Nice 74

Historical knowledge and information regarding our great game.
Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Nice 74

Post by Nick Ivell » Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:53 pm

Without wishing to defend Keene, I venture to suggest - since it's been brought up - that the Eley scandal was rather more serious.

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

Re: Nice 74

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:55 pm

A point I believe dissented from by nobody
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Nice 74

Post by Nick Ivell » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:03 pm

Wow, that makes a change on this forum!

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Nice 74

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:37 pm

Nick Ivell wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:55 pm
Did Raymond ever have the world at his feet?
I assumed any such comment would apply to his political and financial ambitions.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Joseph Conlon
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm

Re: Nice 74

Post by Joseph Conlon » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:55 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:08 pm
(c) as I have been trying to say, we are talking about a problem of culture in the English chesss community which Ray's career illuminates, and that culture has contributed to all kinds of other scandals including the ones you refer to. Put in that way, perhaps you can see some of the reasons why I think the question of how he has been able to get away with so much is not simply a historical matter.
Let me put a counter case:

It seems to me that RDK does not, actually, have very much influence over any current part of the British chess world, nor has this been the case for a significant number of years. Perhaps the last area where he had significant influence was through the Times and Spectator columns; I don't know the exact circumstances of those stopping but do note that as the Times now has a backgammon column but no chess column, it seems unlikely he departed the editorial room to a standing ovation and demands for an encore.

RDK also seems to be part of a previous period of English chess in part overlapping with English establishment - 1960s/70s Cambridge, the race to be the first English grandmaster, London clubland - very different to where chess is now. How many of the same people are still involved from the times when RDK had maximal influence? One thing that seems clear is that the future of English chess will not be Angl-ish chess (e.g. I would guesstimate that >~80% of the children entering my tournaments have at least one parent born outside the UK). If a parent who once played a bit at school is now introducing their child to the English junior chess scene, it is more likely that parent's default model of a top player is Vishy Anand rather than Bill Hartson, Tony Miles, RDK, Jonathan Speelman or Nigel Short - and the child is more likely to be learning openings via Twitch videos than through reading Flank Openings by RDK.

I don't argue with the claims of petty vanity, plagiarism, etc. But many fields have earnest seekers after knighthoods, OBEs and other honours; this is not an unknown personality type in public life. If there were serious culture problems in chess in the 1980s (which in some ways (Eley) there clearly were, but there were also many thing right as the era produced many world-class English players), then how relevant are these to today's chess world?

On the Spectator: I will agree to disagree.
JustinHorton wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:08 pm
No it is not, but it is less healthy to simply try and bury the events that took place, to hold nobody responsible and to try as far as possible not even to discuss it. As it goes the country I live in is perhaps the best contemporary example that we have.
I had (the island of) Ireland in mind as well, but I agree Spain is also a good example. I do, though, hold the view that in such cases 'justice' can be a dangerous concept to aim for, and that as none of us would be pure under the eternal microscope, we should be charitable towards the faults of others, especially if they are not ones we are tempted towards.

RDK's faults are many and well-known; can he not just be ignored?

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

Re: Nice 74

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:04 pm

Joseph Conlon wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:55 pm
RDK's faults are many and well-known; can he not just be ignored?
Not really, because the subject keeps coming up, and not necessarily because of his critics. And fundamentally because pretending we can't see what's going on is the problem, it's what English chess does.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Nice 74

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:25 pm

His failings are certainly well known, and largely accepted at least in significant part, *now*.

But that is very much down to certain people who refused to accept the cosy consensus at the time, and worked to expose those flaws.

For instance, even in the early years of this forum it is possible to find people claiming that criticism of RDK was mainly if not entirely down to "envy". You hardly ever see that always totally laughable canard these days, at least.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

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

Re: Nice 74

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:41 pm

I think it's obviously true that Ray's a lot less read and a lot less influential than he was a long time ago, and I'm not just talking about the last couple of years ago. I remember reflecting, in 2013 when I was helping compile all the industrial-scale plagiarism in the columns, that surely hardly anybody was reading these pieces, because if hey were, this would have been picked up long ago. (Maybe that's not a safe assumption, but it is at the very least safe to say that he was hardly being watched over for every little thing, or there wouldn't have been 130-plus ripped-off columns before he got found out.)
Last edited by JustinHorton on Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Paul Habershon
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:51 pm

Re: Nice 74

Post by Paul Habershon » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:46 pm

Joseph Conlon wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:55 pm
...as the Times now has a backgammon column but no chess column...
Not the most important part of your post, but The Times does have David Howell's column on Saturdays and a 'Winning Move' position with pithy commentary (author unattributed) on weekdays. Backgammon and poker each have one day per week.

User avatar
Gerard Killoran
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: Nice 74

Post by Gerard Killoran » Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:30 am

Joseph Conlon wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:55 pm
On the Spectator: I will agree to disagree.
I think you have missed the Spectator's support for Golden Dawn, the Greek Nazi Party - and all of Rod Liddle's columns.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Nice 74

Post by Carl Hibbard » Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:15 am

A post was removed to avoid any forum hassle.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Nice 74

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:33 am

Ah, I see that Gerard has said much the same as I did in that zapped post - but in slightly more diplomatic terms.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

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

Re: Nice 74

Post by JustinHorton » Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:04 am

Anyway, perhaps it's as well to recall that this is a sub-forum called Chess History and the nature of History as a field of study is that you uncover the past in order to better explain the present. You don't forget the past and you especially don't forget it to order, as it were, leaving out the bits that people in the present day find uncomfortable.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

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

Re: Nice 74

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:25 am

JustinHorton wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:04 pm
...fundamentally because pretending we can't see what's going on is the problem, it's what English chess does.
I understand this is a rhetorical device, asking everyone to reflect themselves. But here is a doubtless unwelcome observation on why it might not be viewed as constructive.

The nature of having responsibility is that one develops the mentality "What should I do about this?". I think that is healthy. But it does mean the framing "someone should do something about this" can be seen as unhelpful, if it is not clear what the something is. At least by a person who has already decided that they are themselves the someone who should be doing something if something needs to be done.

I realise the previous paragraph sounds patronising. I could not express it better, and I felt I had to spell it out to explain why I feel questions like "what do you want me to do about it?" should be read as a willingness to engage, and not an attempt to deflect the issue. I'm not saying they are never deflection, but they are also how change can start.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Nice 74

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:06 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:25 pm
His failings are certainly well known, and largely accepted at least in significant part, *now*.

But that is very much down to certain people who refused to accept the cosy consensus at the time, and worked to expose those flaws.

For instance, even in the early years of this forum it is possible to find people claiming that criticism of RDK was mainly if not entirely down to "envy". You hardly ever see that always totally laughable canard these days, at least.
Is this true? I"m not so sure. If it is, it's only because Ray is less a fashionable cause than he once was.

I've no doubt that Giddens, Saunders, Upham and the like would be just as happy to champion him again in the future should the wind change direction

Post Reply