No doubt other letters in the same style were hitting the in tray in other chess publications.

http://tartajubow.blogspot.com/2012...

I'll defer to his research efforts for the moment (I just popped in anyways)...

If you read the whole quote, rather than just random words, it's clearly talking about a hypothetical future time. You always seem to make a half dozen mistakes, trying to squeeze one out of someone else. Even if you got the one, it hardly seems a bargain.

Right, however there's no denying that he was a member, even if only under coercion, for whatever that's worth. But the bio's claim that FIDE claimed he was "an ardent supporter of Hitler" is something I can't find in the contemporary sources I've checked. He didn't make any of the waves that Alekhine did, and the source that knew him described him as decidedly anti-Hitler. FIDE gave him a clean bill of health in 1947, and said it was up to individual organizers to decide whether or not to invite him to tournaments.

<Judy Garland Somewhere Over The Rainbow 1939> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW2...

Exactly, now you've got it. If you thought all this time that the action came first and deciding on what the action would be came afterwards, you've been doing it wrong all these years. That would explain a lot, actually.

This I could put my name to.

One can be sure FIDE didn't attempt to take Alekhine's title away, for the simple reason that it wasn't theirs to take. I can't make it any plainer for you.

I had a similar conversation today with someone who could not for the life of him grasp why first run viewers of a certain TV show couldn't spot how an episode contradicted a LATER episode (i.e. one that didn't <exist> at the time!). Is there a massive epidemic of feigned ignorance today, or have people just been going extra heavy on the Dumb Water?

Reading your posts elsewhere which cite Bohatirchuk, Bogo clearly had little use for the Communists either and actually came across as apolitical, whereas Alekhine was nothing if not an opportunist throughout life.

<Petrosianic> mentions this, inter alia, in the ongoing discussion at Bogolyubov's page.

If feelings are running this high in a local team event what will happen when Karjakin's ban is up.

Silly twit. Why didn't he go the whole hog, join Extinction Rebellion and glue himself to a road? Now, if he resigned in protest against Cherniaev playing the Dutch Defence, he would have had my sympathy.

<Beyond the concrete case, typical, fundamental problems of contributions to chess history come to light here. Just as there are trained historians and those without training since anyone may call themselves a historian in the absence of a legally protected professional title, the same applies to chess historians and historians concerned with chess history. Typically those interested in chess history, who are usually also more or less skilled chess players, become chess historians without corresponding training by publishing on chess history. This does not necessarily mean that their contributions are useless from a historiographical point of view.38 On the contrary, these specialists often do a great deal to illuminate aspects of chess history, and they do so with a chess player’s meticulousness, which can compete with the meticulousness of a historian. However, contributions by chess historians often fall short of the requirements of historical scholarship on three central points: despite all the thoroughness, there is a lack of evidence, or only insufficient proof cited for the claims made, such that statements cannot be verified. Similarly, there is often a lack of knowledge of the relevant archival landscape, which is why published sources are given too much weight over archival records. It must be conceded that there is indeed a structural problem in that chess produces far less archival material than, for example, government agencies. Finally, there is often a lack of appropriate embedding of individual pieces of information in the relevant historical contexts, so that individual pieces of information may be named but not understood. >

Who is responsible? Should editors be allowed to upload new pictures unilaterally?

As I said I wondered if a lifetime ban was discussed and where did they got the six months from, was this just to stop him from playing in the candidates.

How well are we doing?

Also it can be good fun working out and fixing a broken PGN.

Apparently it happened when updating something else, like the date.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.