English Chess Forum

I thought you might like this from a recent article about Philidor by Ray Keene who calls the Frenchman:

"The theorist who anticipated the French Revolution by asserting that the humble pawns are the soul of chess ..'

But see for yourself, the reference to the lady-in-waiting is worth the price of admission alone:

https://www.thearticle.com/transgender-chess

James

I am indebted to leading chess historian Richard Eales

Is he married to your sister, Ray, you don't mention it here

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:01 pm

I am indebted to leading chess historian Richard Eales

Is he married to your sister, Ray, you don't mention it here

Well, yes, of course he is - and it's reasonable to assume [as I think we both do] that Richard would otherwise have been less likely to be mentioned. But, unless you consider that Ray is representing Richard to be something he's not, ie. a "leading chess historian", it's not unacceptable.

Absolute nonsense, Roger, you don't just omit a glaring conflict of interest for that reason.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:31 am

Absolute nonsense, Roger, you don't just omit a glaring conflict of interest for that reason.

Sorry, but no, Justin. If Richard is indeed a "leading chess historian", and I make no judgment on that, then it's not unacceptable. Whether inclusion of the word "brother-in-law" would have been better journalistic practice is another matter - personally, I am inclined to agree that it would - but that's another matter. The point here is that there's here no conflict of interest - just a promotional 'plug' for a relative. You may not like it, and I'm not too fond of it myself, but promotional 'plugs' happen all the time.

Finally, if you don't mind my saying so, I'm not sure that branding others' comments as "absolute nonsense" contributes to constructive exchanges.

Richard has written at least two chess history books

Chess The History of a Game

and

Cambridge Chess from the 1870s to the 1970s: A History of Britain's Most Successful Chess Club

Not sure if he is active these days.

You can see him talking about Malik Mir Sultan Khan here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYCwOpjKab0 which is a rather nice piece of footage.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 am

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:31 am

Absolute nonsense, Roger, you don't just omit a glaring conflict of interest for that reason.

The point here is that there's here no conflict of interest - just a promotional 'plug' for a relative. You may not like it, and I'm not too fond of it myself, but promotional 'plugs' happen all the time.

"Persistent bad practice isn't really bad practice because it happens all the time"

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:18 am

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 am

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:31 am

Absolute nonsense, Roger, you don't just omit a glaring conflict of interest for that reason.

The point here is that there's here no conflict of interest - just a promotional 'plug' for a relative. You may not like it, and I'm not too fond of it myself, but promotional 'plugs' happen all the time.

"Persistent bad practice isn't really bad practice because it happens all the time"

Whether it's "bad practice" is a matter of opinion but it certainly happens all the time. However, would it be uncharitable of me to suggest that, if anyone other than Ray Keene had committed this heinous act, it would have passed unremarked upon by you?

Do you know, there might be no better statement of the ethical history of English chess than some guy trying to pretend that Ray Keene is being picked on.

Really, how laughable. Albeit laughable without being funny.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:13 am

Richard has written at least two chess history books

Chess The History of a Game

and

Cambridge Chess from the 1870s to the 1970s: A History of Britain's Most Successful Chess Club

Not sure if he is active these days...

Yes he is. Last Saturday (20 March) there was an online international chess history conference as part of the French Chess Federation's centenary.

Dr Richard Eales gave (in English) an excellent paper about Philidor.
He once described to me his Cambridge Chess as "undergraduate work" but the first book mentioned by John is certainly an important book, though his academic work is in mediaeval history.

I don't really see the point of this thread at all. Some of Justin's posts in particular strike me as being out of line.
I agree with Roger that there is no conflict of interest here,

Nor do Richard Eales and his wife, who is also a distinguished historian (her specialist field being the English Civil War) bear any responsibility for perceived misdemeanours of RDK.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 am

Do you know, there might be no better statement of the ethical history of English chess than some guy trying to pretend that Ray Keene is being picked on.

Really, how laughable. Albeit laughable without being funny.

Actually, Justin, if you investigated the ethical history of English chess rather than pontificating about it, you'd find I haven't a record of being one of Ray's defenders - rather the opposite. Less rhetoric, more facts, perhaps?

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:47 am

`¡¡¡¡

Nor do Richard Eales and his wife, who is also a distinguished historian (her specialist field being the English Civil War) bear any responsibility for perceived misdemeanours of RDK.

For the record, Jacqueline Eales is involved in one of those misdemeanours, specifically the Brain Trust "charity". I don't really give a stuff how "distinguished" academics are: they may know a great deal about their specialist subject area but it doesn't mean any more than that.

Tim Harding wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:47 am

I agree with Roger that there is no conflict of interest here

There is of course a conflict of interest in talking somebody up in a column without mentioning the fact that you have a close connection to them, and of course Ray has a habit of doing so (this is another example and one of very many).

Justin - you referred to a "glaring conflict of interest" when there simply isn't one - and your attempts to obscure that fact by badmouthing others just won't wash. On the separate issue of Ray's plagiarism, I'd agree with you. Here, you're just an obsessive barking up the wrong tree.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:04 pm

Here, you're just an obsessive barking up the wrong tree.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 am

Finally, if you don't mind my saying so, I'm not sure that branding others' comments as "absolute nonsense" contributes to constructive exchanges.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Roger Lancaster.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:04 pm

Justin - you referred to a "glaring conflict of interest" when there simply isn't one

I note for instance that the Guardian's editorial guidelines say:

It is always necessary to declare an interest when the journalist is writing about something with which
he or she has a significant connection

They don't insist it appears in the oublication, but they do go on to say

Generally speaking a journalist should not write about or quote a relative or partner in a piece, even if
the relative or partner is an expert in the field in question. If, for any reason, an exception is made to
this rule, the connection should be made clear.

Of course Ray is not writing in the Guardian: he is writing in a publication with lower standards (well of course he is, otherwise they wouldn't publish him in the first place). But the point is, here is a well-known and longstanding journalistic code of ethics - and it makes precisely the point I am making. So the idea that I am simply making this up holds no more water than a particularly leaky sieve.