Nice 74

Historical knowledge and information regarding our great game.
Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Nice 74

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:33 pm

O.G. Urcan wrote:
Sun May 30, 2021 4:15 pm
One of many recent additions to this article.
O.G. Urcan
Hi Olimpiu,

There is a Suriname 90c stamp dedicated to this game that would go well with that article on The Immortal.

Image

Regarding the spelling of Adolf and Adolph Anderssen and the mistakes other than RDK's.
I mentioned the reviewer calling Adolf - Adolph but it has been pointed out to me...click on the look inside' button.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-Games-An ... 1886846030

The book is advertised as 'The Chess Games of Adolf Anderssen' but it is in fact titled: 'The Games of Adolph Anderssen.'
(maybe Ray has a copy of the book and took it from there. Do you think they tried to cover this up by using a very small picture.)

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Nice 74

Post by Geoff Chandler » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:14 pm

Rays latest piece which is OK (quite good in fact) and I'll give a link because there is something there to check for yourself.

https://www.thearticle.com/a-turning-po ... ss-history

Ray tells us he has got himself a copy of ' Oxford Companion to Chess and you can almost see the point where he opened it.

At the start of the article he calls Anderssen 'Adolph' which is as I have said is a pretty common error. Later Ray tells us...

"According to the authoritative Oxford Companion to Chess (Hooper and Whyld)
on which I have relied for much of my supporting historical background"

...and further down he correctly calls Anderssen 'Adolf!' (he has opened the book!)

A good chess article. Though I slightly disagreed, I think the Morphy-Staunton match was a non starter after After Lowenthal
beat Staunton 2-0 in Birmingham in 1858. A few weeks earlier Morphy beat Lowenthal 9-3 in a match where Staunton was the umpire.

Having seen Morphy in action and then he himself losing to Lowenthal 2-0 (one was a 25 mover) Staunton headed for hills.
Last edited by Geoff Chandler on Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Nice 74

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:32 pm

when I showed this position to Staunton’s most illustrious English successor, former world title challenger and now World Chess Federation Vice President, Nigel Short, during dinner the night before his birthday last week
In some ways Nigel is quite a good representative of English chess: endlessly shouting about this and that ethical issue while completely cynical about the company he keeps.
Morphy seemed incapable of work, and did nothing for the rest of his life. Increasingly withdrawn from society, he suffered in his last years from delusions of persecution
Is he sure he's talking about Morphy and not himself
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Nice 74

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:29 pm

" endlessly shouting about this and that"

Absolutely, I do wish people wouldn't do that.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Nice 74

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:26 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:14 pm
A good chess article. Though I slightly disagreed, I think the Morphy-Staunton match was a non starter after After Lowenthal
beat Staunton 2-0 in Birmingham in 1858. A few weeks earlier Morphy beat Lowenthal 9-3 in a match where Staunton was the umpire.

Having seen Morphy in action and then he himself losing to Lowenthal 2-0 (one was a 25 mover) Staunton headed for hills.
The flaw in your analysis is that the Staunton v Morphy consultation games were played either before or during Morphy's match with Lowenthal and several weeks before the Birmingham tournament.

O.G. Urcan
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:37 am

Re: Nice 74

Post by O.G. Urcan » Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:43 am

Anyone can produce a superficial article on Staunton and Morphy by lifting chunks from The Oxford Companion to Chess, but the book's coverage of both masters has proven particularly controversial. See the extensive discussions and corrections in several Chess Notes feature articles.

O.G. Urcan

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Nice 74

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:13 am

On numerous occasions Bobby Fischer declared this masterpiece to be his favourite game
"Citation needed", as they say. I reckon for "numerous" we'll need how many, at least three? Four?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Nice 74

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:32 am

Incidentally I note that the site carries some waffle about Alzheimer's from Daniel Johnson, who of course is Ray's old mate. (How do you think Ray got the gig? How do you think the old fraud does everything?) I also note that Ray has recently written on Alzheimer's, and good lord what a loathsome load of old nonsense it is, including the claim that Leontxo García is an "expert on Alzheimer's" (of course he isn't, he's a shyster on the subject) and a long section promoting his old mates and charlatans the late Tony Buzan and the still-living Michael Crawford, "Director of the Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition" which is very much not "based at London’s Imperial College" or indeed anywhere else that can be physically located, but is nevertheless a frequent recipient of cash from Ray's bogus Brain Trust charity.

By the way I don't think I've ever seen the 2008 article mentioned here. If anybody has a copy do pass it on, it'd be appreciated.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Nice 74

Post by Geoff Chandler » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:48 am

Hi Dave,

I have never put much stock on the consultation games, Staunton was up for the match after they took place.
According to Lowenthal the consultation games took place before his match v Morphy.

This was all a light hearted theory of mine from years ago, but the more I looked into it the more I realised it could carry some weight.
I still think the Morphy - Lowenthal match and Lowenthal's 2-0 v Staunton played their part.

Staunton would have been very impressed with Morphy's play (everyone was) and after Birmingham,
dismayed at his own current form (He was well past his prime due to age and illness which is not his fault.)

Although I've said 'head for the hills' I do not think he was scared of losing, he was possibly
more worried about the scathing gloating attacks his enemies would give him after he lost.
That is my opinion from a chess angle. Add in the Edge v Staunton slander match which would
not have helped at all in bringing Morphy and Staunton to the table.

Also of the opinion although a Morphy win it may not have been the slaughter many have predicted.

----

Hi Olimpiu,

"Anyone can produce a superficial article on Staunton and Morphy by lifting chunks from The Oxford
Companion to Chess, but the book's coverage of both masters has proven particularly controversial."

How many times has Ray been pulled for not checking his facts. You yourself mentioned after yet more revelations on Ray's errors.

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

"Even without primary sources, a quick glance at, for instance, The Oxford Companion to Chess
by D. Hooper and K. Whyld (Oxford, 1992) would have sufficed to avoid all these elementary blunders."

And now we are being told Ray is using the wrong book to check his facts!

O.G. Urcan
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:37 am

Re: Nice 74

Post by O.G. Urcan » Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:09 am

1) In this thread, I noted that the coverage of Staunton and Morphy in the Oxford Companion to Chess is particularly controversial and that extensive discussions and corrections regarding that coverage are in Chess Notes.

2) In C.N. 11126, Edward Winter noted that Keene could have avoided four elementary factual blunders about Anderssen even by just glancing at the Companion.

There is obviously no contradiction between these statements. Both illustrate Keene's incompetence.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Nice 74

Post by Geoff Chandler » Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:30 pm

Hi Olimpiu,

You have to admit there is a funny side.
Ray using 'Adolph' then telling us he has the Companion and then correctly using 'Adolf.'
This is the kind of stuff you cannot make up. (I think Ray did this on purpose.)

"Edward Winter noted that Keene could have avoided four elementary factual blunders
about Anderssen even by just glancing at the Companion."

That is assuming Ray had the book. He cannot be blamed for not consulting a book he may not have had.

At least now you know he has the book so no more wee slip ups.
If he does another (heaven forbid) then you can quote the page number
and chapter safe in the knowledge you know for sure he has the book.
(unless of course he has handed it back to the library.....fine unpaid.)

O.G. Urcan
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:37 am

Re: Nice 74

Post by O.G. Urcan » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:18 am

My interest is in serious scrutiny of Keene's writing and conduct. Another example is his dishonest attribution of research in the Oxford Companion to his friend Barry Martin. See C.N. 8298.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Nice 74

Post by Paul Cooksey » Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:05 am

O.G. Urcan wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:18 am
My interest is in serious scrutiny of Keene's writing and conduct.
We all need a hobby! But is Keene's writing really worthy of serious scrutiny?

I ask because I am reluctant to treat him as a major figure and criticise him. He seems to gain much more from being treated as a major figure than he loses from the criticism. I'd rather just dismiss him as a hack.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Nice 74

Post by Geoff Chandler » Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:59 am

Hi Paul,

I do not think I have made any secret of the fact although I slip in a wee joke or two, I like Ray.
I'd place him higher than a hack, he as over 100 books to his credit and is read by many non serious players.
(irrespective if anyone thinks the books are below par the fact is they are popular. He is a major figure.)

And that is the prime reason for Olimpiu's hobby and to a larger extent Edward Winters quest.
It is not just Ray in their sights, other authors errors are publicised but Ray due to his output is (and I admit that) the chief offender.

If certain mistakes are not nipped in the bud then thanks to the internet they very soon become facts.

I do not give a rats knob about how Ray spells Kieseritzky but blunders like calling Steinitz's 'Modern Chess Instructor' ,
'Modern Chess Theory' need addressing. Give it time and soon forums all over the net will be quoting from the latter,
people will be trying to buy it and future authors, in all good faith, my use the wrong title in their work and what may
be a good chess book is ridiculed for a simple one writer trusting another blunder.

Of course frustration has crept in and Ray's (to me harmless) minor errors are being lumped in with
the ​perennially uncorrected major ones and these nit-picks can be viewed by some as a personal vendetta.
I'd like to think not. I view it as two of my favourite uncles have fallen out and are not speaking to each other.

O.G. Urcan
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:37 am

Re: Nice 74

Post by O.G. Urcan » Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:44 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:05 am
O.G. Urcan wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:18 am
My interest is in serious scrutiny of Keene's writing and conduct.
We all need a hobby! But is Keene's writing really worthy of serious scrutiny?

I ask because I am reluctant to treat him as a major figure and criticise him. He seems to gain much more from being treated as a major figure than he loses from the criticism. I'd rather just dismiss him as a hack.
The very example that I have just given (C.N. 8298) shows that Raymond Keene cannot just be dismissed as a hack.

Post Reply