Deletions of posts that don't violate any rules, but have offended the ELITE members?

How many do you think I spring for in 2014?

<Java>: They can't write code for @#$% and they can't prevent their code from being hacked. They were the number one entry point for viruses for years.

<Adobe>: They can't write code for @#$% and they can't prevent their code from being hacked. They recently gave away 10s of thousands of credit card numbers, including mine- which was promptly used by some idiot to buy expensive things on a British shopping site.

<Visa> agreed not to charge me for these purchases.

Setting aside possible arguments that this constitutes a personal attack of another member, the posts were made on pages such as the London Chess Classic which is clearly off topic.

Sorry, that's not even close to good enough.

Nobody needs to "discredit" Ray Keene any more than they need to "discredit" Boris Ivanov.

Keene's immoral, illegal, and inveterate plagiarism is well documented not only by the "blog" in question but also by <Edward Winter's> "blog."

Ray Keene has discredited himself.

Repeatedly. And recently. Pointing out and proving his immoral activity is not "attacking" Ray, or attempting to "discredit Ray"- it is accurately adding to an actual historical record of fact. It's not the whole story on Ray, so in fact you are doing him a great disservice if you are trying to sweep this under the rug. Ray's positive contributions to chess are legion. Please let the entire historical record on him stand at your website. Ray doesn't need your protection.

So, are you going to continue to sweep this under the rug?

I'll tell you where the <factual record and proof> of this man's inveterate plagiarism would be squarely on topic-

Right here: Raymond Keene

And yet there's almost nothing written here. Certainly this bio is sparser than <Boris Ivanov's>.

Why is that? If I start editing this bio with factual information about Ray's plagiarism, are you going to erase it and take away my bio privileges and ban me?

Why do you wish to cover up the facts about Ray's plagiarism?

<Karpova> and I have been working very hard already for a very long time to improve your WCC pages, and we're happy to do it. It's a lot of fun.

But do I need to worry when we get up to more recent WCC events?

Do I need to worry that you will be editing things in future drafts ex post facto at the behest of Ray Keene? If so, I have no further interest in helping you improve the historical accuracy and honesty of your website.

I want a much, much better answer than you have given here.

I want an accounting. I will risk asking a direct question that many, many members have been thinking but not saying out loud, and I'd appreciate a full and honest answer.

I want to know if you are taking money from <Ray Keene> in exchange for keeping the factual documentation of his plagiarism off your website.

I want an answer and I want it in public.

Thank you.

I propose nothing of the sort.

I propose something along these lines:

Alexander Alekhine

This is a well researched, well balanced and factual record of a great, and controversial, figure in chess history.

Alekhine's warts- and they are considerably more serious warts than any Ray Keene has- are not censored, but neither are they presented in a manner that "trumps" Alekhine's considerable achievements.

I propose something similar for <Ray Keene's> bio.

Not something cobbled together in a slapdash fashion solely in order to publicize his warts.

I propose a properly researched and factual account of Ray's career that neither seeks to demonize him for his warts nor demeans his considerable achievements in chess history.

This kind of bio takes time and care to write. But it also takes a host website that is not beholden to the player.

If Alexander Alekhine were alive today and active at our page, would the webmaster refuse to allow any mention of his "Nazi articles"? Would the webmaster refuse to allow any mention of Alekhine's doctored game scores?

I should hope not.

I simply wish that the same balanced and factual writing that <twinlark> put into the Alekhine bio could be employed to construct a proper bio for Ray.

In Ray's defense, a two sentence bio doesn't remotely do justice to a man who almost single handedly organized one of the most controversial, and one of the greatest, chess matches in history.

Ray's story deserves to be told in a fair and frank manner- both triumphs and warts should be included.

He certainly should have a bio longer than two sentences.

His plagiarism isn't a "theory" or an "allegation." It's proven and demonstrated fact.

But it's not the defining moment or aspect of his entire career. Far from it. He has done more service to chess than 20 other masters combined. He hosted one of the best chess TV programs for years- they are all posted on youtube and they are highly instructive and entertaining. Wonderful fare.

But none of this is in his bio. There isn't anything at all in his bio.

Like Alexander Alekhine, Ray deserves to have his achievements acknowledged, and by the same token, his warts should not be swept under the carpet simply because he is an active member of this website.

As I said before, he doesn't need extra protection. All the facts are already out there.

Maybe it's "just a game" to you, but chess history- and history itself- isn't a game to me.

<These words can be grouped into nine titles of movies, except that each has an extra letter added. Once you find the nine movies, place them in chronological order: 1. Thigh Noon (1952), 2. Easy Raider (1969), 3. Liver and Let Die (1973), 4. Annie Halal (1977), 5. Apocalypse Snow (1979), 6. The Cannonball Rune (1981), 7. The Tony (1982), 8. Easy Monkey (1983), 9. Rain Moan (1988). The extra letters spell "TARANENKO".>

The extra letters actually spell "Tarasenko", and although I managed to solve the klu anyhow (by looking for names similar to Tarasenko) it's clear that's not what was supposed to happen. More importantly, at least one user, <JamesBJames>, had got as far as "Tarasenko" before I had so much as woken up. Without the error the prize would have gone to somebody else, most likely <JamesBJames>.

I personally am offended by your continual calling of him as <Mondo> or <Penguin>. The man is a Grandmaster. He has a name. Use it.

Respectfully, you raise some good points. I shouldn't be using disrespectful nicknames for <GM Keene> or anyone else, for that matter.

I'd just like to reiterate that Ray doesn't actually *have* a bio at Cg.com, eh?

Two sentences for someone who has already had an enormous impact on chess history, both for good and ill, and he's certainly not finished his run yet.

All our bios are written by amateurs, as you know. Do you propose that we don't write a proper, substantial, and factual bio for Ray?

If so, why not? We have done so for most other GMs of Ray's stature.

I'd just like Daniel to clear up that pecuniary interest possibility publicly.

I have read posts at Cg.com in the past and recently that have hinted that Ray helped set up Cg.com with financial help, and possibly this continues in some form. I hope it's not true, but it would explain a lot, at least in my opinion. Perhaps it's not so mercenary, but rather a lingering debt of gratitude towards Ray for some other form of help to Cg.com.

Either way or no way, I'd still like to hear Daniel answer the question.

Certainly, Daniel may decline to answer one way or the other.

Mainly, and again, I think the issue of Ray's plagiarism has been soft pedaled at this website- at best.

And possibly deliberately covered up, at the expense of free, fair and factual discussion of a prominent chess figure- at worst.

I'll stand by my initial opinion that Daniel's answer to <Karpova> was not nearly enough information to address the gigantic elephant in the room at this website, with regard to Ray Keene and deleted posts. Posts deleted both by Ray on his own player page, and by the webmaster on other pages.

Again, the most proper and on topic place to address and record this issue is Ray's cg.com bio.

I misspoke when I said sliminess.

Correct would be "sleaziness."