|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > April 2005 > Sloan on Winter
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Taylor Kingston 2005-04-24, 8:38 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> Taylor Kingston seems intent on beating a dead horse by dredging up
> favorable quotes about his hero Edward Winter, but two can play that
> game.
No, Larry, I am merely pointing out the absurdity of Sloan's claims
that "everyone" considers Winter disreputable. That is an absolute
claim, refuted by even a single contrary example. I have cited six, and
can produce many more. No matter how many examples you may produce of
people who dislike Winter, it does not and cannot establish Sloan's
absolute claim. I will go so far as speculate that a majority of
knowledgeable chess literati (which definitely leaves Sloan out)
respect Winter's work.
Larry, you have lost sight of the fact that my subject in this thread
is not Winter, but Sloan. The issue is Sloan's credibility and
accuracy, which I have shown to be nil, zip, nada, on the subject of
Winter. Also at issue is your claim that, when presented with the
facts, he "usually issues immediate corrections." He has done no such
thing, even when you, his ally, agreed with me that he was clearly
wrong on one point.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the first Sloan errors I happened to
examine involved Winter. He is such a hot-button issue with you that
you cannot help but stray from the topic, which I repeat is Sloan's
credibility. If I bring up further Sloan misrepresentations, I will try
to find a more neutral subject about which you can keep your cool.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-24, 8:38 pm |
| On 24 Apr 2005 09:06:47 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
> No, Larry, I am merely pointing out the absurdity of Sloan's claims
>that "everyone" considers Winter disreputable.
I did not write that. What I wrote was different.
You cannot read too well, can you?
Sam Sloan
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-24, 8:38 pm |
| None of these are chess historians, Taylor, with the exception of Bill
Hartson whose principal writing is in the Telegraph, and for not nearly as
long as Ray Keene has written in the Spectator.
I myself enjoy Winter on subjects such as Alekhine, but can't say finding
typographical errors in the works of other writers exactly 'historical'
material, or even very interesting.
Winter himself has proposed at ChessCafe half a dozen books that could well
be written on Chess history - including on Alekhine, but will he write any
of them himself?
He knows thousands of anecdotes, but does he have the wherewithall to write
a series of historical biographies? Who knows?
I think the point of this correspondance is that Winter has a certain range
of capabilities, is somewhat fixated on people who do not agree with him to
the extent of criticising them for 20 years! and is not certainly not beyond
criticism, nor any demi-god which we should accept uncritically.
Phil Innes
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1114350655.885944.106810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> "Everyone," Sam? That is an absolute -- it admits of no exceptions.
> Just checking very quickly, I found these comments contradicting you:
>
> "Edward Winter is the chess world's foremost authority on its rich
> history." -- Yasser Seirawan
>
> "Writers on chess history ... are not normally pathfinders or
> perfectionists, but Edward Winter is an exception, taking great pains
> not only to tackle difficult research tasks but also to present the
> facts precisely." -- Jan Timman
>
> "[Winter is] probably the most meticulous and diligent chess
> researcher and chess writer around ... Winter's brilliantly scathing
> style, always adopted in the noble cause of accuracy, gives his
> writings a marvellously entertaining as well as instructive quality."
> -- William Hartston
>
> "[Winter's 'Chess Notes' are] devoted to chess history and
> investigative reporting, all with the highest standards of journalistic
> integrity." -- Chess Life
>
> "Chess historian extraordinaire Edward Winter ... is noted for the
> thoroughness of his research, his meticulous attention to detail and
> the accuracy of his reporting." -- Don Schultz
>
> "Over the years [Winter] has not only amassed a vast amount of
> knowledge on chess lore ... but he has shown great skill in evaluating,
> correcting, utilizing and publishing this information ... his energy
> and enthusiasm are fuelled by a commitment to presenting the truth, the
> whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- CHESS
>
> So that's at least six people who do not belong with Sam's
> "everyone," including two of the greatest GMs of all time (Timman and
> Seirawan), one of the best chess writers extant (IM Hartston), the
> official magazine of the USCF, one of the two major British chess
> magazines, and a former USCF President (Schultz). And that's only what
> I could cobble in five minutes.
> So, Sam -- Larry Parr says you are usually willing to publish
> immediate corrections when you're wrong. When may we expect you to
> revise your obviously incorrect statement on this topic?
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-24, 8:38 pm |
|
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nXRae.3531$WX.1065@trndny01...
quote:
> None of these are chess historians, Taylor, with the exception of Bill
> Hartson whose principal writing is in the Telegraph,
That's wrong! Bill is in the Daily Express. Malcolm Pein writes the
Telegraph's column. Ansd Ray writes in the Speccie. I wrote to them all this
week trying to track down any copy at all of The Master Game. Bill was the
TV presenter, but never kept a copy, and Ray was a player in the series and
didn't either.
Anyway, this trio put me on the track of a GM who supposedly has a master
set. If anyone out there has a copy [even in Euro-Beta format]please e-mail
me.
Thanks, Phil Innes
and for not nearly as
quote:
> long as Ray Keene has written in the Spectator.
>
> I myself enjoy Winter on subjects such as Alekhine, but can't say finding
> typographical errors in the works of other writers exactly 'historical'
> material, or even very interesting.
>
> Winter himself has proposed at ChessCafe half a dozen books that could
> well be written on Chess history - including on Alekhine, but will he
> write any of them himself?
>
> He knows thousands of anecdotes, but does he have the wherewithall to
> write a series of historical biographies? Who knows?
>
> I think the point of this correspondance is that Winter has a certain
> range of capabilities, is somewhat fixated on people who do not agree with
> him to the extent of criticising them for 20 years! and is not certainly
> not beyond criticism, nor any demi-god which we should accept
> uncritically.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1114350655.885944.106810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-04-24, 8:38 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> None of these are chess historians, Taylor, with the exception of
Bill
quote:
> Hartson
Agreed, Phil. However, that is not relevant to the point of my post,
which was that Sam Sloan was quite wrong when he said "everyone
familiar with the general reputation of Mr. Winter knows that he is a
person of low repute." I quoted six people who clearly are familiar
with Winter's work and hold it in high regard. Ergo: Sloan is wrong.
quote:
> He knows thousands of anecdotes, but does he have the wherewithall to
write
quote:
> a series of historical biographies? Who knows?
A reasonable question. He did write "Capablanca," a very good book
though not a full biography. Perhaps he will essay a magnum opus
someday, or perhaps he will stick to the episodic format of Chess
Notes. Either way, I consider his influence on the field to be highly
salutary.
quote:
> I think the point of this correspondance is that Winter has a certain
range
quote:
> of capabilities, is somewhat fixated on people who do not agree with
him to
quote:
> the extent of criticising them for 20 years!
Perhaps he continues to criticize them because they keep fudging
facts, telling lies, and making the same mistakes.
quote:
> and is not certainly not beyond
> criticism, nor any demi-god which we should accept uncritically.
100% agreement. I just don't like to see him (or any such author)
subjected to cheap shots from ignorami like Sloan.
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-24, 8:39 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1114381039.962050.170600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
> Bill
>
> Agreed, Phil. However, that is not relevant to the point of my post,
> which was that Sam Sloan was quite wrong when he said "everyone
> familiar with the general reputation of Mr. Winter knows that he is a
> person of low repute."
I'll join you Taylor. I don't know him to be a person of 'low repute' - I am
not sure what that terms means in this context. After all, he can fall out
with people and be unpopular, and still be right.
quote:
> I quoted six people who clearly are familiar
> with Winter's work and hold it in high regard. Ergo: Sloan is wrong.
Yes. I think my own take would be to question the singular means of his
interogation of chess subjects; which may be broad but not seen to be as
deep. Besides which he has evidently a sustained animus against several
other writers on chess, who are noticeably stronger than him. I don't think
this observation is a null point in an historian or a biographer - it is in
fact a flaw restricting what he is able to write if he can't overcome his
own 'filters', which on occasion he has pursued to the point of pedantry.
That's a low point of his own attention to the subject. It's also a famously
complex one with biographers, and I certainly wouldn't compare him with the
unfortunate writer of Alekhine's Anguish <g> but some sympathy rather than
hostility to the subject is actually a necessity unless one cares to only
write the circumstances and record of external, surface events.
While Winter has great skills as a researcher, he is not so evidently able
to get below the surface as is, say, Larry Evans or Ray Keene, by virtue of
the fact that he has no experience of it.
quote:
> write
>
> A reasonable question. He did write "Capablanca," a very good book
> though not a full biography. Perhaps he will essay a magnum opus
> someday, or perhaps he will stick to the episodic format of Chess
> Notes. Either way, I consider his influence on the field to be highly
> salutary.
He is certainly the most active chess bibliophile outside of Russia.
quote:
> range
> him to
>
> Perhaps he continues to criticize them because they keep fudging
> facts, telling lies, and making the same mistakes.
Yes, perhaps that is the motive. Or perhaps these others are more ambitious
in the sense that I wrote above, and where a sense of the subject's motives
and non-documented actions inform a greater part than in sometimes docile
written records? Another historio-biographers dilemma!
Cordially, Phil
quote:
>
> 100% agreement. I just don't like to see him (or any such author)
> subjected to cheap shots from ignorami like Sloan.
| |
| Spam Scone 2005-04-25, 12:36 am |
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
>
> As far as I am aware, Winter has now been banned from all chess
> publications and no reputanble publication anywhere in the world will
> publish his stuff any more.
Tell that to McFarland. As for me, I'd publish Winter in a heartbeat.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-25, 12:36 am |
| On 24 Apr 2005 20:30:36 -0700, "Spam Scone" <Spamscone@yahoo.com>
wrote:
quote:
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>Tell that to McFarland. As for me, I'd publish Winter in a heartbeat.
>
As far as I am aware, Neil Brennen a/k/a Spam Scone does not have a
publication any more either. Like Winter, he seems to have been kicked
out too.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Spam Scone 2005-04-25, 12:36 am |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> None of these are chess historians, Taylor, with the exception of
Bill
quote:
> Hartson whose principal writing is in the Telegraph, and for not
nearly as
quote:
> long as Ray Keene has written in the Spectator.
> I myself enjoy Winter on subjects such as Alekhine, but can't say
finding
quote:
> typographical errors in the works of other writers exactly
'historical'
quote:
> material, or even very interesting.
It's the correction of the historical record. Of course, I can
understand someone such as Philth "fact factory" Innes not finding the
historical record interesting.
quote:
> Winter himself has proposed at ChessCafe half a dozen books that
could well
quote:
> be written on Chess history - including on Alekhine, but will he
write any
quote:
> of them himself?
> He knows thousands of anecdotes, but does he have the wherewithall to
write
quote:
> a series of historical biographies? Who knows?
A silly point. Would you suggest Shaw missed greatness by neglecting
sonnets?
quote:
> I think the point of this correspondance is that Winter has a certain
range
quote:
> of capabilities, is somewhat fixated on people who do not agree with
him to
quote:
> the extent of criticising them for 20 years! and is not certainly not
beyond
quote:
> criticism, nor any demi-god which we should accept uncritically.
>
> Phil Innes
You are so clueless, Phil. Drive down to Wal-mart and buy one.
| |
| michael adams 2005-04-26, 12:41 am |
| Chess One wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1114381039.962050.170600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'll join you Taylor. I don't know him to be a person of 'low repute' - I am
> not sure what that terms means in this context. After all, he can fall out
> with people and be unpopular, and still be right.
>
>
> Yes. I think my own take would be to question the singular means of his
> interogation of chess subjects; which may be broad but not seen to be as
> deep. Besides which he has evidently a sustained animus against several
> other writers on chess, who are noticeably stronger than him. I don't think
> this observation is a null point in an historian or a biographer - it is in
> fact a flaw restricting what he is able to write if he can't overcome his
> own 'filters', which on occasion he has pursued to the point of pedantry.
>
> That's a low point of his own attention to the subject. It's also a famously
> complex one with biographers, and I certainly wouldn't compare him with the
> unfortunate writer of Alekhine's Anguish <g> but some sympathy rather than
> hostility to the subject is actually a necessity unless one cares to only
> write the circumstances and record of external, surface events.
>
> While Winter has great skills as a researcher, he is not so evidently able
> to get below the surface as is, say, Larry Evans or Ray Keene, by virtue of
> the fact that he has no experience of it.
>
>
> He is certainly the most active chess bibliophile outside of Russia.
>
>
> Yes, perhaps that is the motive. Or perhaps these others are more ambitious
> in the sense that I wrote above, and where a sense of the subject's motives
> and non-documented actions inform a greater part than in sometimes docile
> written records? Another historio-biographers dilemma!
>
> Cordially, Phil
>
Gawd, I wish these 'doodies' would stap the cross-posts, or at the
minimum of 'respectus' - make sure (rgcm) comes before (rgcp) in order
of import (ie: in ng status field). Personally, I abhor the endless
cycle of bite & counter-bite of the coward jackal 'politicos'..
| |
| The Historian 2005-04-26, 12:41 am |
|
Sam Sloan the convicted felon wrote:
quote:
> On 24 Apr 2005 20:30:36 -0700, "Spam Scone" <Spamscone@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
will[vbcol=seagreen]
heartbeat.[vbcol=seagreen]
> As far as I am aware,
Which isn't very.
Neil Brennen a/k/a Spam Scone does not have a
quote:
> publication any more either. Like Winter, he seems to have been
kicked
quote:
> out too.
>
> Sam Sloan
Last I checked I was being regularly published in Quarterly for Chess
History, and online at The Campbell Report. As for not having a
publication, I don't recall The Pennswoodpusher folding. But perhaps
you know something I don't.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-26, 12:41 am |
| On 25 Apr 2005 20:34:38 -0700, "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com>
wrote:
quote:
>
>Sam Sloan the convicted felon wrote:
>will
>heartbeat.
>
>Which isn't very.
>
> Neil Brennen a/k/a Spam Scone does not have a
>kicked
>
>Last I checked I was being regularly published in Quarterly for Chess
>History, and online at The Campbell Report. As for not having a
>publication, I don't recall The Pennswoodpusher folding. But perhaps
>you know something I don't.
If that is the case, then why don't you just publish an article by
Edward Winter, instead of bragging that you "would" do so.?
Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-27, 12:35 am |
| On 24 Apr 2005 06:50:55 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> "Everyone," Sam? That is an absolute -- it admits of no exceptions.
>Just checking very quickly, I found these comments contradicting you:
>
> "Edward Winter is the chess world's foremost authority on its rich
>history." -- Yasser Seirawan
>
> "Writers on chess history ... are not normally pathfinders or
>perfectionists, but Edward Winter is an exception, taking great pains
>not only to tackle difficult research tasks but also to present the
>facts precisely." -- Jan Timman
>
> "[Winter is] probably the most meticulous and diligent chess
>researcher and chess writer around ... Winter's brilliantly scathing
>style, always adopted in the noble cause of accuracy, gives his
>writings a marvellously entertaining as well as instructive quality."
>-- William Hartston
>
> "[Winter's 'Chess Notes' are] devoted to chess history and
>investigative reporting, all with the highest standards of journalistic
>integrity." -- Chess Life
>
> "Chess historian extraordinaire Edward Winter ... is noted for the
>thoroughness of his research, his meticulous attention to detail and
>the accuracy of his reporting." -- Don Schultz
>
> "Over the years [Winter] has not only amassed a vast amount of
>knowledge on chess lore ... but he has shown great skill in evaluating,
>correcting, utilizing and publishing this information ... his energy
>and enthusiasm are fuelled by a commitment to presenting the truth, the
>whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- CHESS
>
> So that's at least six people who do not belong with Sam's
>"everyone," including two of the greatest GMs of all time (Timman and
>Seirawan), one of the best chess writers extant (IM Hartston), the
>official magazine of the USCF, one of the two major British chess
>magazines, and a former USCF President (Schultz). And that's only what
>I could cobble in five minutes.
> So, Sam -- Larry Parr says you are usually willing to publish
>immediate corrections when you're wrong. When may we expect you to
>revise your obviously incorrect statement on this topic?
These are dated quotes and come from people who have never been
attacked by Winter.
Look at what they actually say: For example: "the most meticulous and
diligent chess researcher and chess writer around ... Winter's
brilliantly scathing style, always adopted in the noble cause of
accuracy,"
What this really refers to is that everry time Ray Keene or Larry
Evans writes everything, Winter goes through it with a fine tooth-comb
and tries to find some little detail which is wrong. Then, he
publishes a "scathing" review saying that once again Keene has got
everything wrong.
However, Winter never publishes anything of a positive nature. All he
ever does is publish attacks on other writers.
As far as I am aware, Winter has now been banned from all chess
publications and no reputanble publication anywhere in the world will
publish his stuff any more.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-04-27, 12:35 am |
| On 24 Apr 2005 07:58:31 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> Sam, do you ever bother to learn what you're talking about before you
>open your mouth? This is something like saying "Garry Kasparov is
>really nothing special. All he does is push little pieces of wood
>around on a board."
> Sam, your willingness to spout opinions about a subject on which you
>are so obviously ignorant is just amazing. I am reminded of Joseph N.
>Welch's words to Senator Joe McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency?
>At long last, have you no sense of decency?"
> However, it has been interesting to watch you self-destroy your own
>credibility, which was already quite low. I may return to the issue of
>your credibility from time to time.
Do not be in any rush to come back here and when you do please be sure
to bring an example of something written by Winter which was not an
attack on somebody else.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-27, 12:35 am |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1114381039.962050.170600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
> Bill
>
> Agreed, Phil. However, that is not relevant to the point of my post,
> which was that Sam Sloan was quite wrong when he said "everyone
> familiar with the general reputation of Mr. Winter knows that he is a
> person of low repute."
I'll join you Taylor. I don't know him to be a person of 'low repute' - I am
not sure what that terms means in this context. After all, he can fall out
with people and be unpopular, and still be right.
quote:
> I quoted six people who clearly are familiar
> with Winter's work and hold it in high regard. Ergo: Sloan is wrong.
Yes. I think my own take would be to question the singular means of his
interogation of chess subjects; which may be broad but not seen to be as
deep. Besides which he has evidently a sustained animus against several
other writers on chess, who are noticeably stronger than him. I don't think
this observation is a null point in an historian or a biographer - it is in
fact a flaw restricting what he is able to write if he can't overcome his
own 'filters', which on occasion he has pursued to the point of pedantry.
That's a low point of his own attention to the subject. It's also a famously
complex one with biographers, and I certainly wouldn't compare him with the
unfortunate writer of Alekhine's Anguish <g> but some sympathy rather than
hostility to the subject is actually a necessity unless one cares to only
write the circumstances and record of external, surface events.
While Winter has great skills as a researcher, he is not so evidently able
to get below the surface as is, say, Larry Evans or Ray Keene, by virtue of
the fact that he has no experience of it.
quote:
> write
>
> A reasonable question. He did write "Capablanca," a very good book
> though not a full biography. Perhaps he will essay a magnum opus
> someday, or perhaps he will stick to the episodic format of Chess
> Notes. Either way, I consider his influence on the field to be highly
> salutary.
He is certainly the most active chess bibliophile outside of Russia.
quote:
> range
> him to
>
> Perhaps he continues to criticize them because they keep fudging
> facts, telling lies, and making the same mistakes.
Yes, perhaps that is the motive. Or perhaps these others are more ambitious
in the sense that I wrote above, and where a sense of the subject's motives
and non-documented actions inform a greater part than in sometimes docile
written records? Another historio-biographers dilemma!
Cordially, Phil
quote:
>
> 100% agreement. I just don't like to see him (or any such author)
> subjected to cheap shots from ignorami like Sloan.
| |
| Chess One 2005-04-27, 12:35 am |
| None of these are chess historians, Taylor, with the exception of Bill
Hartson whose principal writing is in the Telegraph, and for not nearly as
long as Ray Keene has written in the Spectator.
I myself enjoy Winter on subjects such as Alekhine, but can't say finding
typographical errors in the works of other writers exactly 'historical'
material, or even very interesting.
Winter himself has proposed at ChessCafe half a dozen books that could well
be written on Chess history - including on Alekhine, but will he write any
of them himself?
He knows thousands of anecdotes, but does he have the wherewithall to write
a series of historical biographies? Who knows?
I think the point of this correspondance is that Winter has a certain range
of capabilities, is somewhat fixated on people who do not agree with him to
the extent of criticising them for 20 years! and is not certainly not beyond
criticism, nor any demi-god which we should accept uncritically.
Phil Innes
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1114350655.885944.106810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> "Everyone," Sam? That is an absolute -- it admits of no exceptions.
> Just checking very quickly, I found these comments contradicting you:
>
> "Edward Winter is the chess world's foremost authority on its rich
> history." -- Yasser Seirawan
>
> "Writers on chess history ... are not normally pathfinders or
> perfectionists, but Edward Winter is an exception, taking great pains
> not only to tackle difficult research tasks but also to present the
> facts precisely." -- Jan Timman
>
> "[Winter is] probably the most meticulous and diligent chess
> researcher and chess writer around ... Winter's brilliantly scathing
> style, always adopted in the noble cause of accuracy, gives his
> writings a marvellously entertaining as well as instructive quality."
> -- William Hartston
>
> "[Winter's 'Chess Notes' are] devoted to chess history and
> investigative reporting, all with the highest standards of journalistic
> integrity." -- Chess Life
>
> "Chess historian extraordinaire Edward Winter ... is noted for the
> thoroughness of his research, his meticulous attention to detail and
> the accuracy of his reporting." -- Don Schultz
>
> "Over the years [Winter] has not only amassed a vast amount of
> knowledge on chess lore ... but he has shown great skill in evaluating,
> correcting, utilizing and publishing this information ... his energy
> and enthusiasm are fuelled by a commitment to presenting the truth, the
> whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- CHESS
>
> So that's at least six people who do not belong with Sam's
> "everyone," including two of the greatest GMs of all time (Timman and
> Seirawan), one of the best chess writers extant (IM Hartston), the
> official magazine of the USCF, one of the two major British chess
> magazines, and a former USCF President (Schultz). And that's only what
> I could cobble in five minutes.
> So, Sam -- Larry Parr says you are usually willing to publish
> immediate corrections when you're wrong. When may we expect you to
> revise your obviously incorrect statement on this topic?
>
|
| |
|
|