English Chess Forum

This forum is, quite rightly, lightly moderated.

Why should we go through the rigmarole of reporting a post? The first recourse should be an informal resolution of disputes.

I do generally consider the "!" button to be the "Carl should deal with this instead of me" button, which is sometimes the case. But rarely.

A few of us making the same point. I'm pulling on this thread because I am genuinely interested why Justin does not see it as a double standard. I think there is some circular logic "this behaviour is bad because it is done by bad people" regardless of whether only bad people do it, and the reverse. But I have not understood his argument entirely yet.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:09 am

I am genuinely interested why Justin does not see it as a double standard

Well there'd have to be an "it", Paul, and the thread would have to be a genuine one on which to pull.

If there are double standards (and there surely are) I thikn they may be on the part of guys who habitually freak out when they think they are being criticised - or somebody they think is important is being criticised - and that's maybe one of the features of English chess culture that interest me. (It is not of course confined to English chess, but for one reason or another it's particularly on display in that arena. One day perhaps I will try and thrash through why.)

So it is a matter of regret when he cannot answer. Although I welcome his willingness to work on it.

De minimis non curat lex. Carl being 'lex' in this case.

I hate this legalistic approach to matters, whereby moderators are called in before an informal resolution has been tried.

I might regret getting involved but it seems to me:

1. RDK is a plagiarist and not to be trusted.

2. He isn't particularly deserving of invitations to chess events - I can't say he was a popular addition at tournaments like Bunratty.

3. Invitations were likely (at least partly) tied him being a Times Columnist. With that gone there's not much reason for them to continue - however if people still choose to invite him that's up to them, no reason they should be harassed as a result.

4. By now everyone who cares to know, does know all about this. Certainly on this forum! There is some point to bringing up new ventures that RDK may get involved in, but bringing up old cases is rather old history - not to be forgotten, but not to be obsessed over.

5. There are more important issues facing English chess then exactly how much to condemn someone who really doesn't have real influence these days.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:40 am

I see I have been promoted further to Mr Cooksey, which is very gratifying. My point is that it would be more helpful for Olimpiu to ask Mr Winter why he chose not to sue than for me to speculate.

Paul Cooksey will find Mr Winter's e-mail address at the top of https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html.

O.G. Urcan

Thomas Rendle wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:33 am

I might regret getting involved but it seems to me:

You are correct on all six points, the sixth being that you might regret getting involved.

O.G. Urcan wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:38 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:40 am

I see I have been promoted further to Mr Cooksey, which is very gratifying. My point is that it would be more helpful for Olimpiu to ask Mr Winter why he chose not to sue than for me to speculate.

Paul Cooksey will find Mr Winter's e-mail address at the top of https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html.

O.G. Urcan

It is [email protected] and is displayed as above with no obfuscation. Good luck in getting a response. The wait time appears to be measured in weeks and months.

John Upham says, "The wait time appears to be measured in weeks and months", but that hasn't been my experience. Over the past dozen years I have exchanged hundreds of e-mail messages with Edward Winter on a whole range of issues. His replies have always been prompt, helpful and courteous.

I would imagine that if Paul Cooksey sends a query about the matter in question, he will receive a prompt response.

I am not intending to ask Mr Winter by email. I'm happy to assume he knows he could have sued GM Keene and has chosen not to. I don't feel he owes me an explanation and we do not have any existing relationship.

Thomas Rendle wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:33 am

I might regret getting involved but it seems to me:

1. RDK is a plagiarist and not to be trusted.

Without a shadow of doubt.

He has been referred to in this thread as ''a loveable rogue'' -not sure exactly how many agree with that!

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

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.

Leontxo García off again, in Spanish so not quite sure what he's on about now

Heh, yes, I spotted that yesterday. García's corrected a few of his previous errors, but it's still a load of cherry-picking tosh.