Friday, August 16, 2013

Six of one

In the Olympiad of 2010 Michael Adams beat Magnus Carlsen on the top board in the England v Norway match. Ray Keene covered the game in his Times column on 29 September 2010.


He then annotated it again in his Spectator column, entitled "Adamantine", in the issue dated 9 October 2010.


It's not too hard to spot similarities between the two pieces, but let not that question detain us too long, because it is rather easier to detect similarities between the Spectator piece in particular and the Times column he wrote, annotating the same game, for his column on 12 April 2011.

And the Times column he wrote, annotating the same game, for his column on 30 July 2011.

And the Times column he wrote, annotating the same game, for his column on 2 December 2011.

And the Times column he wrote, annotating the same game, for his column on 13 March 2012.

Here's the column for 12 April 2011.


Here, the column for 30 July 2011.


Here's the column for 2 December 2011.

Lastly - to date, at least - for 13 March 2012.



Let us hasten to a comparison.

1. Black's move two.

Spectator 2010:
Times 2010:
Times 12 April 2011:
Times 30 July 2011:
Times 2 December 2011:
Times 13 March 2012:

There must be some kind of memory game you could devise involving trying to remember which slightly different version of a note belongs to which column...

2. White's move four.

Spectator 2010:
Times 2010:

Ray dropped this note in his post-2010 version, though not, as you see, before he'd already got in a spot of self-copying.

3. White's move five.

Spectator 2010:
Times 2010:
Times 12 April 2011:
Times 30 July 2011:
Times 2 December 2011:
Times 13 March 2012:

4. Black's move thirteen.

Times 2010:

A strange, lonesome note, not even copied into the Spectator. Not like the next note.

5. Black's move seventeen.

Spectator 2010:
Times 12 April 2011:
Times 30 July 2011:
Times 2 December 2011:
Times 13 March 2012:

...the "guess the date" game not being much fun this time.

6. Black's move eighteen.

Spectator 2010:
Times 2010:
Times 12 April 2011:
Times 30 July 2011:
Times 2 December 2011:
Times 13 March 2012:

Anybody know what happened to 18...Qd7 in between the first Times column and the Spectator?

7. White's move twenty-two.

Spectator 2010:
Times 12 April 2011:
Times 30 July 2011:
Times 2 December 2011:
Times 13 March 2012:

8. Black's move thirty-six.

Times 2010:

Another note all on its own. But we cannot say the same about the one following.

9. Black's resignation.

Spectator 2010:
Times 12 April 2011:
Times 30 July 2011:
Times 2 December 2011:
Times 13 March 2012:

That's your lot. It remains only to try and guess what minuscule changes the seventh edition will incorporate.

Also, to wonder - can there can be another journalist in the country who does this? Who consistently copies out their own work, identically or near-identically, from one piece to another?

[Thanks to Pablo Byrne and Angus French]

[Ray copies Ray index]
[Ray Keene index]

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

For the most part you expect original journalism inside a newspaper. Of course, if you're reading the horoscope, or some other such nonesense, you can expect the same old garbage to keep cropping up. Now what does that say about the Chess Column? Should we expect the same old games to be continually churned out? I think normally we do not, we expect new games, lest there be a historical context that warrants repetition. When a game is repeated, I would take it for granted that the comments would also be, essentially, repeated. How does he get away with publishing the same game over and over again!

John Cox said...

The answer to that last question is fairly obvious; it's that his column is anyway so shite that nobody reads it and thus nobody notices.