Remembering Alexander McDonnell (22-iv-1798 14-ix-1835)

[John Upham]

Please see C.N. 11819.

- O.G. Urcan

I note "on a discussion forum"

Was it too much trouble to reveal which one?

Perhaps EGW did not wish to draw attention to this place?

[O.G. Urcan]

Please see C.N. 11819.

- O.G. Urcan

I note "on a discussion forum"

Was it too much trouble to reveal which one?

Perhaps EGW did not wish to draw attention to this place?

Since the C.N. item is a "quiz question," no specific sources (books, articles, websites, forums) for any of the quotes have been shown yet. It is clearly stated that details on all points will be provided in a follow-up item.

[Roger de Coverly]

Since the C.N. item is a "quiz question,"

Given that "Chess Notes" has been infrequently published over the past few months explained as other projects taking priority, one wonders why EGW is pursuing what appears a personal vendetta?

My favourite EGW moment was when a magazine gave him the "dracula in a blood bank" mission of identifying all the edits in the Nunn & Burgess edition of "60 Memorable Games", only to find that he was abused by RJF himself for not finding all the changes.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Though IIRC Fischer claimed there were "thousands and thousands and thousands of changes", which may not be strictly correct.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger and Matt,

I thought Bobby was being very unfair to Edward Winter with his outburst, E.W. seemed to
be on his side and his efforts in finding and publishing all the changes deserved praise.

The whole saga makes fascinating reading. The Fischer-Bolbochan game, (Stockholm, 1962)
is possibly the most famous misanalysed game in the history of chess print.

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer.html

"Given that "Chess Notes" has been infrequently published over the past few month...."

Hopefully the ' other projects taking priority' are chess related. Should be worth the wait.

[John Upham]

Additional fuel has been added to the uni-directional spat by EGW :

The latest from EGW

[Gerard Killoran]

I couldn't read the postscript with a straight face. Could not have been written by someone with any degree of self-awareness.

[John Townsend]

John Upham uses the expression "uni-directional spat". Let us recall what happened higher up on this thread. We were discussing the parentage of Alexander McDonnell, when Tim Harding suddenly referred to Edward Winter's "many and unfair attacks on my work".

[Roger de Coverly]

We were discussing the parentage of Alexander McDonnell, when Tim Harding suddenly referred to Edward Winter's "many and unfair attacks on my work".

I wouldn't comment on the attacks as being "unfair", but don't eleven sarcastic points on a long established and possibly well known website count as "many" ?

[Gerard Killoran]

John Upham uses the expression "uni-directional spat". Let us recall what happened higher up on this thread. We were discussing the parentage of Alexander McDonnell, when Tim Harding suddenly referred to Edward Winter's "many and unfair attacks on my work".

How would you characterise this? Scroll to the bottom.

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/gaige.html

[John Townsend]

Gerard, for the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that you consider part of that unfair? If so, what part, please, and why, and is that just your own view, or is it shared by Tim?

[Gerard Killoran]

Gerard, for the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that you consider part of that unfair? If so, what part, please, and why, and is that just your own view, or is it shared by Tim?

For the avoidance of doubt, and this is my view and my view alone, I think the whole thing is pointless, personal, petty and not a little demented. The general public does not have access to this 'privately circulated edition' so anyone referring to it is boasting of esoteric knowledge. This is nit-picking taken to extremes. What is the point?

[O.G. Urcan]

Gerard, for the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that you consider part of that unfair? If so, what part, please, and why, and is that just your own view, or is it shared by Tim?

For the avoidance of doubt, and this is my view and my view alone, I think the whole thing is pointless, personal, petty and not a little demented. The general public does not have access to this 'privately circulated edition' so anyone referring to it is boasting of esoteric knowledge. This is nit-picking taken to extremes. What is the point?

The point is clearly set out in the Gaige article.

The updated 1994 edition of Chess Personalia is exceptionally scarce. Therefore, showing examples of its additions and corrections is a valuable service, and dozens of such Chess Notes items have appeared. Therefore, the existence of the 1994 edition has become quite well-known. Therefore, any author nowadays deciding to list pages of amendments to the 1987 McFarland edition needs to find out which amendments Gaige himself made in 1994, and to give him due credit. Therefore, Tim Harding's failure to do so is a fair subject for criticism.

- O.G. Urcan

[Matt Mackenzie]

I'm generally a Winter fan, but do think this is just slightly petty from him.

[John Townsend]

Tim Harding is fully capable of being proactive in his research, so it seems a little out of character that he didn't acquaint himself with the contents of the 1994 private edition and reflect it in British Chess Literature to 1914. Did something prevent him from doing that? Perhaps an explanation of how it arose might make us more sympathetic. As things stand, the criticism does not strike me as unfair. The "point", as Gerard puts it, was made clear by Edward Winter in his article, and is concerned with preserving respect for Gaige's work, even though it wasn't published.