumental stupidity..
@@ quote Parr (11/21/07 207.200.116.10) @@
> Did Bobby Fischer have a wife and
> chldren? No.
> What about Alexander Alekhine? Nyet.
> -- Greg Kennedy
>
> Gregbot strikes again!
> ".. in 1956 his body was reinterred in Montparnasse cemetary.
> The ceremony was attended by ALEKHINE'S SON [my emphasis]
> by Anneliese Ruegg .."
@@ stop quote Parr (11/21/07 207.200.116.10) @@
Only Parr, who evidently believes that there is something called
"perjurying", who cannot spell "cemetery" and who does not know
very much at all except in his inappropriately-quoted dead tongues,
believes that the existence of Alekhine's bastard indicates that
Alekhine had "a wife and children" or even "a wife and child" or
even "a wife and a child other than of Alekhine and the wife".
That is a fair example of the "historical standards" of Parr. That
he has the sheer, unmitigated impudence to adversely comment on Mr
Winter's historical research and conclusion-drawing defies belief -
except to those of us who read Chess Life during his infamous reign.
For the sake of posterity - are you truly this stupid, Parr, or is
it an act? Your illogic denies you any right to make any commentary
whatever on Mr. Winter, who is a historian, a researcher and someone
whose logical function is unimpaired. What does Lady Parr see in you?
The orang-utan is long extinct in the jungle in Malaysia, and is only
seen over the chessboard. Is that the answer? Was one your love rival?
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 10:01:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
EDDIE WINTER CAN DISH IT OUT BUT....
<Winter has always been willing to publish corrections when
appropriate. > -- Taylor Kingston
Here is what IM Anthony Saidy noted: "I valued Edward Winter's
diligent
work and subscribed to his Chess Notes until it went out of business
in
1989. I was grateful to him for pointing out an embarrassing error in
my book The World Of Chess (where I missed the location of Cambridge
Springs only by the width of the Atlantic Ocean). We corresponded for
several years. However, when I had the audacity to correct one of his
errors in translating a Spanish phrase, his huffy reply indicated
that
he was alien to the concept of receiving constructive criticism. I
stopped writing after this incident."
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 13, 9:07?am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You see, while Winter can do as you say, he
> > can also make mistakes - and this is one of them. He is also frankly famous,
> > or better said, infamous, for calling the errors of other people and not
> > owning to his own. The last very great instance of this was Kinpin, where
> > [poetically apt] it was Ray Keene who pointed out so many errors in it, even
> > after 2 and a half years in preparation, that it was withdrawn and
> > corrected.
>
> Winter had nothing to do with that issue of Kingpin, as far as I
> recall. Winter used to be a regular contributor to that magazine, but
> that ceased several years aso. Jonathan Manley is the editor of
> Kingpin. When printer's errors were discovered in that issue, Manley
> got them corrected ASAP, and corrected copies were sent to subscribers
> who had received faulty ones.
> So, as far as "owning to his own errors," these particular errors
> (1) were not by Edward Winter at all, and (2) were immediately "owned
> to" and rectified.
> Winter has always been willing to publish corrections when
> appropriate. For example, an early Chess Notes dealt with a story
> about combined chess-and-billiards match between Capablanca and a pool-
> player named Hagenlocher. The prize supposedly was an ivory trophy, a
> cue-ball surmonted by a chess knight. Winter at first believed the
> story to be factual, but soon after evidence surfaced that it was a
> hoax. Winter published full details.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 08:41:03
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 13, 9:07=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You see, while Winter can do as you say, he
> can also make mistakes - and this is one of them. He is also frankly famou=
s,
> or better said, infamous, for calling the errors of other people and not
> owning to his own. The last very great instance of this was Kinpin, where
> [poetically apt] it was Ray Keene who pointed out so many errors in it, ev=
en
> after 2 and a half years in preparation, that it was withdrawn and
> corrected.
Winter had nothing to do with that issue of Kingpin, as far as I
recall. Winter used to be a regular contributor to that magazine, but
that ceased several years aso. Jonathan Manley is the editor of
Kingpin. When printer's errors were discovered in that issue, Manley
got them corrected ASAP, and corrected copies were sent to subscribers
who had received faulty ones.
So, as far as "owning to his own errors," these particular errors
(1) were not by Edward Winter at all, and (2) were immediately "owned
to" and rectified.
Winter has always been willing to publish corrections when
appropriate. For example, an early Chess Notes dealt with a story
about combined chess-and-billiards match between Capablanca and a pool-
player named Hagenlocher. The prize supposedly was an ivory trophy, a
cue-ball surmonted by a chess knight. Winter at first believed the
story to be factual, but soon after evidence surfaced that it was a
hoax. Winter published full details.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 17:53:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:68d55bd3-066f-4ac9-8035-35dc3b318828@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 13, 9:07 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You see, while Winter can do as you say, he
> can also make mistakes - and this is one of them. He is also frankly
> famous,
> or better said, infamous, for calling the errors of other people and not
> owning to his own. The last very great instance of this was Kinpin, where
> [poetically apt] it was Ray Keene who pointed out so many errors in it,
> even
> after 2 and a half years in preparation, that it was withdrawn and
> corrected.
Winter had nothing to do with that issue of Kingpin, as far as I
recall. Winter used to be a regular contributor to that magazine, but
that ceased several years aso. Jonathan Manley is the editor of
Kingpin. When printer's errors were discovered in that issue, Manley
got them corrected ASAP, and corrected copies were sent to subscribers
who had received faulty ones.
**though Winter contributed to it, Taylor, and criticised it not.
So, as far as "owning to his own errors," these particular errors
(1) were not by Edward Winter at all, and (2) were immediately "owned
to" and rectified.
** Sure, tis merely human to do so. The point I think is about whited
sepulchres.
Winter has always been willing to publish corrections when
appropriate. For example, an early Chess Notes dealt with a story
about combined chess-and-billiards match between Capablanca and a pool-
player named Hagenlocher. The prize supposedly was an ivory trophy, a
cue-ball surmonted by a chess knight. Winter at first believed the
story to be factual, but soon after evidence surfaced that it was a
hoax. Winter published full details.
**In the previously referenced bio of Capa, is there in the index any
reference to the author of 'Mea Cuba', who reported on the character of
Capalnaca from a Cuban perspective? I see you omit [without notice you do
so] the references I make to Life Studies - in criticsim of Winter - as if
you prefer a curator-mode.
**That is a significant ommission, which creates a certain division in any
reporting. And this, regarding Winter, is the whole of it.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 07:26:02
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 13, 3:39 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 9:29 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > But Winter would rather expunge, than improve.
>
> Typically for him, nearly-Innes has somehow managed to
> get himself terribly confused on a rather simple matter.
>
> The elimination of "quotations" which have no known
> source *is* an improvement! Only by eliminating fake
> "quotes", can the real ones be distinguished from invented
> or mis-attributed anecdotes. It's a *quality* thing, which
> Evans ratpackers just can't seem to grok.
Especially P Innes, who manufactures quotations whenever he needs one.
Witness his witless 'quotation' from George Orwell that he attempted
to impress us with a couple of years ago.
> > > This would be somewhat more
> > > acceptible if the man didn't make a living from other chess writers in=
the
> > > first place,
>
> For a man who spends considerable time complaining
> about others being abuseniks, our nearly-an-IM seems
> to enjoy the sport *more than most*.
He has to do something. Perhaps that's his contribution to chess,
living life as a negative example.
> > Phil, what do you know about how EW makes a living? Not much, if you
> > think it's from chess.
>
> > > and instead did more original research himself.
>
> > Phil, with all due respect, either you are badly unfamiliar with
> > Winter's works, or you are getting carried away rhetorically here.
> > Saying that Winter has not done original research is like saying
> > Jacques Cousteau was afraid of deep water. For a start, I'd recommend
> > you take a look at "Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes,
> > Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations, and Other Rare Archival
> > Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jos=E9 Ra=FAl Capablanca, 1888-1942.=
"
> > 349 pages, deeply researched.
>
> Here is where we separate the wannabe critics from
> the ad hominists.
>
> While most of Larry Parr's complaints regarding EWs
> merciless near-assassination of Larry Evans strained to
> find a leg to stand on, an *obvious* weakness was
> simply overlooked; in one of his reviews, Mr. Winter
> offered a "random sampling" of errors, but closer
> examination reveals that he deliberately chose to look
> at material relating to his forte: former champion Jose
> Capablanca! Coincidence? I think not. It appears a
> dishonest ploy to state that he could easily spot as
> many errors on any subject, but then to single out the
> one area where his recent work placed him at a huge
> advantage. If one is familiar with the quality of EW's
> research, this advantage over the typical hack writer
> being reviewed is impossible to miss. A glance at the
> published books by EW reveals that of all subjects, the
> odds of "randomly" stumbling into Jose Capablanca are
> about a thousand to one; his other books deal with a
> wide variety of subjects, like an encyclopedia; but JC
> was singled out a for a whole volume, dedicated just
> to him.
I can't agree. Is this the review you had in mind?
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html
If so, re-read it. Winter trashes the book for more than just Capa
errors.
> When you add this sort of thing to a few details
> pointed out by a desperate and fuming Larry Parr, it
> becomes clear that EW can at times be less than
> fair, less than honest. And yet, the Evans ratpackers
> are not miffed about that; they are fuming because of
> the fact that among the many hacks targeted by EW
> are two of the titans of misinformation: Ray Keene and
> Larry Evans. They also sting with pain whenever Gary
> Kasparov's most recent gaffes are pointed out; and in
> that regard, I predict their moaning and groaning will
> (almost) never end.
>
> -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 11:10:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
Brennan's lying is at about the same level as his comprehension - in fact,
they seem to be related. 6 years of stalking and writing trash qualify his
personal contributions to chess and literature to the dumpster of history -
that is, if it could all fit into one dumptster. Indeed the chief abusenik
of chess achieves the height of dumbth. Phil Innes
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 13, 3:39 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 9:29 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > But Winter would rather expunge, than improve.
>
> Typically for him, nearly-Innes has somehow managed to
> get himself terribly confused on a rather simple matter.
>
> The elimination of "quotations" which have no known
> source *is* an improvement! Only by eliminating fake
> "quotes", can the real ones be distinguished from invented
> or mis-attributed anecdotes. It's a *quality* thing, which
> Evans ratpackers just can't seem to grok.
Especially P Innes, who manufactures quotations whenever he needs one.
Witness his witless 'quotation' from George Orwell that he attempted
to impress us with a couple of years ago.
> > > This would be somewhat more
> > > acceptible if the man didn't make a living from other chess writers in
> > > the
> > > first place,
>
> For a man who spends considerable time complaining
> about others being abuseniks, our nearly-an-IM seems
> to enjoy the sport *more than most*.
He has to do something. Perhaps that's his contribution to chess,
living life as a negative example.
> > Phil, what do you know about how EW makes a living? Not much, if you
> > think it's from chess.
>
> > > and instead did more original research himself.
>
> > Phil, with all due respect, either you are badly unfamiliar with
> > Winter's works, or you are getting carried away rhetorically here.
> > Saying that Winter has not done original research is like saying
> > Jacques Cousteau was afraid of deep water. For a start, I'd recommend
> > you take a look at "Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes,
> > Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations, and Other Rare Archival
> > Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jos� Ra�l Capablanca, 1888-1942."
> > 349 pages, deeply researched.
>
> Here is where we separate the wannabe critics from
> the ad hominists.
>
> While most of Larry Parr's complaints regarding EWs
> merciless near-assassination of Larry Evans strained to
> find a leg to stand on, an *obvious* weakness was
> simply overlooked; in one of his reviews, Mr. Winter
> offered a "random sampling" of errors, but closer
> examination reveals that he deliberately chose to look
> at material relating to his forte: former champion Jose
> Capablanca! Coincidence? I think not. It appears a
> dishonest ploy to state that he could easily spot as
> many errors on any subject, but then to single out the
> one area where his recent work placed him at a huge
> advantage. If one is familiar with the quality of EW's
> research, this advantage over the typical hack writer
> being reviewed is impossible to miss. A glance at the
> published books by EW reveals that of all subjects, the
> odds of "randomly" stumbling into Jose Capablanca are
> about a thousand to one; his other books deal with a
> wide variety of subjects, like an encyclopedia; but JC
> was singled out a for a whole volume, dedicated just
> to him.
I can't agree. Is this the review you had in mind?
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html
If so, re-read it. Winter trashes the book for more than just Capa
errors.
> When you add this sort of thing to a few details
> pointed out by a desperate and fuming Larry Parr, it
> becomes clear that EW can at times be less than
> fair, less than honest. And yet, the Evans ratpackers
> are not miffed about that; they are fuming because of
> the fact that among the many hacks targeted by EW
> are two of the titans of misinformation: Ray Keene and
> Larry Evans. They also sting with pain whenever Gary
> Kasparov's most recent gaffes are pointed out; and in
> that regard, I predict their moaning and groaning will
> (almost) never end.
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 07:10:16
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 13, 9:07 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
You see, while Winter can do as you say, he
> can also make mistakes - and this is one of them. He is also frankly famous,
> or better said, infamous, for calling the errors of other people and not
> owning to his own. The last very great instance of this was Kinpin, where
> [poetically apt] it was Ray Keene who pointed out so many errors in it, even
> after 2 and a half years in preparation, that it was withdrawn and
> corrected.
Speaking of errors, P Innes is under the strange delusion that Edward
Winter is editor and publisher of Kingpin. Let's see if he "owns to
his own" mistake.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 00:39:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 12, 9:29 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > But Winter would rather expunge, than improve.
Typically for him, nearly-Innes has somehow managed to
get himself terribly confused on a rather simple matter.
The elimination of "quotations" which have no known
source *is* an improvement! Only by eliminating fake
"quotes", can the real ones be distinguished from invented
or mis-attributed anecdotes. It's a *quality* thing, which
Evans ratpackers just can't seem to grok.
> > This would be somewhat more
> > acceptible if the man didn't make a living from other chess writers in t=
he
> > first place,
For a man who spends considerable time complaining
about others being abuseniks, our nearly-an-IM seems
to enjoy the sport *more than most*.
> Phil, what do you know about how EW makes a living? Not much, if you
> think it's from chess.
>
> > and instead did more original research himself.
>
> Phil, with all due respect, either you are badly unfamiliar with
> Winter's works, or you are getting carried away rhetorically here.
> Saying that Winter has not done original research is like saying
> Jacques Cousteau was afraid of deep water. For a start, I'd recommend
> you take a look at "Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes,
> Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations, and Other Rare Archival
> Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jos=E9 Ra=FAl Capablanca, 1888-1942."
> 349 pages, deeply researched.
Here is where we separate the wannabe critics from
the ad hominists.
While most of Larry Parr's complaints regarding EWs
merciless near-assassination of Larry Evans strained to
find a leg to stand on, an *obvious* weakness was
simply overlooked; in one of his reviews, Mr. Winter
offered a "random sampling" of errors, but closer
examination reveals that he deliberately chose to look
at material relating to his forte: former champion Jose
Capablanca! Coincidence? I think not. It appears a
dishonest ploy to state that he could easily spot as
many errors on any subject, but then to single out the
one area where his recent work placed him at a huge
advantage. If one is familiar with the quality of EW's
research, this advantage over the typical hack writer
being reviewed is impossible to miss. A glance at the
published books by EW reveals that of all subjects, the
odds of "randomly" stumbling into Jose Capablanca are
about a thousand to one; his other books deal with a
wide variety of subjects, like an encyclopedia; but JC
was singled out a for a whole volume, dedicated just
to him.
When you add this sort of thing to a few details
pointed out by a desperate and fuming Larry Parr, it
becomes clear that EW can at times be less than
fair, less than honest. And yet, the Evans ratpackers
are not miffed about that; they are fuming because of
the fact that among the many hacks targeted by EW
are two of the titans of misinformation: Ray Keene and
Larry Evans. They also sting with pain whenever Gary
Kasparov's most recent gaffes are pointed out; and in
that regard, I predict their moaning and groaning will
(almost) never end.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jan 2008 09:07:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 12, 9:29 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > But Winter would rather expunge, than improve.
Typically for him, nearly-Innes has somehow managed to
get himself terribly confused on a rather simple matter.
The elimination of "quotations" which have no known
source *is* an improvement! Only by eliminating fake
"quotes", can the real ones be distinguished from invented
or mis-attributed anecdotes.
**I am not sure how to answer this without explicit insult to the writer's
intelligence. It is not /presented/ as a fake quote by Winter, as I
understand it, it is an /unattributed/ quote. Now... even Mr. Winter cannot
prove it is fake, since you cannot prove a negative. For his purposes he
merely needed to add the 2 words I suggested about its /attribution/.
It's a *quality* thing, which
Evans ratpackers just can't seem to grok.
> > This would be somewhat more
> > acceptible if the man didn't make a living from other chess writers in
> > the
> > first place,
For a man who spends considerable time complaining
about others being abuseniks, our nearly-an-IM seems
to enjoy the sport *more than most*.
**I think abuseniks are by their nature, non-contributors to chess
discussions - they are out of work miserable old fishwives - who rather than
comment on chess, comment on those who comment on chess, except for some
necessary tokenism. In addition, they themselves insist on saying this is
OK - but in this and other newsgroups, people detest their use of this
media. But perhaps these differences are too subtle for those who also
cannot understand the difference between amend and expunge. Certainly, Louis
Blair can't do it [re Wikipedia]. But he is *special*.
> Phil, what do you know about how EW makes a living? Not much, if you
> think it's from chess.
I have encountered him here and there! Last time was snooping around
Adorjan. But otherwise, true, I have no idea how he makes a living, and am
not interested in that - it is literally, none of my business. But his chess
writing is.
> > and instead did more original research himself.
>
> Phil, with all due respect, either you are badly unfamiliar with
> Winter's works, or you are getting carried away rhetorically here.
> Saying that Winter has not done original research is like saying
> Jacques Cousteau was afraid of deep water.
**I would challenge the 'ept-ness' of that metaphor. In terms of chess play,
I'm not sure Winter ever got into the water above his knees. You know, one
of the interesting things about discussing chess with strong players is that
they all agree - practically every one - even those that don't agree with
each other on much else - that the atmosphere of playing is very important
indeed. The preparations, tensions, venue, then the battle-in-time, have a
huge effect on them. Without taking that into account you can't determine
much why anthing happens.
> For a start, I'd recommend
> you take a look at "Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes,
> Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations, and Other Rare Archival
> Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jos� Ra�l Capablanca, 1888-1942."
> 349 pages, deeply researched.
**I did not say 'no' original research, but /more/ original research - if
Winter was a biographer, he would fail to grasp what is really esential
about his subject, which is this performance and competitive aspect of their
life mentioned above - and its necessary drama. As it is his presentations
are on the level of archivist, or museum curator. That is a substantial
difference. I think these comments are merited because even with living
subjects he fails to understand what really juices strong players - which,
as ani fule no - are not typographic errors from their reports. In this
instance the /more/ would certainly include a wider scan of the chess
spectrum, which is to say, a more qualitative appreciation of chess, rather
than just more dusty old archival materials.
Here is where we separate the wannabe critics from
the ad hominists.
While most of Larry Parr's complaints regarding EWs
merciless near-assassination of Larry Evans strained to
find a leg to stand on, an *obvious* weakness was
simply overlooked; in one of his reviews, Mr. Winter
offered a "random sampling" of errors, but closer
**Hold-up a minute! THIS issue is not an abstract nor generalised one. It is
much simpler. And there is no real answer to my suggestion, which I think a
reasonable person would hold is worth making - that Winter's comment is
justified, but so is his correction to the comment /indicated/ unless he
would be seen to carp. Suggesting that the comment be expunged because it
does not please a curator's need to attribute the comment rather limits the
curator's understanding of what chess is about - since even as apocrypha,
their is chess intelligence in the comment. I suggest most real chess
players will be first interested in the verity of that intelligence, rather
than worry overmuch if Znosko-Bosky or his Grandmother wrote it.
examination reveals that he deliberately chose to look
at material relating to his forte: former champion Jose
Capablanca! Coincidence? I think not. It appears a
dishonest ploy to state that he could easily spot as
many errors on any subject, but then to single out the
one area where his recent work placed him at a huge
advantage. If one is familiar with the quality of EW's
research, this advantage over the typical hack writer
being reviewed is impossible to miss. A glance at the
published books by EW reveals that of all subjects, the
odds of "randomly" stumbling into Jose Capablanca are
about a thousand to one; his other books deal with a
wide variety of subjects, like an encyclopedia; but JC
was singled out a for a whole volume, dedicated just
to him.
**I think you will not want to argue from the general to the particular, as
if to expunge the particular. You see, while Winter can do as you say, he
can also make mistakes - and this is one of them. He is also frankly famous,
or better said, infamous, for calling the errors of other people and not
owning to his own. The last very great instance of this was Kinpin, where
[poetically apt] it was Ray Keene who pointed out so many errors in it, even
after 2 and a half years in preparation, that it was withdrawn and
corrected. I simply think Mr. Winter should join the human race with a
little more enthusiasm, and not peer out at it from his musuem window, ever
restating his unlikeable reservations about the people he reports upon.
When you add this sort of thing to a few details
pointed out by a desperate and fuming Larry Parr, it
becomes clear that EW can at times be less than
fair, less than honest. And yet, the Evans ratpackers
are not miffed about that; they are fuming because of
the fact that among the many hacks targeted by EW
are two of the titans of misinformation: Ray Keene and
Larry Evans.
**Actually, I see as many gaffes in their books as in others - but it has
been Winter's self-appointed task to annoint them with such titles - though,
perhaps he doesn;t read as widely as I do, being somewhat fixated? ;)
Winter needs some demons out there to be superior to, but he possesses these
two failings of not owning his own mistakes, and of taking what for most of
us is a live performance art and competition, and fossilising it, drying it
out so that whatever life remains is hardly recognisable any more.
Phil Innes
---
They also sting with pain whenever Gary
Kasparov's most recent gaffes are pointed out; and in
that regard, I predict their moaning and groaning will
(almost) never end.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2008 13:36:43
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Chess One <[email protected] > wrote:
[...]
>as ani fule no - are not typographic errors [...]
Can we have this right, please? "As any fule kno" is the
correct spelling, as any fule kno.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Jan 2008 09:36:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
"Andy Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>>as ani fule no - are not typographic errors [...]
>
> Can we have this right, please? "As any fule kno" is the
> correct spelling, as any fule kno.
A sensible addition, though regretably creating an error with 'any'. Aniway,
according to the Encyclopedia of Fools, Daft-as-a-Brush Special Supplemental
Ed. for the Americas, vol 7, 2003, Clippity-Klop Publishing Int'l.,
Wilkes-Barre;
the correct rendition is:
as ani f�l kno
please make a knowt of it, though from an anthropogical point of view,
therefore spelling is reliant on usage, not dictionaries, there for people
to enter in, and there's knowt as queer as folk, kno?
Coriggidor! Phil Innes
> --
> Andy Walker
> Nottingham
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2008 10:36:50
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 12, 2:29 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:48 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phil, what do you know about how EW makes a living? Not much, if you
> think it's from chess.
Edward Winter's actual meti=E9r is Air Traffic Controller.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2008 06:29:09
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 12, 7:48=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> But Winter would rather expunge, than improve. This would be somewhat more=
> acceptible if the man didn't make a living from other chess writers in the=
> first place,
Phil, what do you know about how EW makes a living? Not much, if you
think it's from chess.
> and instead did more original research himself.
Phil, with all due respect, either you are badly unfamiliar with
Winter's works, or you are getting carried away rhetorically here.
Saying that Winter has not done original research is like saying
Jacques Cousteau was afraid of deep water. For a start, I'd recommend
you take a look at "Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes,
Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations, and Other Rare Archival
Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jos=E9 Ra=FAl Capablanca, 1888-1942."
349 pages, deeply researched.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 04:18:11
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 10, 10:00 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've thought of a phrase that Kasparov could have used:
>
> > "There is a humorous and appropriate quotation from the world of
> > chess associated with this phenomenon. However, authorship of the
> > quotation cannot be ascribed with certainty and it has therefore
> > been expunged from this book."
>
> He could have said something like `There is an old story of a master
> being asked how many moves ahead he saw when playing and replying that
> he saw only one move ahead, but always the correct one.' After all,
> it is true that there is such a story and by using reported, rather
> than direct, speech, it's not so important that he use the most common
> phrasing.
That's exactly what I thought. But EW says: "No source is given, of
course, because none is known and that of itself should have resulted
in the quote being expunged."
EW is clear in his opinion: if there is no source then the quote
cannot be used.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 13:53:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> He could have said something like `There is an old story of a
>> master being asked how many moves ahead he saw when playing and
>> replying that he saw only one move ahead, but always the correct
>> one.'
>
> That's exactly what I thought. But EW says: "No source is given, of
> course, because none is known and that of itself should have
> resulted in the quote being expunged."
> EW is clear in his opinion: if there is no source then the quote
> cannot be used.
It can't be used _as_a_quote_ without a source. Without a source,
there is no evidence at all that the person to whom the words are
attributed ever said or wrote them. Without a source, it's not a
quote because nothing is being quoted.
But my suggested text didn't use it as a quote.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Frozen Priest (TM): it's like a man of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ the cloth but it's frozen in a block
of ice!
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2008 07:48:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:F3t*[email protected]...
> Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> He could have said something like `There is an old story of a
>>> master being asked how many moves ahead he saw when playing and
>>> replying that he saw only one move ahead, but always the correct
>>> one.'
>>
>> That's exactly what I thought. But EW says: "No source is given, of
>> course, because none is known and that of itself should have
>> resulted in the quote being expunged."
>> EW is clear in his opinion: if there is no source then the quote
>> cannot be used.
>
> It can't be used _as_a_quote_ without a source. Without a source,
> there is no evidence at all that the person to whom the words are
> attributed ever said or wrote them. Without a source, it's not a
> quote because nothing is being quoted.
>
> But my suggested text didn't use it as a quote.
Yes. To use it as a quotation, just 2 extra words are necessary:
"There is an old, perhaps apochryphal, story of a master being asked how
many moves ahead he saw when playing and replying that he saw only one move
ahead, but always the correct one."
The trouble with Winter's bleak, indeed wintry commentaries on the works of
others - not exactly pro-active [!] is that he could have made the same
suggestion himself, to improve the quotation toward his own point. Because
the quotation has no known attribution, does not make it untrue! But left to
Winter it would dissapear and be 'expunged' forever from a chess history -
because Winter can't bother to suggest his /own/ contribution to chess by
adding those 2 little words which satisfy his own condition.
But Winter would rather expunge, than improve. This would be somewhat more
acceptible if the man didn't make a living from other chess writers in the
first place, and instead did more original research himself. But I suppose
that is a harder-won celebrity than this, so frequent flea-on-the-dog
criticism.
Phil Innes
((The word apocryphal means variously; of uncertain authority or credit ;
fictitious ; non-canonical. Its origin is evidently Biblical, of those books
admitted into the bible and those not, which was a /selection/ process among
materials deemed fit, rather than materials thought to be of uncertain
origin [which would be very many indeed.]))
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Frozen Priest (TM): it's like a
> man of
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ the cloth but it's frozen in a
> block
> of ice!
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 18:54:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 10, 10:00 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > My own thinking is that EW spends a bit too much
> > time nitpicking the hacks. What if... he instead began
> > to churn out quality material of his own, en masse?
>
> You're joking, right Greg? High-quality works can't be "churned out
> en masse." Mass churning is the province of hacks like Schiller. But
> besides "nitpicking the hacks," Edward Winter has managed to produce a
> lot of "quality material," at least five major books plus much else.
I was not thinking of a book-a-day, nor even of a
book-a-week, like the most prolific hacks manage.
Just a variety of works on a variety of chess
subjects, knocked out at a decent pace. As far
as I know, EW has only a few books out, in spite
of him being as old as the hills, as gray as the
whiskers on my face. This is obviously because
so much of his time is allocated to skewering the
countless errors of hack writers like Ray Keene.
Yet time has demonstrated that these critiques
in no way discourage the hacks, whose stuff still
dominates the shelves, and probably always will
in our lifetimes.
Look, "Liberty" Ray Keene is the fastest draw,
and no one dares go up against him-- not even
John Wayne (not in a fair fight, that is). He can
only be taken down by a side-shot, made from
behind dense cover. I suggest putting some
competitive works alongside his on the shelves,
and let the chips fall where they may. Those
whose standards are nonexistent can buy up
the latest potboilers by RK and ES, while those
who set the bar above the ground will have
another choice, the difference being like night
and day.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 17:32:08
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 10, 5:00=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
>
> It seems to me that Kasparov's books often suffer from his use of
> Russian sources for non-Russian quotations. =A0For example, in the
> introduction to volume V of _On My Great Predecessors_, he says
> something like `Nature cannot stand an empty space'[1]. =A0Clearly, this
> is the result of taking the phrase `Nature abhors a vacuum' and
> translating it into English, via Russian.
That's very true, Dave. As I pointed out in reviewing volume 2 of
MGP here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review413.pdf
GK was clearly misquoting originally English sources from having read
them in Russian translation.
> =A0I fear there may be even
> more extreme cases where a quote in, say, German, has been popularized
> in an English translation, then translated into Russian from the
> English and then translated back into English for the English edition
> of the book. =A0That is pure worst-case-scenario speculation, but the
> likely best-case scenario is that such a quotation has gone from
> German to Russian to English.
Having reviewed umpteen zillion chess books, I can affirm that what
you describe is all too common. Another example: http://www.chesscafe.com/te=
xt/review435.pdf
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 07:00:54
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 10, 12:53=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 My own thinking is that EW spends a bit too much
> time nitpicking the hacks. =A0What if... he instead began
> to churn out quality material of his own, en masse?
You're joking, right Greg? High-quality works can't be "churned out
en masse." Mass churning is the province of hacks like Schiller. But
besides "nitpicking the hacks," Edward Winter has managed to produce a
lot of "quality material," at least five major books plus much else.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 05:18:04
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
I've thought of a phrase that Kasparov could have used:
"There is a humorous and appropriate quotation from the world of chess
associated with this phenomenon. However, authorship of the quotation
cannot be ascribed with certainty and it has therefore been expunged
from this book."
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 22:00:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> I've thought of a phrase that Kasparov could have used:
>
> "There is a humorous and appropriate quotation from the world of
> chess associated with this phenomenon. However, authorship of the
> quotation cannot be ascribed with certainty and it has therefore
> been expunged from this book."
He could have said something like `There is an old story of a master
being asked how many moves ahead he saw when playing and replying that
he saw only one move ahead, but always the correct one.' After all,
it is true that there is such a story and by using reported, rather
than direct, speech, it's not so important that he use the most common
phrasing.
It seems to me that Kasparov's books often suffer from his use of
Russian sources for non-Russian quotations. For example, in the
introduction to volume V of _On My Great Predecessors_, he says
something like `Nature cannot stand an empty space'[1]. Clearly, this
is the result of taking the phrase `Nature abhors a vacuum' and
translating it into English, via Russian. I fear there may be even
more extreme cases where a quote in, say, German, has been popularized
in an English translation, then translated into Russian from the
English and then translated back into English for the English edition
of the book. That is pure worst-case-scenario speculation, but the
likely best-case scenario is that such a quotation has gone from
German to Russian to English.
Dave.
[1] I think i's volume V. Sorry for the vagueness but my copy is
currently packed in a box and not easily accessible.
--
David Richerby Aluminium Tool (TM): it's like a handy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool that's really light!
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 21:53:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 9, 11:36 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > 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?
Apparently, Mr. Parr positively *fumes* whenever
Edward Winter lands a blow against mediocrity.
One can only assume this is a knee-jerk reaction,
out of /fear/ that Larry Evans might become the next
victim.
My own thinking is that EW spends a bit too much
time nitpicking the hacks. What if... he instead began
to churn out quality material of his own, en masse?
What if he became a ghost-writer, partnering with
someone who is lazy, but who just needs some
spiffying up in order to ascend to great-writer status?
What if ...someone like EW, who cares so much
about the quality of chess writing, could begin to give
readers a real choice between the hack material which
dominates shelves now, and something of a higher
caliber? Then we could choose... good or evil. As it
is now, no one even dares to reach for their gun-- an
act of suicide, you understand.
Perhaps I'm dreaming. Perhaps the historians will
never be able to write mainstream chess stuff, but
always remain trapped in their peculiar world of the
study of now-yellowed minutia. Perhaps it doesn't
really matter; all people buy these days are tomes
on sharp sub-variations of the Sicilian Defense,
hoping to memorize their way to victory.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 21:27:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 9, 9:54 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:00 am, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I normally agree with everything Edward Winter says
EW: "I hate shellfish."
Offramp: "I agree. Edward Winter hates shellfish!"
> > The quote should have been expunged!? I think that is a bit drastic
> > for a neat phrase (which I thought was by R=E9ti, 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=E9ti is further
> evidence of the confusion about such things among the general chess
> public.
Not so fast. The general chess public is not
necessarily represented well by this particular
posting. I expect most chess players would
not make the mistake of attributing this phrase
to Mr. Reti.
> What you probably had in mind there is from "Modern Ideas in
> Chess" where on page 5 R=E9ti 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=E9ti'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.
The point is that this "quote", however worded, is
normally attributed to Jose Capablanca, not RR.
I have seen this story about as often as the ones
regarding Paul Morphy and "women's shoes".
Other "quotes" are tossed out which mention how
deeply JC's predecessor's may have claimed to
calculate, and these are contrasted with JC's
supposed answer of only one move.
By pointing out that no definitive source exists
for this quote, EW satisfies his psychological
need to feel superior. But the real story here is
that even such "authoritative experts" as Gary
Kasparov often just write stuff off-the-cuff, with no
particular expertise whatever. As with the many
hacks who have repeated the stories Paul Morphy
and women's shoes, the vast majority of chess
books are filled with misinformation by their lazy
but successful creators.
IMO, EW is fighting a losing battle; the hacks
will continue to prevail, just as they always have.
Only if and when the mass media, so to speak,
prominently take a stand against mediocre-quality
writing in chess, will any progress be made in
this area. I'm not holding my breath... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 11:24:16
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 9, 1:51=A0pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> A businessman is not buying this book in order to find out who said he
> only saw one move ahead!
True, and a relevant point I can appreciate. However, Winter is
rather inflexible in this regard; he rarely or never adjusts his
standards based on a book's target audience.
Regarding your story below, Alan, I'm a bit unclear on a few points.
Are you saying Keene reported the "slugger" comment by Leko as fact?
And aren't you, Offramp, and Alan O'Brien the same person? Where below
it says "I was curious as to where 'Offramp' had obtained the quote,'
is it you or Keene speaking?
> But an important thing is that Kasparov's book is not a chess book. It
> is a book about now to succeed in bizniz. It is a book in the same
> league as The Leadership Secrets of Julius Caesar.
> So a company exec (of any company except USCF) is not going to expect
> a quote such as this:
> "'A true slugger will always swing for the fences'*"
> and then a footnote:
> *after the fourth game of the 2004 Kramnik v Leko match in Brissago
> Peter Leko declared:
>
> =A0 =A0 'My cousin Sammy told me a true slugger - a Szeged slugger - will
> always swing for the fences, and that is exactly what I am going to
> do. I am going to knock Kramnik out of the room with my "home run
> punch". My trainer and I have been developing it in camp. I just hope
> Vladimir's head is screwed on tight or it may end up on top of the
> demonstration board!'
>
> After quoting these words, on page 114 of his book World Chess
> Championship Kramnik vs. Leko, Mr Keene reported:
>
> =A0 =A0 'Kramnik made a face - and a fist - but chose to reserve a fuller
> reply for the chessboard.'
>
> But did Leko, a gentleman, speak any of those words attributed to him
> by Mr Keene? Drawing this matter to our attention, Alan O'Brien
>
> (Mitcham, England) writes:
>
> =A0 =A0 'It struck me that this mix of boxing and baseball terminology
> sounded unusual coming from a Hungarian, so I decided to trace the
> source of the quote. The first time I have found it mentioned is athttp://=
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=3D1306947&kpage=3D59. In a
> posting dated 3 October 2004 somebody using the pseudonym "Offramp"
> asserted that the words quoted above (completed with "I will knock
> Kramnik senseless. He is going down in game five. And he is going down
> HARD!") had been spoken by Leko during a press conference after game
> 4.
>
> =A0 =A0 Incidentally, Raymond Keene mentions thewww.chessgames.comsite
> many times in his book on the match, but not in this case.
>
> =A0 =A0 I was curious as to where "Offramp" had obtained the quote, and at=
> the webpagehttp://www.eastsideboxing.com/news/sternburg2210.phpI
> found the following text:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Sosa: 'I'm Going to Knock Manfredy Out of the Park!'
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ... Dominican national lightweight champion Victoriano Sos=
a
> predicted a 'home run-style' knockout against former WBU champion
> Angel Manfredy when they rumble, Saturday, 9 November, on the pay-per-
> view extravaganza 'Real Fights!' ...
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sosa, the cousin of Chicago Cub home run king Sammy Sosa,
> spoke today from his training camp outside Chicago ...
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 'My cousin Sammy told me a true slugger - a Sosa slugger -=
> will always swing for the fences', said Sosa. 'And that is exactly
> what I am going to do. I am going to knock Angel out of the ring with
> my "home run punch". My trainer and I have been developing it in camp.
> I just hope Manfredy's head is screwed on tight or it may end up in
> the bleachers!' ...
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 'I will knock Manfredy senseless. He is going down in five=
.
> And he is going down HARD!'"'
>
> A businessman is not buying this book in order to find out who said he
> only saw one move ahead!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 11:05:22
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 9, 1:39=A0pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:54 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 9:00 am, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I think that is a bit drastic
> > > for a neat phrase (which I thought was by R=E9ti, but that's not
> > > important)
>
> > =A0 It isn't?? (See below)
>
> I mentioned who I thought the quote was by parenthetically as I did
> not want to start a thread about who said the quote; that's a
> different subject.
I understand, and am not trying to be overly argumentative. I
thought you might like to see the real R=E9ti statement, in any event.
Given the current state of the evidence, we can't be sure the
statement in question was ever even made, let alone who made it. A
casual anecdote by the often unreliable Al Horowitz, published 33
years after the event in question, is a rather shaky foundation. And
even if we accept Horowitz's account, then clearly it was not
Capablanca who said it.
So Kasparov is at best making a misattribution, at worst repeating
one of those apocryphal quotes like "Yonda lies da castle of my
fadda," allegedly (but never actually) said in a movie by Tony
Curtis.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 10:51:28
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 9, 2:54 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:00 am, Offramp <[email protected]> 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 here: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=E9ti, 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=E9ti 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=E9ti 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=E9ti'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.
But an important thing is that Kasparov's book is not a chess book. It
is a book about now to succeed in bizniz. It is a book in the same
league as The Leadership Secrets of Julius Caesar.
So a company exec (of any company except USCF) is not going to expect
a quote such as this:
"'A true slugger will always swing for the fences'*"
and then a footnote:
*after the fourth game of the 2004 Kramnik v Leko match in Brissago
Peter Leko declared:
'My cousin Sammy told me a true slugger - a Szeged slugger - will
always swing for the fences, and that is exactly what I am going to
do. I am going to knock Kramnik out of the room with my "home run
punch". My trainer and I have been developing it in camp. I just hope
Vladimir's head is screwed on tight or it may end up on top of the
demonstration board!'
After quoting these words, on page 114 of his book World Chess
Championship Kramnik vs. Leko, Mr Keene reported:
'Kramnik made a face - and a fist - but chose to reserve a fuller
reply for the chessboard.'
But did Leko, a gentleman, speak any of those words attributed to him
by Mr Keene? Drawing this matter to our attention, Alan O'Brien
(Mitcham, England) writes:
'It struck me that this mix of boxing and baseball terminology
sounded unusual coming from a Hungarian, so I decided to trace the
source of the quote. The first time I have found it mentioned is at
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=3D1306947&kpage=3D59. In a
posting dated 3 October 2004 somebody using the pseudonym "Offramp"
asserted that the words quoted above (completed with "I will knock
Kramnik senseless. He is going down in game five. And he is going down
HARD!") had been spoken by Leko during a press conference after game
4.
Incidentally, Raymond Keene mentions the www.chessgames.com site
many times in his book on the match, but not in this case.
I was curious as to where "Offramp" had obtained the quote, and at
the webpage http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news/sternburg2210.php I
found the following text:
"Sosa: 'I'm Going to Knock Manfredy Out of the Park!'
... Dominican national lightweight champion Victoriano Sosa
predicted a 'home run-style' knockout against former WBU champion
Angel Manfredy when they rumble, Saturday, 9 November, on the pay-per-
view extravaganza 'Real Fights!' ...
Sosa, the cousin of Chicago Cub home run king Sammy Sosa,
spoke today from his training camp outside Chicago ...
'My cousin Sammy told me a true slugger - a Sosa slugger -
will always swing for the fences', said Sosa. 'And that is exactly
what I am going to do. I am going to knock Angel out of the ring with
my "home run punch". My trainer and I have been developing it in camp.
I just hope Manfredy's head is screwed on tight or it may end up in
the bleachers!' ...
'I will knock Manfredy senseless. He is going down in five.
And he is going down HARD!'"'
A businessman is not buying this book in order to find out who said he
only saw one move ahead!
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 10:39:21
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 9, 2:54 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:00 am, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think that is a bit drastic
> > for a neat phrase (which I thought was by R=E9ti, but that's not
> > important)
>
> It isn't?? (See below)
I mentioned who I thought the quote was by parenthetically as I did
not want to start a thread about who said the quote; that's a
different subject.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 08:36:17
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
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 <[email protected]> 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 here: 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.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 06:54:56
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Strange comment from Edward Winter
|
On Jan 9, 9:00=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > 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 here: 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=E9ti, 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=E9ti 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=E9ti 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=E9ti'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.
|
|
