Nice 74

[O.G. Urcan]

Yesterday, the @KeeneWatchers Twitter page said that on this forum someone had "written porkies about his Keene Number (9)."

On 19 May Tim Harding told us here:

"...I just looked at that Keenipedia page for the first time since it originally appeared many years ago. Then I treated it as the anonymous joke it evidently was and just ignored it though giving me a 9 is close to libel."

A @KeeneWatchers tweet of 29 September 2015 says:

"Tim Harding's 'Keene number' must now go from 7 to 9. In 2013 he wrote to Keenipedia suggesting that it should be 5."

O.G. Urcan

[Geoff Chandler]

As I said earlier, I left a comment on Ray's last piece, basically asking him to please refrain
from calling Steinitz 'Modern Chess Instructor' , 'Modern Chess Theory'

This minor, we saw what you wrote but knew what you meant, type of error could have been be a Freudian slip, or a plug for Ray's



Ray has given me a 'Thumbs Up'

So hopefully we can now relax safe in the knowledge that Ray will not make the same mistake again.

[MJMcCready]

I get the impression from this thread that R.Keene is a very popular GM. Much more so than I realized. I thought that, in drawing attention to what went on in 74 he might be hounded publicly but obviously not!

[Matt Mackenzie]

Edward Winter has just made one of his now infrequent additions to Chess Notes. I'm sure none of you would ever guess the subject

[JustinHorton]

see, for instance, how Nigel Short has the misfortune of being referred to

Given Nigel's disinterest in what Ray gets up to it is hard to be sympathetic on this one

[Geoff Chandler]

Edward Winter has just made one of his now infrequent additions to Chess Notes. I'm sure none of you would ever guess the subject

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html 11864. Incorrigible

It is not often that Mr Winter brings his Keene gaffes onto the main site repeating stuff that is already
on 'Keene Cuttings ' I guess in this case he (or the royal 'we') thinks a double-barrelled blast is in order.

When I heard Ray was bringing 'Shades' out I thought it was going to be an autobiography type of thing
where he sets the record straight (or crooked, all depends on your POV) on a number of things.

It is a pity about all the mistakes in 'Shades.' The silly ones, Adolph instead of Adolf (Anderssen) I'd just ignore,
Ray will not be the only one doing that kind of error, but the mistakes after the apparent proof reading,
Plated (played) Lopex (Lopez) etc and etc would have been (and remember I'm a a slap-dash fellow at the best of times) infuriating.
He has been a wee bit let down there, at 73 you cannot ask the lad to do it all himself.

His latest piece, and only fair I give a link https://www.thearticle.com/freudian-fe ... imzowitsch
is in my opinion quite good. The Tarrasch - Nimzovitch rivalry.

Though of course I've not fine combed it like others do looking for errors or rehashes. Can we not just leave him be.
I like him and I've realise me saying so is only used as an excuse for those that do not like him (their choice I respect that)
to splatter and yes re-hash his occasional ( ) blunders about. You know my opinion. I'll have no need to repeat it.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"but the mistakes after the apparent proof reading,
Plated (played) Lopex (Lopez) etc and etc would have been (and remember I'm a a slap-dash fellow at the best of times) infuriating."

That may not be his fault. I eagerly checked the proofs of my first chemistry book, and then the publishers introduced several errors after that...

[JustinHorton]

He has been a wee bit let down there, at 73 you cannot ask the lad to do it all himself.

What on earth are you talking about

[Geoff Chandler]

quote=JustinHorton post_id=266031 time=1621878317 user_id=621]

He has been a wee bit let down there, at 73 you cannot ask the lad to do it all himself.

What on earth are you talking about.[/quote]

Hi Justin,

You write a piece and hit a few wrong keys next to each other on the keyboard,
at 73 easily done, (cut him, the lad, some slack at that age.)
a 't' instead of a 'y' so played becomes 'plated' an 'x' instead of a 'z' so Lopez becomes Lopex.

You have a proof reader(s), they should catch it, Maybe they did, I'd expect so. When getting
printed theses errors could have happened. It's a simple run of the mill uncorrected typo.

OK to call him out for getting repeated facts wrong, but obvious errors that have been missed, not his fault.
Unless of course he continues to call Ruy Lopez, Ruy Lopex in a stubborn display to prove he never make mistakes.
(I've not read the book, maybe Ray is referring to someone called Ruy Lope the 10th.)

[JustinHorton]

You have a proof reader(s), they should catch it, Maybe they did, I'd expect so.

Why would you expect so

[Geoff Chandler]

You have a proof reader(s), they should catch it, Maybe they did, I'd expect so.

Why would you expect so

Actually when I think about it, if a non-player is proofing then I can see Lopex sneaking past. 'Plated' is also forgivable.
(it would not get caught in a standard spell checker) Lopex?, a non-playing proofer perhaps let's it go thinking its correct.
In any case I'm pretty sure it's not what Ray typed.

When Keith and I wrote 'Rampant Chess' Jacob Aagaard warned us a typo or two would sneak in, apparently they always do.
I said, 'not in my book' or something like that. There is one I know of in my bit, 'it' has appeared as an 'at'. Damn!

[John Townsend]

Geoff Chandler, in a post dated 24 May, accuses Edward Winter of "repeating stuff that is already on "Keene Cuttings"", but that is not correct. C.N. 11864 was an original item, which, in accordance with customary practice, was added to "Cuttings" afterwards. In other words, the exact opposite happened to what GC claimed. There was no departure from the usual modus operandi, as he implied. Winter has for years organised material as a mix between the C.N.s and feature articles. In March 2020 he announced the curtailing of new C.N.s, but one mitigating and pleasing aspect is that he has quietly made progress in the background on many feature articles, some updated, some new, as was the case, for example, with the recent article on Isidor Gunsberg.

GC's argument that Keene is "not the only one" is lame. It is a question of degree, and Winter would lambaste anybody who made that many mistakes. We should be glad that we have someone of his stature with the courage to deliver a highly critical review and we need to put our trust in his even-handedness.

GC tries to minimize some of the faults, in his unique style of confusing prose - with a bit of English thrown in. He gives the example of "plated", but what Winter actually mentioned was "could have plated 6. Bx7+", which, of course, contains an additional error in notation.

The "wee bit let down" remark sounds feeble, and I can't believe that Mr. Keene himself would blame his publisher or his proofreaders.

I must add that I have not seen Fifty Shades of Ray. I'm not at all au fait with Keene matters, but, unless I am mistaken, I don't think GC is either, and I believe he has admitted in the past that he has not read various key "anti-Keene" texts. We should both leave the debate to people who are better informed.

[JustinHorton]

You have a proof reader(s), they should catch it, Maybe they did, I'd expect so.

Why would you expect so

Actually when I think about it, if a non-player is proofing

1.Do you have any particular reason to think anybody was proofing?

2.If somebody was, why would you think that checking the spelling of names was not their job?

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi John,

C.N. 11864. Incorrigible states: 'On 18 May 2021 we added to Cuttings etc....

Further down adding: 'Now, a few days later, a second reluctant examination has revealed...''

Giving the impression Cuttings came first and the piece '11864. Incorrigible' came second.

If I'm mistaken, then I'm mistaken. It was a minor who is re-hashing their old stuff now wind up.
(please allow me a wee gag or two, even if it is in a '....unique style of confusing prose.' )
Sorry for any confusion.

'GC's argument that Keene is "not the only one" is lame'

Please use the context to which I was referring, in this case 'Adolph instead of Adolf (Anderssen)'
A 5 second google found https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-Games-An ... 1886846030
an advert for a book:' The Chess Games of Adolf Anderssen, Master of Attack'

First sentence: 'No one has ever played chess like Adolph Anderssen played it,' (therefore, Ray is not the only one!)

Limping on...

'‘could have plated 6. Bx7+’ I only mentioned what 'plated' could have meant. 'played'
Missing 'f' (I assume it was a f' ) is careless and again I see how that could slip through.
In the panning the whole book gets those two hardly register on the scale of 1-10.

" and I can't believe that Mr. Keene himself would blame his publisher or his proofreaders.'

I don't know if he would either, I never mentioned 'blame' I said, 'He has been a wee bit let down there.'
He may give a simple shrug of the shoulders or bury his head in his hands 'Winter will slaughter me.'
Who he blames, if anybody, is up to him. I'd go for the shrug of the shoulders.

Chess notes: mentions them: (the proof reader and editor)
'Keene’s affirmation in the Introduction that the columns have been edited (by C.J. de Mooi) and proofread (by Julian Hardinge).'
(that will answer your question Justin.)

'We should be glad that we have someone of his stature with the courage to deliver a highly critical review
and we need to put our trust in his even-handedness."

I 100% agree - it will sound pithy, but many times I have stated Chess Notes is the best site on the net and his
books are desert island category. (don't ask me to supply links John, I could very easily but trust me on this.)

I do not think it's a personal vendetta. Ray is his own worst enemy and, in some cases, fully deserves
the barbed pokes he gets from Edward Winter.

''Raymond Keene no longer makes an effort even to pretend that he is making an effort.' (he shrugs his shoulders.)

'''The only reason to buy a book by Raymond Keene is to warn others not to.' (keep up the good work Mr Winter.)

You are correct with:

"...that he [that's me] has not read various key "anti-Keene" texts.

I have/had no idea half of the stuff he has been up to - there is a link I was pointed to which was a bit of an eye-opener.

So now I feel a bit like St. Jude. (patron saint of lost causes).

However I like him, I like what he writes (usually), A few of his books are very good (the one on Nimzovitch IMO not among them).
He inspired me when I getting good. He was once a very good chess player (please do not forget that)
and he is getting on a bit. (so am I - it's a kindred spirit type of thing. us OAP's have to stick together.)

"...We should both leave the debate to people who are better informed."

There I 100% disagree, I enjoy jumping in with half the facts, the less facts I have the better I am informed.

The thread started because there was some 'iffyness' about how Ray got his GM norms.
I defended Ray, as is my want, saying the norm system encourages such iffyness. and here we are.

[JustinHorton]

Chess notes: mentions them: (the proof reader and editor)
'Keene’s affirmation in the Introduction that the columns have been edited (by C.J. de Mooi) and proofread (by Julian Hardinge).'
(that will answer your question Justin.)

It answers one of them.

You're still on two though since you're going to have to explain why you think Julian Hardinge is a non-player.

if a non-player is proofing