Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
David Sedgwick
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by David Sedgwick » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:50 am

John Saunders wrote: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
Posts: 1713
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Angus French » Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:05 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
John Saunders wrote: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

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by JustinHadi » Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:22 pm

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
Posts: 5072
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 12:34 pm

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
The Anti-Chess police
d&d.jpg (7.4 KiB) Viewed 772 times
Currently, they are holidaying in Spain and Bourne End.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

JustinHadi

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by JustinHadi » Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:38 pm

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

Angus French
Posts: 1713
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Angus French » Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:50 pm

JustinHadi wrote: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.
Angus French wrote:[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

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by JustinHadi » Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:56 pm

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.
Last edited by JustinHadi on Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Angus French
Posts: 1713
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Angus French » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:11 pm

JustinHadi wrote: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

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by JustinHadi » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:24 pm

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

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19271
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 1:37 pm

JustinHadi wrote: 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

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by JustinHadi » Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:03 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
JustinHadi wrote: 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
Posts: 19271
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 2:20 pm

John Upham wrote: 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
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:52 pm

IanDavis wrote:... 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.

Paul McKeown wrote: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.

Roger de Coverly wrote: 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.
Last edited by Jonathan Bryant on Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Phil Neatherway
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:10 pm
Location: Abingdon

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by Phil Neatherway » Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:14 pm

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
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Chess magazines' coverage of chess literature scandals

Post by David Sedgwick » Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:13 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
“IanDavis” wrote:
That's a subtle one. You're using the wrong quotation marks.

Post Reply