Thursday, March 27, 2014

Nosh-up

The latest New In Chess features a long and interesting article by Nigel Short, in which he discusses his theory that Andrew Paulson is a dubious individual whose relationship to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov may have led (among other things) to FIDE being defrauded of a sum of money. It also recounts his struggle to have this information published in the Sunday Times.

All very readable stuff. However, the following passage inevitably attracted my attention:


Now, suppose you wished to write an article claiming that a chess federation had potentially been defrauded of a sum of money on account of its President's relationship with a dubious individual - and relating your efforts to have this published in the Sunday Times.

Would you, regardless of the excellence of your breakfast, go out of your way to draw the reader's attention to your relationship with a dubious individual who was obliged to resign from a chess federation following allegations that he had defrauded that federation of a sum of money - allegations published in the Sunday Times?

[Andrew Paulson index]
[Ray Keene index]
[Nigel Short index]

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think the inclusion of the phrase <> may have had a certain nudge-nudge, wink-wink quality about it on Nigel's part.