Does Edward Winter exist?
Staunton
the Fischer interviews by Chris Ravilious. Remarkable if only because
for the previous 18 months, the magazine in general, and Ravilious'
Internet Diary in particular, conspicuously failed to mention the
interviews whatsoever - one of the most abominable cases of censorship
in the history of chess. Incredibly, Ravilious has the gall to write:
"No-one who wants to understand the present ambivalent attitude of the
chess world toward its one-time Great White Hope can afford to miss
these interviews."
Gentlemen, I know what you are thinking: this is all very well, but what
does it have to do with the existence or otherwise of Edward Winter?
Absolutely nothing. Shall we proceed?
One of the sub-headings in the article is Fischer's "You are no friend
of mine, Mr. Winter!" Whereupon we read: 'Edward Winter enjoys a unique
privilege among Fischer's hate figures: nowhere, as far as I can see, is
he referred to as a Jew. On the other hand Fischer seems in some doubt
as to whether he even exists:
"I called you a bastard, and you are a bastard. And not only that.
Nobody's even seen you. Nobody knows who the hell you are. You are a
fake." (Interview 7)'
If memory serves, Fischer actually refers in this context to a piece by
Hans Ree on Winter (see: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans05.txt )
Here's where it gets interesting. No documentary evidence that Edward
Winter exists has yet been uncovered! Various lines of evidence suggest
that 'Winter' was born within the period 1954-55. A search in the
Births' Register of England and Wales for those years came up with
nothing. This leads to the following possibilities:
1) Winter was born in Scotland (McWinter?) or Northern Ireland.
2) Winter was born overseas.
3) Winter was born in England or Wales but under another name.
4) The search was at fault or needs to be widened.
5) Winter has no independent existence and is a pseudonym for a person
or persons unknown.
Matt Nemmers
I just purchased EW's book "Chess Explorations: A Pot-Pourri from the Journal
Chess Notes." In the acknowledgements, he "is particularly indebted to Mr.
Jonathan Manley of Ilford, England for proofreading the entire work and
providing invaluable advice and assistance throughout the production stage."
That sounds like a good jumping off point. Good luck in "Searching for Edward
Winter."
Matt Nemmers
SPF
Given that I can find games Keres-Winter, 1935 and Noteboom-Winter, 1929
(both of which he lost to nice combinations, and thus have been preserved),
I think you have the date of birth a little bit wrong...
Adjust your date-of-birth search back to the first decade or two of the
century. I did once have a book by Edward Winter, but it seems to have been
lost in all of my changes of residence over the years. Amazon.com lists 4
other books by him, the last is ...
Kings, Commoners and Knaves :
Further Chess Explorations
by Edward Winter (Paperback - March
1999)
The author information from the title page should simplify your search.
This may not be a complete existence proof but I find the evidence
compelling.
Staunton wrote:
--
Dr Simon Fitzpatrick, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics,
The University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009
Telephone +61 8 9380 3389, Facsimile +61 8 9380 1028.
duff...@my-deja.com
SPF <fitz...@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> Yes.
>
> Given that I can find games Keres-Winter, 1935 and Noteboom-Winter,
1929
> (both of which he lost to nice combinations, and thus have been
preserved),
> I think you have the date of birth a little bit wrong...
>
> Adjust your date-of-birth search back to the first decade or two of
the
> century.
Please do not confuse Edward Winter with William Winter ,the english
player born in 1898 ,who died in 1955.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Charles Milton Ling
That Winter was William Winter. He also (for example) played in Nottingham 1936
(drawing Botvinnik in the last round).
Charley
Staunton
Matt Nemmers <nemme...@cs.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20001229210654...@ng-md1.news.cs.com...
> Interesting. "Edward Winter" may very well be a pseudonym.
>
> I just purchased EW's book "Chess Explorations: A Pot-Pourri from the
Journal
> Chess Notes." In the acknowledgements, he "is particularly indebted
to Mr.
> Jonathan Manley of Ilford, England for proofreading the entire work
and
> providing invaluable advice and assistance throughout the production
stage."
>
Winter would never be that unsubtle. Jon Manley is the editor of Kingpin
magazine.
Upon reflection, I would like to add a further possible solution:
6) Winter was born in Cornwall (Edward Trewinter?).
> That sounds like a good jumping off point. Good luck in "Searching
for Edward
> Winter."
I forsee one problem. As Ken Whyld put it in his review of Winter's
'Kings, Commoners and Knaves' in the May 1999 BCM: 'Although famously
thin-skinned, the editor revels in insulting others.'
Winter is known to read this group; will any such an 'investigation'
provoke a reaction? I fear Staunton's grammatical shortcomings, or
worse, may be laid bare.....
>
> Matt Nemmers
SPF
reveals a bunch of Winters who play chess in Germany, but not an Edward.
Anders Thulin
Staunton wrote:
> 5) Winter has no independent existence and is a pseudonym for a person
> or persons unknown.
Well, what of it? Are you just being curious? Or is it of any importance?
Isaac Asimov was once considered to have been a pseudonym for a group of
writers.
--
Anders Thulin a...@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
Akorps
persons unknown.
I have no idea about that, but whoever
"Winter" is, he wrote a very nice book
titled "Capablanca". Pricey, but very
interesting. Collected a bunch of Capa's
writings and tidbits that I haven't seen
elsewhere.
Staunton
Anders Thulin <a...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:3A4D9388...@algonet.se...
>
> Staunton wrote:
>
> > 5) Winter has no independent existence and is a pseudonym for a
person
> > or persons unknown.
>
> Well, what of it? Are you just being curious? Or is it of any
importance?
>
Questions, questions...
Let me refer you to the following - a review by Bill Rubinstein in
Kingpin no.30 ( Spring 1999 ) of Winter's KCK:
"...Edward Winter, who over the past 15 years or so has made himself
into arguably the greatest chess historian in the world, the best prose
stylist among chess columnists, the most widely discussed, the most
controversial, and the most mysterious.
(...)
"It seems to me that Winter's absolute insistence on excellence (and his
absolutely scrupulous fairness), together with his unremitting and
merciless attacks on the cheapjacks and schlock merchants of the
chess-book world have had profoundly beneficial effects upon chess
publishing, even in only 15 years or so.
(...)
"As noted I contributed a fair number of queries and items to Chess
Notes and its successor columns over the years, perhaps ten of which
have been reprinted in Winter's two volumes. Chess Notes was, I suppose,
my favourite magazine of any kind, and one day it dawned on me that I
knew nothing - absolutely nothing whatever - about Edward Winter
himself, apart from the fact that he was (I understood) a professional
translator living in Switzerland. Absolutely nothing about him beyond
this was to be found in any source, and, as far as I am aware, no
photograph of him has ever been published.(...) I vividly recall waking
up one morning in something like a cold sweat when pondering these
facts. Some years later it became clear that my experience was by no
means unique. Indeed, a year or two ago the columns of several chess
journals were full of writers recounting very similar reactions to the
mystery man of chess. I gather that all manner of speculation has been
rife as to just who Edward Winter is. Don't ask me: I don't know,
although my understanding is that he is a good deal younger than one
might assume. To pose as the Oldest Man in the World is a well-known
habit among many English writers, so that someone pontificating with the
benefit of hoary age is actually only 25 or so.
"Does it matter? No, of course not, but if Mr. Winter wanted no
speculation about his background and private life he has pursued the
course, that of strict secrecy, most clearly designed to produce the
opposite results. Indeed, for a man of Winter's genuinely remarkable
intelligence, it is suprising that he has not realised the truth pointed
out long ago by Edgar Allan Poe and G.K. Chesterton, that the most
effective place to hide anything is out in the open. One or two
autobiographical paragraphs and a photograph would have stopped all
prurient speculation dead in its tracks. But that Edward Winter's
readers care about who he is, in a way which is certainly not true of
any other chess columnist or writer, is only evidence that the
appearance of this is not merely (to use the cliche) an 'event' but
something many of us have internalised and made our own."
"About the Author
William D. Rubinstein is Professor of History at the University of
Wales-Aberystwyth. Born and educated in the United States, he lived for
many years in Australia and was Professor of Social and Economic History
at Deakin University near Melbourne. Rubinstein has written widely on
elites and wealth-holding in Britain and on modern Jewish history. His
previous books include A History of Jews in the English-Speaking
World(1996)." ( NB. this note is not in Kingpin)
By the way, I would like to recommend a book by Rubinstein "The Myth of
Rescue : Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the
Nazis". I think this is an important book, which, I think, effectively
disproves the slanderous accusations made in recent decades agains
America and Britain (which amounted, in my opinion, to something
approaching a blood libel on the Anglo-Saxon peoples).
Shifting (uneasily) to the subject as at hand, a small clue which may
lend weight to the 'Winter as foreigner' hypothesis is:
http://www.chesscafe.com/skittles/ninth.htm :
Edward Winter writes: "While I was preparing the 20 rare photographs of
Alekhine for presentation at The Chess Cafe
(http://www.chesscafe.com/gallery/gallery.htm) it occurred to me that
chess masters' silhouettes have very seldom been published."
A well-educated Englishman of Winter's generation would, in all
likelihood, use the Britishism 'whilst' instead of 'while'. Even Mark
Crowther, a not-so-well-educated Englishman of a later generation,
adopts this usage.
> Isaac Asimov was once considered to have been a pseudonym for a
group of
> writers.
>
Sorry, I have an aversion to all things science fiction.
I have another example. Franklin W. Dixon the pseudononymous author
behind the Hardy Boy detective series. This series (at the last count)
ran to dozens of books.
See: http://www.geocities.com/fwdixon/hb0.htm#top
Really, it's pure nostalgia for me. Through these books I learnt
everything I know about America - probably in the same way that our
American friends learnt of Britain from the books of Enid Blyton - The
Famous Five, Secret Seven, Mallory Towers etc.
Mark Crowther
>A well-educated Englishman of Winter's generation would, in all
>likelihood, use the Britishism 'whilst' instead of 'while'. Even Mark
>Crowther, a not-so-well-educated Englishman of a later generation,
>adopts this usage.
I was pretty well educated but not all of it worked! I freely admit
that I am not the greatest writer in the world. I did manage to get an
A at English Literature O Level but perhaps that says more about the
exam. Also after getting my degree I think I wrote nothing for the
best part of 10 years, absolutely nothing, nevermind articles. However
bet I've got more O levels than you! (We won't, I think, talk about A
Levels however they were science based!) I am also a voracious reader.
I just believe some people find it quite hard to turn out great prose.
I put it down to the way my brain is wired (my excuse and I'm sticking
to it) Going back to my education I can assure you my teachers tried.
Mark Crowther
Editor The Week in Chess
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html
Chesstours
see New In Chess #5 1989 (page 5-6).
In this letter to the editor, GM Jonathan Speelman notes that Edward Winter's
"pen has been known to acquire a distinctly acidic tinge."
Mr. Winter was raised in Hove, England. "I remember thinking that if all students
were like him, teaching would be a joy," stated one of his teachers in a recent
interview. Bottom line: Mr. Winter does exist but is averse to publicity and
refused to have his picture taken for an article about him.
--
Xylothist
<< The September 2000 edition of Chess carries, remarkably, an article on
the Fischer interviews by Chris Ravilious. Remarkable if only because
for the previous 18 months, the magazine in general, and Ravilious'
Internet Diary in particular, conspicuously failed to mention the
interviews whatsoever - one of the most abominable cases of censorship
in the history of chess. >>
"Abominable"?? The term certainly applies to Fischer's statements, but hardly
to the actions of Ravilious or Chess. And with the Fischer interviews pasted
into every half-baked chess magazine and web-site unable or unwilling to find
better material, they can hardly be accused of "censorship". Taste and
discretion, perhaps, but not censorship.
<<One of the sub-headings in the article is Fischer's "You are no friend
of mine, Mr. Winter!" ... On the other hand Fischer seems in some doubt
as to whether he even exists >>
I am amazed that anyone would now take Fischer seriously on this or any other
matter not directly related to playing chess. In Fischer's mind many things
"exist" which have no real-world equivalent, and Fischer rejects many facts for
which ample verification is easily available.
<< No documentary evidence that Edward Winter exists has yet been uncovered! >>
So it may be a pseudonym. Big deal. So were "Assiac", "Badmaster", "E.S.
Freund" and other chess writers. "Howard Staunton" sounds suspect, for that
matter. Winter exists. He answers e-mail. He has published the following
addresses at various times:
1983: 4 rue Daubin
CH-1203 Geneva, Switzerland
1984: 33 Hillcrest
Brighton, BN1 5FP
Sussex, England
1985-9: 9 rue de la Maladière
CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland
Present: chemin du Chateau-des-Bois
1242 Satigny, Switzerland
I can vouch personally that mail sent to the last address has been answered.
Someone exists there. If his real name is not Edward G. Winter, so what? For
over 20 years he's done some of the best research and writing extant on the
subject of chess history, while also serving as watchdog on and gadfly to
Keene, Schiller, Evans, and others who richly deserve the censure he gives
them. His real name can be Ida Eddis Foster, for all I care.
Staunton
Chesstours <7214...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:92l2m7$oti$1...@sshuraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> For an article on the chess world's greatest grouch and one of his
early games
> see New In Chess #5 1989 (page 5-6).
>
Well, I have this game score if not the actual NIC in question. Maybe
someone will be good enough to send me a copy...
I also have the score of the only other extant published Winter game (a
brilliant miniature worthy of Kurt Richter).
But I'm in something of a dilemma. By giving these games do I give
possible ammunition to Winter's detractors?
To wit Schiller:
"The real point, of course, is that George Koltanowski was, and
continues to be, a far more valuable and knowledgable member of the
chess community than Young Salieri. He has brought joy to tens of
thousands, revelling in the beauty of chess, a game he actually mastered
(unlike Young Salieri, who has shown no indication that a Master title
will ever be appended to his name. Koltanowski's books are sparkling
gems of chess wit, from one of the great writers on the game. He spreads
joy, like Mozart. The world needs more Mozart, less Salieri."
( http://www.chesscity.com/HISTORY/chess_explorations.html )
( Winter's reply: http://www.insidechess.com/announcement3.html )
> In this letter to the editor, GM Jonathan Speelman notes that Edward
Winter's
> "pen has been known to acquire a distinctly acidic tinge."
>
As I now understand, this episode is what Whyld was referring to him in
his aforementioned BCM review of KCK:
"Although not obvious from the book, sometimes the worm turns. Perhaps
the most famous case was when Winter demonstrated that Speelman was a
duffer at writing English. The Grandmaster matched this by demonstrating
that Winter was a duffer at playing chess. A Speelman Chess Encounters
would be an unappetising prospect, but a Winter Analysing the Endgame
would be too ridiculous to contemplate."
> Mr. Winter was raised in Hove, England. "I remember thinking that if
all students
> were like him, teaching would be a joy," stated one of his teachers in
a recent
> interview. Bottom line: Mr. Winter does exist but is averse to
publicity and
> refused to have his picture taken for an article about him.
> --
Which interview and which article? Who is the teacher in question?
Staunton
Xylothist <xylo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001230172109...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> Howard Staunton wrote:
> << The September 2000 edition of Chess carries, remarkably, an article
on
> the Fischer interviews by Chris Ravilious. Remarkable if only because
> for the previous 18 months, the magazine in general, and Ravilious'
> Internet Diary in particular, conspicuously failed to mention the
> interviews whatsoever - one of the most abominable cases of censorship
> in the history of chess. >>
>
> "Abominable"?? The term certainly applies to Fischer's statements,
but hardly
> to the actions of Ravilious or Chess. And with the Fischer interviews
pasted
> into every half-baked chess magazine and web-site unable or unwilling
to find
> better material, they can hardly be accused of "censorship". Taste
and
> discretion, perhaps, but not censorship.
>
What you need to do is provide a list of chess magazines that published
substantial extracts of the interview.
Then you might care to explain why Chess' and Ravilious' taste and
discretion suddenly failed them?
I already know the answer, but I like to see a man flounder.
Hmm, you raise another possibility:
7) Winter is a woman (Edwina Winter?)
Chris
>As I now understand, this episode is what Whyld was referring to him in
>his aforementioned BCM review of KCK:
>
>"Although not obvious from the book, sometimes the worm turns. Perhaps
>the most famous case was when Winter demonstrated that Speelman was a
>duffer at writing English. The Grandmaster matched this by demonstrating
>that Winter was a duffer at playing chess. A Speelman Chess Encounters
>would be an unappetising prospect, but a Winter Analysing the Endgame
>would be too ridiculous to contemplate."
What's funny is how completely irrelevant Speelman's attempt was. The most
perceptive critics are rarely anything more than proficient in the field
which they study, and often they have no experience at all!
Speelman is open to criticism because he writes-- or tries to write--
books. Whether one has even a basic grasp of language is relevant. Winter's
work is as a historian who needs only enough proficiency in the game to
recognize features of the games he publishes-- and even that is the
smallest part of what he does.
In terms of relevance, this is like Tiger Woods pointing out that I am a
duffer and retorting indignantly that he doesn't understand liniguistic
transformation.
Winter may be grouchy (I have my doubts-- I suspect he is annoyed at the
basic inaccuracies he finds again and again, often by the usual suspects),
but he is accurate, and it seems rare indeed that he is challenged
factually instead of personally.
PJDBAD
>perceptive critics are rarely anything more than proficient in the field
>which they study, and often they have no experience at all!
>
>Speelman is open to criticism because he writes-- or tries to write--
>books. Whether one has even a basic grasp of language is relevant. Winter's
>work is as a historian who needs only enough proficiency in the game to
>recognize features of the games he publishes-- and even that is the
>smallest part of what he does.
>
That is almost what Dr. Johnson, one of the all time great critics, said when
some one pointed out the lack of a critic's ability.
He said that a pserson didn't have to be a furniture maker to know if a table
was well made or not. By anology one doesn't have to be an especially good
writer to know if something is well written or not.
PJDBAD
remember that one of the more common reasons for a writer assuming a nom de
plume is that they so prolific that if they accepted attribution for their
entire oeuvre, they would not be deemed credible.
Some people just are driven and compelled to publish almost every thing that
passes through their minds. Edwin Winter might be one of these. I suggest
what a general search of the literature would be in order and would turn up
writers with similar styles who might be he.. Also, sometimes earlier works
have more autobiographical content than later works so some of his earliest
writings and publications would be the place to look for clues. I would also
look at other social histories as it would be hard to imagine an historian of
ability to confine his out put to chess. I would also look at letters to
editors of the Swiss news papers about chess or related topics.
Every one loves a mystery.
Xylothist
>What you need to do is provide a list of chess magazines that published
>substantial extracts of the interview.
We are not discussing which magazines published the interviews; at issue is
your contention that Chess' and/or Ravilious' not publishing them constituted
censorship. Neither did The Economist or Knitting Quarterly. So what?
>Then you might care to explain why Chess' and Ravilious' taste and
>discretion suddenly failed them?
Again this is totally beside the point. My point, again, is that your statement
that this is "one of the most abominable cases of censorship in the history of
chess" is hyperbolic and preposterous. It is simply an editor's decision,
hardly an "abominable" act.
Chris
>when some one pointed out the lack of a critic's ability.
In many fields it is proven by practice (film, painting, literature). The
great artist who is also a good critic is rare, or at least an expenditure
on their part in the field of criticism is rare...
Chris
>We are not discussing which magazines published the interviews; at issue
>is your contention that Chess' and/or Ravilious' not publishing them
>constituted censorship. Neither did The Economist or Knitting Quarterly.
>So what?
Surely you can see a bit of difference between a chess magazine not
publishing an interview with arguably the most notable (notorious?) figure
in the chess world who is also a famous recluse, and Knitting Quarterly
doing the same?
At the very least one has to wonder what the editors of a chess magazine
were thinking. Perhaps they *should* be editing Knitting Quarterly.
Xylothist
>What you need to do is provide a list of chess magazines that published
>substantial extracts of the interview.
Amazing. Staunton makes a serious accusation without a scintilla of evidence,
then insists that the onus of proof is on one who disagrees.
Staunton also has created some semantic confusion. "Censorship" usually
involves legal prohibition, i.e. government intervention to prevent
publication. What Chess magazine publishes or does not publish is simply an
editorial decision, not an act of legal suppression.
>I already know the answer, but I like to see a man flounder.
Tut, tut, getting personal on our first newsgroup exchange? Let's try to stick
to the issues.
Włodzimierz Holsztyński
In article <20001231161141...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
xylo...@aol.com (Xylothist) wrote:
> It is simply an editor's decision,
> hardly an "abominable" act.
U didn't write "a simple editor's decision".
Thus I'd like to ask U:
can't an editorial decision be abominable?
I must add that I don't have a sufficiently complete
and clear picture of what had happened to have an
opinion about the issue under the discussion.
Regards,
Wlod
Xylothist
> can't an editorial decision be abominable?
Certainly it can, but merely to allege that something is "abominable" does not
make it so. The one making the allegation must provide supporting evidence and
argument. In this case, H. Staunton must prove that Chess magazine and C. P.
Ravilious engaged in censorship. He has so far failed to do so, at least in
these newsgroup postings.
Chris
This is conflating two different arguments. Surely an editorial decision
can be abominable without being an act of censorship. The two can be
different things. I see no clear evidence that Chess magazine is guilty of
censorship.
Nonetheless, for a magazine ostensibly about chess not to cover in any way
rare interviews with a notoriously reclusive ex-world chess champion who is
perhaps the most recognized figure in the chess world seems an abominable
decision on its face.
To decide that this was an act of censorship is to rely on evidence about
the editors that I don't have, though it *could* be an act of censorship.
It could just as well be an act of monumental editorial stupidity, simple
oversight, or conscious decision that it wasn't newsworthy (all of which
could still be argued to be abominable).
Perhaps there were good reasons for the lack of notice in Chess, but I'm
not seeing them here. This would be akin to a world political journal
failing to mention the problems in the recent US Election. To be sure,
there are other things that can (and did) fill the magazine, but a picture
of the relevant environment would hardly be complete without it.
Chessphoto
I'm not so sure these editors made abominable decisions. To use your own
illustration, there are some persons -- such as me -- who do not think U. S.
elections newsworthy at all. As an editor of a responsible "world political
journal", I would have, long before the first Tuesday after the first Monday of
November, explained that U. S. political elections are frauds. Thereafter
(considering I edited a weekly), I would have devoted a paragraph or two to the
"election" politics, simply so that persons wishing to learn the names of the
latest bourgeois puppets could be so informed.
The editors of chess publications DO NOT have to chronicle every flatulation of
a 57-year-old sick child who once played magnificent chess.
Fraternally,
Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus
Xylothist
>This is conflating two different arguments. Surely an editorial decision
>can be abominable without being an act of censorship.
Quite true. I am merely referring to Mr. Staunton's outlandish statement that
failure to publish the Fischer interviews constituted "one of the most
abominable cases of censorship in the history of chess." The conflation is his.
I contend the failure to publish Fischer is neither abominable nor censorship.
PJDBAD
>to the issues.
>
An issue is something that comes from the body.
Chris
> statement that failure to publish the Fischer interviews constituted
> "one of the most abominable cases of censorship in the history of
> chess." The conflation is his. I contend the failure to publish Fischer
> is neither abominable nor censorship.
>
Of course the question can be turned around-- do you know the editor in
question? Do you know what his reasoning was? Staunton surmises
censorship. It might well be the case. How do you know it is not?
Personally, I consider such an omission a glaring mistake. I would
probably err, if forced to guess, on the side of something personal
afoot, something that could well be censorship. The problem is, of
course, that no one in the conversation is in a position to know for sure
that it is or is not.
All of which is to say that while Staunton's description is hardly
proven, it doesn't seem all that outlandish either.
Chris
>"world political journal", I would have, long before the first Tuesday
>after the first Monday of November, explained that U. S. political
Ah, you are creating a nationalistic strawman here. My example is simply
to say that a journal of world politics would be remiss if it did not
have some coverage of the elections in one of the largest countries, just
as it would be remiss to not cover elections and other events in other
major countries. It has nothing to do with Nationalism, etc.
Your position simply illustrates why you would never be the editor of a
journal of world politics, or at least not a worthwhile one.
Happy New Year
Staunton
unique
> privilege among Fischer's hate figures: nowhere, as far as I can see,
is
> he referred to as a Jew.
But wait...
On page 445 of the October 1985 BCM we find: "...Leopold Winter died on
May 8, aged 85 [...] a long serving Brighton C.C. Secretary. Born in
Austria, he never lost his continental accent, especially when he became
animated, which was quite often! He used to organise chess stamp
exhibitions at the Hastings Congress and argued long and passionately
for a Brighton tournament to match the work done for Caissa by its
Sussex neighbour."
So is Leopold (said to have been a Jewish refugee to Britain) Edward's
father (or grandfather, even)?
One other clue - Edward is known to have attended a Catholic school.
Louis Blair
> ... do I give
> possible ammunition to Winter's detractors?
>
> To wit Schiller:
>
> "The real point, of course, is that George Koltanowski was, and
> continues to be, a far more valuable and knowledgable member of the
> chess community than Young Salieri. He has brought joy to tens of
> thousands, revelling in the beauty of chess, a game he actually mastered
> (unlike Young Salieri, who has shown no indication that a Master title
> will ever be appended to his name. Koltanowski's books are sparkling
> gems of chess wit, from one of the great writers on the game. He spreads
> joy, like Mozart. The world needs more Mozart, less Salieri."
I think that the best way to react to Schiller is
to look carefully at the values he advocates. The
attitude seems to be that if a person promotes chess,
he should not be criticized. It would be extremely
convenient for Schiller if such an attitude were generally
adopted, but the inevitable consequence would be
the continued and growing publication of junk. Those
who want to fight this naturally want more Winter
and less of the Schiller attitude. As for Winter's chess
playing ability, I have never seen Schiller give even a
single example of a Winter criticism whose validity
could be sensibly questioned on the basis of chess
playing ability.
> Whyld:
> "sometimes the worm turns. Perhaps
> the most famous case was when Winter demonstrated that Speelman was a
> duffer at writing English. The Grandmaster matched this by demonstrating
> that Winter was a duffer at playing chess."
It's amazing that Whyld would think that
Speelman "matched" Winter.
Winter does not publish his chess playing.
Speelman certainly has published much of
his use of English.
Matt Nemmers
thinking..."
I could probably tell you what the editors were thinking by leaving out
Fischer's interview. They probably thought "why include an interview of a
psychotic, stark-raving lunatic in a chess magazine?" Granted, Fischer was
great in his day, but he's nothing to do with chess anymore; he doesn't play
and he doesn't contribute at all, so why bother?
I think it's rather funny the different attitudes many people have towards
chess champions and say, Superbowl champions.
For example, the St. Louis Rams won the Superbowl last year; this year they
aren't even advancing in the playoffs. Since they won't be playing again until
next year, how many people will still be walking around saying that the Rams
are the best football team in the league? Not many, I'll bet.
Fischer won the world title in 1972 and never defended it. Since then, there
have been three (more or less, depending on your point of view) other
champions. But people are still ranting and raving about Fischer and how he's
STILL the greatest player in the world, nobody can beat him, blah, blah, blah.
I find this rather absurd. Sure, he WAS a good player--and probably still is.
But he's gone. Physically from the game of chess and obviously mentally.
Getting back to my point: the editors were right not to put the interview in.
Bobby Fischer has no place in the chess world anymore. The only things
remaining are some beautiful games and a lot of rumors.
Bottom line: Just as we won't be seeing the Denver Broncos grace the cover of
Sports Illustrated this year for winning back-to-back Superbowls in 97 & 98, so
we shouldn't have to put up with Fischer's ugly mug on Chess Life or any other
periodical for being the world champion almost 30 years ago. It's time to let
go, people.
Happy holidays.
Matt Nemmers
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Chris
>Fischer's interview. They probably thought "why include an interview of
>a psychotic, stark-raving lunatic in a chess magazine?" Granted,
>Fischer was great in his day, but he's nothing to do with chess anymore;
>he doesn't play and he doesn't contribute at all, so why bother?
I still think that his rare appearances are chess news, if only *because*
of the cult of personality that surrounds him.
>I think it's rather funny the different attitudes many people have
>towards chess champions and say, Superbowl champions.
Your analogy is flawed. It would be more accurate to compare the way people
regard Fischer with the way football fans regard the great Steelers,
Dolphins, etc of years past. They still talk about them, their records, the
games, and statements by players from those teams are still news.
This is more equivalent. Franco Harris has not been on the scene much in a
long time... if he suddenly gave some interviews do you think they'd carry
news about it in football magazines? Sure they would.
>Getting back to my point: the editors were right not to put the
>interview in. Bobby Fischer has no place in the chess world anymore.
>The only things remaining are some beautiful games and a lot of rumors.
I'm not a big Fischer fanatic, but I disagree that they were "right" (I'd
say "smart") not to put the interview in. This has nothing to do with
thinking that Fischer is still the champ (I don't) or that he is/was the
strongest player ever (impossible argument), but with the fact that just
because some people are tired of him or don't like him doesn't change the
fact that in chess terms he is newsworthy.
>Bottom line: Just as we won't be seeing the Denver Broncos grace the
>cover of Sports Illustrated this year for winning back-to-back
>Superbowls in 97 & 98, so we shouldn't have to put up with Fischer's
>ugly mug on Chess Life or any other periodical for being the world
>champion almost 30 years ago. It's time to let go, people.
Like I said, this analogy is flawed. However, I still see mention not only
of the 97/98 Broncos, but of many even older football teams, players,
coaches, etc. in Sports Illustrated and other sports magazines. Clearly
they still have relevance in that particular field. However, I don't expect
to see them covered in Time magazine along with Kasparov/Kramnik, for
example.
Staunton
British name with Germanic roots.
To Louis Blair: I saw your post at Dejanews, but it hasn't appeared
(yet) on this server. Fair comment, I subbose.
The reason for my reply is to ask whether you remember when and where
your article (from the 1980s) on the Lasker-Schlechter match appeared?
Louis Blair
Staunton wrote:
> To Louis Blair:
>
> The reason for my reply is to ask whether you remember when and where
> your article (from the 1980s) on the Lasker-Schlechter match appeared?
If I remember correctly, my article was in the
February 1990 issue of the British Chess Magazine.
Somewhere around 1995 or 1996, there was an
article by Michael Ehn in New in Chess that
uncovered some valuable additional information.
I would be most grateful if someone would identify
exactly which issue had the Ehn article.
Staunton
where
> >your article (from the 1980s) on the Lasker-Schlechter match
appeared?
LB answered in a post which again failed to register on my server:
If I remember correctly, my article was in the February 1990 issue of
the British Chess Magazine.
Somewhere around 1995 or 1996, there was an article by Michael Ehn in
New in Chess that
uncovered some valuable additional information. I would be most grateful
if someone would identify
exactly which issue had the Ehn article.
I, Howard Staunton, doth reply:
Thanks, for some reason I thought it appeared much earlier. At the end
of the article, you thank one Charles Blair for his assistance. Any
relation to you or to the Charles Blair who occasionally posts to this
group?
Incidentally, whilst looking up your piece in the 1990 BCM volume, I
came across an Edward Winter letter in the March edition. Winter is
chastising the BCM on the subject of obituaries, wherein he writes, " 2)
C.N. has never received a single complaint about "cursory obituaries"
whereas, for example, in the October 1985 BCM (p.445) Jeremy Gaige
criticized your performance. Since your own published response
acknowledged that Mr. Gaige had a point, you can hardly object when I
endorse his strictures."
This is the very page with the Leopold Winter obituary...
Louis Blair
> To Louis Blair:
>
> your article (from the 1980s) on the Lasker-Schlechter match appeared?
I wrote:
> If I remember correctly, my article was in the
> February 1990 issue of the British Chess Magazine.
> Somewhere around 1995 or 1996, there was an
> article by Michael Ehn in New in Chess that
> uncovered some valuable additional information.
> I would be most grateful if someone would identify
> exactly which issue had the Ehn article.
Staunton wrote:
> At the end
> of the article, you thank one Charles Blair for his assistance. Any
> relation to you or to the Charles Blair who occasionally posts to this
> group?
The Charles Blair that I thanked is related to me.
He also occasionally posts to this group.
By the way, I would appreciate it if Staunton would
refrain from posting the complete text of my article.
I am not a copyright expert, but I would hope that
that would be a copyright violation.
RSHaas
not turn unstoned."
Chesspride
>> 5) Winter has no independent existence and is a pseudonym for a person or
>persons unknown.
Possibly, but I have, in the past, received written correspondence from him
from Switzerland.
Eric C. Johnson
Chessphoto
Many persons of this newsgroup -- and some others of my acquaintance have
corresponded with Edward Winter over the years. I am one of those who has done
so, and been quoted in CHESS NOTES. What I do consider important is that Mr.
Winter is responsible to his public. He answers when questioned and the
answers I have seen always appear to be reasonable.
I am convinced that there is a person named Edward Winter, currently resident
in Switzerland who is an outstanding historiographer of chess. But I would not
suffer a stroke if I were to learn that the name is a pseudonym. So what! The
bearer of the pseudonym -- if so it be -- may be reached and will respond.
That's atisfactory.
pulgao
wrote:
"atisfactory"?
And you flame the misspellings of others? LOL! Man, that's the
funniest thing I've seen all weekend! How'd Shakespeare spell
"satisfactory", Jerry?
-- Steve Lopez
"Chess is ruthless: you've got to be prepared to kill people." - Nigel Short
The Chess Kamikaze Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/ludekdudek/
The Chess Kamikaze Club: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/chesskamikazes
Mig
battered hat into the ring. I would compare our fascination with
Fischer and the arguments in this thread to how society treats all its
ruined celebrities and how all news sources filter their content.
Hold your nose and pick up a People magazine or most any UK newspaper
in color and you'll see much the same thing. The NY Times doesn't
cover Michael Jackson's latest "scandal," other than when it employs
the typical maneuver of mentioning that it's being covered elsewhere.
Each newspaper and magazine has its own standards for what constitutes
news. This is how readerships are established. The front page of the
Sun will have the tale of a football star caught in bed with half of
Blair's cabinet and an Irish Setter. On the same day the Times' front
page will have something about Euro monetary policy. This is not
because either paper missed or "censored" the other story. If you want
celebrity gossip, don't buy the Wall St. Journal.
Chess Monthly, like most "respectable" chess magazines worldwide (and
like KasparovChess.com), made little or no mention of the Fischer
interviews. The rationale presented, when they bothered, was because
they did not think the subject matter appropriate for their
readership. That can mean "of little interest to" (doubtful, but
possible) or "offensive to" (definitely).
We now have available to us oceans of information and complaining that
some of it is not available from all sources is silly. Write a letter
to the editor, put together a petition if you feel it necessary,
that's what freedom of speech is all about. If I received five letters
requesting that KC run the Fischer stuff, I still wouldn't. If I
received a thousand, I would. (Certainly not verbatim!)
Mig
pulgao
wrote:
>The front page of the
>Sun will have the tale of a football star caught in bed with half of
>Blair's cabinet and an Irish Setter.
Hmmmm. If you'd said a sheep instead of an Irish Setter, I'd have bet
on it being a Liverpool player.