|Dec-10-08|| ||Karpova: Jose Raul Capablanca: <A very elegant game by Lowtzky, played with both enterprise and care.>|
From the "Capablanca-Magazine" of June 30, 1912.
The game was played on May 21, 1912.
Source: Page 42 of Winter, Edward: "Capablanca: a compendium of games, notes, articles, correspondence, illustrations and other rare archival materials on the Cuban chess genius Jose Raul Capablanca, 1888-1942.", Jefferson, North Carolina, 1989
|Dec-10-08|| ||hackmate: Who is this Edward Winter person?|
|Dec-10-08|| ||Karpova: Edward Winter is a chess historian.|
|Dec-10-08|| ||hackmate: I was aware of that much but someone told me he is really just a pen name for someone else. Has anyone ever met him in person?|
|Dec-10-08|| ||Nietzowitsch: Edward Winter is a self-appointed 'chess historian'.|
|Dec-10-08|| ||hackmate: What is the difference between self appointed and whatever the alternative is? Sorry if this is off topic but somebody else said something like this before and now I am wondering.|
|Dec-10-08|| ||Karpova: <hackmate>
Regarding the first question: Julian Simpole may have seen him. For sure, there are other people who have seen him but they may not be involved in chess too much or simply respect his wish to discuss facts (supported by sources) rather than his private life.
Regarding the second question: I guess that "self-appointed" implies that only he regards himself to be a "chess historian" so that it was some kind of insolance or a meaningless label (but I can only speculate).
|Dec-10-08|| ||hackmate: The question is interesting because it was part of a larger question I had been discussing with a friend of mine who had recently changed careers. He was a professor of history specifically centering on the Age of Enlightenment and the earlier Renaissance period. After years of teaching he finally wrote a book.|
His colleagues told him that officially made him an historian. But he considered himself a historian prior to that. They argued you have to be published to a historian. "Would the Plinies have been historians had they only taught?" was their argument.
He countered by claiming that writing a book made him an author. They argued about this as well. They said an author was somebody who made their living writing books. Someone who wrote just 1 book was therefore not necessary an author. Well then what do you call such a person?
They said a "writer".
He said a writer is "one who writes" and is therefore in a perpetual state of writing. So, a "writer" is an "author in progress", since he has written 1 book and is presumed working on a next.
He also asked why is it he made his money teaching history and could not call himself a historian, yet they required an author to make his money writing in order call himself an author.
The final word is still out on this one.
|Dec-29-08|| ||whiteshark: <hackmate <Karpova: Edward Winter is a chess historian.>> Well, he published a few (four?) books on historical chess topics:|
Chess Explorations (1996)
Kings, Commoners and Knaves (1999)
A Chess Omnibus (2003)
Chess Facts and Fables (2006)