|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > March 2006 > Parr on Winter on "The Termination"
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]
| Author |
Parr on Winter on "The Termination"
|
|
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-09, 7:32 pm |
| Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
we refer you to:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...ermination.html
This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
"Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
describes. As a sample, I present its conclusion below:
"As matters stand, in 2005, is any consensus possible about the
Termination, despite all the claims and counter-claims? We believe that
few readers will disagree with the following summation:
* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
* Regardless of whether the decision taken by Campomanes was right
or wrong, or a mixture of both, he handled the affair incompetently,
both in Moscow and later;
* The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and
self-contradictory;
* Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself
from suspicion;
* A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
falsehoods."
| |
|
| > http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...ermination.html
quote:
>
> * The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
> never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
As I can see from the article E.Winter hasn`t discovered the truth either.
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-09, 7:32 pm |
|
"Jerzy" <jciruk@poczta.fm> wrote in message
news:dupude$bmn$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
quote:
>
>
> As I can see from the article E.Winter hasn`t discovered the truth
> either.
If the work of E. Winter is that of a fair minded critic, I should like a
definition of an obsessive.
Kingston cannot admit that Winter is a bit too fixed on certain things, no
matter how trivial, and that Winter cannot admit that he makes mistakes.
No one says Winter must be perfect, and it doesn't take anything away from
his real contributions to chess to admit that he makes mistakes, is somewhat
reluctant to admit them, and has quite evident partialities. Surely any real
consideration of Winter's contributions to chess should fairly mention these
things?
Winter certainly comments on the foibles of other people, real or imagined,
in his own writing, and let's allow the bloke a fair shake by admitting that
he too is entirely capable of making mistakes and obsessing, sometimes ad
infinitum, and sometimes without any objective basis for doing so.
I would like him more if he was not held up to be some saintly clerical
figure, rather than the fallible recorder he is.
Phil Innes
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-09, 7:32 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
>
> As I can see from the article E.Winter hasn`t discovered the truth either.
Quite so, Jerzy, at least not the whole truth. That is undoubtedly an
important reason he makes no attempt to assess the termination as right
or wrong.
Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
we refer you to:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...ermination.html
This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
"Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
describes. As a sample, I present its conclusion below:
"As matters stand, in 2005, is any consensus possible about the
Termination, despite all the claims and counter-claims? We believe that
few readers will disagree with the following summation:
* The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
* Regardless of whether the decision taken by Campomanes was right
or wrong, or a mixture of both, he handled the affair incompetently,
both in Moscow and later;
* The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and
self-contradictory;
* Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself
from suspicion;
* A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
falsehoods."
| |
|
|
quote:
>
> Quite so, Jerzy, at least not the whole truth. That is undoubtedly an
> important reason he makes no attempt to assess the termination as right
> or wrong.
>
No matter if the cancelletaion of the match was right or wrong.
The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the cancellation
of the match. As I can see E.Winter has sunk in details as usual ;-)
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-09, 7:32 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the cancellation
> of the match.
I quite agree. If you find out, please tell us.
In any event, that's not my point here. The point I am making is that
Parr has misrepresented Winter's writings on this subject. That is why
I provide the link to Winter's article, so that readers can see it for
themselves.
Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
we refer you to:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...ermination.html
This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
"Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
describes.
| |
|
|
quote:
>
> I quite agree. If you find out, please tell us.
> In any event, that's not my point here. The point I am making is that
> Parr has misrepresented Winter's writings on this subject. That is why
> I provide the link to Winter's article, so that readers can see it for
> themselves.
I can see from the aricle that E.Winter did not get things straight but made
them only more complicated.
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-09, 7:32 pm |
| Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> No matter if the cancelletaion of the match was right or wrong.
>
> The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the cancellation
> of the match.
Maybe. But very often the first step to do so is to exclude unreliable
sources. This Winter has done.
quote:
> As I can see E.Winter has sunk in details as usual ;-)
In this case the details count. If he can give different quotes of
witnesses, where they contradict themselves, this is indeed a matter of
details. But they can not just be ignored. Otherwise some people take
this quote, otheres the other quote, whereas Winter has shown that as
they are contradictory neither should be trusted.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
|
| >> No matter if the cancelletaion of the match was right or wrong.
quote:
>
> Maybe. But very often the first step to do so is to exclude unreliable
> sources. This Winter has done.
What sources can you exclude for sure ?
quote:
>
>
> In this case the details count. If he can give different quotes of
> witnesses, where they contradict themselves, this is indeed a matter of
> details. But they can not just be ignored. Otherwise some people take
> this quote, otheres the other quote, whereas Winter has shown that as
> they are contradictory neither should be trusted.
A suspicion has arisen that the article was written solely for purpose of
showing alleged cotradictions in Keene`s writings but not for purpose of
revealing the truth ;-)
| |
| John J. 2006-03-09, 7:32 pm |
| This whole business of Parr-Winter, etc., smacks of nothing but child like
gossip. Most folks here don't give a rat's butt.
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141930945.649285.223400@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Recently, in another thread, Larry Parr recycled his claim from April
> 2005 that Edward Winter "wrote a long screed justifyingy [sic] Campo's
> stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov match," Campo being
> then-president of FIDE Florencio Campomanes. As I pointed out back in
> April, no such "screed" exists, but Parr has since insisted that
> Winter's review of Kasparov's book "Child of Change" serves as such.
> Fair-minded readers will naturally demand evidence for such a claim.
> Since Parr has so far failed to provide any, and so that interested
> persons can see what Winter has *_actually_* written on this subject,
> we refer you to:
>
> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...ermination.html
>
> This is includes everything to date from Winter on the 1985
> termination of the first K-K match, incorporating his 1987 review of
> "Child of Change," further discussion from Winter's "Kings, Commoners
> and Knaves" (1999), and later material through about mid-2005. I leave
> it to readers to decide for themselves whether it is at all like Parr
> describes. As a sample, I present its conclusion below:
>
> "As matters stand, in 2005, is any consensus possible about the
> Termination, despite all the claims and counter-claims? We believe that
> few readers will disagree with the following summation:
>
> * The truth about the Termination has not been established, and may
> never be, and thus the only reasonable attitude is agnosticism;
> * Regardless of whether the decision taken by Campomanes was right
> or wrong, or a mixture of both, he handled the affair incompetently,
> both in Moscow and later;
> * The account by Kasparov in Child of Change was untruthful and
> self-contradictory;
> * Karpov has provided inadequate explanations to exonerate himself
> from suspicion;
> * A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
> inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
> falsehoods."
>
| |
| Ambassador 2006-03-09, 7:32 pm |
| Does Winter have any notable background other than the large ad in
Chess Life for his book? Who paid for his ad, and how much was paid?
I won't even try to ask these questions on the USCF web site. I'll get
censored, and start an international chess war. Why make myself mad
when I know what will happen? You know who, the Chess NAZI (I won't say
his name anymore) will CENSOR ME.
We need an INTERNATIONAL CHESS CEASE FIRE. I just want to how these
people get to run these ad's in the USCF magazine - Chess Life. If one
time I could just get a decent deal from the USCF, like not being
banned as a Chess Tournament Direcotor.
It's these damn SNOBS. To be on the US Chess scene, you need to be a
damn SNOB. I am serious. The successful chess polticians, are for the
most part, SNOBS in America. I don't know about Eurpoe. In the West
Indies, the chess politicans are not generally snobs.
So, what does it take to be a SNOB? I want like a typical SNOB
want-to-be resume. Winter, as I see it, has great potential to be a
SNOB in the USCF.
I am not calling Winter a SNOB. I am just saying with that ad in Chess
Life, he becomes SNOB material, if you know what I mean.
Marcus Roberts
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-09, 7:32 pm |
| Jerzy wrote:
quote:
>
> What sources can you exclude for sure ?
The books by Kasparov and Keene.
quote:
> A suspicion has arisen that the article was written solely for purpose of
> showing alleged cotradictions in Keene`s writings but not for purpose of
> revealing the truth ;-)
If he shows contradictions this is at least a step into revealing the
truth, as on gets not distracted by false hints. And he shows evidence
that Keene was actively involved in proposing the termination. If this
proof stands, this all is not only about some minor contradictions about
details, this is about a really mean play by Keene.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-03-09, 11:31 pm |
| WINTER'S ANTI-KASPAROV BIAS
I shall be reviewing Campomanes' outrageous
termination of the match shortly and examining all
the things that Edward Winter left out.
As Campo whispered at the Feb. 15, 1985
press conference to Karpov (picked up verbatim by a
CNN microphone, and the network produced a
transcript): "I told them exactly what you told me to
tell them." We note that shortly before that, Campo
told the press conference that he stood there, unaware
of what his decision would be, which was unfortunate for
him because TASS announced his decision BEFORE
this press conference began!
One of the "unreliable" sources excluded by Mr.
Winter was the actual transcript of the press
conference containing Campo's outrageous claims.
Winter's idea was to create an equivalence: Campo
lies through his teeth, turning truth literally on its
head, and Kasparov gets a chance to play another match
(then having to defend the title shortly thereafter, a
titanic task). The two are seen as equivalent
trade-offs. They are not.
If read carefully, Kasparov did not, in truth,
contradict himself in Child of Change. For example,
there is no necessary contradiction between stating
that one is worn down by pressure yet still feeling
better than at the start of the match, when Kasparov
must have been feeling truly otten. Winter's attempt
to suggest such a contradiction, while neglecting to
mention Campo's outrageous lies, is in itself an act
of analytical malfeasance.
That's a start. We shall examine whether Mr.
Winter adduced the facts. More to come.
GM Raymond Keene had absolutely no power to
stop this match. It's quite clear who was responsible.
Simply compare Winter's murky account with GM Evans'
lucid overview in THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY. Excerpts:
"Years later in 1988 Karpov's manager Victor Baturinsky
revealed that his man was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
He said he pleaded with Karpov over and over to continue, but in
vain....
"Instead, like a woozy boxer ahead on points, Karpov tried
to delay the contest for a week and keep his 5-3 lead.
But he already used up all his timeouts and, exhausted
by the ordeal, had shed 22 pounds....
"Ironically, Campo's attempt to save his friend's title backfired.
Kasparov won the next bout and then infuriated the Kremlin by
offering a title shot to Bobby Fischer, who unfortunately declined..."
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules...order=0&thold=0
| |
| help bot 2006-03-09, 11:31 pm |
| PI wrote:
"If the work of E. Winter is that of a fair minded critic, I should
like a
definition of an obsessive.
Kingston cannot admit that Winter is a bit too fixed on certain
things, no
matter how trivial, and that Winter cannot admit that he makes
mistakes."
I followed the link to what EW wrote about the termination, and it
seems to me that "determining the truth" was the last thing on his
agenda.
Winter goes on and on, almost endlessly, about Keene and Kasparov
contradicting themselves and each other; What has this to do with
finding the facts? If he wanted the facts regarding, say, Karpov's
condition at the time, who but an obsessive stalker
would begin his search by reading what Ray Keene had to say about it?
Was he Karpov's doctor? And Kasparov's writings? Good fiction, but
nothing in the realm of reality and truth.
Perhaps EW is willing to settle for embarassing those two for their
many self-contradictions but this is not much of an achievement, except
in the realm of parsing. The purported goal of finding the truth about
the termination leads one to expect far more than EW delivered -- and
that includes his bungling "summation."
It appears to me that EW simply used this issue to further his
attacks on Keene
& Co. (whose status was already in Chapter 13).
| |
|
| *I would contend that this is a case of fabrication...* (Kingston)
What is Parr fabricating?
Winter's account of the termination, so admired by Kingston,
is anything but fair and balanced. On the other hand GM Evans'
report on "The One That Got Away" contains most of the points
that Winter omitted and seems utterly convincing.
*A suspicion has arisen that the article was written solely for purpose
of
showing alleged cotradictions in Keene`s writings but not for purpose
of
revealing the truth ;-)* (Jerzy)
| |
| help bot 2006-03-10, 5:31 am |
| I agree with PI that LP was not simply "fabricating" and that EW's
article was biased against RK.
But I feel obliged to note the *ridiculous* position of endorsing
LE's One That Got Away with words like "utterly convincing." The
extreme bias in LE's writing regarding certain subjects leaves even
remotely objective readers unsatisfied. We want reason. We want a),
then b), therefore logically: c). Instead, we are invariably treated
to innuendo, guilt-by-accusation, and giant leaps of "logic" defying
all known laws of gravity. When challenged to do better, LP (here,
proxy for LE) invariably changes the subject. That is not exactly what
I would call "utterly convincing".
| |
| help bot 2006-03-10, 5:31 am |
| JJ wrote:
"This whole business of Parr-Winter, etc., smacks of nothing but child
like
gossip. Most folks here don't give a rat's butt."
Children don't gossip. Old women gossip. You're right about that
other thing, but then, why did you click on the thread name? Perhaps
you were hoping to read about the "termination" of one of those two
named -- now THAT would put a (rat's) end to it.
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-10, 5:31 am |
| help bot wrote:
quote:
>
> Winter goes on and on, almost endlessly, about Keene and Kasparov
> contradicting themselves and each other; What has this to do with
> finding the facts?
What other sources for the facts than testimonies of the witnesses do
you expect in this case?
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-10, 7:33 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> WINTER'S ANTI-KASPAROV BIAS
>
> I shall be reviewing Campomanes' outrageous
> termination of the match shortly and examining all
> the things that Edward Winter left out.
Feel free, Larry. I'm sure Winter left out various things, and may
well be wrong about some, even many perhaps. That ain't my point.
My point is that you claimed the article was aimed at "justifying
Campo's" actions. It is not. To be that, it would have to say something
like "I think the termination was a good thing, I applaud Campomanes
for it, and here's why." I wanted rgc readers to see for themselves
that it simply says no such thing.
So you can talk all you want about what Winter left out -- my point
is: what you say he put in, just ain't there. So it seems that either
you lied, or you have a rather creative memory.
quote:
> We shall examine whether Mr.
> Winter adduced the facts. More to come.
Larry, in this context I don't care if Winter is as wrong as "Wrong
Way" Corrigan and Roy Riegels put together. The point is, *_Larry
Parr_* invented a "fact." But go ahead, write one of your famous long
screeds justifying yourself.
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-10, 7:33 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141999744.094682.50000@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> Feel free, Larry. I'm sure Winter left out various things, and may
> well be wrong about some, even many perhaps.
What do TK mean by, "I'm sure"? Does he mean that he doesn't know or he
does? Is the final word 'perhaps' an admission, or is it a supposition?
quote:
> That ain't my point.
> My point is that you claimed the article was aimed at "justifying
> Campo's" actions. It is not.
From these sentences it seems as if he did read the material, therefore my
question above is answered by 'admission'. The logic of the piece of writing
in question is now that: if certain material is admitted not to be present
in the writing, how honest is the report?
quote:
> To be that, it would have to say something
> like "I think the termination was a good thing, I applaud Campomanes
> for it, and here's why."
No it wouldn't have to directly say that as rhetoric. It would have to
behave to ignore inconvenient facts and contexts, and present too much on
one side of the issue, to create the impression...
quote:
> I wanted rgc readers to see for themselves
> that it simply says no such thing.
Then they could also assess if what Winter proposed about the affair was
fair, by the same measure of your logic. This need to be tested:
TESTING, TESTING
Parenthetically: If a chess player is not allowed to play chess because of
his ethnicity or religion, do you personally think that it is fair to report
that the player was 'away from chess'? Now, of course he /was/ away from
chess, but not by his own choosing.
Perhaps if you could answer that question, then your sense of fair reporting
elsewhere could be measured by the same standard?
quote:
> So you can talk all you want about what Winter left out -- my point
> is: what you say he put in, just ain't there. So it seems that either
> you lied, or you have a rather creative memory.
By answering the above test, we would appreciate what Taylor Kingston
considers a lie, and what a truth.
quote:
>
> Larry, in this context I don't care if Winter is as wrong as "Wrong
> Way" Corrigan and Roy Riegels put together. The point is, *_Larry
> Parr_* invented a "fact." But go ahead, write one of your famous long
> screeds justifying yourself.
Taylor Kingston sometimes reminds me of the Kevin Kline character in A Fish
called Wanda; any list at all confuses him, and on being presented with 2
possibilities, he says 'what was the middle one again?' Sometimes things
ain't so simple as choosing one thing from a list of one thing.
As a commentator he might admit this could be a limitation on the value of
his current opinion. But the challenge to L. Parr is a fair one - if a bit
insincere - if L. Parr is going to have to explain and the explanation is a
bit long, will T. Kingston get bored with the sheer tedium of any complexity
of context and foreground? Is this in fact a reason to like simpler writers,
who just say it like it is, or at least how they imagine it is, as in
Kasparov's Introduction to BCO.
Phil Innes
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-03-10, 7:33 pm |
| KINGSTON DOESN'T CARE IF WINTER IS WRONG
<Larry, in this context I don't care if Winter is as wrong as "Wrong
Way" Corrigan and Roy Riegels put together. The point is, *_Larry
Parr_* invented a "fact." But go ahead, write one of your famous long
screeds justifying yourself.> -- Taylor Kingston
First the man who lied about his Elo rating by adding 500
points
to it accused me of fabrication. Now he says his chum Edward Winter
may be wrong but it doesn't really matter.
Mr. Kingston's bone of contention is that he doesn't see how
attacking Kasparov and Keene (who were Campo's mortal enemies at the
time) supports Campo! In point of fact, Campo used FIDE funds to send
Winter's screed about
the Termination to all FIDE member nations! Why do it if he didn't
think it would
help him politically?
My point is that NM Kingston will simply ignore blatant untruths
and evident lies in Edward Winter's work (including a wonderfully
crafty use of an anachronism to attack Larry Evans that I nailed in
a long essay). For he knows that the moment he breaks ranks with
Mr. Winter, he will be out in the cold winter.
In truth, I attacked Ray Keene's conclusion in Warriors of the
Mind, though
in a friendly way. He and Divinsky ranked Kasparov the strongest player
of all
time. I argued they were equating greatness with strength; the two are
not totally congruent. In the case of Kasparov, I refer readers to a
very long examination of Garry's behavior before his match with Kramnik
(www.worldchessnetwork.com).
It's a lengthy, comprehensive and merciless denunciation of Kasparov's
behavior.
The memoir TAN CHIN NAM, NEVER SAY I ASSUME
should be available at Amazon next week. Those
interested can also access www.mph.com.my
TAN CHIN NAM: NEVER SAY I ASSUME!
by Tan Chin Nam; Larry Parr
The story of a Malaysian life. The author, Dato' Tan
Chin Nam
businessman, sportsman, raconteur, and writer --
hopes that if
he "does nothing else" it is to help readers "enjoy
the same
successes rather than make the same errors that I
did."
I'm afraid that I am very busy at the moment promoting
the book
in newspapers and magazines. It will be appearing also in Australia,
London,
Hong Kong, China, Singapore, etc. I will try to post something soon,
but I may
again be disappearing from these precincts.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-10, 7:33 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1141999744.094682.50000@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> What do TK mean by, "I'm sure"? Does he mean that he doesn't know or he
> does? Is the final word 'perhaps' an admission, or is it a supposition?
No, Phil, it's an adverb.
[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| * Mr. Kingston's bone of contention is that he doesn't see how
attacking Kasparov and Keene (who were Campo's mortal enemies at the
time) supports Campo! In point of fact, Campo used FIDE funds to send
Winter's screed about the Termination to all FIDE member nations! Why
do it if he didn't think it would help him politically?* (Parr)
Winter's article is neither right nor neutral. He was too
clever to come out and support Campomanes openly.
Instead, by relentlessly attacking Kasparov and Keene, he resorted to
the time-tested principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Kingston's behavior is, as usual, despicable.
| |
|
|
quote:
> "Years later in 1988 Karpov's manager Victor Baturinsky
> revealed that his man was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
> He said he pleaded with Karpov over and over to continue, but in
> vain....
Yes, it was a well-known statement. Here we can find the truth.
Of course it`s worth revealing all secrets of this very long match. For
example : what led to the nervous breakdown.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-10, 7:33 pm |
|
Ambassador wrote:
quote:
> Does Winter have any notable background other than the large ad in
> Chess Life for his book?
Edward Winter is a well known chess historian, generally considered
one of the best in the field. Since 1982 he has written a column called
Chess Notes. To see his recent work, try the web-site
http://www.chesshistory.com/
Below is a list of his major books. He was editor and a co-author of
the first, sole author of the rest:
World Chess Champions (Pergamon Press, 1981)
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 (McFarland & Co., 1989)
Chess Explorations (Cadogan, 1996)
Kings, Commoners and Knaves (Russell Enterprises, 1999)
A Chess Omnibus (Russell Enterprises, 2003)
Chess Facts and Fables (McFarland & Co., 2006)
quote:
> Who paid for his ad, and how much was paid?
I would assume the book's publisher, who would have paid CL's
standard rate for an ad of that size. This is the general rule with
most books advertised in most magazines. If you contact Chess Life,
they will probably be happy to tell you their advertising rates.
quote:
> I am not calling Winter a SNOB. I am just saying with that ad in Chess
> Life, he becomes SNOB material, if you know what I mean.
It is quite normal for chess-related books to be advertised in Chess
Life. Happens with every issue, as far as I've ever seen.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-10, 7:33 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (9 Mar 2006 18:37:46 -0800):
quote:
> I shall be reviewing Campomanes' outrageous
> termination of the match shortly and examining
> all the things that Edward Winter left out.
_
And rigidly avoiding another subject?
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?
_
If they do, why doesn't either of them say so
explicitly? If they don't, why don't they admit
that they still have not produced a record of
such a claim?" - Louis Blair (28 Jan 2006
16:03:20 -0800)
_
Thirty days later:
_
"GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings
with Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I."
- Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800)
_
_
"Larry Parr fails to mention that he posted
this claim in a note with the heading
'EDWARD WINTER'S TRIPE (Continued)'.
Does Larry Parr claim that he had no
obligation to deal with the issue of
evidence? Did he make any attempt to
ask GM Keene for a quote of the supposed
Edward Winter claim? In the past, in
response to attacks by others, Larry Parr
has written things like:
_
'The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof' - Larry Parr (21 Sep 2005
20:39:02 -0700)
_
and:
_
'[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear.' - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think it was acceptable
for him to be a party to that sort of thing?"
- Louis Blair (27 Feb 2006 22:46:33 -0800)
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-03-10, 11:30 pm |
| YAWN
More predictable boilerplate from the Blairbot that has
nothing to do with the termination topic in this thread.
| |
| help bot 2006-03-11, 2:31 am |
| RC asks:
"What other sources for the facts than testimonies of the witnesses do
you expect in this case?"
The key word here, "facts", leads us far, far away from "testimonies"
by people like Keene and Kasparov. I might suggest first determining
precisely where those two are located, and then flying to the opposite
end of the Earth to begin one's search. 
Seriously, where do you see a real connection between the objective
facts, and the writings of Keene or Kasparov? Is Kasparov not biased
in his own favor? Did he not have an ongoing "war" with Campomanes
which "might" affect his objectivity? Did he not personally attack
Karpov, viewing him as "the enemy" not merely from across the
chessboard? Can you trust him to be objective on the matter?
And is your question not a silly one, in view of Edward Winter's
compilation of evidence that both of them have written lies (i.e.
self-contradictory claptrap) regarding the matter?
I reiterate: when EW "inquires" about Karpov's health, he might look
to Karpov's doctors, and not to Raymond Keene or Peter Pan for that
matter. Having examined Keene's claptrap and finding it wanting, a
true detective would have simply continued his search for the facts --
if indeed, that is what he had set out to do.
There are sources which are not so biased and self-contradictory.
There were other accounts of what happenned. The very strange focus
upon Keene speaks for itself.
| |
| help bot 2006-03-11, 2:31 am |
| Thanks to TK for providing the link.
Unfortunately, this "screed" is precisely what LP was
mischaracterising as "justifying" Campomanes' stopping of the match.
It *is* the missing "quote" demanded by LP's critics -- NOT fabricated
at all, but merely mischaracterised due to LP's peculiar worldview.
My point here is that LP was (wrongly, IMO) accused of *fabrication*,
when he was only guilty of being deluded (and it's simply not fair to
attack delusionals for crimes they cannot help committing).
Dictionary.com -- Fabrication: to concoct, in order to deceive.
For Larry Parr to have "concocted" this story in order to deceive us,
it would require that Edward Winter never wrote any such thing. In
fact, he wrote something which LP always has and always will interpret
as a "justification" of the match being halted.
LP did not "concoct" a story about what EW wrote in order to deceive
anyone; on the contrary, it is LP himself who is deceived, for he
misinterprets any criticism of certain allies as *support* for the
evil-axis powers -- even when no such support exists. You see, there
is a war going on, and Ray Keene and Garry Kasparov are fighting
(alongside Larry Evans and LP) the enemy, tooth and nail. If you are
not with us, you are against us! And anyone caught sitting on the
fence is fair game. War is Hell, you know.
| |
|
|
quote:
> There are sources which are not so biased and self-contradictory.
> There were other accounts of what happenned. The very strange focus
> upon Keene speaks for itself.
"Nomorechess" you are biased against Keene, Parr etc.
| |
| help bot 2006-03-11, 2:31 am |
| Jerzy wrote:
"No matter if the cancelletaion of the match was right or wrong.
The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the
cancellation
of the match. As I can see E.Winter has sunk in details as usual ;-) "
I think the responsibility belongs to Campomanes; He had (and used)
the power, and along with power, goes (no, not greed!) responsibility.
Campomanes is accountable for having intervened, and yet the specific
match rules -- which allowed the possibility of a problematic, endless
series of draws -- were probably not his bungling, but someone else's.
At the time, who would have imagined that GK would or even could be a
party to such draws? Even so, there is no excuse for not including
some provision in the rules to limit the duration of the event (just in
case).
It's really all Karpov's fault; If only he had crushed GK like a bug,
splattering his guts onto the chessboard with brutal, punishing moves,
there would have been no problem with draws. (If only I had been
there, I would have shown how it is done. Twenty moves, Garry. That's
all I need and you are *history*!)
| |
|
|
Uzytkownik "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1142059519.640072.24970@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Jerzy wrote:
> "No matter if the cancelletaion of the match was right or wrong.
>
> The truth should be revealed who is really responsible for the
> cancellation
> of the match. As I can see E.Winter has sunk in details as usual ;-) "
>
>
>
> I think the responsibility belongs to Campomanes; He had (and used)
> the power, and along with power, goes (no, not greed!) responsibility.
> Campomanes is accountable for having intervened, and yet the specific
> match rules -- which allowed the possibility of a problematic, endless
> series of draws -- were probably not his bungling, but someone else's.
> At the time, who would have imagined that GK would or even could be a
> party to such draws? Even so, there is no excuse for not including
> some provision in the rules to limit the duration of the event (just in
> case).
Of course Campo has direct responsibility of the cancellation as the FIDE
president but look at the guys behind the curtain who steered him.
quote:
>
> It's really all Karpov's fault; If only he had crushed GK like a bug,
> splattering his guts onto the chessboard with brutal, punishing moves,
> there would have been no problem with draws. (If only I had been
> there, I would have shown how it is done. Twenty moves, Garry. That's
> all I need and you are *history*!)
OK now answer why Karpov had his nervous breakdown ?
| |
| help bot 2006-03-11, 5:30 am |
| Phil Innes routinely "grills" TK whenever the latter harries LP for
his many gaffes; It reminds me of a line from Star Wars (paraphrased):
"I should have known it would be you holding Vader's leash."
Well, except that Dearth Vader was a whole lot *scarier* than PI.
LP accuses EW of leaving things out (i.e. of being biased/dishonest);
And I couldn't help but notice the things LP is leaving out, himself.
Like mentioning transcripts, but leaving out details therein which
might not fully support LP's position. LP mentions the time, but fails
to mention the *content* of an announcement by the press! LOL. Clever?
I think not. LP tosses out a quote of Campomanes "whispering" to
Karpov, but fails to note that Karpov was very unhappy -- he wanted the
match to continue, with his hard-earned lead *intact*. Campomanes
declared the match drawn, which completely ignored the match score!
However, this did allow Karpov to keep the title of World Champion for
a while longer.
To put things into better perspective, we should remember that
looking backward through time, we all know that GK went on to become
the highest-rated player of all time, at one point establishing a 100
Elo-point gap between himself and the rest of the field. Knowing this,
we might be prone to believe that GK was somehow "robbed" by
Campomanes' intervention.
However, *at the time*, it was not at all clear which of these two
players -- I am speaking of Kasparov and *Karpov*, not Campomanes --
was to emerge as the king of the ring. At the time, Karpov
(mistakenly) believed he could retain his title, if only they could
have an intermission in the match. At the time, Kasparov had no idea
that he was going to (eventually) distance himself from Karpov and all
the other top players in the world by half a class! GK only began
crying "foul!" after the fact, and this is not to be overlooked.
LP quotes Larry Evans:
"Ironically, Campo's attempt to save his friend's title backfired.
Kasparov won the next bout and then infuriated the Kremlin by
offering a title shot to Bobby Fischer, who unfortunately declined..."
In other postings, LP generally refers to this sort of thing as a
"smear". LE clearly implies that Campomanes' prime motive for stopping
the match was to save Karpov's title, yet he provides zero evidence,
only an empty accusation.
I would simply note that Campomanes erased Karpov's two point lead,
and then mercilessly threw him back to the lions, to Kasparov! Is that
any way to help a friend? A better strategy would be to declare the
match over, Karpov the winner, and "seed" Kasparov into the semifinals
of the next cycle. Then strongly advise Karpov to "retire".
Kasparov wins the next cycle with ease, both Fischer and Karpov are
happily undefeated millionaires, and Ivanchuk and Yusupov take turns
getting hammered by GK.
A perfect world.
| |
| help bot 2006-03-11, 5:30 am |
| LP wrote:
"Mr. Kingston's bone of contention is that he doesn't see how
attacking Kasparov and Keene (who were Campo's mortal enemies at the
time) supports Campo!"
Actually, TK's bone of contention was that LP invented a quote of EW,
when in fact LP simply *misrepresented* what EW wrote.
Larry Parr habitually (and mistakenly) "interprets" the skewering of
Keene and Kasparov as "support" for their sworn enemies.
Case in point: in the very same article in which EW showed many
inconsistencies and self-contradictions by Raymond Keene and Garry
Kasparov, he also skewered Jose Campomanes! Winter even thumbed his
nose at Karpov for not providing evidence of his innocence -- a
horrendous blunder in pollitical correctness. One doesn't prove one's
innocence; one is assummed innocent, until proven guilty. Duh!
Any objective reader (that excludes you, LP) would note the fact
that, although he doesn't obsess over them quite the way he obsesses
over Ray Keene, EW did in fact attack (or at least criticize) both
Campomanes and Karpov in the article in question.
I wonder if "jr" will ever present anything *substantive* here to
support his charge; without any substance, such a charge has a very
hollow ring to it. (My guess is that EW was attacking Raymond Keene
long before the election in which he was allegedly "too clever to
support Campomanes openly").
My take is that this hollowness rings a familiar bell. Where, oh
where, have we seen charges like this one before, with no substantive
evidence to back it up? Ah, yes: it is in the quotations so often
presented here by LP! LOL. Jr certainly has the right to an opinion,
but if he expects to convince others, he surely knows he must do better
than this.
jr wrote:
"Kingston's behavior is, as usual, despicable."
I see nothing despicable about TK's behavior here. He quite
reasonably expected LP to present a quotation to back up his stated
claim. What is unreasonable, is to expect TK to have realized that he
is dealing with a very mixed-up mind which /processes/ every fact and
twists it to fit a very messed-up worldview, and to take all this into
account /every time/ he responds to a posting by LP. That is a lot to
ask (and I may be guilty of having expected it -- sorry)!
| |
| help bot 2006-03-11, 5:30 am |
| LP wrote:
"YAWN
More predictable boilerplate from the Blairbot that has
nothing to do with the termination topic in this thread."
LP has fallen back to the trenches, relying upon the "off-topic
defense" to avoid further losses. He is now occupying the very same
foxhole Phil Innes left behind just a few days ago.
From the air, it looks like we are reverting back to WWI style
fighting, with mortars and cannon being the weapons of choice -- logic
and reason having been completely abandoned as ineffective against the
combatants' thick armor plate. In the distance, we can hear the
distinct clatter of a Blairbot tank, but in this rainy weather, the mud
is often over three feet deep. And the fog....
| |
| help bot 2006-03-11, 5:30 am |
| Jerzy wrote:
"OK now answer why Karpov had his nervous breakdown ?"
I wasn't the one who claimed Karpov had (or rather, was on the verge
of) a nervous breakdown; That was Baturinsky, as quoted by someone
else.
If *I* had been there in place of Karpov, it would have been over
(snaps fingers) like that! No nervous breakdowns, and no draws. A
clean score.
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-11, 7:31 pm |
| help bot wrote:
quote:
> Seriously, where do you see a real connection between the objective
> facts, and the writings of Keene or Kasparov?
Many people did so. They are witnesses, they have been involved.
quote:
> Is Kasparov not biased
> in his own favor? Did he not have an ongoing "war" with Campomanes
> which "might" affect his objectivity? Did he not personally attack
> Karpov, viewing him as "the enemy" not merely from across the
> chessboard? Can you trust him to be objective on the matter?
No, but usually there is the benefit of the doubt. So it is not
irrelevant to show, that Kasparov indeed is not trustworthy here.
quote:
>
> And is your question not a silly one, in view of Edward Winter's
> compilation of evidence that both of them have written lies (i.e.
> self-contradictory claptrap) regarding the matter?
They both have written books where they claim to tell the story as it
has been. I don't think that you that one can disregard any testimony
light handedly, just because the author might not be neutral.
quote:
> I reiterate: when EW "inquires" about Karpov's health, he might look
> to Karpov's doctors,
They must not tell anything about this.
quote:
> and not to Raymond Keene or Peter Pan for that
> matter.
Kasparov was sitting over months just a meter away from Karpov. People
from Karpov's group seem to have made remarks. Of course, all this is
not very convincing, but there is no other source. Again: Kasparov as
well as Keene claim, that they had information. And it is worthwhile to
have a look at this.
quote:
> Having examined Keene's claptrap and finding it wanting, a
> true detective would have simply continued his search for the facts --
> if indeed, that is what he had set out to do.
> There are sources which are not so biased and self-contradictory.
> There were other accounts of what happenned. The very strange focus
> upon Keene speaks for itself.
>
Once more: Kasparov and Keene both wrote books where they claim to tell
what happened. They pretend to be authoritive. They both make strong
allegations. Keene plays dirty games, as how he behaved at that time and
what he after that louldy questioned as unjust decisions are two
diferent things. So it is absolutely not strange that Winter focusses on
those two with an extra portion of acid for Keene, they are natural
targets because of what they did. Winter does not pretend, that he is
the one who is able to reveal the truth, but at least he shows, that
those who do pretend to present the truth can not be trusted.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-11, 7:31 pm |
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142062843.231007.287950@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Phil Innes routinely "grills" TK whenever the latter harries LP for
> his many gaffes; It reminds me of a line from Star Wars (paraphrased):
>
> "I should have known it would be you holding Vader's leash."
>
> Well, except that Dearth Vader was a whole lot *scarier* than PI.
What's Fair is Foul!
Mr. help bot would "shuffle it off before putting it on," and I don't know
if he will take the test that Kingston refuses.
What is being 'grilled' here are commentators who are so overwhelmingly
biased that they can't define their own terms for fear they will be
detected.
My question seems too scary to answer, so I dispute the point above, I AM
DARTH INNES!
And if you can't answer the question below, if you run and hide from it, but
still use terms like 'fair' while blaghing away for 15 years at specific
targets - then its your own understanding of what's fair which is in
question. I say such fair is foul, MacBot!
So try it on before shuffling it off, Mr. help bot, is the Oxford entry
fair? ;)
----
Then they could also assess if what Winter proposed about the affair was
fair, by the same measure of your logic. This need to be tested:
TESTING, TESTING
Parenthetically: If a chess player is not allowed to play chess because of
his ethnicity or religion, do you personally think that it is fair to report
that the player was 'away from chess'? Now, of course he /was/ away from
chess, but not by his own choosing.
Perhaps if you could answer that question, then your sense of fair reporting
elsewhere could be measured by the same standard?
----
Phil Innes
| |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) 2006-03-11, 7:31 pm |
| help bot wrote:
quote:
> The key word here, "facts", leads us far, far
> away from "testimonies" by people like Keene
> and Kasparov.
To talk about these two in the same breath
nonsensical, makes the discussion meaningless.
quote:
> Is Kasparov not biased in his own favor?
Isn't most everybody? Except that it did
Kasparov no good. He'd be much better off
if he didn't talk so much; preferably for him
not at all. For no good reason he acted like
he were his own attorney without a clue.
(Nobody told Kasparov how you call a man
who is his own attorney).
quote:
> And is your question not a silly one,
> in view of Edward Winter's compilation
> of evidence that both of them have
> written lies
Edward Winter did no such thing
(I didn't care to pay much attention
to the analysis of Keene's statements
by Winter; but certainly you are wrong
aboput the Winter's analyses of Kasparov's
statements).
quote:
> (i.e. self-contradictory claptrap)
Your "i.e." is false. Edward Winter
pointed to contradictions in Kasparov
statements but not to lies.
quote:
> The very strange focus
> upon Keene speaks for itself.
What focus?
*****
Wlod
| |
|
|
quote:
> "OK now answer why Karpov had his nervous breakdown ?"
>
>
> I wasn't the one who claimed Karpov had (or rather, was on the verge
> of) a nervous breakdown; That was Baturinsky, as quoted by someone
> else.
It was a well-known fact long before Baturinsky statement.
quote:
>
>
> If *I* had been there in place of Karpov, it would have been over
> (snaps fingers) like that! No nervous breakdowns, and no draws. A
> clean score.
Nomorechess, I think that you are a little bit weaker player than Karpov
and, of course, the score would be clean in Kasparov`s favour ;-)
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-11, 7:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> Mr. Kingston's bone of contention is that he doesn't see how
> attacking Kasparov and Keene (who were Campo's mortal enemies at the
> time) supports Campo!
Larry, you have the inflexible, dualistic outlook of a religious
fanatic, who thinks that everyone is in the service of either God or
the devil.
No, I do not see how criticizing Keene or Kasparov constitutes
support for Campomanes, any more than I think criticizing Churchill
equals support for Hitler, or criticizing President Bush equals support
for Osam bin Laden. Nor, I think, do any fair-minded readers here.
quote:
> In point of fact, Campo used FIDE funds to send Winter's screed about
> the Termination to all FIDE member nations! Why do it if he didn't
> think it would help him politically?
Campomanes did a lot of dumb things -- that's why he spends all his
time now trying to avoid going to jail.
quote:
> My point is that NM Kingston will simply ignore blatant untruths
> and evident lies in Edward Winter's work ...
Well, I might get around to that, Larry, but you keep me too busy
with your own blatant untruths and evident lies. Your statement is
rather like saying "Kingston will continue to ignore the horrid
impurities in Chateau Margaux, preferring instead to nit-pick about
perfectly good bathtub gin."
quote:
> For he knows that the moment he breaks ranks with
> Mr. Winter, he will be out in the cold winter.
Ah, yes, Larry, we all know that I'm Sauron to Winter's Morgoth,
never mind my various disagreements with Winter. In my experience,
Winter does not mind disagreement, but he does object to being lied
about.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-03-11, 7:31 pm |
| ANOTHER WHOPPER
<In my experience, Winter does not mind disagreement, but he does
object to being lied about.> -- Taylor Kingston
Mr. Winter's Humbug
From: parrthenon@cs.com
Date: Sun, Apr 24 2005
Mr. Winter's exchange with Anthony Saidy is wonderfully
redolent of the man and how his malevolence distorts his accurate
rehearsal of facts. Despite Mr. Kingston's claim that the criticisms
were all penned by enemies of Mr. Winter, IM Saidy was a friendly
contributor to Chess Notes and they were on excellent terms until the
following incident:
"I concluded years ago that Winter was deranged. After informing him
that his translation of some foreign phrase was incorrect, he huffily
responded, 'How dare you correct me!'" -- IM Saidy
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-11, 7:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> ANOTHER WHOPPER
Larry, I just *knew* you were going to bring up the Saidy bit. Did I
say anything about Anthony Saidy? No. I spoke about my own experience.
I repeat my statement:
quote:
> <In my experience, Winter does not mind disagreement, but he does
> object to being lied about.> -- Taylor Kingston
In this, I spoke truthfully about my correspondence with Winter, in
which I have at times disagreed with him. So in what sense is this a
"whopper" on my part? Seems like you can't keep straight what someone
said a few minutes earlier, let alone nearly 20 years before.
quote:
> Mr. Winter's Humbug
> From: parrthenon@cs.com
> Date: Sun, Apr 24 2005
>
> Mr. Winter's exchange with Anthony Saidy is wonderfully
> redolent of the man and how his malevolence distorts his accurate
> rehearsal of facts. Despite Mr. Kingston's claim that the criticisms
> were all penned by enemies of Mr. Winter, IM Saidy was a friendly
> contributor to Chess Notes and they were on excellent terms until the
> following incident:
> "I concluded years ago that Winter was deranged. After informing him
> that his translation of some foreign phrase was incorrect, he huffily
> responded, 'How dare you correct me!'" -- IM Saidy
Without knowing the full story, it is impossible for anyone to judge
this fairly. What we have here is only Parr's version of Saidy's side.
In any event, Larry, the topic here is Winter's writings on the
termination of the K-K match, and whether, as you have alleged, they
constitute a claim that (A) the termination was a good thing, and (B)
Campomanes handled it well. There being no such thing in what Winter
actually wrote, you've been reduced to arguing that:
(A) Anyone who criticizes Keene and Kasparov supports Campomanes, and
(B) Winter once was rude to Anthony Saidy.
Not, to use your phrase, Larry, "utterly convincing." Rather
laughable, in fact.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-11, 7:31 pm |
| On 11 Mar 2006 08:20:49 -0800, Larry Parr
reproduced part of his 25 Apr 2005 00:23:25 -0700
note:
quote:
> Despite Mr. Kingston's claim that the criticisms
> were all penned by enemies of Mr. Winter, IM Saidy
> was a friendly ...
_
Larry Parr does not mention that there was more
discussion related to this supposed claim of Taylor
Kingston:
_
"everyone familiar with the general reputation
of Mr. Winter knows that he is a person of low
repute." - Sam Sloan (Sat, 23 Apr 2005
20:06:44 GMT)
_
_
"'Everyone,' Sam? That is an absolute -- it
admits of no exceptions. Just checking very
quickly, I found these comments contradicting
you: [Quotes from Yasser Seirawan, Jan
Timman, William Hartston, Chess Life, Don
Schultz, and CHESS.]" - Taylor Kingston
(24 Apr 2005 06:50:55 -0700)
_
_
"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. ... [Quotes from ERIC
SCHILLER, GM RAYMOND KEENE, and
IM ANTHONY SAIDY.]" - Larry Parr
(24 Apr 2005 08:42:58 -0700)
_
_
"No matter how many examples [Larry Parr]
may produce of people who dislike Winter, it
does not and cannot establish Sloan's absolute
claim." - Taylor Kingston (24 Apr 2005
09:06:47 -0700)
_
_
"Mr. Kingston ... claimed on this forum that
the criticism I cited from IM Anthony Saidy
came from one of Mr. Winter's enemies"
- Larry Parr (28 Apr 2005 11:16:15 -0700)
_
_
"I never wrote what Parr claims." - Taylor
Kingston (28 Apr 2005 14:15:29 -0700)
_
_
"To refute Mr. Kingston's whopper that [Schiller,
Keene, and Saidy] were 'people who dislike
Winter' I quoted IM Anthony Saidy, who was
quite well disposed toward Mr. Winter for many
years, even very friendly
...
I interpreted 'people who dislike Winter' to
mean enemies, and I did NOT place quotation
marks around the word" - Larry Parr (28 Apr 2005
16:29:06 -0700)
_
_
"First of all, [Taylor Kingston did] not assert
that [Schiller, Keene, and Saidy] dislike Winter.
_
Second, even if we take it as legitimate to read
that into Taylor Kingston's words, Taylor Kingston
used THE PRESENT TENSE. A statement that
IM Saidy 'was quite well disposed to Mr. Winter'
in the past would not contradict the idea that IM
Saidy dislikes Mr. Winter in the present.
_
Third, perhaps Richard Nixon felt that anyone
who disliked him was an enemy, but I doubt that
very many today would say that 'enemy' is a fair
substitute for 'one who dislikes'. The absence of
quotation marks is no excuse for the distortion of
meaning." - Louis Blair (Fri, 29 Apr 2005
00:30:30 GMT)
_
_
"For the record, I do not now, nor have I ever, said
that Anthony Saidy is an enemy of Edward Winter,
nor have I ever meant to indicate any such thing
either explicitly or implicitly. Saidy may dislike
Winter, as his 'deranged' comment indicates. I
dislike Britney Spears' singing, but I am not her
enemy." - Taylor Kingston (28 Apr 2005
18:06:38 -0700)
_
_
"Under a subheading about people who dislike
Edward Winter, Mr. Kingston included Anthony
Saidy. ...
...
I assumed, given the atmosphere of the discussion,
that when Mr. Kingston was naming well-known
dislikers (?) of Mr. Winter, including IM Saidy, that
he was talking about enemies.
_
Given the others listed (Eric Schiller and Ray Keene)
it did not seem a stretch to suggest that the word
'enemy' would be synonymous with someone who
dislikes in this discussion." - Larry Parr (28 Apr 2005
20:51:45 -0700)
_
_
"The name, Saidy, simply is not [in the 24 Apr 2005
09:06:47 -0700 Taylor Kingston passage to which
Larry Parr is referring]. ... the Taylor Kingston passage
was NOT 'naming' dislikers. ... [It] did not 'list' Eric
Schiller or Ray Keene either. It had been Larry Parr
who had done that. Anyway, ... 'enemy' is not
synonymous with 'one who dislikes'. ... the notion of
being an 'enemy' has nothing to do with the point that
Taylor Kingston was making" - Louis Blair (Fri,
29 Apr 2005 05:45:17 GMT)
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-11, 7:31 pm |
| On 11 Mar 2006 08:20:49 -0800, Larry Parr
reproduced part of his 25 Apr 2005 00:23:25 -0700
note:
quote:
> Mr. Winter's exchange with Anthony Saidy is wonderfully
> redolent of the man and how his malevolence distorts ...
_
Then, as now, we did not see the actual details of the
exchange. Also, it is worth noting the extent to which
Larry Parr accepts responsibility for the accuracy of
what he cites in support of his views. As part of that
discussion in April of last year, Larry Parr posted
(24 Apr 2005 08:42:58 -0700) quotes from Schiller,
Keene, and Saidy. The GM Keene quote included:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted"
_
This, of course, is the very same claim that Larry Parr
resurrected on 25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800.
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?
_
If they do, why doesn't either of them say so
explicitly? If they don't, why don't they admit
that they still have not produced a record of
such a claim?" - Louis Blair (28 Jan 2006
16:03:20 -0800)
_
Thirty days later:
_
"GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings
with Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I."
- Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800)
_
_
"Larry Parr fails to mention that he posted
this claim in a note with the heading
'EDWARD WINTER'S TRIPE (Continued)'.
Does Larry Parr claim that he had no
obligation to deal with the issue of
evidence? Did he make any attempt to
ask GM Keene for a quote of the supposed
Edward Winter claim? In the past, in
response to attacks by others, Larry Parr
has written things like:
_
'The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof' - Larry Parr (21 Sep 2005
20:39:02 -0700)
_
and:
_
'[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear.' - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think it was acceptable
for him to be a party to that sort of thing?"
- Louis Blair (27 Feb 2006 22:46:33 -0800)
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-11, 11:32 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (8 Mar 2006 00:14:38 -0800):
quote:
> ... They have no proof, and given their inability
> over the months to provide any proof, we may
> figure with a high degree of certainty that none
> ever will be forthcoming. ...
_
I wrote (8 Mar 2006 10:16:08 -0800):
quote:
> Would Larry Parr want us to apply this sort of
> principle to some of the attacks that have appeared
> in HIS notes?
_
With the above comment, I included reminders about
the "ghost" attack, the "material difference" attack,
and the "'as' or 'like'" attack.
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Mar 2006 11:22:38 -0800):
quote:
> I can cite another example of Larry Parr's inconsistent
> attitude toward "proof":
>_
> "[Edward Winter] also wrote a long screed justifyingy
> [sic] Campo's stopping of the first Kasparov-Karpov
> match." -- Larry Parr on rgcp, 25 April 2005
>_
> The same day I asked Parr ...
_
Larry Parr wrote (9 Mar 2006 18:37:46 -0800):
quote:
> I shall be reviewing Campomanes' outrageous
> termination of the match shortly and examining
> all the things that Edward Winter left out.
_
I wrote (10 Mar 2006 16:10:39 -0800):
quote:
> And rigidly avoiding [the "ghost"] subject?
_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Mar 2006 16:59:33 -0800):
quote:
> YAWN
>_
> More predictable boilerplate from the Blairbot that
> has nothing to do with the termination topic in this
> thread.
_
As anyone can easily check with google, in just a
little over an hour (from 10:16:08 -0800 to
11:22:38 -0800 on 8 Mar 2006), four examples were
posted to illustrate Larry Parr's attitude toward
evidence and proof with regard to attacks appearing
in his notes. Since then, Larry Parr has posted more
on one of those four subjects, and the one he chose
was not the "ghost" subject.
_
Moreover, Larry Parr's evasiveness on the "ghost"
subject goes all the way back to the original thread.
Thus, there is reason enough to continue to point out
his evasion. The matter is especially relevant when
Larry Parr complains about the absence of proof
from others, or supports his views with quotes.
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?
_
If they do, why doesn't either of them say so
explicitly? If they don't, why don't they admit
that they still have not produced a record of
such a claim?" - Louis Blair (28 Jan 2006
16:03:20 -0800)
_
Thirty days later:
_
"GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings
with Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I."
- Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800)
_
_
"Larry Parr fails to mention that he posted
this claim in a note with the heading
'EDWARD WINTER'S TRIPE (Continued)'.
Does Larry Parr claim that he had no
obligation to deal with the issue of
evidence? Did he make any attempt to
ask GM Keene for a quote of the supposed
Edward Winter claim? In the past, in
response to attacks by others, Larry Parr
has written things like:
_
'The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof' - Larry Parr (21 Sep 2005
20:39:02 -0700)
_
and:
_
'[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear.' - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think it was acceptable
for him to be a party to that sort of thing?"
- Louis Blair (27 Feb 2006 22:46:33 -0800)
| |
| help bot 2006-03-12, 5:59 am |
| RC deftly ducks around the "problem" with Kasparov and Keene's many
self-contradictions, avoiding that issue while stating that these two
were "witnesses" who had a story to tell. Actually, Kasparov was more
than just an eye-witness: he was in fact allowed to sit at the very
same table with the two contestants in the match!
I still believe that EW was in no way attempting to discover the real
truth about the issue in question (i.e. the stopping of the match). In
order to do that, one simply *must* look further than the writings of
men such as Keene and Kasparov.
In fact, I don't see any particular need to read what Keene wrote on
the matter; this seems a waste of time which might be better spent
uncovering the facts. Let me see ...there was a match arbiter, the
organisers, and approximately six million others who *might* come ahead
of Keene. Heck, let's consier what Fischer had to say. And Larry
Evans. And Karpov's seconds. And the guy who swept the floor.
No, Winter is quite peculiarly fixated upon Ray Keene, which forces
me to evaluate EW as horribly inferior at "detective work" to, say,
Sherlock Holmes. The truth is that EW's pretense to be looking for the
truth on the issue of the match being stopped is transparent; he was
(and always is) looking for holes in Keene's defense. Having found
plenty, he rests content with his summation. Moriarty is nowhere to
found; perhaps he has moved to Switzerland? Oh, well, that's much too
far for us to persue him -- we bagged Keene, and that's all that
matters.
| |
| help bot 2006-03-12, 5:59 am |
| "What focus"? Who is Raymond Keene -- never heard of him. I love
it! LOL
Call it inconsistencies or call it mere contradictions or call it
lies; a rose smells just as sweet by any name. Edward Winter (and the
link to his article) is quite unnecessary here, but for the neat
compilation of self-contradictory statements relating to this
particular case.
I think Wlod treats Kasparov's problem with undue kindness; he
forgives virtually any lies by the latter while at the same time
holding a very different standard for those he doen't favor. This is
why Wlod is so upset by the mention of Kasparov's name in the same
breath as Keene, even though they both have the very same exact
"problem".
For me, lies are just lies, and there is no forgiveness on account of
Kasparov being a chess genius. Perhaps I am too demanding. Perhaps it
is enough to be a chess genius. Perhaps lying is okay, if it is
compensated for in other areas. But I very much doubt it.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-12, 5:59 am |
| helpbot (nomorechess@hotmail.com)
wrote (11 Mar 2006 20:41:50 -0800):
quote:
> I still believe that EW was in no way attempting to
> discover the real truth about the issue in question
> (i.e. the stopping of the match). In order to do that,
> one simply *must* look further than the writings of
> men such as Keene and Kasparov.
_
I do not think that it would be quite right to characterize
Edward Winter's writings on this subject as purporting
to be an "attempt" "to discover the real truth". I think
it would be more accurate to say that Edward Winter
was trying to argue that there was still a need for the
real truth to be found. For this purpose, it would, of
course, be natural to consider what had already been
written by such authors as Keene and Kasparov.
_
"it would be most welcome to see a reliable
journalistic write-up of the entire Termination
Affair which is devoid of speculation. The
matter is simply too important to be touched
by the 'I-think-I-read-somewhere' and
'My-guess-would-be' brigade." - Edward Winter
(June 2004)
| |
| help bot 2006-03-12, 6:01 am |
| I think the /precise/ meaning of PI is getting lost in translation
from his native tongue, but I will try to answer -- more or less --
what I *think* he is asking.
No, EW's article does not do the purported issue, that is, the
stopping of the match, justice. EW focuses too narowly on what Keene
and Kasparov have written, while skirting the issue of what really
happenned with self-proclaimed agnosticism. EW finds weaknesses and
errors in the various accounts given by these two with regard to the
match, and revels in recounting them. EW is well-known as not being a
member of the objective set, with regard to Ray Keene; he has a long
history of attacking and nitpicking Keene and his allies.
I was once forbidden to play chess because I am so hopelessly ugly;
yet when one foggy Chessmas night arose, due to the extraordinary
brightness of my (albeit ugly) nose, I was chosen to head up a chess
team, which (it goes without saying) went on to victory, and ever since
I was regarded by the masses as a chessic hero! Did my critics
continue to obsess over my ugly nose? Of course. Wait -- maybe you
were talking about Kasparov? (embarassrd silence)
Ahem: yes, it is well known that Kasparov's true religion is
self-praise, and this his critics have held up against him time and
again. But I don't see how he was stopped from playing chess, unless
you mean what Campomanes did by stopping the match. Wlod has
maintained that GK had absolutely no real power to stop the match, and
so Winter's stuff about Keene and Kasparov is nonsense. Wlod claims
that GK was a hapless victim here, that the evil Karpov and his
sinister team are to blame. But he gives only personal opinions in
support of this theory. 
PS: Dearth Vader had a long black cape and picked people up -- by
the throat -- with one hand while interrogating them. Does PI really
believe he can top this?
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-12, 6:02 am |
| helpbot (nomorechess@hotmail.com)
wrote (11 Mar 2006 22:44:59 -0800):
quote:
> EW's article does not do the purported issue,
> that is, the stopping of the match, justice. EW
> focuses too narowly on what Keene and
> Kasparov have written, ...
_
I do not think that Edward Winter was claiming to
have done justice to the issue of the stopping of
the match. If he had felt that he had done justice
to that issue there would have been no need for
him to call for "a reliable journalistic write-up of the
entire Termination Affair".
_
Again, it seems to me that Edward Winter was
trying to argue that justice had not yet been done.
For this purpose, it would, of course, be natural to
consider what had already been written by such
authors as Keene and Kasparov.
| |
|
|
|
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com>
quote:
>
> Really? I wonder why Baturinsky has tried to steal the credit by
> getting others to quote *him* (when eveybody and his brother already
> knew)?
>
No, official statements always are lagging behind unofficial ones
quote:
>
>
>
> "Nomorechess, I think that you are a little bit weaker player than
> Karpov
> and, of course, the score would be clean in Kasparov`s favour ;-)"
>
>
> That's precisely what I said -- a *clean score* and no nervous
> breakdowns! Did you think I meant I would have beaten Garry Kasparov?
> Anyhow, if I had, I would have gladly granted him a rematch under the
> London conditions.
No, you pretended that you could win with Kasparov and it`s not possible.
You are too weak.
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-12, 6:03 am |
| help bot wrote:
quote:
> I still believe that EW was in no way attempting to discover the real
> truth about the issue in question (i.e. the stopping of the match). In
> order to do that, one simply *must* look further than the writings of
> men such as Keene and Kasparov.
He is no detective, running around making investigations. He never
pretended doing such a thing. He just looked at the available
publications and statements.
quote:
> In fact, I don't see any particular need to read what Keene wrote on
> the matter;
Many people take the author of a lot of books and of a chess column in
the Times serious. It is not self-evident that you can simply discard
his writings.
Let me see ...there was a match arbiter, the
quote:
> organisers, and approximately six million others who *might* come ahead
> of Keene. Heck, let's consier what Fischer had to say. And Larry
> Evans. And Karpov's seconds. And the guy who swept the floor.
Obviously nobody of them wrote books about this.
quote:
> No, Winter is quite peculiarly fixated upon Ray Keene, which forces
> me to evaluate EW as horribly inferior at "detective work" to, say,
> Sherlock Holmes.
I think the critics here are fixated on Keene. About half the article of
Winter is about Kasparov's writings. So, is he also fixated on him?
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| help bot 2006-03-12, 6:03 am |
| LB opined:
"I do not think that it would be quite right to characterize
Edward Winter's writings on this subject as purporting
to be an "attempt" "to discover the real truth". I think
it would be more accurate to say that Edward Winter
was trying to argue that there was still a need for the
real truth to be found. For this purpose, it would, of
course, be natural to consider what had already been
written by such authors as Keene and Kasparov."
My take is in partial agreement with LB: Winter in no way handled
this in a thorough-going manner, but settled for poking holes in
certain published accounts by certain writers.
However, his *choice* of writers reveals more about EW than it does
about "The Termination". Perhaps EW himself does not imply in the
article in question to have really examined the wider issue, but only
to have weeded out some chaff; but then we still have the issue of his
peculiar selection of chaffs to sift through, searching for
contradictions.
If I were a quote bot, I would point out that, after having found all
sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies (read: lies) in the
accounts of Keene, Kasparov, and Campomanes (among others), EW
nonetheless issues words like these:
Karpov -- "inadequate" and not "exonerated" [what, no greasy-hair
reproach?]
Kasparov -- "untruthful" and "self-contradictory" [go easy on this
particular liar]
and Keene?
"abject falsehoods" [outright lies]
The question remains: why the narrow focus upon Kasparov *and Keene*?
I can only offer that Kasparov's 8-0 victory over his opponent, GM
Keene, left but two witnesses: the contestants themselves. Karpov may
have been the official arbiter, but he was not allowed to observe the
games. (Campomanes only intervened to save RK from further beatings.)
Okay, Keene was *one of* the popular British writers on chess, but
certainly not the only one who knew there was a WC match going on, not
the only one to capitalise on it.
And were I merely a quote bot, I would note very carefully the
following comment by EW:
"A number of chess writers have handled the Termination decision
inaccurately, and, above all, Keene has often attacked it with abject
falsehoods."
"Above all"? A careless Freudian slip!
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-12, 7:33 pm |
|
help bot wrote:
quote:
> No, EW's article does not do the purported issue, that is, the
> stopping of the match, justice. EW focuses too narowly on what Keene
> and Kasparov have written, while skirting the issue of what really
> happenned with self-proclaimed agnosticism. EW finds weaknesses and
> errors in the various accounts given by these two with regard to the
> match, and revels in recounting them.
You point out what is both a strength and weakness in Winter's
approach to this subject. Most journalists have tended to give Kasparov
a free pass -- even when he's plainly wrong, or contradicts himself, or
makes baseless accusations, it often goes unquestioned. Winter, on the
other hand, is not afraid to call it bull when GK speaks bull, and so
sometimes catches things other writers miss.
On the other hand, Winter, as far as I know, has confined his
research mostly to published sources, e.g. Kasparov's book, Keene's
columns, Campomanes' press statements, etc. That is not enough to get
to the heart of an affair where so much went on behind closed doors.
For that you need inside sources and contacts. I don't think Winter has
those -- at least not to the extent required to get to the bottom of
the Termination. His approach would be about the only feasible one if
the subject was an event from 100 years ago, but not when all the
principal parties are still alive.
Still, I think Winter's article serves a useful purpose. Best case,
it would inspire some ambitious investigator who *does* have the
necessary contacts to pursue the matter in real depth.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-12, 7:33 pm |
| On 10 Mar 2006 06:53:12 -0800, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:
quote:
> The memoir TAN CHIN NAM, NEVER SAY I ASSUME
>should be available at Amazon next week. Those
>interested can also access www.mph.com.my
>
> TAN CHIN NAM: NEVER SAY I ASSUME!
> by Tan Chin Nam; Larry Parr
>
> The story of a Malaysian life. The author, Dato' Tan
>Chin Nam
> businessman, sportsman, raconteur, and writer --
>hopes that if
> he "does nothing else" it is to help readers "enjoy
>the same
> successes rather than make the same errors that I
>did."
>
> I'm afraid that I am very busy at the moment promoting
>the book
>in newspapers and magazines. It will be appearing also in Australia,
>London,
>Hong Kong, China, Singapore, etc. I will try to post something soon,
>but I may
>again be disappearing from these precincts.
Great! I have just added your new book to my Wikipedia biography of
you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Parr#Books
Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.
Sam Sloan
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-03-12, 7:33 pm |
| MORE LATER
<Taylor Kingston speaks bull, as usual. There is no incident in the
entire history of chess that has more written about it than the
stopping of the first Karpov - Kasparov
Match. AP Reporter David Goodman alone wrote dozens of articles about
this,
which were pub;lished in the world press.> -- Sam Sloan
In addition to all his other virtues, Edward Winter launched
letter writing campaigns to get IM Goodman fired from the AP, GM Keene
fired from the Times of London, and GM Evans fired from Chess Life.
Needless to add, all three of these journalists were highly
critical of Campo.
Gotta run.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-12, 7:33 pm |
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> On 12 Mar 2006 07:51:01 -0800, "Taylor Kingston"
> <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> Taylor Kingston speaks bull, as usual.
>
> There is no incident in the entire history of chess that has more
> written about it than the stopping of the first Karpov - Kasparov
> Match.
>
> AP Reporter David Goodman alone wrote dozens of articles about this,
> which were pub;lished in the world press.
>
> Nobody gives Kasparov a "free pass". Kasparov is the most criticized
> personality in the world of chess.
>
> Edward Winter (aka Taylor Kingston) gives his attention to Kasparov's
> book and Keene's columns for one simple reason. Winter is obsessed
> with Keene. Almost everything Winter writes is either a direct or an
> indirect attack on Keene. It is true that Keene was a central
> character in the Kasparov-Karpov match and any discussion of the match
> would have to include a mention of Keene but to write an entire book
> about Keene is ridiculous.
>
> Also, nothing about the match went on behind closed doors. The much
> disputed events of the match were neveretheless not secret. I know
> things about the stopping of the match which have never been
> published, and I was not even there. For that matter, Keene was not
> there either. He was in London.
>
> Sam Sloan
Hey, I think we've found our man to investigate this case -- chess
journalism's answer to Jack Anderson, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and
Hedda Hopper -- our own Slammin' Sammy Sloan.
Sam, you write up a detailed account of The Termination, using all
your vast collection of chess literature, your carefully organized body
of journalists' accounts, your legendary analytical powers, your
high-level FIDE and Politburo contacts, all your secret knowledge, and
I'll see to it that you get paid ten times the usual ChessCafe Skittles
Room rate for it -- twenty times if it's good enough, with all sources
carefully documented and such. I'm sure anything you write about it
will be worth that much.
| |
|
|
quote:
> Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
> history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
> on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
> to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.
>
Sam, some guys here and there are just obssessive stalkers ;-)
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-12, 7:33 pm |
| Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
> history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
> on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
> to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.
Sam, Sam, lying again. First: I did not vandalize. Second: I did not
delete "almost everything", only parts of articles. Third: My changes -
with one exception - were limited to chess related topics, which means I
left alone all your political and other articles. Last: the Winter
article has shown, that others are doing this job now.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-12, 11:32 pm |
| On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:18:00 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
<ralf.callenberg@web.de> wrote:
quote:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
>
>
>Sam, Sam, lying again. First: I did not vandalize. Second: I did not
>delete "almost everything", only parts of articles. Third: My changes -
>with one exception - were limited to chess related topics, which means I
>left alone all your political and other articles. Last: the Winter
>article has shown, that others are doing this job now.
>
>Greetings,
>Ralf
As it turns out, this time it was not Ralf Callenberg who vandalized
the article, but rather Louis Blair, who posts as 137.216.208.82 ,
which is in Brookings, South Dakota.
Louis Blair was a bit more civilized about it, not bulldozing the
entire article as Ralf Callenberg does, but just deleting a few lines
of my Larry Parr article.
Louis Blair also deleted content from my Eric Schiller article,
deleting among other things the foillowing unquestionably true
statement:
"Schiller was for many years the right-hand man of World Chess
Champion Garry Kasparov."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schiller
Sam Sloan
| |
| Paul Rubin 2006-03-12, 11:32 pm |
| sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
quote:
> Louis Blair also deleted content from my Eric Schiller article,
> deleting among other things the foillowing unquestionably true
> statement:
>
> "Schiller was for many years the right-hand man of World Chess
> Champion Garry Kasparov."
From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability>:
"Articles should contain only material that has been published by
reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view
that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may
seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability,
not truth."
If Louis Blair removed an unverified claim, he did the right thing
according to Wikipedia policy, regardless of whether the claim is true.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-12, 11:32 pm |
| Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com)
wrote (Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:45:20 GMT):
quote:
> Louis Blair ... deleting among other things
> the foillowing unquestionably true statement:
>_
> "Schiller was for many years the right-hand
> man of World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov."
_
"It is an unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia
works that simply knowing somethign to be true is
not enough, you have to show that reliable secondary
sources have reported it as such." - Just zis Guy you
know? (16:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
| |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) 2006-03-12, 11:32 pm |
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
>
> Please Note: "Rook_wave", who posts here as Ralf Callenberg has a
> history of following me around and deleting almost everything I post
> on Wikipedia. Therefore, you and others will have to watch this site
> to see if Callenberg tries to vandalize it again.
Sam, be grateful to Ralf Callenberg--he is preventing
you from vandalizing Wikipedia. Why don't you send | | |