Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Phil,

"Is this the argument about sponsors?"

I've no idea where the thread has gone now. The original post was:

"...why scandals involving chess literature are so rarely covered, or even mentioned." (In Chess Magazines.)

That matter has been covered.

In short CHESS and BCM cannot take the chance and get involved.
Yes if there was a court case and a verdict had been reached.
They cannot take sides before that action and verdict and publishing
views and opinions can result in they themselves getting financially involved.
I think that clears that matter up and everyone seems to agree.

"......getting financially involved."

Suppose S & B have one wrong and BCM print it. BANG!
The S & B file on RDK is quite long and recalling any analysis in the days before computers; "If it's long it's wrong."

One of the last one's I looked at I'm not too sure if it is plagiarism.

It was a re-cycled piece after a gap of over a decade. (what dedication to find that one - these guys need girlfriends).
RDK gave the source in the original piece but not in the piece over a decade later.

So he gave the source in the same publication his re-printed article later appeared in.

You can argue about that one in court - also, how much control does RDK have over a piece once
it has been submitted, was the heavy hand of the cutting editor at work here?)

They are moaning because he re-cycles his stuff,
here they were moaning because he has not re-cycled all of his stuff. He can't win!

[Geoff Chandler]

I have found that piece I mentioned above. It's from August last year:

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... anand.html

RDK mentions the original source in the original article in the Times for 28 February 1998.
On the 6 October 2011 he gave the same game but no mention of the source.

Surely the charge is recycling, nothing more. (after 13 years Big deal.)

All that work and it amassed a stunning 5 comments - two came from 'EJH'.

That leaves: One off topic comment , one joke linked to the off topic comment and 'fun reading'.

Keep up the good work boys. The interest is overwhelming.

[John Saunders]

Geoff is like a beacon of light where all else is darkness. Apart from his contributions, most of the rest has been idle, uninformed speculation and worthless tittle tattle. Personally I've said all I'm going to say here. Except for this - when respectable media outlets come across something unsavoury and wish to write about it, before they publish they put the accusations to the person or persons who is/are being accused directly so that they give their side of the story. Can the S&B people perhaps tell us whether they put their list of accusations to RDK before they started publishing them?

[Tryfon Gavriel]

I can't help feel there is an underlying conspiracy against Chessgames.com which has drawn the support of certain bitter Chess Historians ever since Ray Keene has been doing lots of annotations for that site. I feel that there a bunch of historians on Chesscafe.com not happy with this state of affairs, and have joint forces with the Streatham and Brixton blog, despite not even being aware in some cases of the enormous contributious Raymond Keene has made to British chess and the profile of chess in general. Also a pivotal organiser for continuing the fine traditions of FIDE world championship selections at the time when FIDE went mad and started doing knockouts, it took Braingames to organise the World championship match between Kasparov and Kramnik, which Ray Keene was piviotal for helping organise. This was one of many of his great achievements for not just British Chess but World Chess.

I thought this stuff would have been confined though to the Chess History forum, but I found now weeks later the main forum has been attacked with this stuff. I don't want to name names (like for example Mr O.G. Urcan) , but this is not the first time that this has happened, where a thread has been set up as a thinly veiled attack on Ray Keene. It does get a bit boring.

Think about all those people on Chessgames.com who would be utterly clueless about master games if it wasn't for the amazing annotations available from Schiller, Keene and other fine analysts, which help explain the moves to people who would otherwise be stuck with their engine analysis only. How can we deprive the up and coming players of valuable insights into the game of chess, by indirectly discouraging or berating key contributors to Chessgames.com just because certain historians are a bit miffed they haven't managed to set up a game database yet, and still work with PDF's.



(I hope everyone got a giggle out of this post - sorry couldn't resist - the above is largely in jest)

[Paul McKeown]

Think about all those people on Chessgames.com who would be utterly clueless about master games if it wasn't for the amazing annotations available from Schiller, Keene and other fine analysts, which help explain the moves to people who would otherwise be stuck with their engine analysis only.

I hope that was satire...

[John Upham]

I hope that was satire...

He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I thought this stuff would have been confined though to the Chess History forum, but I found now weeks later the main forum has been attacked with this stuff. I don't want to name names (like for example Mr O.G. Urcan) , but this is not the first time that this has happened, where a thread has been set up as a thinly veiled attack on Ray Keene. It does get a bit boring.

I was actually going to post along similar lines to the above earlier. The trigger for this thread was solely Mr Keene's involvement in the Varsity match. I think Carl has been remarkably tolerant in allowing it to happen.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Tryfon

Joking aside I have to say I'm enjoying my time at chessgames.
There are a bunch of guys trying to put things right when an error crops up.
Some of the Kibitzing is good and of course that lad paid my sub.

Made new friends, found old friends, discovered a few strange people.

RDK does actually reply to the more sober posts, but I have seen a post disappear
so one can understand the S & B lads frustration when they think all their efforts
are being ignored. They are not, but as I said before everyone knows what has been happening.

Not introduced myself yet to RDK. I might skip that pleasure as I do have
quite a few RDK quips posted all over the place.

So yes I'm a coward, sitting smugly on the fence milking both sides for jokes.

(Though my S&B gags are limited to here. My RDK's are everywhere. When the lawyers do
eventually come out I'll be sharing a cell with the Kingpin lads.........bring a chess set.)

Hmmmm.....I'll check out RDK's bit daily, if I see an opportunity to sneak in I will.
Just to test the water. See if I've gone too far.
I reckon I'll just get ignored. Most likely thinks I'm an idiot. That is assuming he even knows who I am. (does he read this site?).

An idiot. Good. I can cope an insanity plea........I'll be sharing a padded cell with the Kingpin lads.
(Bring two chess sets, we will eat the first one to prove we are nuts.)

[JustinHorton]

Morning all.

A brief note about the extent to which Ray Keene's plagiarism has been written about on our blog.

It's true that it shouldn't have been necessary to write so many columns about it. This is because it should only have been necessary to do so once.

The fact that it's not so is interesting, not so much for what it tells us about Ray as for what it tells us about the magazines and people who protect him.

But I'll maybe expand on that in a different place. Mind you, as it's not apparently of any interest I don't suppose anybody will be reading it.

[John McKenna]

Is it any use reminding people how this really all resurfaced in its current guise?

O.G. Urcan>

Post subject: Enquiry: English Chess Association

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:24 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:37 am

Greetings from Singapore.

May I enquire whether anyone knows anything about the "English Chess Association"? Who are its officers and members, and what are its activities?

In his book on Tony Buzan published this year Raymond Keene describes himself as "the Chairman of the English Chess Association" but gives no particulars.

Thank you.

Olimpiu G. Urcan<

The first thought that came to mind when I read that was - who is he and why does he want to know?

Still nobody has asked him what his motives are for preparing the ground by raising the original questions above and then supplementing them with this current line of attack in this thread.
Why should a Roumanian in Singapore have such a big bee in his bonnet about RDK? Perhaps he could give a little instead of asking a lot, in comparison to what he gives of himself. He has only made 25 posts, I think, but they seem to be designed to keep the bonfire of controversy burning nicely.

Sorry if I distract from the heat of the debate but this fire is dying - or so it seems to me - so why not put it out and investigate why and how this particular brush fire started? (I'm sure Justin will keep the flame alive elsewhere, as he indicates above.)

[Roger de Coverly]

Can the S&B people perhaps tell us whether they put their list of accusations to RDK before they started publishing them?

They claim to have drawn the attention of the series of posts to both the Times and the Spectator and also a recent publisher, without it seems getting any response. If indeed as Geoff suggests it was an omission by the sub-editors of an attribution statement, that could have been the reply. Presumably the original extract form Anand's book was the usual plug or review when the book was first published. But it's up to the publishers as to whether that permission extends for decades. I suppose it's also up to the publications whether they are expecting original material in every column.

There was a strange comment on chessgames.com that permission to reproduce notes from MGP had been given by the typesetter. As a number pointed out, that's all very well, but it wasn't the typesetter's to give. In any event, the comment didn't stand for very long.

[JustinHorton]

If indeed as Geoff suggests it was an omission by the sub-editors of an attribution statement

On more than one hundred separate occasions? I think perhaps not.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Justin,

I don't think so either, but regarding the Anand piece, if Gambit gave permission
for the earlier piece and RDK did mentioned the book all RDK has done is re-cycle something he wrote 13 years ago.

Even I do that. I've lifted a few things from The Corner and re-hashed it on the RHP Blog.

I'd be careful how far you go with this.
I'm just a barrack-room lawyer but even I can hear the words bouncing off the walls of the Old Bailey.

""My client was given permission to re-produce a part of this book. 13 years later my client
reproduced the very same game and notes he had been given permission to use.
I must also remind the jury that my client, who has been awarded the OBE for services to
Chess has no control over what the cutting editor does with his piece after he submits it."

This lawyer then reads out aloud all the names his client has been called regarding this matter.
(note 'just this matter' - no other tales of RDK's exploits will be allowed to be mentioned in court)

Finally in will troop a stream of very well connected people to speak on RDK's behalf and act as character witness's.

I'll stand next to you at the barricade fighting for your right to publish what you see fit.
But I'll be tip-toeing away when the writs start flying about.

We all know what has been going on. Don't martyr yourself.

Yours,

Worried Geoff (now in hiding.)

[Nick Ivell]

Before this thread dies a natural death, I have a confession to make.

Before today, I had NEVER READ the Streatham & Brixton blog.

Out of curiosity, I took a look today. And what did I find? Don't worry, I have not bumped this thread to add fuel to the fire of the plagiarism controversy. I found intelligent discussion of rook endings!!

Keep up the good work guys. I find that almost total ignorance of R & P v R is common, even in quite strong players.

[O.G. Urcan]

The latest "Streatham & Brixton" blog about copying - http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... wells.html - makes very uncomfortable reading, and I've seen no attempts by anyone to defend Raymond Keene's conduct.

Another scandal - nothing to do with him, I think - which hasn't been discussed yet in this thread is the 1995 Batsford edition of "My 60 Memorable Games", which made hundreds of textual changes without Fischer's knowledge. Today it's seen as a major publishing disaster, but that wasn't everyone's view at the time.

CHESS had extensive coverage, with a few people even defending Batsford. Did the BCM cover the affair at all?