Sock Puppetry

[Paul McKeown]

I noticed RdC's reference to the Streatham & Brixton blog:

Given the latest rant/exposure on the Streatham blog, I did wonder who was the publisher. Keverel rather than Hardinge-Simpole, but the London Chess Centre have it in stock and advertise it.

Out of curiosity I looked at that blog, in which the latest post was Justin Horton's "A likely customer" from 17th September. I'm not a fan of Horton's obsession with The Penguin, but, credit where credit is due, I was actually amused by his uncovering of Ray Keene's latest self-boosting. This time by writing his own reviews on Amazon, and getting a select few of his chums to do the same. Can anyone shed light on who this so-called Hugh Davies "Teenage Chess Prodigy" actually is? Pretty sad career step, that, writing 5 star reviews for Keene!

One thing I would say, though, is that Richard Eales's Chess The History of a Game is actually a seriously good book and I would recommend it whatever boosting Harding-Simpole may have undertaken of its publications.

-- Edited to remove incorrect statements.

[Roger de Coverly]

And I also agree with him that continually writing in that manner can only present English chess in a bad light.

Agreed, but I remain baffled by the disparate alliance that seems to be supporting "None of the above" against now the only candidate for ECF President. You have the membership groupies opposing a review of membership, notwithstanding the interview on the Yorkshire site which appears to support their longer term objectives. You also have one of the ex-CEO's dragging up the 1999 and 2000 grading fiascos. You then get a notorious blogger raising issues about wiki entries. I would not have fingered the notorious blogger as much of a computer hacker, so persons unknown must have done the technical legwork on his behalf.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... I agree with JC ... I also agree with him that ... And I also agree with him that ....

Paul,

IMJC is a frequent contributor to our comments box. I've not seen him every express any of the opinions that you say are his.

Do you have links?


I'm a bit confused about other aspects or your post too, but I'm experiencing a bit of work related zeitnot just now so let's restrict the discusion to John Cox's comments just now.

[Paul McKeown]

Jonathan,

As you deleted the whole of Justin's rant related to the junior chess incident, JC's comments related to your blog's coverage disappeared. So no, I can't provide the link. I do have a memory, though. Strange that yours fails.

[John Cox]

Not sure I was 'wrathful' - 'mirthful'. certainly, but what else is RDK for, after all?

I didn't think S&B 'went too far' about Austria, either, particularly - IMHO in the wrong direction, certainly, but no more than within the fairly wide range of opinions one expects when such colourful and entertaining events are discussed on the usual basis of no facts whatsoever being known to either party. And I certainly don't have any views about the "pursuit" of AF or anyone else - in all honesty I've barely heard of these people and if the Quorn chased them naked through Piccadilly I probably wouldn't notice. Nor do I really see how any commentator could put English chess, let alone world chess, in a worse light than its administrators manage all on their own.

[Paul McKeown]

Okay, John. I stand corrected. What were your comments at the time about the Austrian incident concerning then?

[John Cox]

I can't remember what I said, to be honest. My general view though was that Rahman was on his own showing a total twerp who was receiving far too much respect.

I do think S&B would do well to put up some sort of explanation for pulling the thread, but I can't say it's exercising me greatly.

[AustinElliott]

I can't remember what I said, to be honest. My general view though was that Rahman was on his own showing a total twerp who was receiving far too much respect.

I do think S&B would do well to put up some sort of explanation for pulling the thread, but I can't say it's exercising me greatly.

Thanks to the wonders of internet search engines, I think the comment John refers to might be this one.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

You then get a notorious blogger raising issues about wiki entries. I would not have fingered the notorious blogger as much of a computer hacker, so persons unknown must have done the technical legwork on his behalf.

I'm a bit surprised by this part of what you said. It's not at all difficult to look at what happened here, and requires precisely zero technical legwork. It made me wonder if you know how wikis work? You go to the history page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

You find the edit referred to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =503284707

You click on the IP address to see the contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... 125.62.248

Click on "diff" if you want to see the other edits which were referred to in the blog.

To see where the IP geolocates to, click "geolocate" in the box at the bottom of that contributions list. That gets the Stoke-on-Trent bit referred to in the blog.

The irony is, that contributing to Wikipedia with an account, rather than as an IP address, means that that sort of information (the IP address) is hidden.

What will happen to those edits is that this page (like many other school pages) will continue to accumulate alumni-cruft like that, which will eventually be tidied up (i.e. removed) one day if (as is likely here) no sources are provided. The point being not to trust any Wikipedia page that doesn't provide sources. Though it should be obvious to anyone that you check information from any source (not just Wikipedia, but even printed sources should give the sources they have used, unless they are speaking from authority) to see if the source and the information presented are reliable. If you don't do that, then you are just asking for trouble.

[Roger de Coverly]

It made me wonder if you know how wikis work? You go to the history page:

You know this, I didn't.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It made me wonder if you know how wikis work? You go to the history page:

You know this, I didn't.

Apologies, then. I assumed everyone knew that sort of thing. Thinking on it a bit more, I probably know a bit too much about how wikis work... Wish I could say the same for chess!

[Roger de Coverly]

Apologies, then. I assumed everyone knew that sort of thing. Thinking on it a bit more, I probably know a bit too much about how wikis work..

What would be your estimate of how many actually know (or care) about the finer details of the operation of wiki?
Perhaps I was wrong to accuse the notorious blogger of not knowing these things. "You know who" is accused by the Streatham blog of submitting assumed name reviews to Amazon. Again not something I have ever needed to know how to do.