Chess politics - Rage of the Librarians

Author

Rage of the Librarians

Chess One

2005-05-26, 8:31 pm

After some 100s of messages back and forth on the nominal subject of
Keres/Botvinnik, there is no new information presented on that topic, nor on
any new methodology of research, and not even on past methodology.

Instead we have the 4 principal writers to a dispute, Evans, Kingston, Parr
and Winter, being represented on the basis of their correspondence together.
A correspondence which does not even look like revealing any new historical
material nor method, and is instead a sort of Rage of the Librarians spat on
the clerical level of who said what.

Lewis Carroll would have enjoyed it! In this particular instance of the
finger post it doesn't matter who is right, nor if they can demonstrate
their rightness: No new light will be shed on Keres/Botvinnik.

What is revealed is the fractured means by which our western chess histories
are promulgated. Among other fallacies, we have begun to see references to
'authorities' as if this abstract reference to a person would solve a
specific issue. Recently poor Ken Whyld was cited in a way which is not
useful to anyone's understanding of the issue. Its true, he was a writer on
chess history, but he also made more than a few blunders; a result perhaps
of 'conviction' leading him overmuch.

Several years ago he proposed that Morphy could not have been subject to
homo-sexual blackmail while in London because the word 'love' had no sexual
connotation then. I wrote him a conclusive refutation of that idea, starting
in Elizabethan times and progressing with a citation about every century
until Lawrence. But Ken did not admit nor acknowledge this rebuttal, and
continued to 'convict' those who thought Morphy /could/ have been
blackmailed.

I suspect that many people who have strong and fixed opinions here on
Keres/Botvinnik would simply resent information that might make the issue
less opaque, and somewhat more subtle than they are currently willing to
indicate is the scan of their thought.

I have indicated to one other person here a Russian source who is not yet on
the public record but who has spoken privately on these issues. It would be
interesting to interview him even as a collective interview of concerned
[rather than interested] parties, indeed, interesting to base a chess
history on this man's witness to the Soviet-era chess scene. I am given to
understand that the gentleman would be considerable able to be more
forthright than either Taimanov or Averbakh.

------

I understand that no one much likes to be called a liar, and why they would
write here as a remedy.

I hope that in this instance no party to the dispute will, given the above
context, therefore take it as an insult to them that they could only hope to
resolve a clerical feud, a Rage of Librarians, and whatever the result will
not contribute an iota of new insight into the subject matter.

I am quite serious about pursuing the Russian history, and this is a genuine
open invitation. Should it go ahead I would certainly include Bill Hyde as a
major contributor to it, even as editor. Please e-mail me if you too would
like to join the team.

------

A penultimate point belongs to Viktor Korchnoi who indicated that he was a
bit tired of enthusiastic western journalists looking for dirt by examining
other countries, and especially projecting pious standards of behavior onto
them. He suggested that there is plenty of dirt right here in the West to
explore if that were ones orientation.

And so finally, I once read a good synopsis by Edward Winter on chess
histories that needed to be written - in fact histories and specific
biographies. How much more edifying it would be if we could have at last a
good biography of Alekhine, or even of Morphy! Neither subject should be
attempted by children, or convictionists, or people who would not understand
subtle complexities in human nature - much more potent aspects of human
motivation than tub thumping heroic writing from the safety of the middle of
the library.

Cordially, Phil Innes

The Historian

2005-05-27, 12:32 am

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> After some 100s of messages back and forth on the nominal subject of
> Keres/Botvinnik, there is no new information presented on that topic, nor on
> any new methodology of research, and not even on past methodology.

Because the debate is not about those subjects. Were you able to read,
you might understand this fact.

quote:

> Instead we have the 4 principal writers to a dispute, Evans, Kingston, Parr
> and Winter, being represented on the basis of their correspondence together.
> A correspondence which does not even look like revealing any new historical
> material nor method, and is instead a sort of Rage of the Librarians spat on
> the clerical level of who said what.
>
> Lewis Carroll would have enjoyed it! In this particular instance of the
> finger post it doesn't matter who is right, nor if they can demonstrate
> their rightness: No new light will be shed on Keres/Botvinnik.

Because the debate is not about that subject. Were you able to read,
you might understand this fact.

quote:

> What is revealed is the fractured means by which our western chess histories
> are promulgated. Among other fallacies, we have begun to see references to
> 'authorities' as if this abstract reference to a person would solve a
> specific issue. Recently poor Ken Whyld was cited in a way which is not
> useful to anyone's understanding of the issue. Its true, he was a writer on
> chess history, but he also made more than a few blunders; a result perhaps
> of 'conviction' leading him overmuch.

For who have recovered from the nonsense above and who want to gain
some perspective, the Ken Whyld Association has a list of Ken Whyld's
books:
http://www.kwabc.com/Home/booklist.htm

My own comments on Whyld's passing are at:
http://correspondencechess.com/camp...les/a030716.htm

We await word of any activity by Phil Innes that would give him ANY
standing to pass judgement on Ken Whyld.

quote:

> Several years ago he proposed that Morphy could not have been subject to
> homo-sexual blackmail while in London because the word 'love' had no sexual
> connotation then.

Where was this? If you are alluding to the Morphy/Edge debate that
raged in Chess Notes, this is a typically twisted Innesian version of
it.

I wrote him a conclusive refutation of that idea, starting

quote:

> in Elizabethan times and progressing with a citation about every century
> until Lawrence. But Ken did not admit nor acknowledge this rebuttal, and
> continued to 'convict' those who thought Morphy /could/ have been
> blackmailed.

Where was said "rebuttal" published?

(Snip usual Innes claims to be working on a great big secret project
utilizing all the famous people Innes knows and all the secret
information that Innes hoards and that one day will astound us all)

quote:

> And so finally, I once read a good synopsis by Edward Winter on chess
> histories that needed to be written - in fact histories and specific
> biographies. How much more edifying it would be if we could have at last a
> good biography of Alekhine, or even of Morphy!

Perhaps Phil has never heard the name "David Lawson"?

Neither subject should be

quote:

> attempted by children, or convictionists, or people who would not understand
> subtle complexities in human nature - much more potent aspects of human
> motivation than tub thumping heroic writing from the safety of the middle of
> the library.

Note that His I-ness speaks on history and disparages libraries and
librarians.

Jeremy Spinrad

2005-05-27, 8:31 pm

I just pop in for parts of this long discussion, so forgive my tangent. Neil
writes about opinions on Whyld. My feeling is that there are a surprising number
of errors in the Oxford Companion to Chess, at least regarding chess of the
mid-19th century. How do you feel, Neil and others, and are both authors equally
responsible? I nelieve that Whyld has a good reputation in general.

Jerry Spinrad

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-27, 8:31 pm

Proofreaders and Editors are ultimately responsible, but if the
research is bad in the first instance, then it's at least as much the
authors' responsibility....if it's clear who wrote what, then it's not
difficult to determine who made the mistake. If it's not clear...

Certainly Whyld's reputation is good, and rightly so.

Mark Houlsby

Equinorm@AOL.com

2005-05-28, 12:30 am

I really have nothing relevant to say, I just thought this thread had a
cool title. Nice one, Mr. Innes.

- Geof

The Historian

2005-05-28, 12:30 am

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

quote:

> I just pop in for parts of this long discussion, so forgive my tangent.

We don't forgive, we thank.

Neil

quote:

> writes about opinions on Whyld.

Actually it was one opinion, that of His I-ness.

My feeling is that there are a surprising number

quote:

> of errors in the Oxford Companion to Chess, at least regarding chess of the
> mid-19th century.

I think there are errors in almost all chess history writing. The
nature and number of the errors should be kept in mind when judging the
value of the work, as well as the amount of original research done.
(Gaige being off a day for McCutcheon's death date should not be judged
as harshly as Evans misquoting something in one of his potboilers.)
Aside from the controversial Morphy material, what are some of the
errors you have found in the companion, Jerry?

How do you feel, Neil and others, and are both authors equally

quote:

> responsible? I nelieve that Whyld has a good reputation in general.

jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu

2005-05-28, 3:31 am

When reporting on match results of mid 19th century major players,
there are some serious errors. I am not just talking about a question
of a match result which they chose a dubious score for (there are quite
a few of these), but some entirely incorrect descriptions which could
skew one's view of the major players.

Some examples off the top of my head:

1) The Companion says that Staunton lost the majority of games to Lasa
in two separate encounters. There was certainly one such encounter, in
1853. I do not believe there was an earlier encounter. I suspect this
is a mistaken version of Buckle playing Lasa, but since no sources are
given in the book it is hard to know where the claim that the 2 played
in 1844 comes from.

2) The companion says that Szen's worst result was a narrow loss to
Bledow in (I believe) 1839. I believe that this refers to Szen's
results during a brief stay in Berlin, where he played 9 games against
various members of the Pleiades. His overall score was 3-5-1; he split
2 games with Bledow.

There are many other results on which the Companion is off a bit, or
which I know only from the Companion and are not in other sources I
have checked which should have them; how much should I trust it?

The evaluation of players is often wrong, in my opinion, but this is
more of a judgement issue (similar to the ridiculous bias in favor of
Staunton iin his dispute with Morphy which you alluded to). For
example, I feel the companion denigrates Dubois by twisting a few
facts. I would also question the choice of 19th century players omitted
(eg Bilguer and Hanstein), but this is not a true error.

I know that a couple of true errors would not be much to point at in
such a large book, but there is not all that much material on the
period of chess which I know something about, and a bit too high of a
percentage strikes me as dubious. I was wondering if those who know
about other time periods felt the Companion was accurate.

I know I may be too picky here. The Companion is a lot of fun to read,
and can interest many people in the culture of chess. I just don't know
whether to judge it as a work of true chess history scholarship, or as
a book of chess entertainment which happens to be much more accurate
than Reinfeld's books.

Jerry Spinrad

The Historian

2005-05-28, 6:31 am

jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu wrote:

quote:

> When reporting on match results of mid 19th century major players,
> there are some serious errors. I am not just talking about a question
> of a match result which they chose a dubious score for (there are quite
> a few of these), but some entirely incorrect descriptions which could
> skew one's view of the major players.

OK. Remember that often 'match results' of that era may have included
or excluded informal games. The scores of players were often in
contention - look at the 1860 dispute between Boston's Hammond and the
Philadelphia Athenaeum over Hammond's final score against
Philadelphia's best players - both sides tried to exclude games they
lost on the grounds the lost games were mere "skirmishes".

quote:

> Some examples off the top of my head:
>
> 1) The Companion says that Staunton lost the majority of games to Lasa
> in two separate encounters. There was certainly one such encounter, in
> 1853. I do not believe there was an earlier encounter. I suspect this
> is a mistaken version of Buckle playing Lasa, but since no sources are
> given in the book it is hard to know where the claim that the 2 played
> in 1844 comes from.

Did you check the biographical references at the end of the Staunton
entry? There is a biography of Staunton, I believe.

quote:

> 2) The companion says that Szen's worst result was a narrow loss to
> Bledow in (I believe) 1839. I believe that this refers to Szen's
> results during a brief stay in Berlin, where he played 9 games against
> various members of the Pleiades. His overall score was 3-5-1; he split
> 2 games with Bledow.

Again, did you check the biographical references at the end of the Szen
entry? Or perhaps the listing in Gaige's Chess Personalia?

quote:

> There are many other results on which the Companion is off a bit, or
> which I know only from the Companion and are not in other sources I
> have checked which should have them; how much should I trust it?

"Trust but verify."

quote:

> The evaluation of players is often wrong, in my opinion, but this is
> more of a judgement issue (similar to the ridiculous bias in favor of
> Staunton iin his dispute with Morphy which you alluded to). For
> example, I feel the companion denigrates Dubois by twisting a few
> facts. I would also question the choice of 19th century players omitted
> (eg Bilguer and Hanstein), but this is not a true error.

Any attempt to be truly comprehensive involves decision-making that
will draw some criticism. Oxford's recently revised Dictionary of
National Biography has been attacked because someone objects to this or
that - an extreme example is the cry from Oxfordians that the entry on
Edward DeVere denies him any hand in the Shakespeare canon. (That is an
admittedly silly example, but it proves the point.)

quote:

> I know that a couple of true errors would not be much to point at in
> such a large book, but there is not all that much material on the
> period of chess which I know something about, and a bit too high of a
> percentage strikes me as dubious. I was wondering if those who know
> about other time periods felt the Companion was accurate.
>
> I know I may be too picky here. The Companion is a lot of fun to read,
> and can interest many people in the culture of chess. I just don't know
> whether to judge it as a work of true chess history scholarship, or as
> a book of chess entertainment which happens to be much more accurate
> than Reinfeld's books.

"His work on The Oxford Companion to Chess, written with David Hooper,
was described by chess historian Edward Winter as "a masterpiece
representing a landmark in the literature of our game", and remains the
best one-volume reference work on chess nearly 20 years after it was
first published."

jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu

2005-05-30, 12:31 am

This is a reply to Neil's very reasonable defence of the Oxford
Companion to Chess.

Although I have no problem with your general post, I still feel that
the two instances I pointed to as errors are true errors.

One is on Szen, where the Companion says that Szen's worst result is a
narrow defeat by Bledow at Berlin in 1839.

I checked the Companion, and there are no references at the end of the
entry for Szen. Szen's known trip to Berlin is discussed in the German
literature, and we know the games he played. I find it hard to believe
that he could have made a second trip to Berlin, played a match with
Bledow, and not have it reported on. It seems pretty clear that the
Companion altered an overall score of 3-5-1 against various Pleiades
members to a loss to Bledow.

The other is the assertion that Lasa won a majority of games played
against Staunton in 1844 in Berlin. There is a reference under Lasa to
the article The Mighty Baron, and under Staunton to Keene and Coles
biography. I do not have copies of these, but I read both at one time,
and would be surprised if I had not noted any reference to such a
series of games. I would also be very surprised if such a match
occurred, althoughnone of these games appeared in either the Chess
Player's Chronicle or the Schachzeitung. The Chess Player of 1851 makes
the statement that the two had never met, which would mean that the
encounter would have been unknown to players of the time. I don't think
these games occurred. On the other hand, I seem to recall getting a
message from Louis Blair, which I can't find at the moment, that
indicated that the claim that these games exist comes from Divinsky. I
will try to find that message.

Jerry Spinrad

The Historian

2005-05-30, 3:31 am

Louis Blair wrote:

quote:

> Not too long ago, I acquired something called:
> Proceedings of International Conference of Chess
> Historians, Kornik, September 16-18, 2002. The
> subject was Tassilo Von Heydebrand und der Lasa.
> According to a contribution by Nathan Divinsky,
> "[Lasa] played 7 games with Staunton in 1844, at
> Berlin, and won 5 to 2." (It appears that by
> "5 to 2", Divinsky meant 5 wins, 2 losses, and
> no draws.)
>
> However, according to a contribution by Vlastimil
> Fiala, "In 1853 the Belgian capital was visited
> by H. Staunton, with whom von der Lasa had been
> in written context for many years. And yet until
> then they obviously had never played a game
> together. K. Whyld and D. Hooper claim in their
> grand encyclopaedia that von der Lasa had played
> several games with Staunton as early as 1844.
> Unfortunately, this statement could not be confirmed
> (probably only Murray mentioned this information
> at the obituary in 1899), on the contrary, according
> to Staunton in The Chess Player's Chronicle 1853,
> p.293 it is believed to be their first encounter.
> ... Staunton wrote about his [1853] meeting with
> von der Lasa the following short commentary for
> his magazine The Chess Player's Chronicle: 'A
> recent excursion of the Editor to the Continent,
> in search of health and relaxation, afforded him
> an opportunity, long desired, of making the personal
> acquaintance of the eminently distinguished Chess
> author and player, Von Heydebrand der Lasa, ...
> In addition to the gratification of becoming
> personally known to Mr. Heydebrand, the Editor
> enjoyed the pleasure of having a few games with
> him. ...'"
>
> If I remember correctly, John Townsend has a copy
> of the Keene and Coles book about Staunton.
> Perhaps he can check up on what it says.

All this is good and to the point. I'm snipping the rest as mere
scoresettling on Dr. Blair's part.

The Historian

2005-05-30, 3:31 am

jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu wrote:

quote:

> This is a reply to Neil's very reasonable defence of the Oxford
> Companion to Chess.

I'm not sure it's entirely a "defense", Jerry, as much as a pointing
out the general excellence of the work in question.

quote:

> Although I have no problem with your general post, I still feel that
> the two instances I pointed to as errors are true errors.

OK, prepare your case. Correction of error is partly what chess history
is.

quote:

> One is on Szen, where the Companion says that Szen's worst result is a
> narrow defeat by Bledow at Berlin in 1839.
>
> I checked the Companion, and there are no references at the end of the
> entry for Szen. Szen's known trip to Berlin is discussed in the German
> literature, and we know the games he played. I find it hard to believe
> that he could have made a second trip to Berlin, played a match with
> Bledow, and not have it reported on. It seems pretty clear that the
> Companion altered an overall score of 3-5-1 against various Pleiades
> members to a loss to Bledow.

OK.

quote:

> The other is the assertion that Lasa won a majority of games played
> against Staunton in 1844 in Berlin. There is a reference under Lasa to
> the article The Mighty Baron, and under Staunton to Keene and Coles
> biography. I do not have copies of these, but I read both at one time,
> and would be surprised if I had not noted any reference to such a
> series of games.

Memory can play tricks, as I have found out. :-)

I would also be very surprised if such a match

quote:

> occurred, althoughnone of these games appeared in either the Chess
> Player's Chronicle or the Schachzeitung.

Cleveland has the Schachzeitung's first year as 1846, two years after
the alleged match.

The Chess Player of 1851 makes

quote:

> the statement that the two had never met, which would mean that the
> encounter would have been unknown to players of the time. I don't think
> these games occurred.

I think you may have something here, Jerry. I'd prefer to see it as an
article, rather than a newsgroup posting, however.

On the other hand, I seem to recall getting a

quote:

> message from Louis Blair, which I can't find at the moment, that
> indicated that the claim that these games exist comes from Divinsky. I
> will try to find that message.

Sigh. Divinsky strikes again!

Louis Blair

2005-05-30, 3:31 am

Not too long ago, I acquired something called:
Proceedings of International Conference of Chess
Historians, Kornik, September 16-18, 2002. The
subject was Tassilo Von Heydebrand und der Lasa.
According to a contribution by Nathan Divinsky,
"[Lasa] played 7 games with Staunton in 1844, at
Berlin, and won 5 to 2." (It appears that by
"5 to 2", Divinsky meant 5 wins, 2 losses, and
no draws.)

However, according to a contribution by Vlastimil
Fiala, "In 1853 the Belgian capital was visited
by H. Staunton, with whom von der Lasa had been
in written context for many years. And yet until
then they obviously had never played a game
together. K. Whyld and D. Hooper claim in their
grand encyclopaedia that von der Lasa had played
several games with Staunton as early as 1844.
Unfortunately, this statement could not be confirmed
(probably only Murray mentioned this information
at the obituary in 1899), on the contrary, according
to Staunton in The Chess Player's Chronicle 1853,
p.293 it is believed to be their first encounter.
.... Staunton wrote about his [1853] meeting with
von der Lasa the following short commentary for
his magazine The Chess Player's Chronicle: 'A
recent excursion of the Editor to the Continent,
in search of health and relaxation, afforded him
an opportunity, long desired, of making the personal
acquaintance of the eminently distinguished Chess
author and player, Von Heydebrand der Lasa, ...
In addition to the gratification of becoming
personally known to Mr. Heydebrand, the Editor
enjoyed the pleasure of having a few games with
him. ...'"

If I remember correctly, John Townsend has a copy
of the Keene and Coles book about Staunton.
Perhaps he can check up on what it says.

Gaige's Chess Personalia does not identify the
dates when players played against each other.

Neil Brennen wrote (28 May 2005
02:04:38 -0700):

quote:

> Remember that often 'match results' of that
> era may have included or excluded informal
> games.

_
There is more involved here than just some
games, informal or not. The Oxford Companion
claims that the games were played in Berlin.
Try finding a reference anywhere else to an
1844 trip to Berlin by Staunton.

The Historian

2005-05-30, 6:47 am

jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu wrote:

quote:

> When reporting on match results of mid 19th century major players,
> there are some serious errors. I am not just talking about a question
> of a match result which they chose a dubious score for (there are quite
> a few of these), but some entirely incorrect descriptions which could
> skew one's view of the major players.

quote:

> Some examples off the top of my head:
>
> 1) The Companion says that Staunton lost the majority of games to Lasa
> in two separate encounters. There was certainly one such encounter, in
> 1853. I do not believe there was an earlier encounter. I suspect this
> is a mistaken version of Buckle playing Lasa, but since no sources are
> given in the book it is hard to know where the claim that the 2 played
> in 1844 comes from.

Did you check the biographical references at the end of the Staunton
entry? There is a biography of Staunton, I believe.

quote:

> 2) The companion says that Szen's worst result was a narrow loss to
> Bledow in (I believe) 1839. I believe that this refers to Szen's
> results during a brief stay in Berlin, where he played 9 games against
> various members of the Pleiades. His overall score was 3-5-1; he split
> 2 games with Bledow.

Again, did you check the biographical references at the end of the Szen
entry? Or perhaps the listing in Gaige's Chess Personalia?

quote:

> There are many other results on which the Companion is off a bit, or
> which I know only from the Companion and are not in other sources I
> have checked which should have them; how much should I trust it?

"Trust but verify."

quote:

> The evaluation of players is often wrong, in my opinion, but this is
> more of a judgement issue (similar to the ridiculous bias in favor of
> Staunton iin his dispute with Morphy which you alluded to). For
> example, I feel the companion denigrates Dubois by twisting a few
> facts. I would also question the choice of 19th century players omitted
> (eg Bilguer and Hanstein), but this is not a true error.

quote:

> I know that a couple of true errors would not be much to point at in
> such a large book, but there is not all that much material on the
> period of chess which I know something about, and a bit too high of a
> percentage strikes me as dubious. I was wondering if those who know
> about other time periods felt the Companion was accurate.
>
> I know I may be too picky here. The Companion is a lot of fun to read,
> and can interest many people in the culture of chess. I just don't know
> whether to judge it as a work of true chess history scholarship, or as
> a book of chess entertainment which happens to be much more accurate
> than Reinfeld's books.

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm

Oh well I'll just read Louis' post then, which, it seems to me,
reinforces your point.

I'm snipping the *whole* of your post on account of its being not
merely *pointless*, but actually *contrary* to your evident position.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm

THE OXFORD COMPANION

The best single volume reference work is scarcely the Oxford
Companion. If you want facts and plenty of them, the best work is
Chess -- Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in Moscow in 1990. It has,
quite likely, about 40 times the number of
discrete facts as the Companion. It is in Russian.

In addition, this work, which appeared just before the death of
the late USSR, has more accurate information on several controversial
Soviet entries than the Companion.

How embarrassing.

For example, in the first edition of the Oxford Companion, the
death of Vladimir Petrov is unattributed. We are told he died in
Smolensk in 1945, which even leaves open the possibility for readers
unaware of the chronology of WWII occupation, that the Nazis killed
him. In the late Soviet encyclopedia, Petrov is listed as unjustly
repressed, later rehabilitated and as having died in the Vorkuta
slave camps in August 1943. In other words, the Soviets murdered him
-- a fact that Whyld and Hooper were too delicate to mention in the
Oxford Companion.

There are more examples of this kind of thing in the Companion.
Still, I agree it's the best single volume source in the English
language.

Winter's claim that it's "a masterpiece representing a landmark
in the literature of our game" is as culture-bound as the articles of
Taylor Kingston. Winter likely did not know about the Russian
reference work, which embarrasses the Companion in terms of presenting
accurate information.

The Historian

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> After some 100s of messages back and forth on the nominal subject of
> Keres/Botvinnik, there is no new information presented on that topic, nor on
> any new methodology of research, and not even on past methodology.

Because the debate is not about those subjects. Were you able to read,
you might understand this fact.

quote:

> Instead we have the 4 principal writers to a dispute, Evans, Kingston, Parr
> and Winter, being represented on the basis of their correspondence together.
> A correspondence which does not even look like revealing any new historical
> material nor method, and is instead a sort of Rage of the Librarians spat on
> the clerical level of who said what.
>
> Lewis Carroll would have enjoyed it! In this particular instance of the
> finger post it doesn't matter who is right, nor if they can demonstrate
> their rightness: No new light will be shed on Keres/Botvinnik.

Because the debate is not about that subject. Were you able to read,
you might understand this fact.

quote:

> What is revealed is the fractured means by which our western chess histories
> are promulgated. Among other fallacies, we have begun to see references to
> 'authorities' as if this abstract reference to a person would solve a
> specific issue. Recently poor Ken Whyld was cited in a way which is not
> useful to anyone's understanding of the issue. Its true, he was a writer on
> chess history, but he also made more than a few blunders; a result perhaps
> of 'conviction' leading him overmuch.

quote:

> Several years ago he proposed that Morphy could not have been subject to
> homo-sexual blackmail while in London because the word 'love' had no sexual
> connotation then.

quote:

> in Elizabethan times and progressing with a citation about every century
> until Lawrence. But Ken did not admit nor acknowledge this rebuttal, and
> continued to 'convict' those who thought Morphy /could/ have been
> blackmailed.

quote:

> And so finally, I once read a good synopsis by Edward Winter on chess
> histories that needed to be written - in fact histories and specific
> biographies. How much more edifying it would be if we could have at last a
> good biography of Alekhine, or even of Morphy!

Perhaps Phil has never heard the name "David Lawson"?

Neither subject should be

quote:

> attempted by children, or convictionists, or people who would not understand
> subtle complexities in human nature - much more potent aspects of human
> motivation than tub thumping heroic writing from the safety of the middle of
> the library.

Note that His I-ness speaks on history and disparages libraries and
librarians.

The Historian

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> THE OXFORD COMPANION
>
> The best single volume reference work is scarcely the Oxford
> Companion. If you want facts and plenty of them, the best work is
> Chess -- Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in Moscow in 1990. It has,
> quite likely, about 40 times the number of
> discrete facts as the Companion. It is in Russian.
>
> In addition, this work, which appeared just before the death of
> the late USSR, has more accurate information on several controversial
> Soviet entries than the Companion.
>
> How embarrassing.
>
> For example, in the first edition of the Oxford Companion, the
> death of Vladimir Petrov is unattributed. We are told he died in
> Smolensk in 1945, which even leaves open the possibility for readers
> unaware of the chronology of WWII occupation, that the Nazis killed
> him. In the late Soviet encyclopedia, Petrov is listed as unjustly
> repressed, later rehabilitated and as having died in the Vorkuta
> slave camps in August 1943. In other words, the Soviets murdered him
> -- a fact that Whyld and Hooper were too delicate to mention in the
> Oxford Companion.

Parr was beating this horse nearly 20 years ago in Chess Life - see his
review of the first edition.

quote:

> There are more examples of this kind of thing in the Companion.
> Still, I agree it's the best single volume source in the English
> language.
>
> Winter's claim that it's "a masterpiece representing a landmark
> in the literature of our game" is as culture-bound as the articles of
> Taylor Kingston. Winter likely did not know about the Russian
> reference work, which embarrasses the Companion in terms of presenting
> accurate information.

Since Winter's comment was written a half-decade before the Soviet book
was published, I'm not surprised. Once again Larry Parr shows himself
to be chronologically challenged.

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm

>Once again Larry Parr shows himself to be chronologically challenged.

Would that that were the entire extent of his problems....

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm

The Historian wrote:

quote:

> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> Since Winter's comment was written a half-decade before the Soviet book
> was published, I'm not surprised. Once again Larry Parr shows himself
> to be chronologically challenged.

You mean Winter praised the Oxford Companion *DESPITE* the fact that
a better book would be published five years later?? My God, such
negligence and ignorance!!
I'm beginning to think I should start compiling a list of Parr/Evans
anachronisms; perhaps they would make a popular book along the lines of
"Bushisms," which detail the malapropisms of our less than eloquent
President.
Or perhaps another contest, where entrants submit chronological
mendacities comparable to that of Parr above, or Evans in the 9/2001
Chess Life. A few sample ideas (with the anachronism explained at the
end):

1. The American people were dumb enough to elect Herbert Hoover
president, despite the stock market crash and subsequent terrible
economic depression.
2. "Gone With The Wind" won the Academy Award for Best Picture,
despite the fact that "Citizen Kane" was a much better film.
3. Woodrow Wilson was twice elected US President, despite the fact
that he led the country into the first World War, in which thousands of
Americans were killed.
4. Larry Parr favored Fischer in his world championship match with
Spassky, despite the terrible anti-Semitic things Fischer said on
Philippine radio.

1. Hoover was elected in November 1928; the stock market crash
occurred in October 1929.
2. "Gone With The Wind" was released in 1939, "Citizen Kane" in 1941.
3. Wilson won the 1912 and 1916 elections; America did not enter WW I
until 1917.
4. Self-explanatory to any chess fan.

The Historian

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> The Historian wrote:
>
> You mean Winter praised the Oxford Companion *DESPITE* the fact that
> a better book would be published five years later??

Allegedly better book, Taylor. So far Larry's the only one to think so.

My God, such

quote:

> negligence and ignorance!!
> I'm beginning to think I should start compiling a list of Parr/Evans
> anachronisms; perhaps they would make a popular book along the lines of
> "Bushisms," which detail the malapropisms of our less than eloquent
> President.

If so, you have to include Parr's claim that Winter's negative comments
about Ken Whyld in A Chess Omnibus were "Winter's obvious defamation of
the dead." Whyld was very much alive when the book was being prepared
for publication.

quote:

> Or perhaps another contest,

Oh no! Not another one! :-)

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm

The Historian wrote:

quote:

> Allegedly better book, Taylor. So far Larry's the only one to think so.

True. Given Parr's track record, I would not get my hopes up.
Interesting thing about the Oxford Companion -- Parr says it has a
pro-soviet bias, Tomic says it has an anti-Soviet bias. These two
really ought to have a debate here on rgcp. Could make Lincoln vs.
Douglas look like Abbot vs. Costello.

quote:

>
> If so, you have to include Parr's claim that Winter's negative comments
> about Ken Whyld in A Chess Omnibus were "Winter's obvious defamation of
> the dead." Whyld was very much alive when the book was being prepared
> for publication.

In somewhat the same vein, we have these bizarre comments by R.
Laurie, quoted approvingly by Parr a few days ago: "Another dispicable
[sic] act by Kingston is that he is using a dead man to back up his
version. Ken Whyld left us last summer and this may be the reason
Friend Kingston has chosen to resurface."
"Resurface"?? And quoting Whyld is "dispicable"? I suppose from now
on, with both authors of the Oxford Companion dead, only despicable
people will quote it.