Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18092
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:47 am

John Saunders wrote:
'Dubious characters'... 'notorious self-publicists' - who are you talking about it?
Both the ex-President of the ECF and the Times Chess Correspondent like the right kind of publicity rather more than the other three (edit) four (/edit) in the photograph.
John Saunders wrote: he photos were uploaded in the chronological order in which they were taken.
Why upload the photographs of the arbiter, sponsors and spectators at all?
John Saunders wrote:So what you are saying is that it was the match sponsor's own fault for associating with these people, and so he can expect to be trashed on this forum, are you? I'm afraid I find that view little short of despicable and one which could potentially cause damage to chess in this country.
The other way round surely. It wasn't the match sponsor who posted the pictures to Twitter. As you suggest he wasn't aware of the wider reputation of those he was pictured with.

The dubious associates argument has been frequently used by magazine editors to trash the reputation of the FIDE President and rightly so.
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18092
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:03 am

IanDavis wrote:Who are the directors of Chess and Bridge Limited?
Here's the link
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/02721 ... areholders

Henry Gerald Mutkin
and
Malcolm Pein

Robert Feather (ex-Director) also in Photo
http://ow.ly/i/4PCpn

John Upham
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by John Upham » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:09 am

I was lucky enough to meet Henry Mutkin for the first time at the 132nd Varsity Match. He made me very welcome and wishing to revisit the event.

I'd never attended the RAC Club previously although I have had meetings Motor Sports House in Colnbrook on many an occasion. I provided the first motor sport web site for the UK starting it in 1994.

(Some of you may know I was the holder of an FIA International B rally license in the 1990s.)

Anyway, I found Henry to be a most hospitable gentlemen and a genuine friend of chess.

He is a strong supporter of CHESS & Bridge (and shareholder).

Sponsors such as this are far too rare creatures, and, ill-informed, immature and ignorant comments about "shysters" could easily contribute to the loss of current or potential sponsors.

As a past publishing academic I am acutely aware of the impact of plaigarism. The peer review process for submitted papers is very rigorous (at least it was in Chemical Physics).

To refer to persons as "shysters" simply because they appear in the same photograph as someone you might not like is rather pathetic and childish.

JS has dealt with many of these issues in a very thoughtful and measured way and would totally concur with his comments.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18092
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:19 am

John Upham wrote: As a past publishing academic I am acutely aware of the impact of plaigarism. The peer review process for submitted papers is very rigorous (at least it was in Chemical Physics).
Rather less so by several orders of magnitude in the publishing of analysis and commentary on games of chess. Which is the point made repeatedly and perhaps tediously by ejhchess in the Streatham blog.

Is it an excuse or defence that magazine and newspaper columns aren't peer reviewed submitted papers?

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1715
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:56 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote:There seem to be a lot of calls for magazine coverage of local league chess played by relatively low-rated players. I have no idea whether the demand for this actually exists, though; do people want to have coverage of local league chess in general, or merely local league chess that's of some significance to themselves?
This is going slightly off topic but I think there is a debate to be had about whether there is a demand for coverage of local league chess within the mainstream chess press or not. I've heard a few opinions either way.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

PeterFarr
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:05 am

As the first user if the word "shyster" in the context of this discussion, perhaps I may be permitted to remind everyone of what I actually said and in what context.
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
David Robertson wrote:
Carl Hibbard wrote:From twitter is:

http://ow.ly/i/4PCpn
So this is chess's contribution to Britain's ruling class

No wonder we're fvcked :shock:
I thought that was a link to a picture of the players! Turns out it was of various chess administrators and, er, philanthropists? (Trying to think of a suitable word, there).
peterfarr wrote:A BBC reporter yesterday was looking for a word to describe dodgy businessmen, without directly accusing them of criminality. She was advised that "shyster" was an acceptable term; it also has a nice old-fashioned air of fairground level chicanery about it. Though clearly you wouldn't apply the word to the genuine chess administrators or philanthropists in the picture.
I really think it's quite obvious that I meant no disrespect to the organizers, sponsors or arbiters; in fact I went out of my way to say so. It was just a flippant remark with no reason for a life-span longer than that of a May-fly.

Incidentally, it was also me that compared BUCA publicity to that for Oxbridge; not perhaps the most riveting of posts, but written quite politely. Later in the thread I also praised Alex H for the work done in reviving BUCA; I didn't criticise Alex about publicity, and indeed the thought never occurred to me.

I hope that's all clear, can we all just chill a bit?

User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by John Saunders » Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:56 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
IanDavis wrote:Who are the directors of Chess and Bridge Limited?
Here's the link
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/02721 ... areholders

Henry Gerald Mutkin
and
Malcolm Pein

Robert Feather (ex-Director) also in Photo
http://ow.ly/i/4PCpn
Actually that's my mistake in captioning the photo - for Robert Feather, read Robert Matthews. Got them mixed up.
Personal Twitter @johnchess / Personal Website http://www.saund.co.uk / Britbase http://www.britbase.co.uk

User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by John Saunders » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:00 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
John Saunders wrote:
'Dubious characters'... 'notorious self-publicists' - who are you talking about it?
Both the ex-President of the ECF and the Times Chess Correspondent like the right kind of publicity rather more than the other three (edit) four (/edit) in the photograph.

The dubious associates argument has been frequently used by magazine editors to trash the reputation of the FIDE President and rightly so.
Of course! Another silly mistake on my part. Keene and Paulson comparable with Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafy. Obviously! What a fool I've been!
Personal Twitter @johnchess / Personal Website http://www.saund.co.uk / Britbase http://www.britbase.co.uk

IanDavis
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by IanDavis » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:23 am

Thread incredibly off topic now, how unusual for a forum. :)

I think cheating in a game, and cheating in writing about a game, are viewed through 2 different lenses. Say a man stashes a copy of a certain book about a world championship in the lavatory, and uses it to win a tournament game, thus gaining a prize. Now if this behaviour was found out, how loud would be the cries of rage! Long would be the length of the bans called for. Say a man publishes a book, in breach of contract; will there be much of a fuss? Will shops remove it from the shelves? Will people stop buying the man's work? Will it be erased from review columns in certain publications? No, nobody would really care that much. Granted, the two cases aren't exactly parallel, but they are illustrative of the weight of naughtiness chess society places on these types of 'naughty acts'.

In summary, I certainly value the knowledge that I gain from reading magazines such as Kingpin, but I certainly don't expect them to change the world.

User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by John Saunders » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:40 am

POSTCARD FROM OXFORD

Hello playmates, it's Rumpole of the Waily here (that's my nickname for this delightful little court room of ours, formerly know as the EC Forum - the Old Waily).

I've been dragged to Oxford by 'She Who Must Be Obeyed' for a couple of days R&R (it's either her birthday or our anniversary, can't remember which). Lovely weather. (What's it like in Edinburgh, Geoff?)

Anyway, I am sitting here in the Jeremy Morse Bar of the Randolph Hotel with 'She'. Both of us are in a foul mood. I'm unhappy because they don't serve Chateau Thames Valley League in the Morse Bar...

O for a beaker full of the warm South
Full of the true, the blushful Hippocrene,
With beaded bubbles winking at the brim,
And purple-stained mouth;
That I might drink, and leave the world unseen,
And with thee fade away into the forest dim.


Instead I have to make do with Eley's Old Peculier. A foul tipple. 'She' is also upset because she can't get her favourite Fox and James' Dry Sherry. (Or is it amontillado?)

But that's nothing to the row we had earlier when she caught sight of my forum posts. She drew herself up to her full 5' 2" in height and I was at once transported to the moment when I fell in love with her. It was the day when she punched Mildred Basman clean out of the ring in the middleweight division of the 1934 Surrey Ladies' Chess Brawling Championship. (In Surrey, then as now, we were proud of our reputation as the most violent chess-playing county in the kingdom. Adjudication we regarded as a bit cissy, preferring to end unfinished games with a choice of a ten-minute quickplay bare-knuckle fist fight, or a two-minute blitz eye-gouging contest.)

Anyway, 'She' started into me: "Rumpole! Disgraceful behaviour! The way you treated Mr Justice Horton was beastly! He's a charming man and loves his pussy! And as for using that awful word to describe Sir Roger de Coverly - 'despicable' indeed. And a man from your own chambers, too!" It was no use arguing with her in this mood. I promised to apologise to both gentlemen forthwith.

But no! Rumpole never pleads guilty! Both deserved what was coming to them. Anyone who has suffered the word-by-word torture of an interrogation by 'Saint-Just' or his cohorts from the S&B Committee of Public Safety will know what I'm talking about.

As for Sir Roger de Mentor - I told my grandson about him and he told me he sounded like one of the Dementors in Harry Potter who go round sucking the life and positivity out of everyone - he may seem like a harmless old darling, but anyone who had seen the glint in his eye as he sends some hapless forumite down to the cells for contempt of court, merely for mentioning adjudication in his court, will empathise. It's true we both did a stretch at a windy penal colony on the Fens back in the mists of time, though not the same cell block nor at the same time, but such niceties cut no ice with Rumpole.

Anyway, just to let you know, I may be posting less frequently for a day or two, but thought I'd send you a postcard to wish you all well. Even Saint-Just and de Mentor.

I expect I shall return home in a couple of days to find the debate has moved on to a discussion about Harry Golombek's inside leg measurement or 3.Bf4 in the Queen's Gambit. No - that second suggestion was far-fetched. Discussing chess on a chess forum? Silly me for suggesting it.

'She' is insisting we go to the Cezanne exhibition at the Ashmolean. I tried to dissuade her, suggesting that it was unwise going on the first day as the paint may not be dry yet, but she would have none of it.

Anyway, I bid you a fond farewell - for the while.

Regards

Horace Rumpole
a.k.a.
Rumpole of the Waily
a.k.a.
John Saunders
Personal Twitter @johnchess / Personal Website http://www.saund.co.uk / Britbase http://www.britbase.co.uk

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:44 am

"Dinosaur" lives!

I'm not sure I can follow that brilliance, but

"Supposedly the paywall allows non-subscribers 20 free articles a month."

which does not allow you to re-publish the work in question without permission. You can publish fragments of something for review purposes. You may not copy stuff (e.g. photographs) from the internet and re-publish them without permission. Amusingly, Chessbase get very upset if people steal their databases and sell them on, but they are not averse to taking people's annotations and changing the annotator to "Chessbase".

I liked the suggestion that there should be coverage of punch-ups, but when that has happened, there are always people here screaming abuse and trying to cover them up.

My understanding (which is limited) of the libel law is that if you say something defamatory about one of a small group of people (e.g. 6 people, especially when they're named), then each of them could have a case for libel. If you say something defamatory, like "at least one person at the last FA Cup Final was a shyster", that wouldn't identify anyone.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:33 am

IanDavis wrote:Granted, the two cases aren't exactly parallel, but they are illustrative of the weight of naughtiness chess society places on these types of 'naughty acts'.
I’d agree in general, but the idea that *nobody* would care about the book simply isn’t true.

I’d add ‘cheating in chess’ - at both professional and amateur level - to my list of topics for Geoff that I’d like to read about in a chess magazine, btw. There have been a number of documented cases in recent years. A difficult subject to cover, to be sure, but certainly possible to do.

Although I’m vague on the details now, I recall that a certain Raymond Keene did write a good piece on a similar theme for the BCM in the early 70s.

O.G. Urcan
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:37 am

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by O.G. Urcan » Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:47 am

Angus French wrote:I’ve assisted Justin in investigating the plagiarism and recycling carried out by Ray Keene. We’ve looked at just about all of his columns published in The Times from 2011 onwards. We’ve looked at about 80% of his columns in The Spectator going back to early 2001. In total we’ve examined more than 1,500 columns and found 140 examples of plagiarism (with more than 130 since the start of 2011) and several hundred examples of recycling. Ten consecutive Times columns, running from 1 June 2013 to 12 June 2013, contained plagiarised text. Most of the plagiarism we've found is of Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors series (though other authors have also been plagiarised). We’ve found that a quarter of the annotated games (37 of 148) in Part I of My Great Predecessors have been plagiarised.

This is some record. But plagiarism isn’t all that Ray Keene has done. Far from it. For further information see: http://keenipedia.com/.

Why is stuff like this allowed to happen? And could there be reasons - other than those given by John Saunders - why Keene’s activities go unreported in the mainstream chess media? Might vested interests play a part?

On this thread so far, there has been an interesting and quite surprising difference of views about the seriousness of plagiarism, but most writers would surely be mortified if caught plagiarizing even on a small scale.
Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:
Jonathan Bryant wrote:the refusal to acknowledge that RDK is a proven plagiarist
I don't recollect anyone having said that here. You will have to remind me.
I didn’t mean to suggest that anybody has said something along the lines of “The case against Ray has never been proven” or “You are wrong. Ray has never been proved to be a plagiarist.” This would obviously be a difficult position to maintain, after all.
Before Garry Kasparov confirmed that he had been extensively plagiarized by Raymond Keene, the latter posted, to my knowledge, two very brief denials of any wrongdoing. What is his position now?

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3255
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:57 am

I doubt that anyone is making little of the dishonesty of plagiarism.

IanDavis
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by IanDavis » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:47 am

Jonathan Bryant wrote: I’d agree in general, but the idea that *nobody* would care about the book simply isn’t true.
Well quite. Although of course I wasn't implying that nobody would care at all. :) Cheating in a game of chess usually results in severe punishment, there is scant evidence that plagarism delivers the same result in the chess marketplace.

Post Reply