3 Simple Questions for Larry Parr
Taylor Kingston
simple questions" posed by him on this newsgroup. In my thread
"Answering Parr's Questions" I have done so honestly and
candidly.
So now in this new thread, I will be asking Mr. Parr questions from
time to time. Fairness requires that he answer me truthfully. All of
these will involve claims Mr. Parr has presented here recently. We'll
start with one that requires a bit of prologue to understand properly.
Imagine a hypothetical situation: Suppose your friend Mack says to
you "I think Bob is wrong. He voted for George W. Bush instead of Al
Gore, despite the way Bush mishandled the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
At first glance, this might seem just an ordinary political opinion.
Then you think a minute. And you remember that Bush beat Gore in
November 2000, but the 9/11 attacks were on September 11, 2001. So
Mack's remark is both completely illogical and unfair to Bob.
In that light, consider the following, posted here by Parr 26 April
2005, and which first appeared in Chess Life, September 2001, page 14,
written by GM Larry Evans in his column "Evans On Chess":
"But [Taylor Kingston's] '[The Keres-Botvinnik Case:] A Survey of
the Evidence' (Chess Life, May 1998) devotes six pages to the topic
without reaching any conclusion despite what Keres told Whyld and
Botvinnik's startling admission in a 1991 interview that Stalin did
intervene."
Makes me look like a negligent researcher, right? Unless one knows
the facts. So, I ask Mr. Parr to answer, FACTUALLY, these simple
questions:
1. WHEN was my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey of the
Evidence" first published? (Hint: it was in 1998, Larry)
2. WHEN did Ken Whyld first publish "what Keres told him," that
Evans refers to above? (Hint: it was after 1998)
3. The 1991 Botvinnik interview to which Evans refers appeared in an
obscure Dutch magazine. HOWEVER, 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.
So, Larry, WHEN was this English version first published? (Hint: it
was after 1998)
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Parr is able and willing to
produce straight, factual answers to these three simple questions.
Jerzy
" Larry Parr has recently been very insistent that I answer "three
simple questions" posed by him on this newsgroup. In my thread
"Answering Parr's Questions" I have done so honestly and
candidly.
So now in this new thread, I will be asking Mr. Parr questions from
Taylor, with all due respect to both of you your tedious discussion here is
simply boring to me. I think that you can discuss your matters privately.
Taylor Kingston
Jerzy wrote:
> Taylor, with all due respect to both of you your tedious discussion here is
> simply boring to me. I think that you can discuss your matters privately.
Jerzy, with all due respect, Parr's and Evans' claims and attacks
have been made very publicly. Therefore I rebut them publicly. If you
are not interested, you are free to ignore the thread.
Graeme
>>
1. WHEN was my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey of the
Evidence" first published? (Hint: it was in 1998, Larry)
2. WHEN did Ken Whyld first publish "what Keres told him," that
Evans refers to above? (Hint: it was after 1998)
3. The 1991 Botvinnik interview to which Evans refers appeared in an
obscure Dutch magazine. HOWEVER, 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.
So, Larry, WHEN was this English version first published? (Hint: it
was after 1998)
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Parr is able and willing to
produce straight, factual answers to these three simple questions.
>>
Well, the only possible answer short of a retraction would be to argue
that you were somehow aware of the existence and content of the Dutch
article, but chose to ignore them. That would be simply a more verbose
re-stating of what he said in the first place, with the implied parts
filled in.
If no evidence has been shown that you either a) knew about the
article, or b) that its content was reprinted in another source that
you did know about, the claim seems to fall of its own weight, with or
without a retraction. If the ball is in his court, and he declines to
swat it out, that could be considered an implied retraction.
Liam Too
> Jerzy, with all due respect, Parr's and Evans' claims and attacks
> have been made very publicly. Therefore I rebut them publicly. If you
> are not interested, you are free to ignore the thread.
With all due respect to Jerzy, I agree with Mr. Kingston here.
To all posters who have pains in the rebuts, just ignore the threads
and let us, the interested ones, deal with them.
Jerzy
I can see only Parr (but not Evans) discussing with you so it`s reasonable
to withdraw into private coversation with him.
Taylor Kingston
> Well, the only possible answer short of a retraction would be to argue
> that you were somehow aware of the existence and content of the Dutch
> article, but chose to ignore them.
Very true, Graeme. As I already said, I did not know of that article
at that time. Evans' published work strongly indicates he was also
unaware of it at that time. And don't forget that Whyld's statement was
never published anywhere by 1998.
> If no evidence has been shown that you either a) knew about the
> article, or b) that its content was reprinted in another source that
> you did know about, the claim seems to fall of its own weight, with or
> without a retraction.
Again, very sound logic. The claim stands or falls based on the three
dates involved. Therefore I challenge Mr. Parr to tell us here: what
are those dates? I rather doubt he will answer in a straightforward,
accurate and honest manner, if he answers at all.
Jerzy
"If the ball is in his court, and he declines to
swat it out, that could be considered an implied retraction."
I don`t think it will ever go this far i.e. to the court. The historical
discussion between Taylor and Larry could be resolved only by Botvinnik or
Keres himself.
Goran Tomic
news:d727vj$efd$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
>
> Taylor, with all due respect to both of you your tedious discussion here
> is simply boring to me. I think that you can discuss your matters
> privately.
>
Rarely I can agree with you. But, this time you are right about Mr.
Kingston. So, I would ask Mr. Kingston to send mails privately to Mr. Parr,
if he needs some explanation, but not to the newsgroup.
Regards,
Goran Tomic
Vince Hart
Parr counts on two things in his arguments here: (1) his willingness
to twist any argument in any way necessary to keep his opponent on the
defensive; and (2) his ability to outlast his opponent. It is the same
strategy that Louis Blair and Kevin Bachler use although each has his
own unique tactics.
Arguing with such posters requires one to be just as relentless in
exposing the fallacies in their arguments. Unfortunately, this leads
to very long and tedious exchanges, but the alternative is conceding
the field. That is probably the best way to retain one's sanity, but I
do not think that anyone is required to make that choice.
In my experience, private e-mail exchanges with such people tend to be
futile. Without public scrutiny, they will twist things even worse
than they do on the newsgroup and they will simply refuse to address
any point they find inconvenient.
Taylor Kingston
Jerzy wrote:
> I don`t think it will ever go this far i.e. to the court.
Jerzy, the saying "The ball is in his court" refers to tennis, not
law.
The historical
> discussion between Taylor and Larry could be resolved only by Botvinnik or
> Keres himself.
Not true. You have not understood my original post, Jerzy. At issue
are three dates, dates that are a matter of public record.
I would respectfully request others not to post to this thread until
we hear from Mr. Parr. My questions are directed to him alone. For
clarity, I repeat my original post here:
Larry Parr has recently been very insistent that I answer "three
simple questions" posed by him on this newsgroup. In my thread
"Answering Parr's Questions" I have done so honestly and candidly.
So now in this new thread, I will be asking Mr. Parr questions from
time to time. Fairness requires that he answer me truthfully. All of
these will involve claims Mr. Parr has presented here recently. We'll
start with one that requires a bit of prologue to understand properly.
Imagine a hypothetical situation: Suppose your friend Mack says to
you "I think Bob is wrong. He voted for George W. Bush instead of Al
Gore, despite the way Bush mishandled the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
At first glance, this might seem just an ordinary political opinion.
Then you think a minute. And you remember that Bush beat Gore in
November 2000, but the 9/11 attacks were on September 11, 2001. So
Mack's remark is both completely illogical and unfair to Bob.
In that light, consider the following, posted here by Parr 26 April
2005, and which first appeared in Chess Life, September 2001, page 14,
written by GM Larry Evans in his column "Evans On Chess":
"But [Taylor Kingston's] '[The Keres-Botvinnik Case:] A Survey of the
Evidence' (Chess Life, May 1998) devotes six pages to the topic without
reaching any conclusion despite what Keres told Whyld and Botvinnik's
startling admission in a 1991 interview that Stalin did intervene."
Makes me look like a negligent researcher, right? Unless one knows
the facts. So, I ask Mr. Parr to answer, FACTUALLY, these simple
questions:
1. WHEN was my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey of the
Louis Blair
10:16:16 -0700):
> Parr counts on two things in his arguments
> here: (1) his willingness to twist any
> argument in any way necessary to keep
> his opponent on the defensive; and (2) his
> ability to outlast his opponent. It is the same
> strategy that Louis Blair and Kevin Bachler
> use although each has his own unique tactics.
>_
> Arguing with such posters requires one to
> be just as relentless in exposing the fallacies
> in their arguments.
_
An example of Vince Hart relentless behavior:
_
"I am still interested in why you
thought ..." - Vince Hart (1 Apr 2005
10:56:16 -0800)
_
"I am simply asking ..." - Vince Hart
(1 Apr 2005 12:50:56 -0800)
_
"Apparently Louis is the only one who
gets to ask questions." - Vince Hart
(1 Apr 2005 13:17:15 -0800)
_
"... ducking questions." - Vince Hart
(2 Apr 2005 07:12:06 -0800)
_
"Of course, if you had just answered
the question in the first place ..."
- Vince Hart (3 Apr 2005 13:18:27 -0700)
_
"Obviously I cannot get a straight
answer from a troll." - Vince Hart
(3 Apr 2005 17:04:23 -0700)
jame...@aol.com
public fight to a private one, as in the old joke, "An Irishman
approaches two men fighting and says, is this a public fight or a
private one?"
Parr is a troll who practices trolling as ersatz journalism. There
will never be a real discussion on this matter, as Parr's "I'm rubber,
you're glue" approach to discourse just lets him glide around the topic
without ever having to deal with the fallacy of his statements.
Vince Hart
That is the most elegant description of Parr's style that I can
imagine. I take off my hat to you.
Vince Hart
Chess One
Or by people who were their seconds. Phil
Jerzy
> > I don`t think it will ever go this far i.e. to the court.
> Jerzy, the saying "The ball is in his court" refers to tennis, not
> law.
Hehe, anyway even the tennis court isn`t the best way to resolve your
discussion.
In spite the fact that here are many personal discussions where both sides
want to show that they are right, in this particular case we all should seek
consensus and try to reveal the truth if it`s still possible.
Botvinnik-Keres` case is worth such a consensus.
Regards,
Jerzy
Jerzy
>> "If the ball is in his court, and he declines to
>> swat it out, that could be considered an implied retraction."
>>
>> I don`t think it will ever go this far i.e. to the court. The historical
>> discussion between Taylor and Larry could be resolved only by Botvinnik
>> or Keres himself.
>
> Or by people who were their seconds. Phil
Or by Estonian and Russian historians ;-)
Regards,
Jerzy
Jerzy
>> Taylor, with all due respect to both of you your tedious discussion here
>> is simply boring to me. I think that you can discuss your matters
>> privately.
>>
>
> Rarely I can agree with you. But, this time you are right about Mr.
> Kingston. So, I would ask Mr. Kingston to send mails privately to Mr.
> Parr, if he needs some explanation, but not to the newsgroup.
>
Right now, after rethinking this matter, I tend to agree with the opinion
that the whole case Botvinnik-Keres is extremely interesting.
However we shouldn`t sacrifice the truth for our own private aims.
Taylor Kingston
jame...@aol.com wrote:
> If he is the Irishman I think he is, Mr. Kingston probably prefers a
> public fight to a private one, as in the old joke, "An Irishman
> approaches two men fighting and says, is this a public fight or a
> private one?"
Perceptive, Mr. Rynd. My father's parents were from Youghal, County
Cork, Ireland.
> Parr is a troll who practices trolling as ersatz journalism. There
> will never be a real discussion on this matter, as Parr's "I'm rubber,
> you're glue" approach to discourse just lets him glide around the topic
> without ever having to deal with the fallacy of his statements.
I second Mr. Hart's endorsement of the above. However, despite the
low probability that Mr. Parr will admit his fallacies, even when they
are plain to everyone else, I feel duty-bound to present them,
precisely to make them plain to everyone else.
If he fails to answer, the general impression of his dishonesty can
only deepen.
Again, for the sake of clarity, I repeat my three simple questions
for Mr. Parr:
Jerzy
" 3. The 1991 Botvinnik interview to which Evans refers appeared in an
obscure Dutch magazine. HOWEVER, 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.
So, Larry, WHEN was this English version first published? (Hint: it
was after 1998) "
OK Taylor, can you give the link to the interview ?
Taylor Kingston
Jerzy wrote:
> OK Taylor, can you give the link to the interview ?
But Jerzy, you said this whole discussion was boring and I should
stop the thread. You mean you find it interesting after all? ;-)
OK, try:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_3.htm
then scan down to the item "Saying No to Stalin." And the date is
still plainly shown there, where even Parr and Evans can see it, much
as they'd rather not.
Sam Sloan
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
With no respect at all due to you, you are lying once again.
You came into this group about three weeks ago completely unprovoked
and without anybody saying a single word about you, and started
attacking me relentously.
Anybody can check the record back and see who started these attacks.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
Sam Sloan wrote:
> With no respect at all due to you, you are lying once again.
> You came into this group about three weeks ago completely unprovoked
> and without anybody saying a single word about you, and started
> attacking me relentously.
> Anybody can check the record back and see who started these attacks.
Indeed they can. It appears that Sam, like Evans and Parr, has
problems understanding the concept of chronological sequence and the
relative magnitude of various units of time. If he will be so good as
to read my original post in this thread, and actually take the time to
comprehend it, he will see that it refers to comments made by Evans in
September 2001. Most scientific authorities agree that is more than
"three weeks ago."
Sam Sloan
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
You are a real wise-ass.
Why are you starting an argument now, in 2005, about something that
happened four years ago, in 2001?
Sam Sloan
Goran Tomic
No, that case is clear. Botvinnik was better but somebody, maybe Taylor or
his chiefs didn't like Botvinnik country, (that's the most likely), nation
(probably) or religion, (probably) so they attacked dead Botvinnik.
So, that discussion can only show what prejudices had Taylor and his chiefs.
That is not interesting for me, because I wrote long ago about their
prejudices. That's the reason their site ChessCafe dropped down.
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia
Goran Tomic
news:1117060165.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jerzy is obviously unstable person. He cant' tell truth now when he wants
to see discussion and before when he didn't want to see discussion. He
changes his mind too often. Maybe he has to go to somebody to get "his
opinion"? Everybody can conclude that Jerzy is liar.
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia
StanB
This is his thread and he gets to say when it is over.
Jerzy
>> OK Taylor, can you give the link to the interview ?
>
> But Jerzy, you said this whole discussion was boring and I should
> stop the thread. You mean you find it interesting after all? ;-)
No Taylor, still I find it boring because no truth has been revealed so far.
However you should try to seek the truth and not to show who is better in
internet polemics
> OK, try:
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_3.htm
>
> then scan down to the item "Saying No to Stalin." And the date is
> still plainly shown there, where even Parr and Evans can see it, much
> as they'd rather not.
>
OK thank you.
Jerzy
> Jerzy is obviously unstable person. He cant' tell truth now when he wants
> to see discussion and before when he didn't want to see discussion. He
> changes his mind too often. Maybe he has to go to somebody to get "his
> opinion"? Everybody can conclude that Jerzy is liar.
GOran, GOran, I find your internet polemics really comic. However what else
can I expect from the "internet gm" ? :-)
>
> Goran Tomic,
> Yugoslavia
BTW GOran, GOran, do still live on the Moon ? :-)
Jerzy
>> Taylor, with all due respect to both of you your tedious discussion here
>> is simply boring to me. I think that you can discuss your matters
>> privately.
>
> This is his thread and he gets to say when it is over.
Yes Stan, as usual an original thought by you :-)
I dislike such creation of new internet threads only to show who is better
in internet polemics but no truth is being revealed :-)
Jürgen R.
> 3. The 1991 Botvinnik interview to which Evans refers appeared in an
>obscure Dutch magazine. HOWEVER, 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.
> So, Larry, WHEN was this English version first published? (Hint: it
>was after 1998)
>
3 Questions:
Are you saying that you are 'researching' a putative issue between
Soviet politicians and Soviet Chess players and you don't know
Russian?
In other words that you were limited to regurgitating information at
third or fourth hand?
Are you a graduate of the Sloan School of Chess Journalism?
Goran Tomic
>
> No Taylor, still I find it boring because no truth has been revealed so
> far. However you should try to seek the truth and not to show who is
> better in internet polemics
>
>
>> OK, try:
>>
>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_3.htm
>>
>> then scan down to the item "Saying No to Stalin." And the date is
>> still plainly shown there, where even Parr and Evans can see it, much
>> as they'd rather not.
>>
>
> OK thank you.
You wrote two times that you are not interested in this tread and one time
that you are interested because you changed your mind. You are very unstable
so nobody could dispute with you. The reason is because you could say that
you need to "Re-think again", and you could chang your opinion. Maybe you
have some type of "mind's torsion"? Be carefully, because it seems that you
have problems like Pillsbury, so your west friends could try to split your
brain!?
By the way, where is "Wlod"? Is he still alive?
Regards,
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia
Jerzy
>> Right now, after rethinking this matter, I tend to agree with the opinion
>> that the whole case Botvinnik-Keres is extremely interesting.
>> However we shouldn`t sacrifice the truth for our own private aims.
>>
>
> No, that case is clear. Botvinnik was better but somebody, maybe Taylor or
> his chiefs didn't like Botvinnik country, (that's the most likely), nation
> (probably) or religion, (probably) so they attacked dead Botvinnik.
> So, that discussion can only show what prejudices had Taylor and his
> chiefs. That is not interesting for me, because I wrote long ago about
> their prejudices. That's the reason their site ChessCafe dropped down.
It is not Botvinnik who is guilty in that case but maybe communist
apparatchiks who were very influential then. In fact he refused their
"generous" offer :
"I have experienced myself that orders were given. In 1948 I played with
Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the world title. After the first half
of the tournament, which took place in the Netherlands, it was clear that I
was going to be the new World Champion. During the second half in Moscow
something unpleasant happened. 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 was going to be a Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally
who proposed this. But of course I refused! It was an intrigue against me,
to belittle me. A ridiculous proposal, only made to put down the future
World Champion. In some circles, people preferred Keres to be World
Champion. It was disgraceful, because I had already proven by and large that
I was stronger at that time than Keres and Smyslov."
I wonder who were they those communist apparatchiks who proposed such
scandalous offer to Botvinnik ?
Jerzy
"Goran Tomic"
> You wrote two times that you are not interested in this tread and one time
> that you are interested because you changed your mind. You are very
> unstable so nobody could dispute with you. The reason is because you could
> say that you need to "Re-think again", and you could chang your opinion.
> Maybe you have some type of "mind's torsion"? Be carefully, because it
> seems that you have problems like Pillsbury, so your west friends could
> try to split your brain!?
LOL, you are an idiot GOran, who apparently lives on ther Moon. I understand
that you have chosen to be a fool here to entertain us here
It is you who changes the theme of discussion. It is Botvinnik - Keres` case
what is interesting here not your private wars with each other.
And I can see here your personal attacks towards me and Taylor Kingston`s
personal war with Larry Parr :-)
Taylor Kingston
We are now in Day 2 of "Waiting for Larry" (apologies to Samuel
Beckett). I restate my "3 Simple Questions for Larry Parr":
Larry Parr has recently been very insistent that I answer "three
simple questions" posed by him on this newsgroup. In my thread
"Answering Parr's Questions" I have done so honestly and candidly.
So now in this new thread, I will be asking Mr. Parr questions from
time to time. Fairness requires that he answer me truthfully. All of
these will involve claims Mr. Parr has presented here recently. We'll
start with one that requires a bit of prologue to understand properly.
Imagine a hypothetical situation: Suppose your friend Mack says to
you "I think Bob is wrong. He voted for George W. Bush instead of Al
Gore, despite the way Bush mishandled the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
At first glance, this might seem just an ordinary political opinion.
Then you think a minute. And you remember that Bush beat Gore in
November 2000, but the 9/11 attacks were on September 11, 2001. So
Mack's remark is both completely illogical and unfair to Bob.
In that light, consider the following, posted here by Parr 26 April
2005, and which first appeared in Chess Life, September 2001, page 14,
written by GM Larry Evans in his column "Evans On Chess":
"But [Taylor Kingston's] '[The Keres-Botvinnik Case:] A Survey of the
Evidence' (Chess Life, May 1998) devotes six pages to the topic without
reaching any conclusion despite what Keres told Whyld and Botvinnik's
startling admission in a 1991 interview that Stalin did intervene."
Makes me look like a negligent researcher, right? Unless one knows
the facts. So, I ask Mr. Parr to answer, FACTUALLY, these simple
questions:
1. WHEN was my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey of the
Evidence" first published? (Hint: it was in 1998, Larry)
2. WHEN did Ken Whyld first publish "what Keres told him," that Evans
refers to above? (Hint: it was after 1998)
3. The 1991 Botvinnik interview to which Evans refers appeared in an
obscure Dutch magazine. HOWEVER, 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.
So, Larry, WHEN was this English version first published? (Hint: it
was after 1998)
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Parr is able and willing to
parrt...@cs.com
Taylor Kingston is feeling neglected. But such is not the case. He
took days to answer my three simple questions with different answers
that conflicted with the ones he glave the first time around..
Now Mr. Kingston demands an immediate response, stamping his foot
like a spoiled child, -- even thrusting his anxiety into an unrelated
thread. (OPEN NOTE TO THE NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WHOEVER YOU ARE
"Larry, whoever the new executive director may be, he/she will expect
you to answer those "3 Simple Questions for Larry Parr." Don't keep him
waiting.")
One begins to wonder whether the suddenly active Taylor Kingston was
not our Mark Houlsby -- at least in terms of style. I am now a troll
who practices trolling as ersatz journalism. You can always tell when
Mr. Kingston is deeply upset: he can't resist the name calling -- in
this case mimicking his ally Trollsby. Over the years, he has always
slipped on the surface of his oleaginous indignation.
I dealt with the Sosonko-Pam interview before. Ken Whyld, of
course, spoke with many people about Keres on many occasions. He met
Larry Evans in London to discuss this precise issue. Whyld's statement
about Keres being warned not to finish ahead of Botvinnik was common
knowledge long before 1998. He told it to many people over the years
including, when he visited America, Don Aldrich.
Sosonko and I discussed the Keres-Botvinnik controversy in 1994 at
great length when he was in New York visiting GM Lev Alburt. I didn't
write about it at that time because I was working my way through all of
Hermann Helms' columns in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.
Still, I knew about the Botvinnik material long before it was
published by Tim Krabbe, and my view is that someone such as Mr.
Kingston, who reviewed the evidence without, however, knowing zilch
about Soviet politics, ought to have known more than I did. Which he
did not. What I knew, surely someone researching the subject for Chess
Life could also find out.
Did Mr. Kingston write to Mr. Whyld? Did he search the non-English
language press? To my mind, Taylor Kingston's work is secondary-source
level stuff that is culture-bound. till, I have said before and say
again that given what the man's work is supposed to be (journalism)
it's not bad.
But Mr. Kingston's ego appears to be still smarting from this comment
by GM Evans in the Sept. 2001 issue of Chess Life:
>In a letter to the editor of Kingpin (Spring 2000) Taylor Kingston claimed I misrepresented his views about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy. But his "Survey Of The Evidence" (Chess Life, May 1998) devotes six pages to the topic without reaching any conclusion despite what Keres told Whyld and Botvinnik's startling admission in a 1991 interview that Stalin did intervene. Mr. Kingston, whose work I generally admire, probably is unfamiliar with a syndicated newspaper column I wrote in 1989 entitled "An Old Scandal.">
WAS KINGSTON NEGLIGENT?
Now, the nub of the complaint is that GM Evans used an anachronism
to make Kingston look negligent. Not at all.
True, Kingston was negligent to a degree, but GM Evans was clearly
HELPING OUT Kingston and Chess Life readers (his first duty) by
providing information they probably did not have. Mr. Kingston should
be thanking GM Evans rather than asking me to defend a favor that the
grandmaster extended him.
Just because Mr. Kingston is not up to the task of researching
a subject from multiple angles, that does not mean he should be
visiting his frustration on GM Evans every few months or so over
something written four years ago.
Goran Tomic
> LOL, you are an idiot GOran, who apparently lives on ther Moon. I
> understand that you have chosen to be a fool here to entertain us here
>
> It is you who changes the theme of discussion. It is Botvinnik - Keres`
> case what is interesting here not your private wars with each other.
>
> And I can see here your personal attacks towards me and Taylor Kingston`s
> personal war with Larry Parr :-)
>
Dear Jerzy,
you didn't answer me! Here are the facts: You wrote that you are not
interested in discussion. After that you wrote that, after re-thinking, you
are interested in discussion. In your third mail it's nor clear do you like
to see that discussion or not. So, my question was, in allusion on sad
Pillsbury's destiny, are you afraid that your west friends could split your
brain like in Pillsbury's case. Maybe somebody could conclude that you and
Pillsbury have the same symptoms. The question was not written with bad
taste or bad intention. I'm only interested in your opinion (after
re-thinking).
Regards,
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia
Chess One
Created: 26.05.2005 13:31 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:30 MSK ,
MosNews
Police have badly beaten the son of Kirsan Ilumzhinov, president of the
Republic of Kalmykia and the head of the FIDE chess organization, Regnum
reported Thursday.
16-year-old David Ilumzhinov was out street racing with two friends at a
deserted airport near Elista, the republic's capital. The city
administration permits street racing at the airfield.
Four policemen, among them the head of Elista's criminal investigation
department, Vitaly Elkuev, were off duty and drinking alcohol near the
airport, Regnum reports, when they decided to check the teenagers' documents
and look in the trunk of their car.
The president's son told the policemen his name and asked for permission to
leave, but he and his friends were then beaten up.
Afterwards the boys left in their car with the policemen chasing them, the
agency reports. As a result of the high-speed chase the boy's car crashed.
In spite of the injuries that the youngsters sustained in the accident, they
were once more beaten up by the drunk policemen. All three of them are
currently in the hospital.
Three of the four policemen have been detained, the republic's prosecutor,
Sergei Khlopushin, told journalists. They are accused of exceeding their
authority, but the severity of the charges now depends on the condition of
the victims, which remains unstable, Regnum adds.
Kirsan Ilumzhinov became Kalmykia's president in 1993 at the age of 30. He
was reelected in 1995 with 85 percent of the vote. He has also been the
president of FIDE chess federation since 1995.
Tyrone Slothrop
has not immediately reposted this article to soc.culture.russian and
talk.religion.buddhism.
Goran Tomic
So, what's your last opinion after re-re-re-thinking? Are you interested in
this tread? Yes or no? You have to decide fast! They could split your brain
to see what negative impulses come from right part to left and which
positive impulses come from left to right. Maybe if your west friends split
your brain, you will be more decisive and you wouldn't change your mind so
fast? I'm sure they want to help you.
By the way, maybe you could take a rest?
Regards,
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia
>
Taylor Kingston
> Ken Whyld, of
> course, spoke with many people about Keres on many occasions. He met
> Larry Evans in London to discuss this precise issue. Whyld's statement
> about Keres being warned not to finish ahead of Botvinnik was common
> knowledge long before 1998.
Care to explain then why Evans made no mention of this in his 1996
article? Surely, it would have been preferable to quote the respected
scholar Whyld rather than crackpot James Schroeder. It seems that Evans
was just as negligent as I am alleged to be.
Also, Whyld himself seems to contradict you. In an exchange of
e-mails with me in August 2001, I asked him if his story's June 2000
appearance on Tim Krabbé's website
(www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_4.htm, item #65) was its first
publication, and why he did not publish it sooner. His reply:
"Yes, that was perhaps the first publication. That was about the time
when I made my statement in reply to some discussion, perhaps on a
website.
"I never regarded it as something to repeat in his lifetime, although
he was probably secure enough in his later years. Later I thought it
not worth repeating. Firstly there is only my word for it, and secondly
he might not have been telling the truth." -- Ken Whyld, 11 August
2001, Message-ID: <003001c12256$5047d020$17ba193e@default>, from
k...@kwhyld.freeserve.co.uk.
He told it to many people over the years
> including, when he visited America, Don Aldrich.
If Mr. Aldrich confirms this, I will not gainsay him. My point is,
Whyld did not tell the world in general, which includes me, until June
2000. That's after 1998.
> Still, I knew about the Botvinnik material long before it was
> published by Tim Krabbe, and my view is that someone such as Mr.
> Kingston, who reviewed the evidence without, however, knowing zilch
> about Soviet politics, ought to have known more than I did.
Care to explain, then, why the Botvinnik statement is also missing
from Evans' 1996 article? Can we conclude from this that Evans too
"ought to have known more than I did"?
> What I knew, surely someone researching the subject for Chess
> Life could also find out.
And what you knew, surely your close associate Larry Evans could find
out. You mean you never told him?
> Did Mr. Kingston write to Mr. Whyld?
At some length. See sample excerpt above.
> Now, the nub of the complaint is that GM Evans used an anachronism
> to make Kingston look negligent. Not at all.
Balls. Evans' "despite" is a cheap shot, not his only one, and
typical of his brand of dishonesty. His logic is like that of the Red
Queen in 'Through the Looking Glass': "It's a poor sort of memory that
only works backwards." He wants people to believe I knew things in
early 1998 that I did not until late 1999 and mid-2000.
And from all appearances, Evans himself did not know them until then.
I've read every "Evans on Chess" column in Chess Life since well before
1991, and everything else he has written in Chess Life over that time.
Where is any mention of the Keres-Whyld conversation, or the Botvinnik
interview, by Evans?
Most importantly, if Evans knew these things so far in advance of
their publication, why were they not in his 1996 article, where they
most clearly belong? If he is going to fault me for leaving out what I
don't know, I think it entirely fair to fault him for leaving out what
Parr claims he did know.
Jerzy
> By the way, maybe you could take a rest?
Yes GOran take a rest :)
Jerzy
It`s not my fault that you can`t read GOran !
Jerzy
> Son of Russian Regional Leader Beaten up by Drunk Policemen
> Created: 26.05.2005 13:31 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:30 MSK ,
>
OK it`s an official version and what is unofficial one ?
Jerzy
> Something is wrong. There is a disturbance in the "Force." Sam Sloan
> has not immediately reposted this article to soc.culture.russian and
> talk.religion.buddhism.
Defintely sth`s wrong. Why Lev Khariton and GOran TOmic didn`t warn
Mr.Ilyumzhinov in time ?
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> Son of Russian Regional Leader Beaten up by Drunk Policemen
> Created: 26.05.2005 13:31 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:30 MSK ,
Phil, what are you doing posting this in my "Questions to Parr"
thread? Please take this elsewhere.
Taylor Kingston
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> Ken Whyld, of
> course, spoke with many people about Keres on many occasions. He met
> Larry Evans in London to discuss this precise issue. Whyld's statement
> about Keres being warned not to finish ahead of Botvinnik was common
> knowledge long before 1998.
Care to explain then why Evans made no mention of this in his 1996
article? Surely, it would have been preferable to quote the respected
scholar Whyld rather than crackpot James Schroeder. It seems that Evans
was just as negligent as I am alleged to be.
Also, Whyld himself seems to contradict you. In an exchange of
e-mails with me in August 2001, I asked him if his story's June 2000
appearance on Tim Krabbé's website
(www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_4.htm, item #65) was its first
publication, and why he did not publish it sooner. His reply:
"Yes, that was perhaps the first publication. That was about the time
when I made my statement in reply to some discussion, perhaps on a
website.
"I never regarded it as something to repeat in his lifetime, although
he was probably secure enough in his later years. Later I thought it
not worth repeating. Firstly there is only my word for it, and secondly
he might not have been telling the truth." -- Ken Whyld, 11 August
2001, Message-ID: <003001c12256$5047d020$17ba193e@default>, from
k...@kwhyld.freeserve.co.uk.
> He told it to many people over the years
> including, when he visited America, Don Aldrich.
Trying to pull a fast one, Larry? The occasion you refer to was the
Chessco Festival in Davenport, Iowa, held in June 2000. That's AFTER
1998, remember? This can be confirmed by reading Mr. Aldrich's post
in the thread "Keres-Botvinnik A Middle Ground?" and checking the
festival date at http://tinyurl.com/bwl4k. To quote the relevant
portions:
"The Chess Festival series was started in 1998. That year our main
celebrities were GM Lubomir Kavalek, IM Nikolay Minev, Jon Edwards,
Allan Savage, and Tim Just ... In 2000 the second Chess Festival was
also held in June at the same Holiday Inn. The celebrities were GM
Eduard Gufeld, IM Jeremy Silman, historian Ken Whyld, and Jon Edwards
back for a return engagement."
> Still, I knew about the Botvinnik material long before it was
> published by Tim Krabbe, and my view is that someone such as Mr.
> Kingston, who reviewed the evidence without, however, knowing zilch
> about Soviet politics, ought to have known more than I did.
Care to explain, then, why the Botvinnik statement is also missing
from Evans' 1996 article? Can we conclude from this that Evans too
"ought to have known more than I did"?
> What I knew, surely someone researching the subject for Chess
> Life could also find out.
And what you knew, surely your close associate Larry Evans could find
out. You mean you never told him?
> Did Mr. Kingston write to Mr. Whyld?
At some length. See sample excerpt above.
> Now, the nub of the complaint is that GM Evans used an anachronism
> to make Kingston look negligent. Not at all.
Balls. Evans' "despite" is a cheap shot, not his only one, and
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
On 26 May 2005 06:06:09 -0700, "Tyrone Slothrop"
Sam Sloan
Jerzy
I think it was a right move to enliven discussion here :-)
Tyrone Slothrop
once again, in balance. All is right with the universe again.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1117120147.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Taylor,
I believe you are mistaken about my posting anything to do with this subject
in 'your' thread. I replied the same to your E-mail.
To answer your question:
I am 'doing' a posting of this news item I researched on Mosnews early
today, and then I am doing wring about it here, including doing the first
posting this morning in this thread, which I did create to this dedicated
topic!
In turn, please be so kind as to take your current confusion over to the 3
questions thread dedicated to [at least] 33 confused answers, or whatever
you people are doing over there to amuse friends and family.
Cordially, Phil Innes
CrustyTheClown
Russians should be beaten daily as a part of a well designed obedience
program.
djinn
"Tyrone Slothrop" <lttyrone...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117122641....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ah. With Sam's crosspost, the light and dark sides of the Force are
> once again, in balance. All is right with the universe again.
just until immediately
following brenneshlauss
Goran Tomic
> GOran from the moon wrote :
>> By the way, maybe you could take a rest?
>
> Yes GOran take a rest :)
>
You can't escape! You claimed that tread is bored. After that you wanted to
continue that tread. After that you became shaky and when Stan blamed you,
you changed mind again. After that you became too unstable that I'm afraid
for your mental health. Maybe you have some mental heredital disease like
Taylor? If you inform all of us about your mental problem, maybe somebody
could help you. But first re-re-re-re-think what do you want to write!
My advice is to take a rest and go on mountains!
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia
Goran Tomic
> GOran from the moon wrote:
>> you didn't answer me!
>
> It`s not my fault that you can`t read GOran !
>
But are you afraid that your west friends could conclude that something was
wrong with you? And to try split your brain? Would you try to jump through
window like GM Pillsbury?
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia
Louis Blair
(26 Apr 2005 09:14:49 -0700):
> [Taylor Kingston's] "Survey of the Evidence"
> (Chess Life, May 1998) devotes six pages
> to the topic without reaching any conclusion
> despite what Keres told Whyld and Botvinnik's
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (26 May 2005
04:08:51 -0700):
> ... Ken Whyld first [published] "what Keres told
> him," ... after 1998
> ...
> The 1991 Botvinnik interview to which Evans
> refers appeared in an obscure Dutch magazine.
> HOWEVER, it remained little known generally,
> completely unknown to me, and evidently
> unknown to Evans, until an English version
_
Larry Parr wrote (26 May 2005 05:13:38 -0700):
> ... Whyld's statement about Keres being
> warned not to finish ahead of Botvinnik was
> common knowledge long before 1998. ...
> I knew about the Botvinnik material long
> before it was published by Tim Krabbe ...
_
The date of the Tim Krabbe item was
December 10, 1999.
A google search for Larry Parr notes
before that date that mention Keres and
Botvinnik produces
1996/09/16
1996/09/19
1996/09/20
1996/09/22
1996/09/24
1996/09/24
1996/10/09
1998/05/04
1999/02/04
1999/03/01
1999/03/02
1999/09/22
1999/09/30
1999/09/30
1999/10/04
A search for Larry Parr notes that mention
Keres, Botvinnik, and Whyld produced
nothing earlier than 17 Jun 2001
02:11:29 GMT.
A search for Larry Parr notes that mention
Keres, Botvinnik, and 1991 produced
nothing earlier than 2000/01/17.
The 1991 interview was conducted by
Sosonko and Pam.
A search for Larry Parr notes that mention
Keres, Botvinnik, and Sosonko produced
nothing earlier than 2000/01/17.
A search for Larry Parr notes that mention
Keres, Botvinnik, and Pam produced
nothing earlier than 2000/01/17.
Jerzy
>>> you didn't answer me!
>>
>> It`s not my fault that you can`t read GOran !
>>
>
> But are you afraid that your west friends could conclude that something
> was wrong with you? And to try split your brain? Would you try to jump
> through window like GM Pillsbury?
>
So you jumped out of window and landed on the moon ? :-)
Jerzy
>>> By the way, maybe you could take a rest?
>>
>> Yes GOran take a rest :)
> My advice is to take a rest and go on mountains!
Yes GOran, go to the mountains and try to fly down from the highest peak :-)
Mike Murray
>> But are you afraid that your west friends could conclude that something
>> was wrong with you? And to try split your brain? Would you try to jump
>> through window like GM Pillsbury?
>So you jumped out of window and landed on the moon ? :-)
No, he didn't get that high and he was unhurt. It was a basement
window.
Mike Murray
>> My advice is to take a rest and go on mountains!
>Yes GOran, go to the mountains and try to fly down from the highest peak :-)
Last time I hiked up Mount Si (OK, so it's not even close to the
highest peak), the paragliders were doing that. Kind of unnerving --
like watching dragons.
Jerzy
>>So you jumped out of window and landed on the moon ? :-)
>
> No, he didn't get that high and he was unhurt. It was a basement
> window.
Yes, and GOran the moonwalker landed in a puddle that was only reflecting
moonlit beams :-)
Jerzy
>>> My advice is to take a rest and go on mountains!
>
>>Yes GOran, go to the mountains and try to fly down from the highest peak
>>:-)
>
> Last time I hiked up Mount Si (OK, so it's not even close to the
> highest peak), the paragliders were doing that. Kind of unnerving --
> like watching dragons.
Yes Mike but GOran does his jumps without any devices like paragliders or
parachutes :-)
Don C. Aldrich
That is not what he told 'us'--there were about 35 in the audience,
some who do post here from time to time--and not what I said he said.
What he said is that there were no *overt* threats, but rather a sense
of what would happen if Keres were to win the 1948 match tmt over
Botvinnik. He was very particluar about this, as in Keres said he was
never directly threatened, never told to lose, and never told that he
or his family would be harmed if he won.
That is the essence of the difference in various views. I certianly
understand the Parr/Evans viewpoint, and indeed, it might be right.
And I certiainly am not privy to what Whyld said to Evans. However,
Whyld phrased it so carefully, and reiterated it in a question and
answer session, that I have trouble believing he said it any other
way.
One could also argue with some merit that Keres was lying, as at the
time of the discussion--early 70's--things were still very difficult
in the Sov Un, and there conceivably could have been some fallout had
he said otherwise.
But please, do not use my statement of what was said in support. It
does not support the direct threat argument, or the intentionally
throwing games argument.
==Dondo
On 26 May 2005 05:13:38 -0700, parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> I dealt with the Sosonko-Pam interview before. Ken Whyld, of
>course, spoke with many people about Keres on many occasions. He met
>Larry Evans in London to discuss this precise issue. Whyld's statement
>about Keres being warned not to finish ahead of Botvinnik was common
>knowledge long before 1998. He told it to many people over the years
Louis Blair
> Larrry,
>
> That is not what he told 'us'--there
> were about 35 in the audience, some
> who do post here from time to time
> --and not what I said he said.
_
When was this?
Louis Blair
(26 Apr 2005 09:14:49 -0700):
> [Taylor Kingston's] "Survey of the Evidence"
> (Chess Life, May 1998) devotes six pages
> to the topic without reaching any conclusion
> despite what Keres told Whyld and Botvinnik's
> startling admission in a 1991 interview that ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (26 May 2005
04:08:51 -0700):
> ... Ken Whyld first [published] "what Keres told
> him," ... after 1998
> ...
> The 1991 Botvinnik interview to which Evans
> refers appeared in an obscure Dutch magazine.
> HOWEVER, 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 ... after 1998
_
> ... Whyld's statement about Keres being
> warned not to finish ahead of Botvinnik was
> common knowledge long before 1998. He
> told it to many people over the years
> including, when he visited America, Don
> material long before it was published by
> Tim Krabbe ...
_
> Whyld appeared [in Davenport where he
> was seen by Don Aldrich] in June 2000
_
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?
Taylor Kingston
Don C. Aldrich wrote:
> Larrry,
>
> That is not what he told 'us'--there were about 35 in the audience,
> some who do post here from time to time--and not what I said he said.
Don, you did not include Parr's text to which you refer above. What
statement(s) of his are you contradicting? Oh wait ... I see you have
it at the bottom.
> What he said is that there were no *overt* threats, but rather a sense
> of what would happen if Keres were to win the 1948 match tmt over
> Botvinnik. He was very particluar about this, as in Keres said he was
> never directly threatened, never told to lose, and never told that he
> or his family would be harmed if he won.
>
> One could also argue with some merit that Keres was lying, as at the
> time of the discussion--early 70's--things were still very difficult
> in the Sov Un, and there conceivably could have been some fallout had
> he said otherwise.
Don, it was actually 1962. In a September 2000 e-mail, Whyld
described the meeting to me:
"At the end of 1962 Keres made a visit to the British Isles,
sponsored by the British Chess Federation and the British Soviet
Friendship Society, to give a series of simultaneous displays. He began
in London on 25 November, and ended in Cardiff on 3 December. Keres
arrived in Nottingham on 27 November, and it was my pleasant task, as
President of the Nottinghamshire Chess Association, to be his host.
That evening he was my guest at dinner, just the two of us, and he
expressed very frank opinions on a number of topics. For example, he
said that the Soviet authorities were stupid to ban the film 'West Side
Story,' because it could be interpreted as supporting their
anti-American propaganda!
"Emboldened by his relaxed attitude I was impudent enough to ask him
if he had 'thrown' those games in the 1948 World Championship. Not so.
He had never found it easy to play Botvinnik. However, he would have
been in serious trouble had B. not won the title because of any action
by Keres. I saw Keres off on the 28th, and we remained friends. I do
recall, though, at the Olympiad in Lugano 1968, when a KGB officer was
watching us, he adopted a very formal manner. If I recall, that was the
same day that Fischer entered the hall, decided that the lighting was
not good enough, and went home. I have never spoken to Fischer."
> But please, do not use my statement of what was said in support. It
> does not support the direct threat argument, or the intentionally
> throwing games argument.
I am pleased to see that at least your statement supports, or at
least does not contradict, the chronology I gave, that Whyld did not
reveal this widely before 2000. It appears Mr. Parr was disingenous
when he mentioned you immediately after claiming it "was common
The Historian
Goran Tomic wrote:
> Be carefully, because it seems that you
> have problems like Pillsbury, so your west friends could try to split your
> brain!?
Mr. Pillsbury's problem was not the kind solved by "brain-splitting",
Goran.
Louis Blair
05:13:38 -0700):
> Sosonko and I discussed the Keres-Botvinnik
> controversy in 1994 at great length when he
> was in New York visiting GM Lev Alburt.
_
Does Larry Parr claim that Sosonko told Larry
Parr about the 1991 Botvinnik comments about
the Stalin proposal?
parrt...@cs.com
<What he said is that there were no *overt* threats, but rather a sense
of what would happen if Keres were to win the 1948 match tmt over
Botvinnik. He was very particluar about this, as in Keres said he was
never directly threatened, never told to lose, and never told that he
or his family would be harmed if he won.>
To Don Aldrich,
How does your statement differ from what I wrote? I think the
word "warned" sums it up. There were warnings, which are not quite the
same thing as threats, and there are threats that are stated baldly and
threats that are understood.
Larry Evans once told me he knew Keres well and respected
him.. "But I never asked him about 1948 because I knew he couldn't talk
freely," said GM Evans.
Between 1958 and 1972 they played three tournament games -- Evans
won once and drew twice. Who better to analyze Keres' five games with
Botvinnik. THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES was a seminal article on an old
scandal.
Keres-Botvinnik is not a subject on which I publish. Period. I
also had talks with Soviet GMs on Botvinnik's final years, his sex
life, and a great deal more -- all of which will one day make
interesting reading in my projected Procopius-style Secret History of
Chess Players. But I don't publish the stuff now.
At the time I was having talks about Botvinnik with the Russians
in New York -- employing the word "Russians" loosely -- I was
publishing one or more articles monthly in Chess Life as well as
writing three different chess books.
Keres is not my research subject. It was Mr. Kingston's. It is
ridiculous that I should know more about COMMON KNOWLEDGE materials
that he did not. That's all. His six-page "Review Of The Evidence" in
Chess Life was more neglible than negligent. It added nothing new..
WHAT SOSONKO SAID ABOUT BOTVINNIK
< Does Larry Parr claim that Sosonko told Larry Parr about the 1991
Botvinnik comments about the Stalin proposal?
To Louis Blair,
This has got to be the mother of all stupid questions.
GM Sosonko was the one who conducted the interview with Botvinniik
in 1991. Of course we discussed it at great length.
parrt...@cs.com
In three questions, Taylor Kingston asks me to regurgitate three
discrete dates. I will let him fill in the blanks and then STIPULATE to
them. Fair enough? I have already answered the POINT of the man's
questions:
1. Larry Evans' point in noting additional material was to inform his
Chess Life readers and HELP Mr. Kingston; he made no charge that Mr.
Kingston should have included the material. Hence the question is
irrelevant.
2. The date of when Mr. Whyld published what Keres told him is
utterly irrelevant. He told the same to other people well before.
3. The Botvinnik interview was no big secret. Even I knew about it,
and I was not writing about the subject. Mr. Kingston should have been
on the blower to people before going to press. That's his fault. Not GM
Evans'.
Now, then, I have stated that whatever dates Mr. Kingston chooses
to fill in, I will stipulate that they are likely precisely rendered.
Thereby, I will have provided answers to some silly discrete dates as
well as having dealt with the POINT behind his questions.
possum
"CrustyTheClown" <YourUnc...@oops.org> wrote in message
news:tAmle.2750$So7....@fe10.lga...
> Most likely he deserved it.
>
> Russians should be beaten daily as a part of a well designed obedience
> program.
too pavlovian, crusty.
are you the same crusty the clown disappeared into the mud at glastonbury at
the beer tent? we thought you were dead, man.
psm
Louis Blair
> warned not to finish ahead of Botvinnik was
> common knowledge long before 1998. He
> told it to many people over the years
> including, when he visited America, Don
> Aldrich.
> Sosonko and I discussed the Keres-Botvinnik
> controversy in 1994 at great length when he
> was in New York visiting GM Lev Alburt.
> I knew about the Botvinnik material long
> before it was published by Tim Krabbe ...
_
> Does Larry Parr claim that Sosonko told
> Larry Parr about the 1991 Botvinnik
> comments about the Stalin proposal?
_
Larry Parr wrote (26 May 2005 18:19:35 -0700):
> Of course we discussed it at great length.
_
At that point, did Larry Parr tell GM Evans
about the 1991 Botvinnik comments about
the Stalin proposal?
_
Also, why is it that a Google search fails to
find any pre-2000 Larry Parr notes that
mention Botvinnik, Keres, and 1991?
_
Larry Parr wrote (26 May 2005
18:19:35 -0700):
> Keres-Botvinnik is not a subject on
> which I publish. Period.
_
A Google search for pre-Dec. 1999
Larry Parr notes that mention Keres
and Botvinnik produces the following:
1996/09/16
1996/09/19
1996/09/20
1996/09/22
1996/09/24
1996/09/24
1996/10/09
1998/05/04
1999/02/04
1999/03/01
1999/03/02
1999/09/22
1999/09/30
1999/09/30
1999/10/04
Would Larry Parr care to guess at the
approximate percentage of these that
refer to the 1948 Keres-Botvinnik
controversy?
StanB
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:429526d3...@ca.news.verio.net...
> You came into this group about three weeks ago completely unprovoked
> and without anybody saying a single word about you, and started
> attacking me relentously.
Sam no one is attacking you. They are laughing at you.
Goran Tomic
news:1117148103....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
But, in Jerky's case? Could it help to make him stable? Because his right
and left hemisphere are in conflict!?
Regards,
Groan Tomic
Frisco Del Rosario
> Groan Tomic
If this doesn't show up as someone's sockpuppet later today, I'll be surprised.
--
Frisco Del Rosario
A First Book of Morphy -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1412039061
Jerzy
> In article <11171675...@ella.cg.yu>, "Goran Tomic"
> <tom...@cg.yu> wrote:
>
>> Groan Tomic
>
> If this doesn't show up as someone's sockpuppet later today, I'll be
> surprised.
A groaning we will go , a groaning we will go ... ;-)
Taylor Kingston
> In three questions, Taylor Kingston asks me to regurgitate three
> discrete dates. I will let him fill in the blanks and then STIPULATE to
> them. Fair enough? I have already answered the POINT of the man's
> questions:
>
> 1. Larry Evans' point in noting additional material was to inform his
> Chess Life readers and HELP Mr. Kingston; he made no charge that Mr.
> Kingston should have included the material.
Pompous gobbledygook. Mr. Parr is fond of recasting things to suit
his rhetorical purposes. If I tell the truth about Evans, Parr claims I
act out of lying malice. If Evans lies about me, Parr claims Evans is
"helping" me. Orwell had Newspeak, we have Parrspeak.
> 2. The date of when Mr. Whyld published what Keres told him is
> utterly irrelevant. He told the same to other people well before.
Parr has produced NO evidence that Whyld ever published his story
before June 2000. On the other hand, I have presented WHYLD'S OWN
STATEMENT that June 2000 was the FIRST publication. And that is
ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT, since Evans claimed that I should know in early
1998 what was not revealed until mid-2000.
> 3. The Botvinnik interview was no big secret. Even I knew about it,
> and I was not writing about the subject.
Mr. Parr expects us to accept this on faith, but when anyone else
makes this kind of claim he poo-poos them and demands evidence.
Turnabout is fair play, Larry: Where is your evidence?
Even the most diligent researcher on the subject, Valter Heuer, made
no mention of the 1991 interview in his "The Troubled Years of Paul
Keres" (New In Chess, #4, 1995). Nor did Parr's friend Larry Evans (!)
in "The Tragedy of Paul Keres" (Chess Life, October 1996). Nor did
Bernard Cafferty, probably the greatest expert on Soviet Chess among
British historians, know about it until its 12/1999 appearance on
Krabbé's site (confirmed by e-mail to me, 18 Feb 2000).
Will Mr. Parr produce any published references to the interview,
aside from its original printing in the Vrij Nederland of 20 August
1991? Indeed, can he?
Mr. Kingston should have been
> on the blower to people before going to press. That's his fault. Not GM
> Evans'.
Then can we assume that GM Evans was equally at fault, since his 1996
article also failed to mention either the Whyld or Botvinnik
statements? Evans would appear to be even more negligent, since all he
had to do was ask his omniscient buddy Parr.
Notice how Parr, the self-professed master logician, neglects to draw
this obvious conclusion?
> Thereby, I will have provided answers to some silly discrete dates as
> well as having dealt with the POINT behind his questions.
Yes, real historians never bother with silly things like discrete
dates.
Larry, so far your answers don't check out. And THAT is my POINT.
Taylor Kingston
parrt...@cs.com
>Please take a rest!> Goran Tomic to Taylor Kingston
<If Evans knew these things so far in advance of their publication, why
were they not in his 1996 article, where they most clearly belong? If
he is going to fault me for leaving out what I don't know, I think it
entirely fair to fault him for leaving out what Parr claims he did
know.> Taylor Kingston
Larry Evans did not fault Taylor Kingston for leaving anything out
of his article. He merely informed readers of information they probably
didn't know about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy.
I recall that after Mr. Kingston's "Review of the Evidence"
appeared in Chess Life, Larry told me he got letters asking why the
magazine wasted six pages on a piece of trash that added nothing new.
He didn't use any of these letters in Evans On Chess.
At first, Mr. Kingston attacked GM Evans for what he wrote. Now GM
Evans is being attacked for what he didn't write!
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Larry Evans' main object in THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL ERES was to circle
suspicious moves in all five Keres-Botvinnik games in the fixed 1948
World Championship. GM Evans did not attempt a full review of the
political and personal evidence because space was limited and his goal
was to look within the games themselves.
In 1988 I was with Larry in London to cover the Watson, Farley and
Williams International (won by Larsen, if memory serves). Ken Whyld
gave him an autographed copy of his Oxford Companion to Larry and I
remember they got along swell. Whyld, however, complained bitterly to
him about a review I wrote of this book.
At the time I did NOT discuss the Keres issue with Evans
because I was busily preparing an article about the tournament as well
as putting together a lengthy interview with Larsen in Chess Horizons
and in Chess Life that won a CJA award. My testimony is limited to the
following:
1. Larry was indeed chummy enough with Whyld in spite of the bad
feeling that Whyld entertained toward this writer;.
2. What Larry told me about Whyld's conversation with Keres.
3. What I told Larry about meeting with Sosonko in New York.
Botvinnik's startling admission in 1991 that Stalin personally
intervened was told to me directly by GM Sosonko, who conducted the
interview with the Soviet chess icon. I seem to recall that GM Lev
Alburt was a witness. Perhaps not. It was over 10 years ago.
My answers to Taylor Kingston's three questions (unlike his answers
to my mine) were truthful and accurate. He can rant and rave and
refuse to believe me,.but those are the facts. Louis Blair can ask all
the stupid questions he wants (and I'm sure he will) but those are the
facts.
-- Larry Parr
Taylor Kingston
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> TAYLOR KINGSTON'S PRIVATE WAR (Continued)
>
> >Please take a rest!> Goran Tomic to Taylor Kingston
Boy, Larry, talk about snipping! You cite the erudite scholar Goran
Tomic, but complete fail to address my post of this morning, May 27,
8:21 am. We're waiting.
Goran Tomic
news:1117205814....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>> TAYLOR KINGSTON'S PRIVATE WAR (Continued)
>>
>> >Please take a rest!> Goran Tomic to Taylor Kingston
>
Dear Taylor,
your trying to canalize all discussion on this newsgroup on this theme and
to digress on that story is very limpid. You would like to avoid themes like
probably fixed games Kasparov against computer, fixed games in WCC, your
pressure against playing your chess players WCC in Libya, your contact with
KGB agents, your debacle in ChessCafe with selection of writers which was
the reason the most readers left (see visitors on counter), financial
problems in your federation (where is the most responsible for financial
business in it, Mr. Hanke? By the way were you his the best friend?), blame
with false histo(e)rian like Neil Brennen, published stories about perverts
woman/man on the top of your federation. But the worst was trying to expel
Bobby from FIDE, or generally from chess, but without success. After that
you started campaign against FIDE president (using some good arguments, but
some arguments are no realistic; boycott of WCC had no any effect on WCC).
So, please return on actually chess themes, answer on those questions and
don't try to escape in histo(e)ry.
Regards,
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia
Louis Blair
07:46:43 -0700):
> Larry Evans did not fault Taylor Kingston
> for leaving anything out of his article. He
> merely informed readers of information
> they probably didn't know about the
> Keres-Botvinnik controversy.
_
"[Taylor Kingston's] 'Survey of the
Evidence' (Chess Life, May 1998)
devotes six pages to the topic
without reaching any conclusion
DESPITE what Keres told Whyld
and Botvinnik's startling admission
in a 1991 interview that ..." - GM
Evans (Emphasis added.)
_
Larry Parr wrote (27 May 2005
07:46:43 -0700):
> Larry Evans' main object in THE
> TRAGEDY OF PAUL ERES was
> to circle suspicious moves in all
> five Keres-Botvinnik games in the
> fixed 1948 World Championship.
> GM Evans did not attempt a full
> review of the political and personal
> evidence because space was limited
> and his goal was to look within the
> games themselves.
_
GM Evans felt he had space in the article
to talk about
_
1. Alla Kushnir;
2. Viktor Korchnoi,
3. a CHESS magazine accusation that
Botvinnik had not wanted to play Keres,
4. a Botvinnik quote about hostility turning
to friendship,
5. Fischer's accusations about cheating,
6. Fischer's you're-all-Russians comment, and
7. a cheating accusation made by
Dr. Feodor Bohatirchuk.
_
Are we supposed to believe that GM Evans
considered all of this to be of greater
relevance to his subject than a reference
by Botvinnik himself to a Stalin cheating
proposal?
_
Also, couldn't GM Evans have mentioned
the 1991 Botvinnik comment in any of
his columns before 2000?
_
Larry Parr wrote (27 May 2005
07:46:43 -0700):
> My testimony is limited to the following:
>_
> 1. Larry was indeed chummy enough
> with Whyld in spite of the bad feeling
> that Whyld entertained toward this writer;.
>_
> 2. What Larry told me about Whyld's
> conversation with Keres.
>_
> 3. What I told Larry about meeting with
> Sosonko in New York.
_
When did GM Evans tell Larry Parr about
the 1948 inhibitions that Keres described
to Whyld about defeating Botvinnik?
_
When did Larry Parr tell GM Evans about
the Botvinnik reference to the Stalin
proposal?
_
Larry Parr wrote (27 May 2005
07:46:43 -0700):
> Botvinnik's startling admission in 1991 ...
> was told to me directly by GM Sosonko
_
If, in 1994, Larry Parr knew about the 1991
Botvinnik comments about the Stalin
proposal, why is it that a Google search
fails to find any pre-2000 Larry Parr notes
that mention Botvinnik, Keres, and 1991?
_
Taylor Kingston
Mr. Blair raises some very good points. I would like to note that his
item #3, "a CHESS magazine accusation that Botvinnik had not wanted to
play Keres," was actually a worthless article titled "James Schroeder
Opens the KGB File on Keres and Botvinnik." Schroeder, one of the most
disreputable writers in chess, had in fact no KGB files, and had no
basis for much of anything in his article, especially his claim that
Keres was barred from several tournaments "because Botvinnik did not
want him to play."
Yet it was this unfounded claim that Evans quoted. And curiously, he
did not mention that Schroeder said it -- he presented it as the
official opinion of CHESS (CL, 10/1996, p. 40). Later, CHESS senior
editor Malcolm Pein completely repudiated the article and said he was
sorry they ever printed it.
If, as Parr claims, Evans was limited by space considerations, why
bother citing the crackpot Schroeder, if Evans had real ammo from the
likes of Whyld and Botvinnik? This is like putting a patzer on your
Olympiad team while top GMs sit out.
parrt...@cs.com
"Taylor Kingston reminds me of those whom the novelist John Gardner
(Nickel Mountain, Grendal, et al.) referred to when he said some argued
over the nose hairs in an elephant and ignored the fact that the
elephant was standing on a baby. The Soviets cheated and now he
quibbles about who knew what and when and believes that no one could
know it before he did. A great many other sins as well." -- Playwright
Richard Laurie
parrt...@cs.com
"Taylor Kingston reminds me of those whom the novelist John Gardner
Don C. Aldrich
All I was reporting was Whyld's story, which very particularly said
there were no overt threats, or warnings, just a perception by Keres
as to bad things happening to him if he won.
==Dondo
On 26 May 2005 18:19:35 -0700, "parrt...@cs.com" <parrt...@cs.com>
wrote:
Don C. Aldrich
Weren't you there? The second Chessco festival, in June 2000. I
beileve this was the Sunday morning lecture by Whyld.
Best,
Don
On Thu, 26 May 2005 20:22:36 GMT, Louis Blair <lb...@blackburn.edu>
wrote:
Louis Blair
> Louis,
>
> Weren't you there? The second Chessco
> festival, in June 2000.
_
No. I went to the festivals in 2002
and 2004.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1117227985.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
O Larry, this is so true. And the suffering literally unimaginable to an
American.
It is difficult therefore to convey a context - before I have cited
Akhmatova - but no-one seems to acknowledge or really understand it.
It is mostly some pauvre-intellectual play-thing written in other people's
blood.
Sagesse, si...
Phil
Taylor Kingston
A completely irrelevant statement by
> Playwright
> Richard Laurie
Posting irrelevancies is a non-answer answer, Larry -- the kind of
non-answer you attack mercilessly when someone else does it. You have
not addressed the very telling points made by Mr. Blair, nor my
comments supplemental to his last post. Isn't this the kind of thing
you call "snipping," and claim it's so dishonest? Gee, whodathunkit:
Larry Parr has a double standard?
To refresh your memory, I post Mr. Blair's and my remarks below:
Sam Sloan
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
> This is like putting a patzer on your Olympiad team while top GMs sit out.
So, you agree that the demands that Anna Hahn be put on the team
rather than Anaa Zatonskih were wrongful.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> O Larry, this is so true.
The hell it is, Phil, and you and Parr both know it. Parr is talking
through his hat (when he's not evading the subject altogether), Evans
is talking through his hat, Laurie doesn't even understand what we are
talking about, and you are swallowing it all hook, line, and sinker.
Four dates, Phil, four dates, plus associated facts:
Evans' article about Keres-Botvinnik: October 1996. Its mentions of
Botvinnik's 1991 interview, or of Whyld's 1962 conversation with Keres:
ZERO.
My article about Keres-Botvinnik: May 1998. Its mentions of
Botvinnik's interview, or of Whyld's conversation with Keres: ZERO.
Krabbé's publication of Botvinnik: December 1999.
Krabbé's publication of Whyld: June 2000.
Evans' claim that in 1998 I should have known about Whyld's and
Botvinnik's statements: September 2001.
I don't know what "so true" means to you, Phil, but where I come from
it generally corresponds to "empirically verifiable." Right now the
facts are not bearing you out.
Chess One
reputation, and ignored by the big boppers, and wind up with only the
adoring hysterian. B. Erie :(
I don't care anything about your spat with Evans - if you think your stuff
here proves anything about Keres/Botvinnik, or even suggests anything worth
pursuit, you have buried your sense in a heap of words.
My comments were in context to Larry Parr's note. Your snipping is bizarre
and a sort of desperation - since I was responding to quite another aspect
of things than your [and others] moto perpetuo here.
Phil
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1117244998....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sam Sloan
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>Chess One wrote:
>> O Larry, this is so true.
>
> The hell it is, Phil, and you and Parr both know it. Parr is talking
>through his hat (when he's not evading the subject altogether), Evans
>is talking through his hat, Laurie doesn't even understand what we are
>talking about, and you are swallowing it all hook, line, and sinker.
> Four dates, Phil, four dates, plus associated facts:
>
> Evans' article about Keres-Botvinnik: October 1996. Its mentions of
>Botvinnik's 1991 interview, or of Whyld's 1962 conversation with Keres:
>ZERO.
> My article about Keres-Botvinnik: May 1998. Its mentions of
>Botvinnik's interview, or of Whyld's conversation with Keres: ZERO.
> Krabb=E9's publication of Botvinnik: December 1999.
> Krabb=E9's publication of Whyld: June 2000.
> Evans' claim that in 1998 I should have known about Whyld's and
>Botvinnik's statements: September 2001.
>
> I don't know what "so true" means to you, Phil, but where I come from
>it generally corresponds to "empirically verifiable." Right now the
>facts are not bearing you out.
>
Nobody cares about your chronolgy. You are the only person who cares
about that.
We only care about whether Keres threw the games to Botvinnik, not
about who knew what and when did he know it.
Sam Sloan
parrt...@cs.com
"Nobody cares about your chronolgy. You are the only person who cares
about that. We only care about whether Keres threw the games to
Botvinnik, not about who knew what and when did he know it." Sam Sloan
to Taylor Kingston
That sums it all up. It''s been great fun, guys, but I really have
nothing further to conrribute to this thread except to wrap up some
loose ends.
KINGSTON'S INTELLECTUAL PUSS
Mr. Kingston is showing the wounds of our past encounters. He may
insist that his huffing and puffing is not the festering of
intellectual puss, but he won't sound too convincing.
I called the discrete dates silly, as Mr. Kingston well knows,
because they were not the point of his questions. The point was the
deductions to be drawn from the dates, and I chose to address them. As
for chronology, I handsomely stipulated that he could fill in the
blanks with whatever dates he chose and I would agree for the sake of
argument. He dishonestly represented my point about dates to suggest a
disregard for rigor in history. Once again: I was addressing the
evident points that he wished to have addressed.
Mr. Kingston does not like my answers. Sorry about that.
Now.he wishes to change the subject from what he OUGHT to have
done when pursuing his Keres-Botvinnik cottage industry to when Ken
Whyld, for example, published his earlier verbal representations to
people. He wants to talk about when Pam-Sosonko first appeared in
English rather than to discuss why he was not on the blower with people
in-the-know before going to press with his review of the evidence.
This whole business came up about at another site -- I can't
remember which. GM Genna Sosonko phoned me a number of times from
Amsterdam regarding his book "Russian Silhouettes." I believe those
calls were in June or July 2001, and I asked him whether he recollected
our talk about Botvinnik in New York and he did. I was not exactly
anticipating the current brouhaha, but I admit to regarding my question
at the time as a future intellectual insurance policy.
I would suggest to Mr. Kingston that he contact GM Sosonko. Thanks
to our phone conversations in 2001, I hope and believe it will be the
same as mine. Presumably, there will be some international phone bills
to substantiate the existence of such calls, if it finally comes to
that.
I can only testify that GM Evans' talks with Ken Whyld in London
were chummy. The single point that Taylor Kingston makes with any
weight is why GM Evans did not bring it up in his 1996 article THE
TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES..
First, GM Evans was concerned with the games, and some of the other
points he made were important, especially, say, the Bogatyrchuk story
to depict the atmosphere of the times. Secondly, GM Evans may have
felt constrained by the very fact that Ken Whyld had not yet raised the
issue in print. I was given stories in the past and agreed not to
write about them. That's normal enough for all writers. The moment you
break confidence, that's when you get cut off.
Still, I am not speaking for GM Evans here. He may have had other
concerns. One wild possibility is that Mr. Kingston ask him, though I
suspect he will get the back of the hand from someone he has called
grossly, amazingly dishonest.
Over and out.
Chess One
I don't know about that 'we'. Certainly this dispute has had nothing much to
do with Keres/Botvinnik, but with Kingston/Evans&Parr, and this is still of
evident interest to Kingston/Evans&Parr.
What 'we' might want to know about Keres/Botvinnik, and why we want to know
it, is unexplored territory.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
Chess One wrote:
> Taylor - if you snip people's posts of their context you will get a bad
> reputation, and ignored by the big boppers, and wind up with only the
> adoring hysterian. B. Erie :(
There are several major ironies here, but I will comment on only one.
Does Phil Innes consider Neil Brennen's approbation worthless, but
Goran Tomic's worthy?
> I don't care anything about your spat with Evans - if you think your stuff
> here proves anything about Keres/Botvinnik, or even suggests anything worth
> pursuit, you have buried your sense in a heap of words.
My "spat" with Evans proves nothing about Keres/Botvinnik, quite
true. I never said it did. It proves something about Evans and Parr,
i.e. that they lie. More specifically, that they lie about me, though I
am hardly the only one.
If you consider this permissible, you are entitled to your opinion.
We'll see if your opinion changes in the event they ever lie about you.
Well, today is the first sunny day here since I don't know when --
one of those perfect Vermont "let us rejoice and be glad in it" kind of
days. I am going to forget about newsgroup squabbles for a while, and
work in and enjoy my garden. Fischer once said chess was better than
sex. Believe me, gardening is better than chess.
Taylor "Green Thumb" Kingston
Mark Houlsby
about that.
Well, you're not often right, and you're wrong AGAIN.
I CARE. If you call people "liar" when they're nothing of the sort,
then they tend to care when your allies and you do it to *someone
else*. Taylor pointed out to you that you had been caught red-handed in
calling me a liar (I changed your words, but not the meaning of what
you wrote).
>We only care about whether Keres threw the games to Botvinnik, not
about who knew what and when did he know it.
Keres *never* threw any games. Ever. I know that this must be a concept
new to you, but just *examine the evidence*, as, for example, GM Dr.
John Nunn has.
What we *can* say about Keres is that he *was* under severe pressure
from powerful people in the Soviet hierarchy. This pressure caused him
to play the occasional blunder, which was a shame.
Mark Houlsby
The Historian
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > Taylor - if you snip people's posts of their context you will get a bad
> > reputation, and ignored by the big boppers, and wind up with only the
> > adoring hysterian. B. Erie :(
>
> There are several major ironies here, but I will comment on only one.
> Does Phil Innes consider Neil Brennen's approbation worthless, but
> Goran Tomic's worthy?
Gee, am I this "B. Erie" Philth has been posting about? Jealousy is
treatable now, Philth, even in Vermont.