English Chess Forum

It's a repeated act of plagiarism, Andrew, and one all the remarkable because in the original instance, Ray (implausibly) claimed to have done it entirely accidentally.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:

O.G. Urcan wrote:One difficulty with Ernie Lazenby's wish for no further discussion of Raymond Keene is that new transgressions keep coming to light. The latest exposé, from yesterday, is this.

Mr Urcan and myself may have to differ on the meaning of the word `new`. The link refers to something that happened in 2008. The article itself is undated but the fact that anybody clicking on to that page would have to scroll some way to find it suggests that it was posted somewhat earlier than `yesterday`.

EDIT - It appears I was mistaken as the reference refers to a subsequent publication in 2013 and Chess Notes does appear to have newer posts at the bottom (most blogs run the other way). I still feel that the supposed `expose` is more tittle tattle rather than a headline grabbing scandal.

Andrew Zigmond's first posting on 23 March, an attempt to correct me, was plainly wrong about all the facts.

Then his "EDIT" described the plagiarism affair as "tittle tattle" (which my Oxford dictionary defines as "unimportant talk, usually not true, about other people and their lives").

There has been no tittle tattle whatsoever. In 2008 Raymond Keene's Spectator column plagiarized material from Chess Notes, and the case was even mentioned in Private Eye at the time. Earlier this week it was found that in 2013 Raymond Keene re-offended concerning the same Chess Notes material, this time plagiarizing it in his book on Tony Buzan. All that is indisputable and has been demonstrated on the strict basis of documentation.

O.G. Urcan wrote:

Andrew Zigmond wrote:

O.G. Urcan wrote:One difficulty with Ernie Lazenby's wish for no further discussion of Raymond Keene is that new transgressions keep coming to light. The latest exposé, from yesterday, is this.

Mr Urcan and myself may have to differ on the meaning of the word `new`. The link refers to something that happened in 2008. The article itself is undated but the fact that anybody clicking on to that page would have to scroll some way to find it suggests that it was posted somewhat earlier than `yesterday`.

EDIT - It appears I was mistaken as the reference refers to a subsequent publication in 2013 and Chess Notes does appear to have newer posts at the bottom (most blogs run the other way). I still feel that the supposed `expose` is more tittle tattle rather than a headline grabbing scandal.

Andrew Zigmond's first posting on 23 March, an attempt to correct me, was plainly wrong about all the facts.

Then his "EDIT" described the plagiarism affair as "tittle tattle" (which my Oxford dictionary defines as "unimportant talk, usually not true, about other people and their lives").

There has been no tittle tattle whatsoever. In 2008 Raymond Keene's Spectator column plagiarized material from Chess Notes, and the case was even mentioned in Private Eye at the time. Earlier this week it was found that in 2013 Raymond Keene re-offended concerning the same Chess Notes material, this time plagiarizing it in his book on Tony Buzan. All that is indisputable and has been demonstrated on the strict basis of documentation.

Yes Mr Urcan, I jumped to a wrong conclusion and when I realised my mistake I edited my post to admit that I'd made one.

Regarding `tittle tattle`, in the UK we have a number of glossy magazines that week after week carry stories about C List celebrities (whether they've lost weight, who they've been seen out shopping with etc` and this is what I meant by using the phrase in this context. I do not dispute that you and others have documented evidence. However for me (and I suspect a lot of others) it is, to quote from the dictionary definition you offered, `unimportant talk`.

The staggering thing to me is that anyone read far enough into that book to find the offending passage. I'm inclined to sympathise with Andrew Zigmond on this occasion though; I'm not sure this episode adds anything qualitatively new to the plagiarism stories.

PeterFarr wrote:The staggering thing to me is that anyone read far enough into that book to find the offending passage.

It was Edward Winter who could win an award for services to pedantry. Famously he was attacked by Fischer for not finding enough errors in the 1990s Batsford algebraic edition of "My Sixty Memorable Games" after Malcolm Pein perhaps unwisely gave him space in "Chess" to enumerate them.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

PeterFarr wrote:The staggering thing to me is that anyone read far enough into that book to find the offending passage.

It was Edward Winter who could win an award for services to pedantry. Famously he was attacked by Fischer for not finding enough errors in the 1990s Batsford algebraic edition of "My Sixty Memorable Games" after Malcolm Pein perhaps unwisely gave him space in "Chess" to enumerate them.

Post #11959 from Roger

I suggest that three basic questions are worth consideration:

1) Is plagiarism wrong?

2) Does proof exist that Raymond Keene has plagiarized a substantial amount of material?

3) Is it proper for plagiarists' conduct to be brought to the public's attention?

My own answers are: yes, yes and yes.

O.G. Urcan wrote:I suggest that three basic questions are worth consideration:

1) Is plagiarism wrong?

2) Does proof exist that Raymond Keene has plagiarized a substantial amount of material?

3) Is it proper for plagiarists' conduct to be brought to the public's attention?

My own answers are: yes, yes and yes.

And my own answers are;

1, Yes

2, There does appear to be

3, Well yes but that is already very much the case. Edward Winter has written some wonderfully cutting pieces since the late eighties, Kingpin has taken up the cause several times and a reasonably well read amateur blog dedicates itself to reporting every example it can find. More to the point the chess community is a small one and Mr Keene retains very little credibility as an author.

However I return to my original point which is that this does not make it open season for anybody who is photographed with or has the temerity to be associated with him to be subject to insinuation and insults.

Your chance to ask Ray about these matters...

See here

"He is also the Chairman of the English Chess Association"

heh