Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

[David Sedgwick]

The people I admire in the chess world are the people who do useful things. People who organise tournaments, run chess teams, sponsor competitions , administer federations and do the innumerable, positive things that have to be done to make chess work.

In fairness to Angus French, I should mention that he has done a number of those things.

Angus, I'm sorry that it needed a "shyster" to point this out.

[Angus French]

The people I admire in the chess world are the people who do useful things. People who organise tournaments, run chess teams, sponsor competitions , administer federations and do the innumerable, positive things that have to be done to make chess work.

In fairness to Angus French, I should mention that he has done a number of those things.

Angus, I'm sorry that it needed a "shyster" to point this out.

Thanks David. I don't, of course, see you as a "shyster".

[JustinHadi]

Plagarism is a very serious matter in academia because careers are built on original thinking and publication of concepts, ideas and analysis.

Garry Kasparov (or ghost writers) is (was) being plagarised by Ray Keene in chess publications. Might vested interests play a part?

Kasparov and his "vested interests" benefit indirectly from the popularisation of chess. This is perpetrated by The Times, The Spectator, etc. through the columnist (or ghost writers).

The average person interested in chess gets to improve their tactics with the winning move puzzles. They get to see the history of the game or current high level chess played.

Kasparov does not sue because he has bigger fish to fry and because he benefits from the exposure. More interest in chess, more people getting serious about the game, likely to lead to sales of his chess books, more book signings, more royalties and more publicity.

I am sure this can't be right. There must be a much more complicated, conspiratorial explanation. Right?

[John Upham]

There is a little known place in Nevada unofficially known as Area 64. It is the base for the creation of chess conspiracies and the management of the consequent subversion.

One of their goals is to criticise anyone and anything positive about chess and create a climate of fear such that no sponsor would ever consider sponsoring chess or putting money into it.

I've attached a picture of a couple of their operatives:

d&d.jpg

Currently, they are holidaying in Spain and Bourne End.

[JustinHadi]

I expect my IP address now to be targeted by hackers representing the "Truth of Chess" for this blasphemy.

[Angus French]

Plagarism is a very serious matter in academia because careers are built on original thinking and publication of concepts, ideas and analysis.

Garry Kasparov (or ghost writers) is (was) being plagarised by Ray Keene in chess publications. Might vested interests play a part?

Kasparov and his "vested interests" benefit indirectly from the popularisation of chess. This is perpetrated by The Times, The Spectator, etc. through the columnist (or ghost writers).

The average person interested in chess gets to improve their tactics with the winning move puzzles. They get to see the history of the game or current high level chess played.

Kasparov does not sue because he has bigger fish to fry and because he benefits from the exposure. More interest in chess, more people getting serious about the game, likely to lead to sales of his chess books, more book signings, more royalties and more publicity.

I am sure this can't be right. There must be a much more complicated, conspiratorial explanation. Right?

I'm not sure I understand this. Is the argument that chess plagiarism is good - or perhaps, at least not harmful?

Concerning Justin's question "Might vested interests play a part?": is that a reference to my earlier use of the same question? If so, my question was asked in a different circumstance.

[C]ould 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?

[JustinHadi]

Angus,

As you can see, I referred specifically to the Times, the Spectator and why Kasparov doesn't sue. Vested interests was the first phrase which came to mind due to your previous conspiratorial suggestion earlier.

[Angus French]

Angus,
As you can see, I referred specifically to the Times, the Spectator and why Kasparov doesn't sue. Vested interests was the first phrase which came to mind due to your previous conspiratorial suggestion earlier.

Ok... Though I didn't see my (original) use of the question as suggestive of a conspiracy. I'm sure that vested interests influence decision-making in general and often subconsciously.

[JustinHadi]

Yes, my writing skills are not as good as John Saunders. Perhaps I should have used a different word.

[Roger de Coverly]

I am sure this can't be right. There must be a much more complicated, conspiratorial explanation. Right?

From the point of view of a reader of chess columns, should you not expect to see original material rather than repeats? At the very least an acknowledgement that what you are reading has previously appeared elsewhere.

Magazine editors are digging in on this issue, even to the extent of mocking those who might subscribe to their magazines. It's evidently sensitive, as otherwise they would point to occasional small paragraphs where they had hinted that some newspaper and magazine readers were being short-changed, particularly if they had copies of MGP.

Are not most of the columns in question penned or pasted by ghost writers? In which case it's the ghost who is the direct perpetrator and the named Correspondent is allowing his name to be used.

[JustinHadi]

I am sure this can't be right. There must be a much more complicated, conspiratorial explanation. Right?

From the point of view of a reader of chess columns, should you not expect to see original material rather than repeats? At the very least an acknowledgement that what you are reading has previously appeared elsewhere.

Have you read all of MGP, or all the relevant sections? If so there is potential court action limited to £1 per Times newspapers bought plus Sunday Times costs plus the cost of the Spectator issues plus punitive damages.

Time for a cup of coffee.

[Roger de Coverly]

One of their goals is to criticise anyone and anything positive about chess and create a climate of fear such that no sponsor would ever consider sponsoring chess or putting money into it.

A rebuke for annoying sponsors was the ECF's response to those who considered the Chess Sets for Schools project likely to fail. I seem to recall the odd mocking video posted to this forum.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... there is scant evidence that plagarism delivers the same result in the chess marketplace.

Indeed not, Ian - although that’s interesting in and of itself in its own way. To those of us who are interested in such things, anyway.

Another curiosity is that while many in the chess world hold the views of the ‘(chess) plagiarism doesn’t matter’ kind that we’ve seen expressed in this thread, the plagiarism series on the blog has also found it’s way to people who are either outside the chess world entirely or only the fringes of it. Some of these folk, assuming that it does matter, have brought wider attention to the issue than could every have been achieved by one little chess blog.

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

Paul, I’m afraid I find it difficult to reconcile this post with some of the others that have appeared on this thread.

A rebuke for annoying sponsors was the ECF's response to those who considered the Chess Sets for Schools project likely to fail. I seem to recall the odd mocking video posted to this forum.

The ‘Don’t scare the sponsors’ argument was also directed my way when I raised various matters relating to Sheffield 2011.

[Phil Neatherway]

Is this the argument about sponsors?

Sponsors won't be interesed in chess if they find out that plagiarism is rife. So it's best to pretend it doesn't happen.

[David Sedgwick]

That's a subtle one. You're using the wrong quotation marks.