| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-26, 3:36 am |
| WINTER'S CHILLY LIE
In general, the only annoying thing about Taylor are his implacably
impeccable manners :-) -- Wlod
I think that Wlod makes obvious, true points about Edward Winter's
work. His compendia are filled with accuracies, though there are
errors here and there. In Mr. Winter's article at ChessCafe, attacking
Larry Evans, there was a higher incidence of petty mistakes, which I
quantified in my response, than he accused Evans himself of making! It
was sweet irony.
Edward Winter deserves praise, indeed high praise, for rooting
out error. Equally, he deserves intellectual disdain for his
third-rate work, which evinces itself the moment he begins to think
about the meaning of his many accuracies.
As for the wonderful Evans-Winter exchange in Chess Life, Mr.
Winter was eviscerated. I still do not fully understand how the
generally cautious Mr. Winter could have led with his chin so
superlatively in this instance.
Wlod about Taylor Kingston's manners. In my many exchanges with
Mr. Kingston, I have never called him names or attacked his person.
Perhaps Wlod will make a public inquiry of Mr. Kingston whether he can
make the same claim
regarding his exchanges with this writer or GM Evans.
Finally, the issue of Winter's submission to FIDE in 1986, which
was filled with accusations against Ray Keene. I never bothered to
read the thing, and for all I know, it could be filled with the wisdom
of the ages or the rottenness of our times. But the question is not so
much what the submission ha to say as whether Sam Sloan described its
size accurately.
We have here a perfect example of the distinction between
material or contextual dishonesty (Mr. Winter's odium in the given
instance, which Mr. Kingston prefers to leave untouched) and factual or
technical inaccuracy (Sam's minor slip, if such it were).
Sam wrote that Mr. Winter submitted to FIDE a aggy sheaf of
papers, perhaps a hundred pagesattacking Mr. Keene. Mr. Winter
responded that he wrote two pages of analysis and appended 22 pages of
other materials, including some written by himself. From Mr. Winter's
account, it remains unclear whether he also included newsclippings.
In any case, FIDE delegates were handed a sheaf of pages,
probably a hundred in all including translations of Mr. Winter's
materials. What the delegates received, which is what many would term
Mr. Winter's complaint, coincides with
Sam's description.
But for the sake of argument, let us hew the hard line. Let us
state that Sam ought to have distinguished in his report between Mr.
Winter's 24 pages (plus, perhaps, some newsclippings) and the baggy,
100 pages that went to the FIDE delegates. So there: YOU GET A WRAP ON
YOUR WRIST, SAM, though only for the sake of argument.
Now, let us compare Sam's accurate picture of the 100 pages as
it went to the delegates with Mr. Winter's dishonest account in Chess
Life.
Mr. Winter states that Sam's account is wrong and is an example
of the kind of disegard for fact that Mr. Sloan apparently possesses --
that kind of stuff. There is the usual implied disdain, the usual
contumacy, etc. Yet there is also what I have come to observe as the
usual implicit, pompous, chilly Winter lie.
An honest broker would have written as follows to the Chess Life
readers so that they could judge for themselves: "I, Edward Winter,
submitted a two-page complaint against GM Raymond Keene, which was
supplemented by 22 pages of additional materials [and newsclippings?].
Sam Sloan states I submitted a 100 page complaint. I demand an
apology. It is true, however, that this report was translated into
other languages. It is possible that the report as it went to the FIDE
delegates was about 100 pages because of the translations.
Nonetheless, I insist that the concept of a complaint is NOT what
actually goes to the delegates, which Mr. Sloan assumed, but what was
initially submitted by this writer."
Such an account, however silly, would at least have been an
honest one. Mr. Winter did not present the full context because he
feared the giggle factor.
|