Raymondo

[Paul McKeown]

Something that puzzled me when accounts of "The Chess Centre Ltd" were published last year.

[... stuff deleted here ...]

How was it that a dormant company had "creditors" ?

Creditors are people or things that it owed money to.

The Chess Centre Ltd was used as the vehicle (I think) to account for/finance the 1986 match.

Well spotted, Roger, thanks.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Paul.

I should have made it clear, the games are good with good notes.

I usually skip past any non-game writings in these things, I'm only
interested in the games.

Forget the guy, ignore the non-chess stuff and just enjoy the games of a
'then' good chess player who can still write a good game note when he wants too.

Forum Baiting: (Trolling).

My chess playing style in setting two and three move traps,
my opponents keep falling for them so why should I change?

So yes this sometimes spills onto a forums.
I'm often thinking as I'm typing:

"I wonder how many I'll catch with this one?"

but no malice is ever intended.

"A Loon?"

Yup that's OK. Well done. No offence taken.

(I hate being called names that I have to look it up in a dictionary).

And as for Latin quoters!

Well that's just literary snobbery and I've been attacking that since my first
letter to PUNCH in 1971.

[Paul McKeown]

And as for Latin quoters!

Well that's just literary snobbery and I've been attacking that since my first
letter to PUNCH in 1971.

Geoff, what I really meant to say was, "I have finally realised that your posts are simply bait. Either that or you are a loon. Tertium non datur."

[Geoff Chandler]

Arghhhhhh!!!!

Back rank mated.

(at least you kept the 'Loon' in - I got called a 'Mugwump' once.)

By the way if the Keene book is autographed considering selling it.

Autographed books sell well on ebay.

[Ian Lamb]

do you set traps Geoff knowing your Opponents may spot them and your Position get worse if they do spot them?

[JustinHorton]

I think people should look at Wikipedia Raymond Keene - controversies and decide how serious his misdemeanours are.

Well, for a start, unauthorised and acknowledged copying of other people's work should be career death for a writer. That should be it: sacked, not reinstated. There's no more serious offence in the field. If a professional chessplayer were caught with an earpiece and somebody transmitting Rybka analysis to them, I think you'd havea view on the subject. His transgressions are of that order.

That's just as regards his writing work, by the way. As far as I'm converend his ethical transgressions in other fields are of a similar nature.

In a career of four decades where he has brought 3 World Championships to London (not sure why you think this is unimportant, Justin)

Well, I'm not sure what "a career of four decades" is relevant except insofar as it demonstrates he's lives that long. As for the world championships, the point is that it's really not clear how much good those world championships did for British chess given the actual practical and financial realities involved. The first of them actually lost money for the BCF, the second, as I say, would ahve been held in the UK anyway (and in practice involved turning over quite a lot of people in British chess) and the third ended in the financial shambles of BGN.

should we really be villifying this guy?

The question is more - what do the facts, and the patterns they revewal over more than thirty years, tell us? Less "vilifying" and more - if people can't see Ray for what he is by now, what will it take before they do?

Or should we really say "well, if you've organised some big chess events then ethics don't matter"? Because that's what is being said. That is exactly what is being said.

[JustinHorton]

Miles' second: Seemed more interested in money than chess.

That's "obtained money from the British Chess Federation by deception", Alex.

David Levy: Nothing ever proven. Fuss about nothing.
Braingames World Championship: Fuss about nothing.

The fact that I don't particuarly care about David Levy doesn't make what happened in these instances "a fuss about nothing", Alex.

Plagiarism: You'd like to think he would check beforehand. If he did and used it anyway, then it's foolish.
More plagiarism: Seems ignorant of the matter, rather than addressing it.

And tell me Alex, do you think that after more than thirty-five years of writing books and a number of controversies over the subject dating back over at least half that time, it is possible for him to be "ignorant of the matter"?

I'll say it again, and keep on saying it. If people want to indulge Ray Keene, then don't be complaining about the ethical shortcomings of any other person or body in British chess, because nobody else is even close.*


[* The Walker/Eley category excepted, of course]

[Alex Holowczak]

Miles' second: Seemed more interested in money than chess.

That's "obtained money from the British Chess Federation by deception", Alex.

Well, I noticed a theme of money coming into it.

David Levy: Nothing ever proven. Fuss about nothing.
Braingames World Championship: Fuss about nothing.

The fact that I don't particuarly care about David Levy doesn't make what happened in these instances "a fuss about nothing", Alex.

According to wiki, nothing was ever proven.

Plagiarism: You'd like to think he would check beforehand. If he did and used it anyway, then it's foolish.
More plagiarism: Seems ignorant of the matter, rather than addressing it.

And tell me Alex, do you think that after more than thirty-five years of writing books and a number of controversies over the subject dating back over at least half that time, it is possible for him to be "ignorant of the matter"?

No, I agree completely.

I'll say it again, and keep on saying it. If people want to indulge Ray Keene, then don't be complaining about the ethical shortcomings of any other person or body in British chess, because nobody else is even close.

I'm certainly not pro-Keene, but perhaps I'm more reluctant to twist the knife than most others. I think the most telling thing about him is that while his tournament is going on, we're talking about him, and not really caring about the tournament so much.

[Geoff Chandler]

do you set traps Geoff knowing your Opponents may spot them and your Position get worse if they do spot them?

Yes. And I expect my opponents to fall for them all the time, if the first trap don't
get them then the second one will, if that fails, have faith in the 3rd.

I don't care who it is I'm playing. I have no respect at all for my opponents grades or titles.
Keep this between you and you me Ian, none of them are really any good.
They are human, they will blunder, the perfect game of chess has yet to be played.

So I win some, I lose some. It's a game.

Breath in, breath out and smile.
As long as you can do those three things nothing else really matters.

[JustinHorton]

One of the points about Ray, you see, is that by now - and frankly this has been true for at least a decade and a half - Ray's track record looms over pretty much everything he does. It would do so whether or not you, I or anybody else never said or wrote another word about him. There's just so many things that have happened that shouldn't have happened and so many people who have been on the receiving end.

[JustinHorton]

Breath in, breath out and smile.
As long as you can do those three things nothing else really matters.

Well, as long as you don't do 'em underwater....

[Geoff Chandler]

I always appear to be in 'hot water' and that is where this philosophy works best.

[Matthew Turner]

Plagiarism is not as clearly defined in chess as in other things. Basically every chess book has other peoples' games in it, so you are using other peoples' innovation to sell your books. For Keene's Big Book of Gambits, I imagine that there wasn't much information available on the Litsin Gambit, so he copied Donaldson almost verbatim. In truth had Keene been a bit less lazy and made more cosmetic changes then he would have done the same as almost every other chess author.

[Jonathan Bryant]

In truth had Keene been a bit less lazy and made more cosmetic changes then he would have done the same as almost every other chess author.

Well that's the definition of plagiarism in a nutshell. It's one thing to say Mr. X says "THIS" and claiming THIS as your own.

It's something every university student - and any writer at whatever humble level - is aware of.

It's the difference between pissing away £9k because they don't give you an MSc if they do you for plagiarism and not pissing away £9k of tuition fees for example.

What you say is unusual about chess books is infact very common.

This-

"Plagiarism is not as clearly defined in chess as in other things. Basically every chess book has other peoples' games in it, so you are using other peoples' innovation to sell your books"

you could say about any academic journal article.

In a slightly different sense you could also say it about almost any crime fiction story.

{I chose examples of two fields with which I'm familiar - you substitute more or less anything I suspect}

Plagiarism is Plagiarism - end of story.


{BTW: I claim no knowledge of the Gambit book thingy - though obviously I've heard about it - I'm talking generally here.}

[Jonathan Bryant]

I think the most telling thing about him is that while his tournament is going on, we're talking about him, and not really caring about the tournament so much.

I don't see why it isn't possible to talk about Raymond AND talk about the tournament. i'm doing both.

I've really - REALLY - enjoyed going to the Staunton Memorial several times this past week and I shall enjoy it when I go again tomorrow. I don't see why that means I should check my knowledge of RDK's other doings at the door of Simpson's when I walk into the tournament hall.