< Larry Evans states that a Dutch reader sent him the nub of what Botvinnik said about Stalin without citing a source around the end of 1996. This directly contradicts Taylor Kingston's allegation that GM Evans learned about it from Tim Krabbe's website much later.> Larry Parr
From playwright Richard Laurie
I believe I said something in my final letter to Kingston that he was claiming godlike omniscience when stating the earliest Larry Evans possibly could have known about what Botvinnik said about Stalin was when it appeared on Tim Krabbe's website. I pointed out that GM Evans had far greater contacts than he had. It's also interesting that the original argument was about Soviet cheating and Taylor Kingston was decidedly wrong about that the first time around.
< Larry Evans states that a Dutch reader sent him the nub of what Botvinnik said about Stalin without citing a source around the end of 1996. This directly contradicts Taylor Kingston's allegation that GM Evans learned about it from Tim Krabbe's website much later.> Larry Parr
From playwright Richard Laurie
I believe I said something in my final letter to Kingston that he was claiming godlike omniscience when stating the earliest Larry Evans possibly could have known about what Botvinnik said about Stalin was when it appeared on Tim Krabbe's website. I pointed out that GM Evans had far greater contacts than he had. It's also interesting that the original argument was about Soviet cheating and Taylor Kingston was decidedly wrong about that the first time around.
> From playwright Richard Laurie >_ > I believe I said something in my final letter to > Kingston that he was claiming godlike > omniscience when stating the earliest Larry > Evans possibly could have known about what > Botvinnik said about Stalin was when it > appeared on Tim Krabbe's website.
_ "The 1991 Botvinnik INTERVIEW ... appeared in an obscure Dutch magazine. ... it remained little known generally, completely unknown to me, and EVIDENTLY unknown to Evans, until an English version appeared on Tim Krabbé's web-site." - Taylor Kingston (25 May 2005 07:33:12 -0700) (Emphasis added.) _ "Shortly after my article ran in Chess Life I heard from someone in Holland telling me what Botvinnik said, but HE DIDN'T CITE ANY SOURCE." - GM Evans as quoted by Larry Parr (30 May 2005 12:29:20 -0700) (Emphasis added.) _ Can Larry Parr give ANY pre-May 1998 examples of some report in English of what Keres told Whyld or Botvinnik's 1991 interview? How about pre-Dec. 1999?
parrthe...@cs.com wrote: > < Larry Evans states that a Dutch reader sent him the nub of what > Botvinnik said about Stalin without citing a source around the end of > 1996. This directly contradicts Taylor Kingston's allegation that GM > Evans learned about it from Tim Krabbe's website much later.>
Nonsense. Evans merely claims that someone told him a story. Such a story is worthless without specific source information: exactly what Botvinnik said when, to whom, under what circumstances, and exactly where it was published. Otherwise it is worth no more than rumor. Is Evans saying that in 1996 he was told: A) that the interview was conducted by Pam and Sosonko? B) that it appeared in the "Vrij Nederland" of 20 August 1991? C) the exact text of what Botvinnik said? If Evans did not know these things, then he did not know the interview. He had merely heard a rumor of its existence. And as far as the published record indicates, this rumor did not inspire him to further research. Can Mr. Parr cite I any reference by Evans to the 1991 interview until after it had appeared in English on Krabbé's website in December 1999?
<My response to your response is that Molotov was also a New Soviet Man, and far more powerful than Botvinnik. About this time his wife was sent to the gulag and he was demoted from the inner to outer politburo. Kaganovich was another long term ally of Stalin's. He was informed that his brother would be arrested. He phoned the brother, who shot himself. Kaganovich was also demoted. So if Molotov and Kaganovich, why not Iron Mike?> William Hyde
It's true that Molotov was in some disfavor, but I think both he and certainly Kaganovich were NOT slated for liquidation had Stalin lived a few years longer. The Doctor's Plot was certainly aimed at Beria.
Khrushchev's big advantage over the others was that he had stayed out of Stalin's way in the Ukraine from 1939 to 1951-- it was a well-known fact that familiarity bred contempt on Stalin's part.
Voroshilov was probably going to be shot along with Beria and possibly Molotov. Kaganovich was known as a particularly cruel coward, and Stalin always had use for such a man.
Molotov's wife Zhemzhuzhina was personally tortured by Beria. After Stalin's death, Molotov asked the Politburo if he could have his wife back. She was flown to Moscow to Beria's office, where earlier she had been beaten to a pulp . Beria, so the story goes, advanced on her, arms spread wide and said, "Welcome honored Comrade," or some such.
She fainted dead away.
The head of Stalin's personal secretariat was General Poskrebyshev, whom the other Politburo members were never allowed to know. His wife was arrested and executed. He asked Stalin if he could have his wife back (not knowing her fate) and the Great Helmsman said yes. The General returned to his apartment to find his wife playing the piano as before -- except it was a new wife picked for him by Stalin.
Bertram Wolfe later wrote in a close paraphrase, "After Stalin's death, the first collective act of the new collective leadership was to collectively eliminate Poskrebyshev." But he was not shot. Sent to a mental asylum instead, shd was noticed by others wandering around the corridors in a daze during the 1960s.
For a portrait of Vyshinsky, read Dean Acheson's essay on the man. Wolfe called him a sheep in rat's clothing.
Botvinnik slipped in his 1991 interview with Sosonko when he said that Stalin personally intervened in the 1948 world championship. He caught himself by saying "of course I refused" which is ludicrous given the temper of the times.
TAYLOR KINGSTON IS STILL WHINING
"Is Evans saying that in 1996 he was told:
A) that the interview was conducted by Pam and Sosonko?
B) that it appeared in the "Vrij Nederland" of 20 August 1991?
C) the exact text of what Botvinnik said?
If Evans did not know these things, then he did not know the interview. He had merely heard a rumor of its existence. And as far as the published record indicates, this rumor did not inspire him to further research. Can Mr. Parr cite I any reference by Evans to the 1991 interview until after it had appeared in English on Krabbé's website in December 1999?"
Since I knew about this interview after discussing it in New York with Sosonko and Alburt, there is no way I didn't tell GM Evans about it at some point in time. If not before The Tragedy of Paul Keres appeared in Chess Life in October 1996, then certainly after.
I'm not familiar with everything GM Evans wrote about the subject after his article in Chess Life, but Mr. Kingston is still pursuing his vendetta. He still refuses to take responsibility for his own failure to research the Botvinnik - Keres scandal more thoroughly in his Review of the Evidence for Chess Life in 1998. That's his fault. Not GM Evans. He still hung up on the chronology of who knew what and when instead of the central question of whether Keres was forced to take a dive in 1948. Curiously, he ended up agreeing with the conclusion reached by GM Evans in 1996.
Mr. Kingston also went to incredible lengths to try and persuade playwright Richard Laurie to retract a letter he wrote to Chess Life. As Mr. Laurie recently noted, "I believe I said something in my final letter to Kingston that he was claiming godlike omniscience when stating the earliest Larry Evans possibly could have known about what Botvinnik said about Stalin was when it appeared on Tim Krabbe's website. I pointed out that GM Evans had far greater contacts than he had. It's also interesting that the original argument was about Soviet cheating and Taylor Kingston was decidedly wrong about that the first time around." .
parrthe...@cs.com wrote: > PHONE TALK WITH GM LEV ALBURT
[snip Parr's report of conversation with Alburt, which sounds very similar to the conversations I had with him recently.]
> At the time that Taylor Kingston wrote his > article, everyone knew that GM Alburt had been a close > friend of Botvinnik (see the famous 1983 CL picture of > the two men together, in spite of political > difficulties). One remains astonished that Mr. > Kingston did not cast a wider net in his "research" > for his "Review of the Evidence" in 1998.
Then we must also be astonished that Evans completely neglected Alburt in his 1996 article. Perhaps because Alburt's opinion conflicted with Evans' a priori conclusion? And BTW, Larry, for the umpteenth time, can't you at least manage to get the title of my article right?
> Larry Evans states that a Dutch reader sent him > the nub of twhat Botvinnik said about Stalin without citing > a source around the end of 1996. This directly contradicts > Taylor Kingston's allegation that GM Evans learned about it from Tim > Krabbe's website much later.
As I already noted in an earlier post, this shows only that Evans claims to have heard, from an unnamed source, some unclear information unclearly derived from yet another unnamed source. It does not at all show that Evans knew in 1996 anything definite about the 20 August 1991 Vrij Nederland interview. We are still waiting for Parr to provide any published reference by Evans to the interview prior to its appearance on Krabbé's website in Deceber 1999.
> The important thing, however, is not who knew what > and when. The question is whether the evidence supports > the view that Keres was forced to take a dive. Despite all > his whining, Mr. Kingston ended up agreeing with GM > Evans' conclusion that he reached in "The Tragedy of > Paul Keres" in 1996.
Interesting - after belaboring the issue of dates at some length, Parr now says dates are unimportant. As for the rest of Parr's paragraph, that is an issue that deserves its own separate post, which I will provide later.
<Then we must also be astonished that Evans completely neglected Alburt in his 1996 article. Perhaps because Alburt's opinion conflicted with Evans' a priori conclusion?> Taylor Kingston
I seem to recall that Larry Evans didn't interview anyone for THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES in Chess Life, October 1996.
He wasn't interested in anyone's opinion. His contention, I seem to recall, is that the best evidence of a fix was contained in the games themselves. Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind of analysis.
><My response to your response is that Molotov was >also a New Soviet Man, and far more powerful than >Botvinnik. About this time his wife was sent to >the gulag and he was demoted from the inner to >outer politburo. Kaganovich was another long >term ally of Stalin's. He was informed that his >brother would be arrested. He phoned the brother, >who shot himself. Kaganovich was also demoted. >So if Molotov and Kaganovich, why not Iron Mike?> William Hyde
> It's true that Molotov was in some disfavor, but >I think both he and certainly Kaganovich were NOT >slated for liquidation had Stalin lived a few years >longer. The Doctor's Plot was certainly aimed at Beria.
> Khrushchev's big advantage over the others was >that he had stayed out of Stalin's way in the Ukraine >from 1939 to 1951-- it was a well-known fact that >familiarity bred contempt on Stalin's part.
>Voroshilov was probably going to be shot along with >Beria and possibly Molotov. Kaganovich was known as a >particularly cruel coward, and Stalin always had use >for such a man.
> Molotov's wife Zhemzhuzhina was personally >tortured by Beria. After Stalin's death, Molotov >asked the Politburo if he could have his wife back. >She was flown to Moscow to Beria's office, where earlier >she had been beaten to a pulp . Beria, so the story >goes, advanced on her, arms spread wide and said, >"Welcome honored Comrade," or some such.
> She fainted dead away.
> The head of Stalin's personal secretariat was >General Poskrebyshev, whom the other Politburo members >were never allowed to know. His wife was arrested and >executed. He asked Stalin if he could have his wife >back (not knowing her fate) and the Great Helmsman >said yes. The General returned to his apartment to find his >wife playing the piano as before -- except it was a >new wife picked for him by Stalin.
> Bertram Wolfe later wrote in a close paraphrase, >"After Stalin's death, the first collective act of the >new collective leadership was to collectively >eliminate Poskrebyshev." But he was not shot. > Sent to a mental asylum instead, shd was noticed by > others wandering around the corridors in a daze during the 1960s.
> For a portrait of Vyshinsky, read Dean Acheson's >essay on the man. Wolfe called him a sheep in rat's clothing.
> Botvinnik slipped in his 1991 interview with Sosonko when >he said that Stalin personally intervened in the 1948 world >championship. He caught himself by saying "of course I refused" which >is ludicrous given the temper of the times.
Very, very interesting. Where do you get all this stuff?
On 5 Jun 2005 09:14:09 -0700, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>MORE TWADDLE FROM KINGSTON
><Then we must also be astonished that Evans completely neglected Alburt >in his 1996 article. Perhaps because Alburt's opinion conflicted with >Evans' a priori conclusion?> Taylor Kingston
>I seem to recall that Larry Evans didn't interview anyone for THE >TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES in Chess Life, October 1996.
>He wasn't interested in anyone's opinion. His contention, I seem to >recall, is that the best evidence of a fix was contained in the games >themselves. Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing >this kind of analysis.
As everyone who has played over my chess lesson video will know, I analyzed just one move in one position in one of the five games between Keres and Botvinnik and proved conclusively that Keres had an easy forced draw and no strong player would ever have played such a weak move.
Grandmaster William Lombardy has since told me that that he knew that the games were fixed ever since he became a strong player in the early 1950s because of the numerous suspicious moves in these games.
Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he cannot understand these simple and obvious points.
parrthe...@cs.com wrote: > I'm not familiar with everything GM Evans wrote about the subject > after his article in Chess Life, but Mr. Kingston is still pursuing his > vendetta. He still refuses to take responsibility for his own failure > to research the Botvinnik - Keres scandal more thoroughly in his Review > of the Evidence for Chess Life in 1998.
On the contrary, I take full responsibility for every word in it. Parr, on the other hand, is busy making every excuse he can think of for the glaring omissions, not to mention the falsehoods and misrepresentations, in Evans' 1996 article.
> He still hung up on the chronology of who knew what and when instead of > the central question of whether Keres was forced to take a dive in > 1948. Curiously, he ended up agreeing with the conclusion reached by GM > Evans in 1996.
That I ended up at least partly agreeing with Evans is more coincidence than anything else. Imagine, say, two weather forecasters. Both say "It will rain here today." When asked how they reached this conclusion, one says "I studied the barometric pressure, cloud formations, atmospheric currents, movements of warm and cold fronts, etc." The other says "I read it in the entrails of an owl." As it turns out, it does rain there that day. Does that mean that the methods of both forecasters are equally valid? I humbly submit, that whatever the shortcomings of my 1998 and 2001 articles, their approach and methods were closer to those of the meteorologist, while Evans' in 1996 were more like the entrail-reader.
The issue I have repeatedly raised SINCE then is EVANS' DISHONESTY, and Parr's in supporting him. This is *COMPLETELY SEPARATE* from the question of who concluded what about Keres/Botvinnik. Readers here often seem not to grasp that, and Evans and Parr are naturally only too happy to play on their confusion. Evans has been repeatedly dishonest, both in his 1996 article, and in the way he has misrepresented my articles and views since 1998. The original subject of this thread, Evans' mendacious column of 9/2001, is only one of several examples. Lacking the national forum that Evans has, I occasionally state my case here, usually, as in this case, in response to Mr. Parr's recycling old Evans bull. No doubt the impact is considerably less, but at least it puts my views on public record where those who care about honesty and accuracy in chess journalism can find them if necessary.
> As everyone who has played over my chess lesson video will know, I > analyzed just one move in one position in one of the five games > between Keres and Botvinnik and proved conclusively that Keres had an > easy forced draw and no strong player would ever have played such a > weak move.
> Grandmaster William Lombardy has since told me that that he knew that > the games were fixed ever since he became a strong player in the early > 1950s because of the numerous suspicious moves in these games.
> Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he cannot > understand these simple and obvious points.
How about Dr. John Nunn? He also doesn't understand.
parrthe...@cs.com wrote: > MORE TWADDLE FROM KINGSTON
> <Then we must also be astonished that Evans completely neglected Alburt > in his 1996 article. Perhaps because Alburt's opinion conflicted with > Evans' a priori conclusion?> Taylor Kingston
> I seem to recall that Larry Evans didn't interview anyone for THE > TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES in Chess Life, October 1996.
So let me get this straight, Larry -- the Evans article was better because it had no interviews, but my article was worse because I did not interview enough?
> He wasn't interested in anyone's opinion.
Hmm. Looking at the article, in front of me right now, I see the opinions of Fedor Bohatirchuk, James Schroeder, Bobby Fischer, and an unidentified BCM writer. So let me get this straight too -- Evans included these opinions because he was NOT interested in them?
> His contention, I seem to > recall, is that the best evidence of a fix was contained in the games > themselves.
For this kind of issue, game analysis can be at best only a supporting adjunct. Analysis alone is completely insufficient.
> Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing > this kind of analysis.
I have never claimed to be any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
> Since I knew about this interview after > discussing it in New York with Sosonko > and Alburt, there is no way I didn't tell > GM Evans about it at some point in time. > If not before The Tragedy of Paul Keres > appeared in Chess Life in October 1996, > then certainly after.
_ As noted before, Larry Parr does not seem to be capable of saying much about when this "point in time" was. He does not even rule out the year 2000. _ According to "Larry Evans' account" (produced by Larry Parr after some amount of prodding): _ "I didn't know about Botvinnik's admission about Stalin when I wrote my article in 1996 and I don't remember whether or not [Larry Parr] told me." - GM Evans as quoted by Larry Parr (30 May 2005 12:29:20 -0700)
_ Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2005 07:25:36 -0700):
> ... Mr. Kingston is ... still hung up > on the chronology of who knew what > and when ...
_ It has been Larry Parr who has been posting stuff like this: _ "[Mr. Kingston's] article was written in 1998 -- two years after [the GM Evans article] -- and it's clear by then that other people knew about Botvinnik's admission and Whyld said about Keres. ... What GM Evans and I knew by 1998 when [Taylor Kingston's article] was printed in Chess Life should certainly have been known by Mr. Kingston, who claimed to undertake formal research." - Larry Parr (30 May 2005 18:33:35 -0700) _ Somehow, it only seems to become a hangup when Larry Parr is asked about specifics such as whether or not he is claiming that, in 1998, he and GM Evans knew about (and remembered) the 1991 Botvinnik interview and the Whyld-Keres discussion.
_ Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2005 07:25:36 -0700):
> As Mr. Laurie recently noted, "I believe > I said something in my final letter to > Kingston that he was claiming godlike > omniscience when stating the earliest > Larry Evans possibly could have known > about what Botvinnik said about Stalin > was when it appeared on Tim Krabbe's > website. ..."
_ Is Larry Parr trying to have us believe that Richard Laurie ACCURATELY described what Taylor Kingston stated? _ "The 1991 Botvinnik INTERVIEW ... appeared in an obscure Dutch magazine. ... it remained little known generally, completely unknown to me, and EVIDENTLY unknown to Evans, until an English version appeared on Tim Krabbé's web-site." - Taylor Kingston (25 May 2005 07:33:12 -0700) (Emphasis added.) _ Can Larry Parr give ANY pre-May 1998 examples of some report in English of what Keres told Whyld or Botvinnik's 1991 interview? How about pre-Dec. 1999?
Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2005 07:25:36 -0700) (Emphasis added):
> Botvinnik slipped in his 1991 interview > with Sosonko when he said that Stalin > personally INTERVENED in the 1948 > world championship.
_ "In an interview before he died, Botvinnik told Sosonko and Pam: 'In 1948 I played with Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the world title. At a very high level it was PROPOSED that the other Soviet players would lose against me on purpose in order to make sure there would be a Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally who PROPOSED this.'" - Larry Parr (17 Jun 2001 02:11:29 GMT) (Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, our Sam is such a fuckwit that it doesn't matter how many times we tell him about Nunn's analysis and assessment, it doesn't sink in....
parrthe...@cs.com wrote: > MORE TWADDLE FROM KINGSTON > <Then we must also be astonished that Evans completely neglected Alburt > in his 1996 article. Perhaps because Alburt's opinion conflicted with > Evans' a priori conclusion?> Taylor Kingston > Parr: I seem to recall that Larry Evans didn't interview anyone for THE > TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES in Chess Life, October 1996.
So let me get this straight, Larry -- the Evans article was better because it had no interviews, but my article was worse because it didn't have enough interviews?
> Parr: He wasn't interested in anyone's opinion.
Hmm. Looking at the article, in front of me right now, I see the opinions of Fedor Bohatirchuk, James Schroeder, Bobby Fischer, and an unidentified BCM writer. So let me also get this straight -- Evans included these opinions because he was NOT interested in them?
> Parr: His contention, I seem to > recall, is that the best evidence of a fix was contained in the games > themselves.
For this kind of issue, game analysis can be at best only a supporting adjunct. Analysis alone is completely insufficient.
> Parr: Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing > this kind of analysis. > Sloan: Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he cannot > understand these simple and obvious points.
Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
Larry Evans wrote mainly about the games themselves when addressing the 1948 world championship. Taylor Kingston wrote mainly about the intrigues and what they might have meant in 1948.
Kingston asks the absurd question whether Evans' seminal article on The Tragedyof Paul Kerles would not have been better for including all he knew about the intrigue. Probably -- if space permitted. Just as Mr. Kingston's article definitely required deeper research and phoning well-known friends of Botvinnik to produce a fuller grasp of the intrigues as well as the temper of the times..
Several of you have probably figured out Mr. Kingston's difficulty: the man is full of himself and thinks he wrote a couple of good articles. He resents someone telling him he fell down in important areas because he was culture-bound to English materials and, possibly, too diffident to make the necessary phone calls.
<tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote: > Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on >the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great >player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as >I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
You have an amazingly exaggerated notion of your own chess playing ability.
Your USCF Regular Rating is 1811. Your quick rating is 1695. The highest your rating has ever been is 1853 and you have never had an Elo rating.
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes: > > Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on > >the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great > >player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as > >I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
> Your USCF Regular Rating is 1811. Your quick rating is 1695. The > highest your rating has ever been is 1853 and you have never had an > Elo rating.
About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB.
<http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote: >sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes: >> > Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on >> >the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great >> >player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as >> >I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
>> Your USCF Regular Rating is 1811. Your quick rating is 1695. The >> highest your rating has ever been is 1853 and you have never had an >> Elo rating.
>About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about >pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB.
>"He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a >Class A OTB player."
The biography you have just cited was written by Taylor Kingston himself. Take a look. Right below it, it says:
Copyright c 2004 Taylor Kingston
I doubt that he even had a correspondence rating of 2300. Even if he did, correspondence ratings are not Elo ratings. The formula and method of calculation is completely different from Elo ratings. Also, Elo ratings are FIDE ratings, and Taylor Kingston does not now and has never had an Elo rating.
In addition, correspondence ratings do not tell us much about a player's chess strength. In correspondence chess, the player can use books (perfectly legal), computers, friends and has three days to decide on a move.
Taylor Kingston has been lying on this group for a long time. Some times, we have not been able to prove that what he writes is a lie. However, this time we have the proof, because he wrote that his rating has been over 2300, but in reality his rating has never been higher than 1853.
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes: > I doubt that he even had a correspondence rating of 2300. Even if he > did, correspondence ratings are not Elo ratings. The formula and > method of calculation is completely different from Elo ratings. Also, > Elo ratings are FIDE ratings, and Taylor Kingston does not now and has > never had an Elo rating.
"Correspondence ratings have been converted to the Elo system, as of July 1, 1987. An explanation of the rating sytem is available on request from the USCF office. Please include a stamped, self-addressed envelope."
> sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes: >> > Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on >> >the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great >> >player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as >> >I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
>> Your USCF Regular Rating is 1811. Your quick rating is 1695. The >> highest your rating has ever been is 1853 and you have never had an >> Elo rating.
> About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about > pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB.
> "He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a > Class A OTB player."
All this is as may be, yet Neil Brennen's point is better. It isn't Taylor Kingston's rating which qualifies the issue, its John Nunn's - that is the pertinent contrast to assessing thrown games from a GM perspective. At that level there is disagreement.
In all other matters it is necessary to remember that this is a public spat between Kingston and Evans' journalistic practices, and despite claims and intimations, no more.
Larry Parr is ready and capable to //begin// assessing chess history, but that is in addition to, rather than implicit in, these messages,
Sam Sloan wrote: > I doubt that he even had a correspondence rating of 2300.
In the old USCF correspondence rating system, Class A began at 1300, Expert at 1500, Master at 1700, and Senior Master at 1900, i.e. the same title hierarchy as OTB ratings, but with a 500 point differential. My peak postal rating was about 1816 in late 1984, which corresponds to a rating of at least 2300 in the normal system. Chess Life used to run various "Top 50" lists. In one, circa late 1984 or early 1985 (Alas, I no longer can find the exact issue!), I was listed as #46 among correspondence players, IIRC. I mention this not to brag, but only to show that Parr's and Sloan's statement that I am a "weak" player is perhaps a bit exaggerated.
> Elo ratings are FIDE ratings, and Taylor Kingston does not now and has > never had an Elo rating.
Ahem, Sam: USCF was using the Elo system long before FIDE ever did. I quote Dr. Arpad Elo (You've heard of him? He invented the system.), from "The Rating of Chessplayers" (Arco, 1978), page 11: "Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF for rating its entire membership." All USCF OTB ratings since 1960: yours, mine, Fischer's, etc., have all been Elo ratings.
> Taylor Kingston has been lying on this group for a long time. Some > times, we have not been able to prove that what he writes is a lie. > However, this time we have the proof, because he wrote that his rating > has been over 2300, but in reality his rating has never been higher > than 1853.
Sam, you are so predictable. I knew you would be so eager to play what you thought was a trump, that you'd do it immediately, without bothering to check the facts. You even went one better, as I did not expect that you would be so foolish as to say USCF ratings are not Elo ratings. Thank you for being so cooperative. What has been proven, yet again, is that Sam Sloan is more eager to malign someone than he is to check the facts. Now, Sam, are you going to thank me for the correction, like Larry Parr claims you usually do, or are you going to make a liar (again) out of Larry?
> ... the absurd question whether > Evans' seminal article on The > Tragedyof Paul Kerles would not > have been better for including > all he knew about the intrigue. > Probably -- if space permitted.
_ Lets not lose track of what we have learned from GM Evans himself about what he knew at the time that he wrote his 1996 article:
"I didn't know about Botvinnik's admission about Stalin when I wrote my article in 1996" - GM Evans as quoted by Larry Parr (30 May 2005 12:29:20 -0700) _ And from the article itself: _ "[Keres'] lips always remained sealed about his awful score against Botvinnik."
