Predecessors XVII: Capablanca-Lasker 1921

That was last week, in a parallel universe where plagiarism matters.

In the chess universe last week, we covered Ray's column from 6 June 2013, another of a number of consecutive Times columns in June which Ray plagiarised from elsewhere. 5 June we have already covered, in the third of our series back in July. So what of 4 June?

On 4 June he annotated the fifth game of the 1921 world championship match between Capablanca and Lasker.

This one was plagiarised from the first volume of My Great Predecessors

where it appeared on pages 264 to 267.


1. Black's move thirteen.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

Ray kicks off by forgetting to mention Duras as well as the source he plagiarises. Most of what follows is so blatant as to require no comment.

2. White's move sixteen.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

3. Black's move sixteen.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

4. Black's move twenty-one.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

5. White's move twenty-five.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

6. Black's move twenty-six.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

7. White's move thirty-four.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

Since that's a quote from Lasker, I think we'll take that as Ray plagiarising the second world champion as well as the thirteenth.

8. Black's move thirty-four.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

9. White's move thirty-nine.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

10. Black's move forty-three.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

11. Black's move forty-five.

Times:

My Great Predecessors:

Eleven notes, all of them plagiarised.

That was 4 June. So we have:

• Tuesday 4 June
• Wednesday 5 June
• Thursday 6 June
• Friday 7 June
• Saturday 8 June
• Monday 10 June
• Tuesday 11 June
• Wednesday 12 June

9 June was a Sunday, on which day a different, weekly newspaper is published. The Times itself, therefore, saw eight consecutive days of chess columns which were plainly, blatantly plagiarised.

In the history of UK journalism, has there ever been the like?

- - - - -

But what, you may wonder, of June 3?

We have to admit that so far, we've not been able to trace this one at all. Can it be original? It seems on principle unlikely, but at the moment, that's the assumption we're obliged to make.

Anyway, to see if the perceptive reader can observe any similarities between in this column and anything they may have seen elsewhere, here's the notes.

Do let us know. Eight in a row is spectacular enough, but why not make it nine?

[Thanks to Pablo Byrne and Matt Fletcher]

[Ray Keene plagiarism index]

[Plagiarised by Ray Keene index]

[Ray Keene index]

[Keenipedia]