Sir George Alan Thomas

[PeterFarr]

"In 2013 Winter reflected on plagiarism in chess:[19] "a particularly sordid corner of the chess world which will never be eradicated without maximum public exposure". He went on: "The latest instance is the discovery[20] by Justin Horton that material from the first volume of Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors series has been misappropriated by Raymond Keene in The Spectator."

It just seems to me intuitively that there seems more emphasis on (playful ?!) bashing Ray Keene for the sake of bashing Ray Keene than actually having any common sense here. I don't think you need a linguistic processing PHD to realise that the phraseology use in the "lifted" stuff is more likely to be written by Raymond Keene by Garry Kasparov in the actual Great Predecessor books. Or do you seriously think otherwise?! Hasn't Kasparov been busy recently in politics, etc?!

You have now written three blog posts on the subject, I just wondered perhaps if you might have gotten just a little carried away here?! I don't mean to intrude on your blogging world and its apparently validating feedback for this stuff, and if you think I am being over skeptical then please say. I am not a personal friend of Raymond Keene but did appreciate his real time kibitzing on Chessgames.com some months back. He seemed nice enough to me.

Tryfon, Justin has written rather more than 3 blog posts on RDK's apparent habit of forgetfulness in attribution, amongst other foibles, going back several decades; just peruse the 'Ray Keene index' on the S&B blog. It's possible to conclude that the 'bashing' gets a bit much, although there would be more validity to that view if any refutation was ever given to Justin's challenges.

If RDK keeps recycling, I imagine Justin will keep pointing it out. Why should Justin stop until RDK does?

I do agree that chessgames.com can be a useful and interesting site; but it's best used for entertainment / personal interest rather than as a serious historical source. Or if you do use it a source then make sure its cross-checked. It could be so much better if they took a bit of care and responsibility in quality control, and promptly corrected errors when told about them.

[Tryfon Gavriel]

"In 2013 Winter reflected on plagiarism in chess:[19] "a particularly sordid corner of the chess world which will never be eradicated without maximum public exposure". He went on: "The latest instance is the discovery[20] by Justin Horton that material from the first volume of Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors series has been misappropriated by Raymond Keene in The Spectator."

It just seems to me intuitively that there seems more emphasis on (playful ?!) bashing Ray Keene for the sake of bashing Ray Keene than actually having any common sense here. I don't think you need a linguistic processing PHD to realise that the phraseology use in the "lifted" stuff is more likely to be written by Raymond Keene by Garry Kasparov in the actual Great Predecessor books. Or do you seriously think otherwise?! Hasn't Kasparov been busy recently in politics, etc?!

You have now written three blog posts on the subject, I just wondered perhaps if you might have gotten just a little carried away here?! I don't mean to intrude on your blogging world and its apparently validating feedback for this stuff, and if you think I am being over skeptical then please say. I am not a personal friend of Raymond Keene but did appreciate his real time kibitzing on Chessgames.com some months back. He seemed nice enough to me.

Tryfon, Justin has written rather more than 3 blog posts on RDK's apparent habit of forgetfulness in attribution, amongst other foibles, going back several decades; just peruse the 'Ray Keene index' on the S&B blog. It's possible to conclude that the 'bashing' gets a bit much, although there would be more validity to that view if any refutation was ever given to Justin's challenges.

If RDK keeps recycling, I imagine Justin will keep pointing it out. Why should Justin stop until RDK does?

I do agree that chessgames.com can be a useful and interesting site; but it's best used for entertainment / personal interest rather than as a serious historical source. Or if you do use it a source then make sure its cross-checked. It could be so much better if they took a bit of care and responsibility in quality control, and promptly corrected errors when told about them.

It really doesn't seem that difficult to ask Raymond Keene for clarification himself. He responded to my very recent mention of the annotated games on his Chessgames.com page:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesspla ... #reply9748

"kingscrusher> all of the games annotated in full on this site have notes written by me which I donated free as a public service to chessgames.com fans. some are attributed to me but just have a few ?? or !! - i think these found their way in by accident-I prefer words to symbols and I think you will find the notes I have written to be quite extensive-best wishes"

Is it worth asking how the same annotations are in the MGP series?! I will if it helps clear things up.

Best wishes
Tryfon

[JustinHorton]

Justin, really I don't mean to be thick but surely the expressions like "Mano" are more likely to be from Raymond Keene than Garry Kasparov ?!

Read the piece eh Tryfon. Of course the introduction is Ray's. The annotations ain't.

[JustinHorton]

I don't think you need a linguistic processing PHD to realise that the phraseology use in the "lifted" stuff is more likely to be written by Raymond Keene by Garry Kasparov in the actual Great Predecessor books.

If somebody wants to make the ludicrous claim that somehow Ray wrote the Predecessors books uncredited, I will, once again, wait for either Ray or his publishers or editors to say so.

I mean really.

Still, Ray's a nice guy on chessgames.com, apparently, so there's nothing to worry about.

God's teeth.

[Tryfon Gavriel]

I don't think you need a linguistic processing PHD to realise that the phraseology use in the "lifted" stuff is more likely to be written by Raymond Keene by Garry Kasparov in the actual Great Predecessor books.

If somebody wants to make the ludicrous claim that somehow Ray wrote the Predecessors books uncredited, I will, once again, wait for either Ray or his publishers or editors to say so.

I mean really.

Still, Ray's a nice guy on chessgames.com, apparently, so there's nothing to worry about.

God's teeth.

Evidence has been presented in this thread that Batsford Chess Openings had Kasparov's name on it, but maybe not too many lines. I thought that book didn't seem that useful ....

[JustinHorton]

Interesting thread. I think that Botvinnik and Karpov get underestimated as players because they didn't win matches against their predecessors - even though that was hardly their fault.

I was going to write "although Karpov did in fact beat Spassky in a match" but I guess you mean immediate predecessors, i.e. they didn't win their title in a match?

[Stephen Saunders]

I was going to write "although Karpov did in fact beat Spassky in a match" but I guess you mean immediate predecessors, i.e. they didn't win their title in a match?

That's it. The cognoscenti generally lament that there was never a Fischer-Tal or a Fischer-Korchnoi match - and one can only agree! - but I think a Fischer-Karpov match would also have produced many fascinating games.

Of course, Karpov was just one of many players born 1950-1960, which includes the first array of British GMs, who were never given a chance to play against Fischer.

[Paul McKeown]

Interesting thread. I think that Botvinnik and Karpov get underestimated as players because they didn't win matches against their predecessors - even though that was hardly their fault.

It's hardly like Capablanca had to fight hard for his title, either, is it? Lasker resigned the World Championship, naming Capa as his successor, to the disgust of many. When the Cubans managed nevertheless to raise a small fortune of $20,000 for a match between Lasker and Capablanca, Manny could hardly be fagged and just gave up after fourteen games.

[Paul McKeown]

Anyone who thinks that chessgames.com is a reliable and quality outlet hasn't the faintest notion what those adjectives mean. Garbage in, processed by a monkey troop of howling eejits, output garbage.
.....

Well I think quite a few chess players like using "Databases".

Well, there's a strawman and a non sequitur all wrapped up in one. Didn't read past there, didn't seem worth the effort.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Stephen.

"I'd like to give a shout to Alexander Beliavsky..."

And a good shout indeed. I have since readjusted my claim about Keres being top
due to Paul McK. reminding me of Korchnoi.
(Korchnoi has been around longer than any of them and I forgot about him....Doh!).

However you will be pleased to know I have done some research and can at
last find a genuine link between Sir George Thomas (remember him?) and Paul Keres.

This is from William Winter's 'Kings of Chess.' when describing Paul Keres.

"He is lawn-tennis player of some repute and recently reached the final of quite
an important tournament." (no further details given....end of research.)

So both players were good at the rackets.
(better rephrase that last sentence....Carl)

"I think that Botvinnik and Karpov get underestimated as players...."

No need to defend Karpov, his track record after 1975 speaks for itself
It's Botvinnik that is often dismissed and very rarely makes the top 5 or even top 10
in these 'who were the greatest players' polls that pop up on every chess site about three times a year.

Fischer started it when he left out Botvinnik in his original top 10.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer4.html

We often see quoted that Botvinnik never won a World Championship match as World Champion.
(I've mentioned this myself on other threads/sites.)

In the 1951 and 1954 he had no need. A draw was good enough to retain the title
and the final positions from both these matches favoured Botvinnik.

Bronstein - Botvinnik, final position, game 24 1951 (Black to play - draw agreed.)

r6k/pb2qpp1/2p1pn1p/8/P1B5/2N1Q3/1P3PPP/3R2K1 b - - 0 22

Botvinnik - Smyslov, final position Game 24 1954 (White to play - draw agreed)

4rbk1/1p2q2p/rnp1b1p1/2p1Pp2/2P2P2/1PNRB1PP/5QB1/3R2K1 w - - 0 23

If play had continued (sorry for bringing another ‘if’ into this debate.) I’d say there
was a good chance he could have nursed home his extra pawn v Bronstein.

The Smyslov game? No doubt White has the pull but why go for the wins if a draw was
on the table thus retaining the world title.

We have to put all the skullduggery behind us and recall that Botvinnik was an exceptional chess player.

-------------------------

Re: RDK, chessgames.com etc...etc.

I've gone on record before saying who cares and the whole copying thing is quite funny.

And we deserve the inaccuracies that are rife within chess lore.

Chess games are not copyright so this opened the door to every hack with a typewriter.(or photo-copier)

Mistakes were bound to sneak in and get copied and copied and copied.

If reprinting these games were protected by law then a lot more care would have been taken with them.
It's totally ludicrous the notes are protected but not the actual moves.
(and let's face it, there are only so many ways you can note up a game.)

[JustinHorton]

I've gone on record before saying who cares

You do.

[Gerard Killoran]

Can I repeat. why imagine a person writes books under someone else's name - when he doesn't even write the ones that come out under his own?

Geoff, the whole thing can be seen as funny unless it's your own work that's being passed off by someone else for profit.

Note and analysis are clearly open to being written in an infinite number of ways thanks to the use of natural language. Which is why it is so easy to spot plagiarism.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Justin.

In both cases I just reproduced what was being printed.
Never said I cared or cared less.
In the Corner I was simply surprised that they pick on RDK when there
are more worthwhile targets and gave the S&B link for further reading.

The post on here was because someone else mentioned it was in the Eye.

Hi Gerard.

It's funny in the fact the blatant shrug of the shoulders by RDK.
The evidence is there for all to see and he just does not care.
The are probably more things to worry about than who is copying a few
lines of analysis from whom.
I would not know as I rarely worry about anything.
(well that's a wee lie. anybody got a good line v the Petrosian system in the KID.)

"Note and analysis are clearly open to being written in an infinite number of ways..."

You can juggle the words about but by the very nature of the game and
if you want to make yourself clear then there are limitations.

White cannot take the pawn because of the checkmate 24.Qxh7.
Taking the pawn allows White to mate in one move with 24.Qxh7.
If Black should get greedy and take the pawn then a rude awakenng awaits him with Qxh7.
Of course not 23...Bxb5 25.Qxh7 checkmate.
If 23...Bxb5 24.Qxh7 Checkmate.

etc...

It's hardly Shakespear. (though Tartakower and Tarrasch to me come close.)
It's the actual moves where the creativity is and that goes unrewarded.

[Geoff Chandler]

Just had a thought, an interesting technical point.

The moves of the game are not copyright so how can adding notes
to the actual game not make them totally copyright.
Only bits of the written piece are copyright, not the whole piece.
That's nonsense.

The very fact that the games are not copyright should also rendure
any notes that appear within the game also non-copyright.

A good lawyer could and should point out that once a game has been
noted up and appears in print that whole game is now copyright and the
owner is the first person who noted up the game.

[JustinHorton]

The very fact that the games are not copyright should also rendure
any notes that appear within the game also non-copyright.

File under "making it up".