| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:40 pm |
| Chess One wrote:
quote:
> It is not evident to him that Kingston's chess skill does not allow him to
> look at a chess diagram of his own choice ...
"a diagram of his own choice"? Please explain to us, Phil, how a
diagram I never wrote about, probably never gave more than a quick
glance, becomes "a diagram of my own choice."
BTW, the book in question has close to 400 diagrams. From now on, we
will expect you to examine in detail each diagrammed position of any
books you review in the future.
quote:
> and speak intelligibly about it
Phil Innes talking about intelligibility is like Helen Keller
reviewing movies.
quote:
> in chess terms - in fact, missing the key factor that determines the game in
> one stroke?
That would be fair comment had I attempted to analyze the game in
question, but I did not. So, it's rather like saying that even if a
baseball player gets a hit, he should be criticized for failing to
score a touchdown.
quote:
> That IS the issue!
The issue is that Raymond Keene, OBE, has attempted a cheap smear
based on an obvious lie. Why Keene (or is it just Phil Innes pretending
to speak for Keene?) suddenly considers a small fry like myself worthy
of his attention, I have no idea -- perhaps he has been goaded by the
sycophant Innes.
It's unfortunate. This might have been an opportunity for Keene to
dispel at least some of the negative image that's grown around him.
Instead, he's merely confirmed some of the ugly aspects of his
reputation.
|