The Devil's Disciple
parrt...@cs.com
"I didn't want to spend three months of my life watching Soviets throw
games to each other." -- GM Reuben Fine explaining to Larry Evans why
he declined his invitation to the 1948 World Championship held in
Holland and the USSR.
It's well known by anyone who followed these threads that Edward
Winter and his disciple Taylor Kingston are sworn enemies of GM Larry
Evans. To ignore questions about whether he ever used bogus screen
names to praise his own arguments or his offer to shovel dirt about
political opponents to Rev. Walker, NMnot Kingston has seized upon
the phrase that "most scholars" agree with GM Evans' theory that Keres
was forced to throw games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World
Championship.
If Mr. Kingston wishes to dredge up this topic again and play the
numbers game, let him cite the scholars who disagree with GM Evans.
Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.
First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history, as
opposed to an antiquarian (for the distinction, consult Herbert
Butterfield's "Man on His Past") if by scholar one means a person who
has written histories or memoirs about the game. Winter has done
neither. He has produced a book of annotated documents on Capablanca
and compendia of Q&A plus some essays that were not very good. The man
writes in turgid, mannered Victorianese -- an easy style to emulate.
Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess, who have
supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene, whose Illustrated
History of Chess is more ambitious on the subject than anything done
by Winter. My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
position, and his work in terms of understanding and style is in the
major leagues when compared with a Winter.
The book on the 1948 World Championship by arbiter Harry Golombek also
strongly implies that Keres threw games. This writer, who has
attempted history and won several awards such as the 1996 Book of the
Year with Arnold Denker, has no doubt that GM Evans is correct.
Charges about the fix have been around ever since 1948 but 5-time U.S.
Champion Evans was the first to deconstruct all Keres-Botvinnik games
(without help from computers in 1996) documenting suspicious moves.
Indeed, NMnot Taylor Kingston, were he a scholar of chess history,
could be included as one who ended up agreeing with GM Evans ("the
Commies did it") though it took the slowish lad a mite long to come
around.
I have not clicked as yet the Winter reference provided by NMnot
Kingston, but if it is the scurrilous and dishonest article attacking
GM Evans in 2001, then perhaps it's time to repost several of my long
essays refuting that article where I noted how Winter doctored
"evidence." The technique was interesting, and I exposed it.
WE NOTE THAT NMNOT KINGSTON still has not answered whether he posted
under other names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF. He claimed that practice, by
the way, as an example of his having "standards." Yes, really he did.
NAILING ANOTHER KINGSTON LIE
In a reply to Kingston's "confidential" letter, playwright Richard
Laurie noted: "Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you
are not aware of the battle between Evans and Winter. I am troubled
because I have known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in
preparing his rebuttal to Mr.Winter's remarks as printed in Chess
Life, October 2001. Further, it is my understanding and has been for
months, that you told Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please
clear up this seeming
contradiction." -- Richard Laurie
This topic was rehashed here long ago, as demonstrated by my posting
of 2/18/02.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: parrthe...@cs.com (Parrthenon)
Date: 18 Feb 2002 16:40:20 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 8:40 am
Subject: Keres-Botvinnik 1948
KERES-BOTVINNIK
TWO SMOKING GUNS
By Larry Parr
<<Evans concludes: "The truth about Botvinnik and Keres may never be
known, but until a smoking gun is found in KGB files, I firmly believe
the games
themselves contain the best evidence of a fix.">> -- Quoted by Larry
Tapper
<<Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on
Keres
seems willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor
Kingston
CASE CLOSED!?
While in London for the Kasparov-Kramnik title match in 2000, GM Evans
told
me that he asked GM Yuri Averbach, who lived through the Soviet era,
if he was
going to shed any new light on the Keres-Botvinnik controversy in his
memoirs.
Averbach said he had nothing new to offer.
In his Further Review of the Evidence at ChessCafe, Mr. Kingston
mentioned
two smoking guns (also cited by GM Evans in Chess Life) that erased
his
lingering doubts about whether Keres was coerced. Here are a few
pertinent
excerpts:
1. Briton Ken Whyld, co-author of The Oxford Companion to Chess, is
another
highly respected chess historian. His contribution to this discussion
is best
expressed in his own words: "Keres told me in private, when he was my
guest in
Nottingham, that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik,
and was
not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that
if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault
of Keres."
This constitutes, I believe, an important corroboration of Cafferty's
thesis,
perhaps even a long-sought "smoking gun." The Krabbé Diary was its
first
publication. That Whyld would keep it secret for nearly 38 years
puzzled me. In
another e-mail dated 11 August 2001 he clarified, and hedged
somewhat:
"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."
Mr. Whyld is becomingly modest, and a skeptic might focus on the doubt
of that
last sentence, but I am inclined to take the story at face value.
2. A few months before Whyld's revelation, another relevant item
appeared on
Krabbé's site. Item #42, posted 10 December 1999, describes an
interview
with Botvinnik, by Dutch journalist Max Pam with émigré GM Genna
Sosonko
translating. Pam apparently did not realize the significance of what
he had,
for he did not publicize it widely to the chess world. Instead, the
interview
appeared only in the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland (20 August 1991),
a
general-interest weekly not devoted to chess. It attracted little
attention
until Krabbé translated a portion into English and put it on his site
over 8
years later.
In the key passage, Botvinnik was asked if he had ever known of
collusion
between Soviet players. His reply:
"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 world champion." (Note: strictly speaking, Holland was venue for
the
first 2/5 of the tournament, not "the first half."
After two laps, eight rounds, when the contestants had played each
other twice, the score stood Botvinnik 6, Reshevsky 4½, Keres and
Smyslov 4, Euwe 1½.)
"During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. At a
very high
level, it was proposed that the other Soviet players [i.e. Keres and
Smyslov]
would lose to me on purpose, in order to make sure there was going to
be a
Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally who proposed
this." (emphasis
added)
Amazing! For the first time, Botvinnik publicly states the existence
of a
conspiracy, with orders from the very top, none other than Stalin
himself.
Obviously, we have here the long-sought smoking gun.
Or do we? The rest of Botvinnik's statement clouds the picture: "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."
Bizarre. The fix proposal was intended to insult him, and perhaps to
help
Keres? Nonsensical, as Krabbé notes. Botvinnik had something of a
persecution
complex, and it seems to be badly skewing his interpretation of events
here.
And what of the claim that he refused? Not his only such; see for
example
Achieving the Aim, p. 43, where he rejects Krylenko's suggestion that
Rabinovitch throw him a game in 1935. But the two incidents are not
entirely
comparable. Rejecting a suggestion by Krylenko is perhaps conceivable,
but
refusing orders from Stalin himself? Hard to believe. In most areas of
policy
Stalin was no more flexible than Hitler, and at least as brutal. Was
chess so
different, or Botvinnik so privileged?
So do we accept Botvinnik 100%? Do we dismiss it all as the grousings
of a
grumpy paranoid octogenarian, or pick and choose what to believe? I
prefer to
avoid speculation on each detail. Clearly it is at very least another
confirmation of the basic thesis of official pro-Botvinnik pressure.
Coupled
with Whyld's testimony, it shows, at a minimum, that there was an
officially
desired outcome, and both Keres and Botvinnik knew what it was.
There is another argument for at least partial acceptance. Botvinnik
's admission of a fix order is so different, so at odds with
everything he and Soviet officialdom have said before, that it is very
hard to explain unless it were a fact.
TAYLOR KINGSTON'S REPLY WHERE HE POSED AS XYLOTHIST (among a host of
other pseudonyms):
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: xyloth...@aol.com (Xylothist)
Date: 18 Feb 2002 19:48:03 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 11:48 am
Subject: Re: Politicising History in Chess Life and ChessCafe
"Such are the standards of those holding forth on the censored
ChessCafe
bulletin board." - Larry Parr.
Larry Parr talking of "standards" is like Bill Clinton lecturing on
marital
fidelity. He disparages others' education, yet he allows himself
double
standards a college freshman could see through, and repeatedly
violates
standards of civil discourse by resorting to personal insult. To
enumerate:
1. He complains that "Xylothist" is a pseudonym. This is rich coming
from
"Wmiketwo," under which alias Parr has made postings praising himself
while
insulting others on this forum. [This is a lie. I never posted under
any bogus screen names and offered a lie detector challenge for big
bucks declined by Mr. Kingston.]
2. Parr claims Taylor Kingston made the "silly" statement that "no one
dared to
defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp." I responded
by saying
Kingston had not said this, but showed that Parr himself had said
something
very like that. Parr complains that was taken out of context. Yet
when
challenged to present the Kingston quote he refers to, Parr presented
a passage
that, in context, clearly applies specifically to Botvinnik, and
cannot
reasonably be construed to include Kapitsa or others. It is Parr who
uses the
absolute terms "no one" and "any person," not Kingston.
Parr wants it both ways. He complains about "context," yet he ignores
the
context of the Kingston quote, fabricating a whole new meaning for it.
He
invokes Stalin's severity to support his own belief (documented on
this
newsgroup) that Botvinnik did not defy Stalin, yet he wants to label
Kingston
"silly" because Kingston wonders if Botvinnik had the wherewithal to
defy Stalin.
Kingston finds it "hard to believe" that Botvinnik might have defied
Stalin,
and Parr says "Botvinnik ... had everything to gain by complying and
everything
to lose by not complying" with Stalin. Yet according to Parr, Kingston
is being
"silly" while Parr is showing superior knowledge, education and
intellect. Wow.
3. Parr insults my educational level, about which he knows nothing,
and refers
to Kingston (and many others) by the charming term "ratpacker." Ad
hominem
attacks, unfounded gratuitous insults, and juvenile epithets - this is
rhetoric at its best!
The bizarre thing is that, as far as I can tell, Parr and Kingston
both hold
a very negative view of Stalin, yet Parr is not content - even where
someone
agrees with him, Parr must prove that Parr is superior, even if it
means
fabricating differences.
What drives Parr to these extremes of petty demagoguery I cannot
imagine. In
any event, they merit no further response.
parrt...@cs.com
"I valued Edward Winter's diligent work and subscribed to his Chess
Notes until it went out of business in 1989. I was grateful to him for
pointing out an embarrassing error in my book The World Of Chess
(where I missed the location of Cambridge
Springs only by the width of the Atlantic Ocean). We corresponded for
several years. However, when I had the audacity to correct one of his
errors in translating a Spanish phrase, his huffy reply indicated that
he was alien to the concept of receiving constructive criticism. I
stopped writing after this incident."
samsloan
Keene and has been attacking him incessantly since the late 1970s.
In the last decade or so Winter has added other names to his list of
people he attacks all the time. These include especially Larry Evans,
Eric Schiller and most recently Sam Sloan.
(I am honored to have my name added to such a distinguished list.)
I have put quotation marks around the name "Edward Winter" because
nobody knows who he is. Nobody has ever seen him. Detectives have even
staked out around the house in Switzerland where he supposedly
receives his mail and nobody has been able to find him there.
Taylor Kingston shares some remarkable similarities with Edward
Winter. Both are English. Both have the same enemies list. This has
led me to wonder that they might even be the same person.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
>
> KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Nope, Larry, just stating facts. I must say, however, I do enjoy the
ironic spectacle of you complaining about an alleged "smear campaign."
Rather like Mike Tyson complaining about ear-biting. I will ignore
your usual assortment of slurs, red herrings and fabrications and
stick to the point.
>
> If Mr. Kingston wishes to dredge up this topic again and play the
> numbers game, let him cite the scholars who disagree with GM Evans.
False dichotomy, Larry. The plain fact is that scholars have
virtually *_ignored_* Evans's article. It's not that some agree and
some disagree - it's that they are entirely indifferent to it. And
with good reason. The article is not the least bit scholarly - its
citing of James Schroeder is by itself enough to disqualify it - and
overall it just does a real lousy job of supporting Evans' thesis.
Therefore scholars won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
It is you who have made the claim that "most scholars" consider it
"seminal," "groundbreaking" etc. It's entirely up to *_you_* to
produce references to that effect
> Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.
Straw man, Larry. The question is not agreement or disagreement with
Evans' *_conclusion_*. A blind idiot flipping a coin has a 50/50
chance of being right on the question of coercion at Hague-Moscow 1948
- it's basically a yes/no proposition. The question is whether Evans
did a good job of *_supporting_* his conclusion. He did not, and
scholars who have read the article know it.
Evans's main technique was closer to the reading of animal entrails.
To buttress this he skimmed through a small part of the relevant
literature and chose quotes that supported his foregone conclusion,
never dealing with sources that contradicted him.
> First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history
Translation: Winter has nailed historical errors by Evans so many
times that Parr can only try to redefine him out of existence.
> Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess,
> who have supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene
Ray Keene is a scholar while Winter is not?? Riiiight ... and the
Monkees were a better band than the Beatles.
> My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
> position,
Please cite a reference in which Saidy praised the Evans
*_article_*. BTW, I contacted Saidy during my research circa 1997-98
and he refused to go on the record with any opinion on the Keres
matter.
> Harry Golombek also strongly implies that Keres threw games.
In view of the fact that Golombek died on January 7, 1995, while the
Evans article appeared in October 1996, I rather doubt that he ever
expressed any opinion on the article.
Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article is
a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time.
Interested readers can find my critiques of the Evans article here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
artichoke
My interpretation of the story about Stalin and Botvinnik is:
1. The first half (2/5) of the tournament was left alone, to see which
USSR player was strongest. Botvinnik won that race convincingly. At
the end, it was not entirely clear (absent Soviet collusion) that he
would win the tournament because the US player Reshevsky was not far
behind.
2. Then I find it entirely plausible that Stalin "selected" Botvinnik
as the Soviet "champion" and ordered all Soviet players to support his
victory, while striving to kneecap foreigners such as Reshevsky.
3. I also find it plausible that Botvinnik did not want to participate
in the scam and honorably declined. However I doubt this made any
difference to Stalin, who wanted a Soviet winner and clearly no other
one could be counted on to win; they were all behind Reshevsky. So
the orders to the other Soviets remained the same. It isn't Botvinnik
who threatened them, it was Stalin.
4. One cannot dismiss totally the possibility that Botvinnik invented
the story, knowing it was believable. Botvinnik's story can't be
proved with the given evidence. But all the chessplayers are little
pawns to a guy like Stalin, and I would expect him to orchestrate a
Soviet winner in exactly this way. So I believe the story as given
above.
5. So Botvinnik was ordered to win and the other Soviets were ordered
to lose to him, and they _all_ had to be afraid of Stalin.
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1194706965....@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 10, 4:02 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>>
>> KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN
>
> Nope, Larry, just stating facts. I must say, however, I do enjoy the
> ironic spectacle of you complaining about an alleged "smear campaign."
It is simply extraordinary that Taylor Kingston is going to contest this
issue - his source appears to be a cataloger of chess datum, who is a very
modest player, and in the face of some of the strongest players in the
world - who were around at the time!
Although I have a terrible feeling that I will not be able to identify from
Kingston's pen exactly what the issue is [lets see at the end of this post]
...
...by all means! Let the Facts begin!
> Rather like Mike Tyson complaining about ear-biting. I will ignore
> your usual assortment of slurs, red herrings and fabrications and
> stick to the point.
Not a good start with that Mike Tyson analogy, but, at least it wasn't
Stalin. But back to the point... the facts...
>>
>> If Mr. Kingston wishes to dredge up this topic again and play the
>> numbers game, let him cite the scholars who disagree with GM Evans.
>
> False dichotomy, Larry. The plain fact is that scholars have
> virtually *_ignored_* Evans's article. It's not that some agree and
> some disagree - it's that they are entirely indifferent to it.
Ah! These 'scholars' are people who are presumed expert, yet, we are to
understand, they are far from refuting any points made by Evans, since they
haven't even read him.
> And
> with good reason. The article is not the least bit scholarly - its
> citing of James Schroeder is by itself enough to disqualify it - and
> overall it just does a real lousy job of supporting Evans' thesis.
So these as yet unnamed scholars are not even reacting to what a character
called Schroeder said, but his name. And otherwise 'it' does support Evans,
not well enough for [shall we presume them real?] scholars.
Just a process point: at top I said I would be struggling to determine what
any context was - what is being argued here - and so far it is not Keres
Botvinnik, but a review of the cast of commentators including one Schroeder,
plus the 'scholars'.
> Therefore scholars won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
> It is you who have made the claim that "most scholars" consider it
> "seminal," "groundbreaking" etc. It's entirely up to *_you_* to
> produce references to that effect
Quite apart from the logical fallacy inherent in the formation of that
proposition, unfortunately itis not a sentence since it lacks a subject: to
wit: prove to /whom/?
To as yet unnamed scholars?
The logic implied in the process is that the scholars would agree on the
basis of any proof, and indeed, are capable of understanding a proof, and
thirdly, that the scholars to be presented, actually exist.
>> Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.
>
> Straw man, Larry. The question is not agreement or disagreement with
> Evans' *_conclusion_*.
Ah! The contention is not about the conclusion.
> A blind idiot flipping a coin has a 50/50
> chance of being right on the question of coercion at Hague-Moscow 1948
Oops! Another logical fallacy. Since it argues statistically that the result
of a sequenced conclusion is chance.
> - it's basically a yes/no proposition. The question is whether Evans
> did a good job of *_supporting_* his conclusion.
There is at least a direct statement, albeit, without qualifying what
supporting entails.
> He did not, and
> scholars who have read the article know it.
Though apparently they are as unable to say what they know about it? To wit:
what qualifies support, in their opionion?
> Evans's main technique was closer to the reading of animal entrails.
I know that FIDE hires a chiropractor instead of a neuroscientist to
determine mind-drugs, but can Taylor Kingston's experts be voodoo dudes -
the Shamnistic lodge of Greater Burlington, proud members of the chamber of
commerce?
I suppose the writer means to address 'what proper techniqueis', in his
opinion, or in the Shamans' opinion.
> To buttress this he skimmed through a small part of the relevant
> literature and chose quotes that supported his foregone conclusion,
This criticism states that the Evans opinion was prescriptive to a result.
What evidence is there of this in his writing except for dealing with
'sources' of another view? i.e., who are the other sources and what do they
have to say for themselves?
> never dealing with sources that contradicted him.
>
>> First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history
>
> Translation: Winter has nailed historical errors by Evans so many
> times that Parr can only try to redefine him out of existence.
>
>> Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess,
>> who have supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene
>
> Ray Keene is a scholar while Winter is not?? Riiiight ... and the
> Monkees were a better band than the Beatles.
How interesting! I really don't think Winter could sit down and actually
beat the player in question, do you? But Keene beat Botvinnik. The Monkey,
methinks, is on the other foot. I presume that Keene could also supplement
his opinion of what he reads by the very natural process of also
understanding it, from high level play.
If the issue is, which of Winter or Keene could better detect high level
weak moves, which is the expert and which in Taylor Kingston's term, is the
monkey?
>> My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
>> position,
>
> Please cite a reference in which Saidy praised the Evans
> *_article_*. BTW, I contacted Saidy during my research circa 1997-98
> and he refused to go on the record with any opinion on the Keres
> matter.
>
>> Harry Golombek also strongly implies that Keres threw games.
>
> In view of the fact that Golombek died on January 7, 1995, while the
> Evans article appeared in October 1996, I rather doubt that he ever
> expressed any opinion on the article.
The senetnece responded to above says what real scholars do - that is,
people competent to comprehend what they are investigating, put thier
attention to the source, which is Keres Botvinnik. This is what Larry Parr
says Golombek did.
> Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article is
> a travesty of historiograhy.
O good.
> That's why it has been ignored by
> scholars. It's just not worth their time.
> Interested readers can find my critiques of the Evans article here:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
Okay - at the top I wrote that I feared the very subject matter would remain
unclear despite the initial declaration of facts, just the facts!~
At the end I see that this is not a scholarly refutation of Evans comments
on Keres Botvinnik, since it entirely ignores the subject matter, Keres
Botvinnik.
ROFL.
I feared Larry Parr would be so slaughtered by Taylor Kingston's reply that
he would crack a rib laughing, and have to swear off the newsgroup for a
month unless he cracked another one. Then I could come in with what Russians
themselves actually say about the issue, and begine to cite from Bronstein,
Taimanov, Roschal, Gulko, Khalifman, and so on, to the 'scholars' who ...
if they exist
... who won't /care/ to look.
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
>
> I feared Larry Parr would be so slaughtered by Taylor Kingston's reply that
> he would crack a rib laughing, and have to swear off the newsgroup for a
> month unless he cracked another one. Then I could come in with what Russians
> themselves actually say about the issue, and begine to cite from Bronstein,
> Taimanov, Roschal, Gulko, Khalifman, and so on, to the 'scholars' who ...
>
> if they exist
>
> ... who won't /care/ to look.
>
> Phil Innes
>
Dear Mr. Innes,
I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
English.
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Taylor Kingston
>
> Dear Mr. Innes,
>
> I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
> what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
> you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
> English.
> --
>
> Cheers,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
Rev. Walker, in this matter the two most relevant GMs are Keres and
Botvinnik themselves, and you can read what I consider to be their
most relevant comments here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
Look under the headings "Keres and Whyld" and "The Botvinnik
Interview."
Neither Evans nor I was aware of these statements when our
respective articles on the Keres case appeared (10/1996 for Evans,
5/1998 for mine). The Botvinnik interview took place in 1991, but was
published only in a Dutch weekly magazine not devoted to chess, and so
remained obscure until it was translated to English and posted on Tim
Krabbé's web-site in December 1999.
I had been alerted to the possibility by Bernard Cafferty in (as I
recall) 1999, that a friend of his, whom I suspected was Ken Whyld,
knew something important, but Cafferty did not go into specifics at
that time. The Whyld statement did not appear until June 2000, again
on Krabbé's web-site. Knowing my interest in Keres, Krabbé notified me
as soon as he had posted them. Whyld and I later discussed his
encounter with Keres at greater length by e-mail.
It was these statements by Botvinnik and Whyld, more than anything
else, and not any of Evans' arguments or "evidence," that inclined me
to believe that at least indirect pressure, in effect at least
tantamount to coercion, had been applied to Keres, and prompted me to
write the article in the above link. Various Russian and/or Soviet GMs
may know various things and have various opinions, and should by all
means be heard, but it seems unlikely that anything they might say
will carry more weight than the testimony of the two principals.
Since the events in question occurred nearly 60 years ago, very few
people are still around with anything like first-hand knowledge. Of
the Hague-Moscow contestants, Smyslov is the lone survivor. I am not
aware that he has ever made any statement supporting the coercion
thesis. I do know that when GM David Bronstein wrote an article
claiming tampering at the 1953 Candidates Tournament (which Smyslov
won), Smyslov took great umbrage. Another Soviet GM of the period,
Yuri Averbakh, is on record as saying coercion did not occur. So even
Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
conflicting views.
J.D. Walker
> On Nov 10, 12:13 pm, "J.D. Walker" <j.d.wal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Innes,
>>
>> I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
>> what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
>> you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
>> English.
<snip>
>
> Rev. Walker, in this matter the two most relevant GMs are Keres and
> Botvinnik themselves, and you can read what I consider to be their
> most relevant comments here:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
>
Thank you for the link. I gave it a quick read. I am not a scholar,
just a common everyday consumer of chess information. Part of the
audience that reads articles such as those by Mr. Parr and yourself. So
the disclaimer: my opinions on this matter have less weight than either
of yours. Even so, curiosity tends to lead me where angels fear to
tread... :^)
><snip>
>
> Various Russian and/or Soviet GMs
> may know various things and have various opinions, and should by all
> means be heard, but it seems unlikely that anything they might say
> will carry more weight than the testimony of the two principals.
>
My instincts suggest to me that in cases of heavily oppressive
environments that people closest to the coercion may be the last to
admit the truth due to ingrained fear. If this applies here, then I
would look for more information from people close to the events, but not
too close! And, the proximity should be measured in both time and space.
<snip>
>
> So even
> Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
> conflicting views.
>
That is not surprising. I am curious though. Did Reshevsky ever
comment on it? He surely was an interested party. Other people I would
be curious about are Korchnoi, Karpov, and Kasparov.
Korchnoi because he has been around a long time and now has the freedom
of some temporal distance from the Soviet phenomena.
The other two may have insights simply because of their former proximity
to the Soviet chess bureaucracy.
It is an interesting incident. If anyone has information from other
Russian/Soviet GMs, I would like know.
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
Taylor Kingston
A very good point, and in this case all the more reason to accept
Botvinnik's and Keres' statements, since they _were_ among the
closest. I suppose in Keres' case one might argue he was trying to
excuse his failure, but I find it very hard to imagine why Botvinnik
would have said what he did about "orders from Stalin" unless it
actually happened.
> If this applies here, then I
> would look for more information from people close to the events, but not
> too close! And, the proximity should be measured in both time and space.
>
> <snip>
> >> So even
> > Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
> > conflicting views.
>
> That is not surprising. I am curious though. Did Reshevsky ever
> comment on it? He surely was an interested party.
I believe so, though I can't give you a relevant example off the top
of my head. If you read about Bronstein's allegations here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles171.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles173.pdf
you will see that Reshevsky was definitely targeted by the Soviets in
1953.
> Other people I would
> be curious about are Korchnoi, Karpov, and Kasparov.
>
> Korchnoi because he has been around a long time and now has the freedom
> of some temporal distance from the Soviet phenomena.
Korchnoi has definitely been the target of much Soviet machination,
especially in his matches with Karpov, but he is not always a good
source about other people, or even about his own situation. As Bernard
Hepton said in Smiley's People, "He thinks the butterflies are spying
on him." He sees almost everything in conspiratorial terms, with or
without evidence. Sometimes he's right, sometimes not.
> The other two may have insights simply because of their former proximity
> to the Soviet chess bureaucracy.
The second part of my first article (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/
kb2.txt) mentions something Karpov told a journalist, Bernd Nielsen-
Stokkeby, about Botvinnik trying to get Keres arrested. The journalist
could find no evidence for Karpov's claim.
Kasparov discusses the question of coercion on Keres in the second
volume of his "My Great Predecessors" series, but his handling of the
subject is surprisingly sketchy and unsatisfying, as I noted in my
review of the book, here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review413.pdf
So unless they have some secret information they have yet not
revealed, I don't look to Karpov or Kasparov to contribute much to
this historical issue.
Ian Burton
forum. How do we know Mr Parr has the right to speak for him?
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1194685330.6...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Chess One
"J.D. Walker" <j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YOmdnWr0eLUHe6ja...@comcast.com...
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> I feared Larry Parr would be so slaughtered by Taylor Kingston's reply
>> that he would crack a rib laughing, and have to swear off the newsgroup
>> for a month unless he cracked another one. Then I could come in with what
>> Russians themselves actually say about the issue, and begine to cite from
>> Bronstein, Taimanov, Roschal, Gulko, Khalifman, and so on, to the
>> 'scholars' who ...
>>
>> if they exist
>>
>> ... who won't /care/ to look.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Dear Mr. Innes,
>
> I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know what
> the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If you have
> the time, the inclination and their comments are available in English.
I do have them, and your curiosity credits you as normally intelligent. They
are not in the slightest bit strange to normal investigative intelligence,
and what is raised here, is by those people who are otherwise.
It is their contention, that while they might do their own research, by
reading on the subject they espouse, or even after direct inquiry
[references provided to them], Soviet 'fixing' does not exist.
Instead of asking me after entirely normative reports on this subject -by
scholars - how come you do not ask those who have, rightly or wrongly,
obtained a deviant understanding? To report what is normal to those who
cannot declare it as such, is a great task. You will note in the Kingston
communication in response to Larry Parr he was unable to name his nouns -
which is to say, some coteries of expertise exists in his opinion, and I ask
who they are and what they think, and what this is to him?
He is unlikely able to make an acuitous response.
Otherwise this course of study is far too high for Soviet-Chess 101, indeed,
those who do not do their homework will never attain the master's class in a
way enabling them to even understand its precepts.
Phil Innes
Chess One
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
**Really? If the principals are complicit, then are they not //likely//
compromised?
**And the very first time to wrote to me was on this subject - looking for
material to refute Laurie - and I informed you that very serious Russian
opinion thinks as Laurie and Evans do. That you chose to ignore this, even
knowing subsequently that your future interviewee was thought to - to put
it politiely - to gloss the issue, and less politely - to lie, and that you
were provided with the sources of those who thought so - but in your own
words, 'could not think of any questions to ask them', is merely infamous!
That is not scholarly!
**Why you expose yourself to such suppositional material as above without
any contextual understanding is your own business - but it is not chess
history. It was some form of opportunism to do with your contacts. It is
insensible.
Since the events in question occurred nearly 60 years ago, very few
people are still around with anything like first-hand knowledge.
**And the few that are, were identified to you, and you declined my
introcuction to speak with them!
Of
the Hague-Moscow contestants, Smyslov is the lone survivor. I am not
aware that he has ever made any statement supporting the coercion
thesis. I do know that when GM David Bronstein wrote an article
claiming tampering at the 1953 Candidates Tournament (which Smyslov
won), Smyslov took great umbrage.
**Yes he did, but do you know that Roschal invited that commentary by
Bronstein, since he too knew what was what. It is generally considered that
Bronstein's indifference to 'fixing' is unimpeachable. You want to accuse
him too?
Another Soviet GM of the period,
Yuri Averbakh, is on record as saying coercion did not occur.
**Is this not the gentleman that I suggested to you may not be telling the
truth, by way of 2 Russian sources? Did he tell the truth about his
anti-semitic activities on behalf of the KGB? Have you still not read
Gulko's testimony?
So even
Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
conflicting views.
**You should not write on subjects where you understand so very little, and
you should protest not at all when serious testimony is offered - especially
since you seem to prefer not to notice that. Above all, you should not
contest any issues with people who have first hand experience of it, which
is what you have done, and cannot admit their worth, compared with your,
what? A California orientation to 'on record' which is a sound-bite from the
active agent of suppression of chess players in Russia, and not asking him a
tough question about 'his record'?
pfft! Parr is right. You rather admire the Devil, no?
Phil Innes
parrt...@cs.com
BOTVINNIK AND KERES (Cont.)
GM Raymond Keene
London, England
Q. Last May a reader cited Harry Golombek's WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP
1948. It was reissued in 2002 as part of a series of classic chess
books (www.hardingesimpole.co.uk) and I wrote the jacket blurb:
'The author of this book was on the spot throughout and at the very
epicentre of all the action. Here he annotates every game and follows
every nuance. An International Master and British Champion, Golombek
had a fluent knowledge of Russian and was alert to every key variation
and possibility. Here are all the games, annotated in detail, of an
historic and controversial event. Readers can make up their own minds
on the evidence -- was Botvinnik the dominating titan of his day or
was his triumph founded on the elimination of a dangerous rival and on
political favouritism extended by the most powerful man in the Soviet
Empire?
"Mikhail Botvinnik, disciple of Josef Stalin and iron man of Soviet
chess, seized the chess crown in 1948 in the 'famous five' Match
Tournament. This was held to settle the question of the World
Championship after reigning champion Alexander Alekhine had died in
possession of the title. 1948 ushered in a long period of control of
world chess by FIDE, the world chess federation, backed, in turn, by
the powerful chess federation of the USSR , the land where chess had
become the iconic national game. Botvinnik dominated the field, easily
outdistancing his main rivals Smyslov, Reshevsky and Keres, while the
hapless Dr. Max Euwe, former world champion, whose sudden and dramatic
descent from world class chess was made brutally apparent by this
event, was left trailing in last place, 6.5 points adrift of the
field.
Inspiration and controversy alike still surround the 1948 match
tournament. At a time when more than one player claims to be world
champion and rival organisations have their own champions, the
resolution brought about by the match tournament is often regarded as
the holy grail of world title definition. Yet critics also persist in
seeing this system as flawed. Why for example was the Polish
grandmaster Miguel Najdorf not invited when US Grandmaster Reuben Fine
dropped out? Was it because Najdorf had defeated Botvinnik in a recent
tournament? Worse, unsubstantiated rumours abound that Paul Keres, an
enthusiastic participant in Nazi-controlled competitions of the early
1940s, came under pressure to lose games in Moscow -- the very heart
of the Soviet Empire -- to Stalin's protégé Botvinnik."
Many people were liquidated or sent to gulags for doing far less than
Keres did during the war, and it would have been a catastrophe for him
if he had somehow stopped Botvinnik and Reshevsky triumphed. For what
it's worth my opinion is Keres did throw the first four games, but I
wonder if Botvinnik knew it.
A. What Golombek wrote was pretty damning -- he was incredulous about
some of Keres' moves -- but to directly accuse the Soviets of cheating
would have been professional suicide for him in those days. See THE
TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES where I pinpoint the suspicious moves (Chess
Life, October 1996).
One final point. At the 1952 Olympiad in Helsinki -- the first time
the USSR ever entered a squad -- Keres, Smyslov, Bronstein, Geller,
Boleslavsky and Kotov held a majority vote to exclude Botvinnik. It
was outrageous to oust the world champion from their team and
Botvinnik complained bitterly about this conspiracy. Did Keres, who
played board one, thus taste some revenge for 1948? Yet they later
enjoyed friendly relations.
Taylor Kingston
> EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, DECEMBER 2004 (page 42)
>
> BOTVINNIK AND KERES (Cont.)
>
> GM Raymond Keene
> London, England
>
> Q. Last May a reader cited Harry Golombek's WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP
> 1948. It was reissued in 2002 as part of a series of classic chess
> books (www.hardingesimpole.co.uk) and I wrote the jacket blurb:
>
> 'The author of this book was on the spot throughout and at the very
Another example of Parr's, Evans', and Keene's frequent factual
errors. As pointed out here:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter03.html
Golombek himself made very clear he did *_not_* go to Moscow in 1948
and therefore was *_not_* "on the spot throughout." To quote Chess
Notes #3482 in full:
Regarding Harry Golombek's book on the 1948 world championship match-
tournament in The Hague and Moscow, the following untrue statement is
quoted on page 42 of the December 2004 Chess Life:
'The author of this book was on the spot throughout and at the very
epicenter of all the action.'
In reality, Golombek was not present in Moscow at all, as he explained
in his introduction to the 1982 BCM edition of the book:
'The time came when the event moved off to Moscow. I endeavoured to
follow the big group of Dutch and Russian chess masters and officials
but was unable to gain a visa. [H.G. then gave further details.]
So I had to be content with studying the games of the Russian section
of the tournament in the Soviet bulletins. Fortunately, these were
very well annotated and there were also quite elaborate descriptions
of the playing hall and the various circumstances that attend a great
tournament.'
** end Chess Notes excerpt **
All we have here is another example of Keene's habitual
carelessness and failure to check the facts, said gaffe then being
eagerly accepted and quoted by Parr and Evans because it suits their
rhetorical purposes.
Chess One
> It is an interesting incident. If anyone has information from other
> Russian/Soviet GMs, I would like know.
Bronstein of course is published in Russian in the magazine"64". He directly
accused Smyslov.
To find material in English, you might consult the record here
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Taimanov.htm
I interviewed Taimanov, with the very able help of Dr. Bill Hyde. This reply
is rather different than others, since it indicates systemic corruption -
and the very high degree of politics associated with Soviet chess.
You might note his reference to his own visit to Liverpool, and who signed
the papers permitting him to go.
In terms of Zurich 53, he emphasises the point, referencing Bronstein's
comments about 'backstage maneuvers'.
And here are specifics: "at that time I did not know anything about it - as
we say in Russia, it was not accepted "to carry out the rubbish from the
izba" (Editor's note: an izba is a peasant's hut). All this was usually
done secretly. The most of what was demanded of me, for example, - was the
threat to not finish ahead of our leaders, (and most of all Smyslov), i.e.
to not aspire to win against them. And to play with special attention
versus our leader's chief competitors."
---
(((An aside, the very next question cites Larry Parr - and rather than duck
the question, as it may immediately seem, MT makes an indirect answer, and
refers to his own book, "I was Fischer's Victim" with its new chapter.
The book talk about playing Fischer but also his official treatment
afterwards.I am unsure the new material has been released in the West, in
English [and my own copy is in Russian]. I did have a copy of it sent to Ray
Keene in London, since Ray has stood up for an publicised the plight of
Refuseniks in Russia.
The new chapter is the KGB archive maintained on Taimanov.)))
--
What a pity this book is also not in English:
"Now more often correspondents are curious about my meetings with great
persons of the last century whom I had the good luck to meet. About
W.Churchill, N.Khrushchev, F.Castro, E.Che Guevara; and D.Shostakovich,
D.Ojstrah, M.Rostropovich; and M.Botvinnik, R.Fischer, T.Petrosian. I
retell all this in my (Russian language) book "Remembering the most -
most"."
---
There is a collation of about 4,000 downloadable Taimanov games at the tale
of the article, and one more thing! I also asked Mark if he would annotate a
lost game. And he chose his, with Fischer, game 3 - and that incredible
position!
In chatting about it with him I accused he and Fischer of creating the most
complex position in the entire C20th, and he replied that not even Kasparov
could solve it, nor any super computer, and not for 25 years...
Then he asked me a question: he said,
"What do you think was going through Fischer's mind in those 70 minutes?
Did he solve it?"
I sent that question to Fischer, but that's another story.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Chess One
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ORBZi.1812$Z01.1016@trndny01...
> --
>
> What a pity this book is also not in English:
>
> "Now more often correspondents are curious about my meetings with great
> persons of the last century whom I had the good luck to meet. About
> W.Churchill, N.Khrushchev, F.Castro, E.Che Guevara; and D.Shostakovich,
> D.Ojstrah, M.Rostropovich; and M.Botvinnik, R.Fischer, T.Petrosian. I
> retell all this in my (Russian language) book "Remembering the most -
> most"."
And what a pity that Larry Evans is also not in English on similar
subjects! - he has been toying for years with my requests for a fullsome
report of his own encounter with F.Castro, E.Che Guevara...
In fact, in the double-Phillips CD edition of Taimanov's music, there they
all are! Taimanov is playing Evans, and the unmistakable and iconic image of
the poster-child of the left in the 60s watching the game is Che.
I think it was at this time that Dr. Guevara joked that if he wasn't tempted
to go and start a new revolution in Bolivia or someplace, he would seriously
consider becoming a fulltime chess player.
I think Evans needs a good co-author to get this material out, and I
recommend to him, Denker's.
Phil Innes
Chess One
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194706513.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> It is very well known that "Edward Winter" is obsessed with Raymond
> Keene and has been attacking him incessantly since the late 1970s.
>
> In the last decade or so Winter has added other names to his list of
> people he attacks all the time. These include especially Larry Evans,
> Eric Schiller and most recently Sam Sloan.
>
> (I am honored to have my name added to such a distinguished list.)
>
> I have put quotation marks around the name "Edward Winter" because
> nobody knows who he is. Nobody has ever seen him.
Unlike the others mentioned, you are a *special* case Sam!
You frequently doubt the very existance of people, even those you have met,
and are otherwise well-known.
I think Winter is not unknown, and one of the principals of Ray Keene's
publisher went to school with him - and regularly played chess with him.
Winter is not a strong chess player.
> Detectives have even
> staked out around the house in Switzerland where he supposedly
> receives his mail and nobody has been able to find him there.
He is English not American, and some English people are not nearly so
forward as some Americans! I encountered him last making inquires of Adorjan
about another player not mentioned here. But that is private correspondence.
> Taylor Kingston shares some remarkable similarities with Edward
> Winter. Both are English. Both have the same enemies list. This has
> led me to wonder that they might even be the same person.
laugh - let me assure you that this is not so - well, 'assure' is a
nonsensical term to use in writing to you, since you want to put your own
fingers in the wounds, no?
I think that's okay, it has a precedent. But it doesn't mean that everyone
else is so er, kinesthetic.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
>
parrt...@cs.com
"When the war in Europe ended he [Keres] returned home, but not before
making a deal with the Soviet authorities. He would be 'forgiven' for
playing in German tournaments, i.e. collaborating with the enemy. In
return Keres promised not to interfere with Botvinnik's challenge to
Alekhine. In 1947, at his second attempt, Keres won the USSR
Championship (+10 =8 -1)." -- THE OXFORD COMPANION TO CHESS by Hooper
& Whyld (page 163, first edition 1984)
"Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic -- the Evans article
is a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time." -- Taylor Kingston on this
forum (11/10/07)
That's a far cry from what this gent wrote in his initial letter to
the editor of Chess Life after reading THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by GM
Larry Evans:
"Larry Evans' article The Tragedy of Pal Keres in your October 1996
issue was one of the best pieces of chess historical writing you've
ever run. Evans's analysis of games from the 1948 world championship
makes a strong case that Keres' failure, and Botvinnik's consequent
success, were the result of coercion by Soviet
authorities.
"There are still many unanswered questions, however. Evans states that
newly discovered once secret Soviet files shows that Keres was forced
to abandon his quest for the world title. Yet you printed only one
brief excerpt from these, an excerpt which did not prove Evans' case.
Is there a smoking gun, a document stating clearly that Keres was told
'lose or we will kill you'? Did this ban on winning the title apply
only to the 1948 tournamwent, or for all time? If the latter, it would
explain Keres' many second-place finishes in Candidates tournaments.
Pewrhaps most importantly, how much did Botvinnik know? It is almost
impossible to believe that he was merely an innocent beneficiary, that
Keres was coerced without Botvinnik's knowledge and consent.
"Between Evans' article and GM David Bronstein's recent book THE
SORCERER'S APPRENTICE, a new and extremely ugly picture of Botvinnik
is emerging, that of a cheat and hypocrite, who used his influence
with Soviet authorities and with FIDE to subvert competitors and set
himself up as a tin god of chess. CHESS LIFE should investigate
further and find out the facts. We could be on the verge of uncovering
one of the major scandals in chess history." -- Taylor Kingston,
Shelburne, VT
WHAT KINGSTON NOW IGNORES
The gent no longer bothers to deny that he wrote here under bogus
screen names such as Xylothist, pretending to be someone else IN ORDER
TO PRAISE HIS OWN ARGUMENTS.
The gent also fails to explain his cunning lie in a "confidential"
letter to playwright Richard Laurie that he was unaware of the dispute
between Winter and Evans when he was fully aware of this dispute and
had already sided with Winter.
That is low stuff, suggesting still worse things are possible from our
NMnot.
Yours, Larry Parr
Taylor Kingston
>
> "Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic -- the Evans article
> is a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
> scholars. It's just not worth their time." -- Taylor Kingston on this
> forum (11/10/07)
>
> That's a far cry from what this gent wrote in his initial letter to
> the editor of Chess Life after reading THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by GM
> Larry Evans:
>
> "Larry Evans' article The Tragedy of Pal Keres in your October 1996
> issue was one of the best pieces of chess historical writing you've
> ever run. Evans's analysis of games from the 1948 world championship
> makes a strong case that Keres' failure, and Botvinnik's consequent
> success, were the result of coercion by Soviet
> authorities.
>
Once I saw you start this thread, Larry, I knew it would be only a
matter of days before you trotted out that dead horse of a letter, to
flog it yet again. RGC veterans know that this is just one of your
standard dodges, but for those new to the group, let me (for the
unpteenth time) set the record straight, by quoting from Winter's "The
Facts About Larry Evans" ( http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html
), which in turn quotes me:
Page 60 of the Autumn 1999 Kingpin carried a brief reply from Evans.
Although, in reality, he replied to virtually nothing, he did dispute
Watson's description of Taylor Kingston as a critic of Evans' claims
(claims made, wrote Watson, without 'even a shred of actual evidence')
that Keres was forced to throw his games to Botvinnik in the 1948
world championship event. In his 'reply' Evans triumphantly quoted a
supportive letter from Kingston which had been published in his August
1997 Chess Life column. A devastating blow? Yes, but against Evans.
That became manifest when the Spring 2000 issue of Kingpin (page 64)
published this response from Taylor Kingston:
'I did indeed write the letter Evans quotes, but that was before I
researched and analyzed his article in detail. On deeper examination I
found his logic and evidence to be highly questionable. I made this
quite clear, both publicly in my article "Keres and Botvinnik: A
Survey of the Evidence" (CL 5/98) and privately in letters to Evans
himself. For Evans to say or even imply that I now support him, is
amazingly, grossly dishonest.'
'Amazingly, grossly dishonest.' Somehow such words keep coming back in
any discerning scrutiny of Evans' writings. In 2000 Yasser Seirawan
published on his Inside Chess website a strongly-worded open letter
'Enough is Enough' which called on the FIDE President to resign. In a
follow-up article (also on-line at Inside Chess) Seirawan reviewed the
reaction, including that of the 'long time rabid critic of FIDE, GM
Evans'. After pointing out how Evans had misrepresented his open
letter, Seirawan concluded: 'Experienced Evans-watchers know that it
is the kind of untruth and distortion that is endemic in him.'
*** end Chess Notes excerpt ***
Then, of course, we have Larry Parr's *_own_* censure of Evans for
flaunting my letter even *_after_* he knew I had repudiated it. As
Parr posted here on 25 August 2001:
The unpleasant truth is that GM Evans is guilty of something worse
than dishonesty ...GM Evans' transgression is to have misrepresented
Mr. Kingston's position out of polemical incompetence. Moreover, this
incompetence cannot be excused ...Incompetence can be more morally
odious, when it is utterly inexcusable, than conventional forms of
dishonesty ... GM Evans' high-handed supposition only compounds his
earlier "dishonesty of inexcusable incompetence." He shattered the
rules of honest controversy. He ought never to have made this
assumption, which was all the worse to do, because IT SERVED HIS
POLEMICAL PURPOSES OF THE MOMENT.
*** He was obliged - no strike that, *_absolutely required as a matter
of honor_* - to contact Mr. Kingston before using the man's initial
letter of praise for his "The Tragedy of Paul Keres." *** (emphasis
added)
*** end Parr excerpt ***
Once again it is demonstrated, exceptionally clearly in this case,
that with Parr ethical sentiments, such as those expressed above, are
mere chance aberrations.
Chess One
> Then, of course, we have Larry Parr's *_own_* censure of Evans for
> flaunting my letter even *_after_* he knew I had repudiated it. As
> Parr posted here on 25 August 2001:
>
> The unpleasant truth is that GM Evans is guilty of something worse
> than dishonesty ...GM Evans' transgression is to have misrepresented
> Mr. Kingston's position out of polemical incompetence. Moreover, this
> incompetence cannot be excused ...Incompetence can be more morally
> odious, when it is utterly inexcusable, than conventional forms of
> dishonesty ... GM Evans' high-handed supposition only compounds his
> earlier "dishonesty of inexcusable incompetence." He shattered the
> rules of honest controversy. He ought never to have made this
> assumption, which was all the worse to do, because IT SERVED HIS
> POLEMICAL PURPOSES OF THE MOMENT.
But does Taylor Kingston fail to understand the import of that statement? By
diddling with Kingston's reportage, he himself became distracted from the
subject, since it served a current exigency to do so.
> *** He was obliged - no strike that, *_absolutely required as a matter
> of honor_* - to contact Mr. Kingston before using the man's initial
> letter of praise for his "The Tragedy of Paul Keres." *** (emphasis
> added)
>
> *** end Parr excerpt ***
>
> Once again it is demonstrated, exceptionally clearly in this case,
> that with Parr ethical sentiments, such as those expressed above, are
> mere chance aberrations.
But Taylor Kingston has recently written that he does not dispute Evans'
judgment. And in my reply earlier, as in the comment immediately above, I do
not find any original sourcing by Kingston, nor new insights about
Keres/Botvinnik- and whatever support he first attached to Evans, then
turned on its head, is /not/ commentary on Botvinnik/Keres. It is a spat
with a journalist/author by a reviewer.
Why Taylor Kingston should continuously confound a personal hubris with
topical matter without identifying it as such is known best to his
correspondents! And indeed Larry Evans is here criticised [maybe rightly, by
Larry Parr] for giving Taylor Kingston the benefit of these unsettled
equivocations.
THE LIFE OF THEIR TIMES
Somewhere in these threads there are various claims to relative strength of
the players, and so to achieve a perspective on their own contemporaries
here is a pre-war and post war record, //significantly// played outside the
USSR - I cite statistics from Hooper/Sunnucks on the world famous Hastings
Congresses:
The point of interest is the increasing strength of Soviet players during
this period - indeed, they had become professionals, with their own staffs,
in comparison to amateur western players:-
1937/38
(1) Reschevsky
(2) CHO'D Alexander
(3) Keres
(4) Fine
Aside [in the war years 39/40 one F. Parr (!) placed first, Golombek was
third.]
45/46
(1) Tartakover
(3) Euwe
(4) Denker
46/47
(1) CHO'D Alexander
(2) Tartakover
Enter the Soviets 1953
53/54
(1) CHO'D Alexander
(2) Bronstein
(7) Tollush
54/55
(1) Keres
(2) Smslov
55/56
(1) Korchnoi
(4) Taimanov
56/57 [nb no Soviets in '56!! although I don't know if this was because they
were not invited, or simply because they were not let out]
(1) Gligoric
(2) Larsen
57/58
(1) Keres
61/62
(1) Botvinnik
(3) Flohr
62/63
(1) Gligoric [Yug.]
(2) Kotov
(3) Smyslov
63/64
(1) Tal
64/65
(1) Keres, 1.5 points clear
65/66
(1)Spassky
(1) Uhlmann
(3) Vasiukov <-- nb, ibidem
66/67
(1) Botvinnik
How remarkable that Botvinnik could still come clear first in 1967! Other
contenders for Soviet teams were Taimanov, Tal and Spassky, Korchnoi, and in
1967 who could think they were any less than Botvinnik? In 1969 Tal was
unbeatable in the world.
Quite evidently USSR could supply a team that could take the top 6 boards
against all comers, and that was their demonstrated, planned strategm. In
their own lights, team manipulation was entirely justified, since it could
be no singular matter that a Soviet player should take only first place,
hence the player rotations year-to-year. The political implication [of
superiority of culture] was in their view the necessary strategm, and all
other considerations a distant second class of issues.
I believe this is the context of these entire discussions - and sorry if you
cannot agree - but from all other indicators outside chess, manipulating the
image of the USSR was absolutely paramount, and ideas of fair play and level
playing field would have seemed juvenile and naive to them in this very
cold-war context.
The scenario above was eventually broken up - and interestingly Taimanov's
response in our interview was that no Western players were really feared by
the Soviets, not even Larsen he said, except Fischer! They simply could not
fit Fischer into any cultural or political frame of reference whatever.
Fischer openly detested his own chess federation, used 'seconds' only to
fetch him coffee and for a sort of limited comraderie in conversation, and
was simply an incomprehensible American Outlaw sort of a person.
I have read here and there that Fischer's subsequent victory had no effect
on the Soviet Union - and yet, should you take these somewhat rambling
comments seriously into your understanding, how can this strange iconic
American /not/ have had a massive psychological shock to an entire system
heavily invested in their own collective propaganda? When all /they/ heard
about was the dissipation of the West, then Fischer is impossible, no? An
unknown type.
And Fischer was not susceptible to rhetorical deflation, since, as he said
himself, he believes in pawns! And his counter-demonstration was complete,
it was devastating.
Of course, Fischer also suffered the consequences of this world-wide
fissure! We all know that. God save we do not have to survive whatever that
was ourselves.
Phil Innes
help bot
> My interpretation of the story about Stalin and Botvinnik is:
>
> 1. The first half (2/5) of the tournament was left alone, to see which
> USSR player was strongest. Botvinnik won that race convincingly. At
> the end, it was not entirely clear (absent Soviet collusion) that he
> would win the tournament because the US player Reshevsky was not far
> behind.
>
> 2. Then I find it entirely plausible that Stalin "selected" Botvinnik
> as the Soviet "champion" and ordered all Soviet players to support his
> victory, while striving to kneecap foreigners such as Reshevsky.
>
> 3. I also find it plausible that Botvinnik did not want to participate
> in the scam and honorably declined. However I doubt this made any
> difference to Stalin, who wanted a Soviet winner and clearly no other
> one could be counted on to win; they were all behind Reshevsky. So
> the orders to the other Soviets remained the same. It isn't Botvinnik
> who threatened them, it was Stalin.
>
> 4. One cannot dismiss totally the possibility that Botvinnik invented
> the story, knowing it was believable. Botvinnik's story can't be
> proved with the given evidence. But all the chessplayers are little
> pawns to a guy like Stalin, and I would expect him to orchestrate a
> Soviet winner in exactly this way. So I believe the story as given
> above.
>
> 5. So Botvinnik was ordered to win and the other Soviets were ordered
> to lose to him, and they _all_ had to be afraid of Stalin.
You failed to address the question of head-to-head results
between GMs Botvinnik and Reshevshy. Unless the latter
was also "afraid" of Mr. Stalin, his losses cannot simply be
brushed aside as the result of some evil-Russian plot.
----
I have not examined all the games, but the games I have
examined showed Sammy Reshevsky to have played
horribly in the openings, but then (inexpicably, given the
caliber of opposition) fought his way back to respectable
results. This contrasts sharply with the play of his Russian
counterpart, GM Botvinnik, whose play was of high quality
all-round. One can only wonder how well GM Fine -- an
expert in the openings -- might have done, in view of SR's
almost miraculous recoveries. If anything, a case might be
made for some Russian players throwing their (won) games
to GM Reshevsky. LOL
-- help bot
Taylor Kingston
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
Oh no, Phil -- I think Evans shows very poor judgement very
frequently. Where Evans and I agree is on the basic conclusion re
1948: that there was official coercion, express or implied, on Keres.
But neither Evans, myself, nor anyone else deserves any great credit
for just the mere conclusion. A Ouija board in yes/no mode will draw
the same conclusion half the time. What matters is the assembling of
evidence and testimony, and the logical sifting, ordering and
application of them, in order to turn a mere opinion into a worthwhile
argument. In this task, Evans failed badly.
As anyone who bothers to read my articles on the subject can see,
nowhere did I ever say Evans has reached the wrong conclusion, nor
denigrate his chess analysis or chess skills. The attempt to put such
words in my mouth is one of Parr's perennial straw-men. I said his
"evidence" and arguments were not at all *sufficient* to *establish*
his conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. Quite a different thing.
> Why Taylor Kingston should continuously confound a personal hubris with
> topical matter without identifying it as such is known best to his
> correspondents!
Regarding "hubris," Phil, the crux of the matter is that for Larry
Parr my 1998 and 2001 articles constitute the crime of lèse-majesté
toward his surrogate pontiff Evans. In Parr's mind this is a capital
offense with no statute of limitations. I would have been glad long
ago to let the matter rest, but Parr imagines himself an agent of the
Holy Inquisition, and so continues his risible attempts to exterminate
all anti-Evans heresy.
>
> THE LIFE OF THEIR TIMES
>
> Somewhere in these threads there are various claims to relative strength of
> the players, and so to achieve a perspective on their own contemporaries
> here is a pre-war and post war record, //significantly// played outside the
> USSR - I cite statistics from Hooper/Sunnucks on the world famous Hastings
> Congresses:
>
> The point of interest is the increasing strength of Soviet players during
> this period - indeed, they had become professionals, with their own staffs,
> in comparison to amateur western players:-
>
> 1937/38
> (1) Reschevsky
> (2) CHO'D Alexander
> (3) Keres
> (4) Fine
>
> Aside [in the war years 39/40 one F. Parr (!) placed first,
Probably Frank Parr, born in London, 17 December 1918.
Phil, if your aim is to include all Soviet players at Hastings,
you'll want to include 1959-60:
1. Gligoric
2-3. Averbakh, Uhlmann
and 1960-61:
1. Gligoric
2. Bondarevsky (somehow mistakenly identified as Yugoslavian in
Sunnucks)
> 61/62
> (1) Botvinnik
> (3) Flohr
>
> 62/63
> (1) Gligoric [Yug.]
> (2) Kotov
> (3) Smyslov
>
> 63/64
> (1) Tal
Sunnucks also lists one A. Chassin, who finished =3-4 with Lengyel,
as being from the USSR. He (she?) seems to be a rather obscure player
-- not mentioned in Gaige, nor on my CB MegaDatabase.
>
> 64/65
> (1) Keres, 1.5 points clear
Don't forget the other Soviet contest, Nona Gaprindashvili, 5th
place.
> 65/66
> (1)Spassky
> (1) Uhlmann
> (3) Vasiukov <-- nb, ibidem
>
> 66/67
> (1) Botvinnik
Another Soviet participant that year was Yuri Balashov.
parrt...@cs.com
WHAT KINGSTON NOW IGNORES
The gent no longer bothers to deny that he wrote here under bogus
screen names such as Xylothist, pretending to be someone else IN ORDER
TO PRAISE HIS OWN ARGUMENTS.
The gent also fails to explain his cunning lie in a "confidential"
letter to playwright Richard Laurie that he was unaware of the dispute
between Winter and Evans when he was fully aware of this dispute and
had already sided with Winter.
That is low stuff, suggesting still worse things are possible from our
NMnot.
To Greg Kennedy (still masquerading as help bot): Reshevsky beat
Botvinnik 2.5-1.5 in what was possibly their last encounter.
See THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans
USA vs. USSR 1955 (page 165)
"At the height of the Cold War, I played on an American team that went
to Moscow and wrote about it for Newsday, a Long Island newspaper.
Travel with me down memory lane, behind the Iron Curtain." -- GM Evans
Taylor Kingston
> STILL NO ANSWERS, OF COURSE
>
> WHAT KINGSTON NOW IGNORES
>
> The gent no longer bothers to deny that he wrote here under bogus
> screen names such as Xylothist, pretending to be someone else IN ORDER
> TO PRAISE HIS OWN ARGUMENTS.
Dealt with that nonsense of yours long ago, Larry.
> The gent also fails to explain his cunning lie in a "confidential"
> letter to playwright Richard Laurie that he was unaware of the dispute
> between Winter and Evans when he was fully aware of this dispute and
> had already sided with Winter.
You never tire of lying, do you Larry? My correspondence with Mr.
Laurie was prompted by two false statements he made, and which Evans
published in Chess Life:
1. That I had denigrated Evans' analytical ability. I never have.
2. That Winter had insulted Evans personally. I have been aware for
nine or ten years of various Winter-Evans disputes, and once knowing
of them have never said otherwise, to Mr. Laurie or anyone. However, I
recall reading *_no personal insult_* to Evans on Winter's part.
Mr. Laurie was quite mistaken on these two points, and therefore I
wrote to him. This complete misrepresentation of what I wrote is yet
another of our Larry's recurring distortions. To conclude in the style
of Rev. Walker:
"... there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -- John 8:44
artichoke
Chess Championship, something of interest to this chessplayer.
Now I see it's just about a critique of Larry Evans' writing style,
something I am not interested in spending time on.
Have a nice thread, I'm tuning out.
Taylor Kingston
>
> Now I see it's just about a critique of Larry Evans' writing style,
> something I am not interested in spending time on.
No, the critique is about substance, not style. But feel free to
tune out.
parrt...@cs.com
Edward Winter published an essay at ChessCafe
in 2001 that attacked the writing of GM Larry Evans. NMnot
Taylor Kingston, who will not answer whether he posted
here under fake names IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF, has
regurgitated Winter's attack which came up with
some 25 or so errors in an oeuvre of about 10 million
words written across more than a half century. That
was the technique behind this character assassination.
What follows is an essay that I penned -- it is
from a larger work -- in appreciation of Larry Evans' writing.
Readers can judge for themselves whether the
vicious junk from NMnot Taylor Kingston and his
"colleague," if that is quite the word, Edward
Winterian, has much value.
MR. WINTER ATTACKS HIS BETTER - III
By Larry Parr
"Larry Evans: Stylist, Essayist, Searcher"
By Larry Parr
"If we all thought Bobby had
deserted chess for two decades, he corrected us at the
press conference. Chess had deserted him. 'No one
has played ME for those 20 years,' he said. Reality
is in the 'I' of the Fischer beholder."- Larry Evans,
Chess Life, November 1992, p. 56
A fair specimen of Edward Winter's
heavy-potato irony:
"While 'Mother Teresa was ministering to the
Caribs, the Dictator (so the November Chess Life
suggested) was indulging in 'arm-twisting'. On a less
physical plain, Campomanes made only one notable
contribution to the Press (in the November CHESS -
sent out when everything was over). The British
Gentleman [GM Raymond Keene], however, was to be found
philanthropising in print almost everywhere. In the
May BCM he set the tone with a declaration of
unswerving principle: 'Honesty and openness is always
the best policy!'"-Edward Winter, Chess Explorations, p. 217
In "The Facts About Larry Evans," Edward Winter
attacked his better as a stylist, essayist and chess
searcher. The intent was to destroy an adversary's
reputation for lively, authoritative writing. The
ploy was to recycle about two dozen old errors, pad
them with hundreds of words of invective to suggest
heft, and treat them as representative of GM Evans' oeuvre.
That is the main line of the Winter Variation.
Repeat something, just anything - time and again.
Regurgitate errors long since acknowledged and
corrected - time and again. Rehearse feigned outrage
- time and again.
Fortunately, though, Mr. Winter's slings and
arrows boomerang. His targets remain whole, and he
somehow ends up looking more riddled than a piece of
well-aged Swiss cheese. "Envy," in the words of the
ancient Greek proverb, "slays itself by its own
arrows." Just as a derelict marooned on a desert
island waves his arms frantically to catch the
attention of a passing ship, Mr. Winter waves his
armaments frenetically at passing audiences hoping to
catch some attention. Even as he gets cancelled from
New in Chess for want of reader interest, writers such
as Raymond Keene and GM Evans continue to interest
large audiences. Indeed, as noted in an earlier essay
in this series, every Chess Life reader survey has
rated GM Evans at or near the top of contributors.
Evans interests. Winter bores.
EVANS AS STYLIST
Take the Evans prose style. It crackles with sass and
pizazz. At Evans' best, he bubbles. At Winter's
best, he foams. Glutinously. He is like a Staunton
without any of the edgy earth and energy. No
suet-pudding is more viscous than Mr. Winter's
sentences, written in the mannered cadences of
third-rate Victorianese.
Winter's wit is heavier than one of those Swiss
potato dishes. The man's irony? Few ingots of iron
are more leaden. Forum readers should consult his
eye-opening "Reviews/Commentary" chapter in Chess
Explorations which is, paradoxically, a real
eye-shutter. The work of a mouth in search of an ear.
The truth is that nothing ever written by Mr.
Winter has the insight, the liveliness and the human
involvement of a typical Evans feature. Here, for
example, is GM Evans' introduction to his wonderful
"Bobby's Back!" piece in the Chess Life of November
1992. Enjoy:
MAIN HEADLINE: BOBBY'S BACK!
By GM Larry Evans
BOBBY'S BACK
And non-chess people know it. They know it because
unlike the Loch Ness monster, so often sighted but
never seen, Bobby Fischer showed up on September 1 for
a press conference at the Maestral Hotel, the site of
Fischer-Spassky II. The hotel is on the tiny
peninsula of Sveti Stefan, an erstwhile playground of
the rich and famous, a mere 100 feet off the coast of
Montenegro and some 70 miles from a civil war raging
in Bosnia.
At his first press conference in 20 years, Bobby
fired the spit heard 'round the world. He took out a
letter from the U.S. Treasury Department warning of
severe penalties for violating U.N. sanctions by
playing Boris Spassky in the rump state of Yugoslavia
- and spat on it.
There's more. "Communism is Bolshevism is
Judaism," he declared. When asked about his reported
anti-Semitism, he said Semites included both Arabs and
Jews. "I'm definitely not anti-Arab, OK?" On the two
Super Ks, usurpers to his throne, he opined, "These
criminals Karpov and Kasparov have been ruining chess
with immoral, unethical, prearranged games, and are
the lowest dogs around."
As usual, Bobby had the organizers hopping. The
playing table was built and rebuilt seven times; all
toilets in the playing hall were raised an inch to
accomodate [sic] his bulk; an extravagant birthday
bash was thrown for his 19-year-old Hungarian
girlfriend, Zita Rajcsanyi. A bemused Fischer looked
on as torch-bearers dressed in folk costumes lined the
isthmus leading to Sveti Stefan. Eerie - and
reminiscent of the scene in Frankenstein when peasants
with torches marched on the castle to destroy the
monster within.
In Yugoslavia, this $5 million duel is billed as
"The Return Match of the Century Between the
Never-Defeated Champion of the World, Bobby Fischer,
and His Challenger Boris Spassky." All his wishes are
fulfilled. He gets 10 wins with a 9 - 9 tie clause,
which FIDE had denied him in 1975. The patented Bobby
Fischer chess clock, which may revolutionize
tournament chess, is being used. The purse is for a
million more than Kasparov's next title bout.
Further, FIDE, despised by Fischer, the body of
amateurs that stripped Bobby of his title, is cut out
of the picture (something which Kasparov despite all
his efforts failed to accomplish).
But there's trouble in paradise. Before the
start of the third game, Bobby suddenly added an
ultimatum that journalists be barred from covering the
match unless they acknowledged it's for the world
championship. He relented - for now.
BOBBY'S BACK
And we chess people know it. We know it because at
3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 2, Bobby committed
an act stranger than any recorded above: he played a
game in public for the first time in 20 years. Many
pundits were convinced that it would never happen.
How shocked he must have been in 1990 when former
GMA chairman Bessel Kok balked at organizing a
comeback match because Bobby's demands "were too tough
to meet" and his extreme views espousing neo-Nazism
and denying the existence of the Holocaust "went
beyond the abhorrent." Bobby had barked, and for the
first time a chessman failed to jump.
In the October Chess Life, Arnold Denker and
Larry Parr wrote that all efforts to coax him from
retirement were "doomed from the start." They
continued, "His personal chess legend as an
incomparable and undefeated genius means everything to
him. It is his raison d'etre - the single support for
a very frail ego."
Elegantly written, closely reasoned and utterly
wrong! Bobby is back because even for him time does
not stand still. He's nearly 50, and he either makes
a pile now or dies broke. Perhaps Ms. Sweet 19, whose
own ambition is to become world champion someday,
prodded him ever so gently about the future.
But Denker, Parr and many of us ultimately got it
wrong about Bobby for a far more basic reason. We
forgot, as a French philosopher once put it, that
normal men do not know that everything is possible.
Normal men cannot imagine the solipsistic absorption
of a genius such as Fischer who has sunk, in the words
of Vladimir Nabokov, "into the abysmal depths of chess."
If we all thought Bobby had deserted chess for
two decades, he corrected us at the press conference.
Chess had deserted him. "No one has played ME for
those 20 years," he said. Reality is in the "I" of
the Fischer beholder.
No matter what happens in Yugoslavia, I have a
feeling we may be watching Bobby's last hurrah.
Instead of launching another assault on the citadel,
he'll probably take the money and run.
END OF ARTICLE
Great writing meant for the chess ages? Not at
all. A piece of provocative, insightful, brightly
written, and what Tartakower might have called "Sun
journalism"? Absolutely. Is it more interesting and
faster paced than Mr. Winter's chloral hydrates?
Instead of GM Evans' snappy headline and lead-in,
"Bobby's Back," Mr. Winter would have served up
something like the arch, "Return of Robert Fischer."
Instead of Evans' lead-in and first two sentences -
"BOBBY'S BACK ... And non-chess people know it. They
know it because unlike the Loch Ness monster, so often
sighted but never seen, Bobby Fischer showed up on
September 1 for a press conference at the Maestral
Hotel, the site of Fischer-Spassky II."- Mr. Winter's
work would have dispensed with Evans' snappy economy:
Robert James Fischer has returned to the
arena, and even non-chess playing people have heard
the news. They have heard because Fischer, who has
been caught only in glimpses like the Loch Ness
monster these last two decades, showed up on September
1, for a press conference at the Maestral Hotel, the
site of Fischer-Spassky II.
Not bad. Though not so good as energetic Evans copy.
Still, it is better than most of Mr. Winter's lather,
which brings to mind the Russian aphorism that paper
can stand anything.
EVANS AS ESSAYIST
As much as I admire Larry Evans' CL feature stories
and columns, I regard his newspaper work more highly.
The various versions of Evans' syndicated columns have
been appearing for over 30 years. His essays, so
elegant in their economy, range from 300 to 500 words.
They are minor miracles of compression. They tell
complete stories in literate though completely
accessible language, and they have kept tens of
millions of readers interested.
Nothing - or, perhaps, just one thing - was
more unjust in Mr. Winter's ChessCafe attack than the
man's attempt to tar GM Evans' enormous oeuvre with
the brush of his oft-repeated litany of Evans errors.
Not only were most of these errors acknowledged and
corrected by GM Evans, but they comprise less than a
hundredth of one percent of his total work.
Over the past half century, GM Evans has written
quite literally thousands of pithy and eloquent essays
for his newspapers and magazines. Such as this story
that he titled ....
A POINT OF LIGHT
By GM Larry Evans
Kids call her The Chess Lady. Here name is Irene
Darnell. Her motto: "Push Pawns, Not Drugs."
She retired after 30 years as a cashier and
enrolled in the Foster Grandparent Program. "All
those seniors sitting on their duffs doing nothing,"
she says. "It's a crime."
One day she brought a chess set along to
entertain latchkey kids, who were only five. "They
had to kneel on chairs to reach the board, but they
took to it real fast. Chess fascinated them."
It was a revelation. She asked a school to give
her 45 minutes on Thursday morning to teach chess.
"Wow! Kids soon began beating me. Suddenly I
realized there was a brain in those heads that we
hadn't begun to tap into."
Irene embarked on a crusade. A high-risk school
invited her to teach chess to 300 problem kids ranging
from 8 to 12. "In my 17 years of education I never
ever saw something grab hold of so many kids and just
soar," said the astonished principal.
In 1992 President Bush flew to Reno to present
her with a medal as A Point of Light. Today a $40,000
BADA grant enables Irene, 82, and two aides to expand
their pilot program to four schools. "But we have to
sweat out the funding each year," she says.
"We reach 1,500 kids - half are Hispanic, Black
or Indian. It's a voluntary program but nobody has
ever turned down the opportunity to learn chess. Some
schools give them 10 hours of credit for math. They
have to follow rules but learn they can still have
fun. Like real life. Now they settle disputes with
chess instead of fists. Parents simply can't believe
what chess does for their kids."
A few years ago the mayor proclaimed May 9 as
Reno Chess Day. "Next year I hope it falls on a
weekday so we don't have to go to school," said a kid
who beat Hizzoner in a game.
END OF ARTICLE
So economical. Yet the story is all there. Mr.
Winter and his ratpackers do not write like this
because they cannot. They don't know where to begin
and don't much care. Readers will note that except
for the penultimate paragraph in which Evans gives his
subject a chance to speak at length for herself, every
paragraph begins with a piece of Evans narrative and
ends with the subject speaking in her own words.
That's deliberate. It provides rhythm and permits
newspaper editors to cut portions of paragraphs
easily. The overall essay, a classic news agency
pyramid, has seven paragraphs that are themselves
mini-pyramids. Lovely work.
Mr. Winter and his ratpackers are unconcerned
with the thousands of such essays written by GM Evans
in which he illumined so many corners of our great
chess globe. The Winter technique is to look for
inevitable gaffes or even mistakes unconnected to the
author - such as a publisher's "aviod" on the spine of
a book rather than "avoid" or for an absence of
umlauts over the last name of Eero Book because such
diacritical diereses are not in the CL stylebook - in
order to reach what IM John Watson has called
"one-sided and pre-ordained" conclusions.
"Pre-ordained"? Even the ratpackers know in
the foul recesses of their minds that Mr. Winter digs
for evidence to support prior conclusions rather than
delving for conclusions (explanations) to explain
prior evidence.
EVANS AS SEARCHER
For nearly 35 years, GM Evans has been conducting a
grand dialectic rather than a Winterian Grand Guignol
in the pages of Chess Life. Working in partnership
with his readers, he has reestablished old chess
knowledge and sought new knowledge.
In my view the nastiest ploy in Mr. Winter's
ChessCafe assault is neither the "shameless" character
assassination nor the mischaracterization of GM Evans'
oeuvre by regurgitating the same two dozen or so
errors over and over - errors, moreover, that were
earlier acknowledged and often corrected. To my mind,
Mr. Winter's lowest, in fact subterranean, device is
to argue that GM Evans is loath to admit mistakes.
Mr. Winter is betting that most of you are
without historical memory or, at least, bound annuals
of Chess Life. He is betting that you do not recall
or have never read the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of
columns in which he gladly conceded errors in his own
analyses or statements. No matter whether these
errors occurred in his famous MCO-10 edition, in his
many feature articles, in his numerous books or in his
hundreds of CL columns! "No matter," I say, because
GM Evans was and is hungry, indeed ravenous, for such
corrections because they are the vital viands that
keep a column such as his alive - just as a shortage
of audience participation recently led to the demise
of Mr. Winter's column.
Evans interests. Winter persists.
Taylor Kingston
>
> EVANS ENVY
>
> < snip the usual sleep-inducing Parr screed >
> > On Nov 11, 1:21 pm, artichoke <davidquin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now I see it's just about a critique of Larry Evans' writing style,
> > > something I am not interested in spending time on.
Now Artichoke's complaint is indeed justified.
Taylor Kingston
> EVANS ENVY
>
> "Larry Evans: Stylist, Essayist, Searcher"
>
> EVANS AS STYLIST
>
> EVANS AS ESSAYIST
>
> EVANS AS SEARCHER
>
This typical Parr orgasm of sycophancy brings to mind a hilarious
National Lampoon article from a few decades back, about "White
Rastafarians." Instead of ganja their sacramental substance was
mayonnaise, and instead of Ethiopia's Haile Selassie as their messiah,
they worshipped Prince Rainier of Monaco, bestowing on him such titles
as "Lion of God" and "Emperor of Rome."
It would not surprise me at all if our Larry is seriously
entertaining the idea of a similar Evans cult with himself as high
priest.
parrt...@cs.com
It is very good indeed that NMnot Taylor Kingston
has nothing to say about the essays published
on Larry Evans and Edward Winter, a subject he
introduced by praising Winter's screed.
As for sleep-inducing, an opposite complaint
once came from Greg Kennedy. The first time he wrote,
he offered the same insult. A few days later, however,
forgetting his earlier putdown, he wrote that he had
stayed up all night reading the entire series on
Winter and Evans. Sleep-inducing, insomnia inducing
-- one gets opposite plaints from the ratpackers and
their associates.
Our NMnot still refuses to answer whether he has
posted here under fake names IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
Never has answered, never will.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One
> On Nov 12, 1:28 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>> EVANS ENVY
>>
>> "Larry Evans: Stylist, Essayist, Searcher"
>>
>> EVANS AS STYLIST
>>
>> EVANS AS ESSAYIST
>>
>> EVANS AS SEARCHER
>>
>
> This typical Parr orgasm of sycophancy brings to mind a hilarious
> National Lampoon article from a few decades back,
Its always interesting to see what things make Taylor Kingston remind to
himself. Typographic errors remind him of the death of Mussolini, though
sometimes, Stalingrad.
I thougth just a few days ago we were going to get 'facts' as he himself
suggested was his goal, and after an article length post, didn't mention any
at that time. I even doubted we would identify whatever the topic was.
What we see practiced by such netwits as Kingston and Brennan - an example
is this post, but almost any will do - is to completely eliminate the chess
content, and, presumably while sober, writing about mayonaisse.
You would almost think that a 5 year vehement e-mail campaign didn't exist.
But it certainly did. The last time Kingston showed up to rubbish others was
on the subjects of, guess who? It was Winter again! Then it was about USCF's
copyrights which Winter had claimed.
I sent a formal note to Chesscafe stating that if this was a real claim to
speak up - and Hanon said sweet nothing at all.
> about "White
> Rastafarians." Instead of ganja their sacramental substance was
> mayonnaise, and instead of Ethiopia's Haile Selassie as their messiah,
> they worshipped Prince Rainier of Monaco, bestowing on him such titles
> as "Lion of God" and "Emperor of Rome."
> It would not surprise me at all if our Larry is seriously
> entertaining the idea of a similar Evans cult with himself as high
> priest.
Very little surprises our Taylor, except as we see, actual scholarship. He
should keep reading where he does, above, since it suits his temperament.
The very idea of a collaborated scholarly approach, with a rational basis
[which is to say, some agreed proportions of what to what] is a subject so
far beyond his experience, it wouldn't matter if the Pope plus 7 heavy
Fide-affiliated Cardinals showed up to support Evans' opinion of perfidious
Soviets.
But I forgot! That is not his beef with Evans - it is so much simpler. Evans
wouldn't continue to support his letter writing in CL, and should Taylor
Kingston not understand why that is, he could post the article in question
here - then people can see how many facts as we know them are presented, or
indeed if Kingston should instead try his luck with Lampoon.
Phil Innes
help bot
This guy is *very* confused, or perhaps braindead.
The only criticisms of /writing style/ I've yet seen here are
those of the imbecile Larry Parr, who says he doesn't like
the style of Edward Winter, calling it "Victorianese", and if
memory serves, "turgid".
Nobody responded on that issue, since it was far afield of
the current discussion, an obvious attempt at diversion. For
the record, I think LP may be correct, but I would like to see
a side-by-side comparison of classic, turgid Victorianese
with random samples of Edward Winter's work. At any rate,
it is disappointing, to say the least, that LP was apparently
unable to unearth any factual gaffes or even spelling errors
with which to attack EW. I mean, going after his /style/ is
just a tad lame, in this context. LOL
-- help bot
help bot
> The ploy was to recycle about two dozen old errors, pad
> them with hundreds of words of invective to suggest
> heft, and treat them as representative of GM Evans' oeuvre.
This /appears/ to be a clear patent infringement
(assuming that is, that LP had the wherewithal to
file for a patent on his technique). Lest anyone
give EW unwarranted credit, he merely *stole* the
idea, this already-perfected technique, from Larry
Parr, it's true inventor. Mr. Parr has written fairly
extensively on the subject -- especially on his
technique of padding to lend the illusion of heft.
No doubt if this were to go to court, countless
examples could be found in rgc which predate the
more recent discovery by Edward Winter, so IMO,
it's a slam-dunk win for LP.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
NMnot Taylor Kingston regurgitated a ChessCafe
piece in which Edward Winter attacked Larry Evans'
writing. He accused Evans' of making numerous errors.
To prove his point, he offered about 25 mistakes in
an oeuvre of some 10 million words. Several of those
mistakes already had been acknowledged and corrected
by GM Evans himself..
In the following essay, which was part of a
larger work, I examined how Edward Winter actually
fabricated an error that GM Evans never made. The
fabrication was clever, and its point was to permit
Winter to heap abuse beyond making a simple
correction. The error concerns a game played between
Harry Borochow and Reuben Fine, and the fabrication
involved Winter quoting from an Evans newspaper column
without telling the readers when said column appeared.
As you will see the chronology was very important.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Winter wrote his
column attacking GM Evans under no time constraint
whatsoever. He had no necessary deadline to meet --
as do those in the hard copy branch of journalism.
Yet as the reader will discover, I found an incidence
of error in Winter's article that was higher than that
alleged by Winter against GM Evans! True, the errors
were minor and piddling and unimportant -- just as
most of the errors alleged against GM Evans also were.
But they were errors nonetheless. And even when
writing at leisure, Mr. Winter committed a higher
incidence of errors than he alleged against GM Evans,
who was writing, in most instances, under deadline.
FAST EDDIE, PART II
By Larry Parr
"'Larry Evans' column in Chess Life continues to be
unspeakable,' writes Winter on another occasion.
About the unspeakable one should not speak, but in
fact this is not true at all, the column is
interesting and informative, and it must be quite
popular among readers, otherwise the USCF, with which
Evans has been on bad terms most of the time, would
have stopped it long ago."-GM Hans Ree, New in Chess
(No. 3, 1999)
"Mr. Evans' latest attack on me is similar to
countless previous ones, i.e. grossly
deceitful."-Edward Winter, ChessCafe bulletin board
(May 31, 2001)
Has Larry Evans launched "countless" attacks on
Edward Winter's person ("on me")? Is this claim
literally true? Or is this claim an example of
permissible hyperbole? Or is it an example of
mendacious hyperbole?
Mr. Winter suggests his own answer in the first
paragraph of his "The Facts About Larry Evans" that
appeared at the ChessCafe on June 6. Writes Mr.
Winter in a short paragraph in which he manages to
misquote GM Evans twice:
Over the years, I have become quite
accustomed to Larry Evans' base and baseless attacks
on me, which have featured such choice abuse as (in
alphabetical order) 'absurd', 'bilious fibber',
'cranky and boring' [an example of Mr. Winter's
slatternly inattention to detail, given that the gent
later quotes GM Evans in "The Facts" as writing
"boring and cranky" -hey, it's amusing to play Mr.
Winter's preposterous proofreading games], 'crude',
'false', 'sly' [more sloppy failure to quote GM Evans
accurately: "slyly," is correct], 'unscrupulous' and
'vile.'
For the record, "boring and cranky" is what GM
Evans actually wrote. But what about Mr. Winter's
charge of "base and baseless attacks" on his person?
Sounds damning, doesn't it? If one were to believe
Mr. Winter, then GM Larry Evans has engaged in
"countless" attacks employing puerile abuse.
Unfortunately for Mr. Winter, there is far more
hysteria than history in his account of GM Evans'
dealings with him. Let us begin with Mr. Winter's BIG
LIE that there have been "countless" attacks.
Given Mr. Winter's claims, one would never guess
that GM Evans has had virtually no contact with the
man over the years, though Mr. Winter has written
often about GM Evans' work and, less often, about his
person.
GM Evans wrote once to Chess Notes (item No.
1457) back in 1987 in response to justified criticism
in item No. 1385 re the Quesada game at Havana 1952;
he replied to criticism from Mr. Winter in the March
31, 1997 Inside Chess in an exchange of letters; he
answered readers' questions about Mr. Winter in the
May 2000 and July 2001 issues of Chess Life and
responded to an attack by Mr. Winter in a
letter-to-the-editor in the February 2000 Chess Life.
After Mr. Winter wrote his ChessCafe article, GM Evans
answered a question about Mr. Winter in the August
2001 Chess Life. And he REPLIED to yet another attack
on him by Mr. Winter in the September 2001 Chess Life.
So far, we have seven instances over nearly 15
years of contact in which GM Evans has written about
Mr. Winter's work - of which four were in the nature
of answering Mr. Winter's criticisms or addressing the
criticisms of others that appeared in the man's
published materials.
There were other instances, but these were
neutral exchanges in Chess Life involving Mr. Winter's
materials in Chess Notes. To the extent that they
involved short plugs for Mr. Winter's vanity
publication, they could be construed as favorable to
the man. For example, in the May 1995 CL, GM Evans
quoted from Chess Notes, giving due credit and citing
items No. 1025 and 1474. On another occasion, GM
Evans and this writer mentioned Mr. Winter in our
award-winning CL article, "Everything You Always
Wanted to Know About Alekhine - But Didn't Know Enough
to Ask," of May 1993. "Here is a little-known list,"
we wrote, "of the Alekhine oeuvre compiled by Edward
Winter in Chess Notes." The list followed.
Mr. Winter claims that GM Evans and he had
exchanges over the old Leisure Linc forum. One would
enjoy reading them again, though my recollection,
which could be mistaken, is that Mr. Winter and I had
those exchanges.
By my count, the number of times in which GM
Evans has addressed Mr. Winter substantively is less
than 10. "[C]ountless," indeed!
But, but, but: perhaps in each of those half
dozen or so instances, GM Evans heaped numerous
attacks, as Mr. Winter put the matter, "on me." Let
us take the list of personal attacks that Mr. Winter
provides above in the extract from his "The Facts."
Four of the phrases listed come from GM Evans' answer
to a reader's question in the July 2001 Chess Life.
As the reader can see, none of the words ("bilious
fibber," "crude," "sly" [sic - as noted above],
"vile") referred to Mr. Winter's person:
Alas, Mr. Winter undermines his own
credibility with this CRUDE [my emphasis] effort to
mislead readers of Kingpin. If he doesn't clean up
his act, his strikingly original legacy will be that
of a BILIOUS FIBBER [my emphasis] who adored only the
"historical truth" of raw dates. ... Needless to say,
Mr. Winter did not quarrel with any part of my answer
or address himself to the nub of the question - only
to a trivial error in the question itself that he ever
so SLYLY [my emphasis] misdirected to me. How
amusing, how VILE [my emphasis].
In, ah, "alphabetical order": "bilious fibber" was a
conditional description of Mr. Winter's future
reputation if, if, if, etc.; "crude" was an adjective
modifying "effort"; "slyly" was an adverb telling how
Mr. Winter "misdirected" a "trivial error"; and "vile"
was an adjective modifying the understood subject of
Mr. Winter's tactics in Kingpin.
Okay, two phrases are left on Mr. Winter's list
that he so clearly relished giving in "alphabetical
order." They are "cranky and boring," which actually
appeared as "boring and cranky" in the February 2000
CL, a phrase that Mr. Winter himself described as "a
wholesale condemnation of my chess writing"; and
"unscrupulous," which appeared in Chess Notes item No.
1457. Wrote GM Evans about what he mistakenly
perceived to be Mr. Winter's views, "But you are
unscrupulous to deduce that I am defaming the
character of Capa, Alekhine and Euwe merely because I
made the perfectly banal observation that dragging out
hopeless positions does 'not endear a master to his
colleagues.'" The predicate adjective,
"unscrupulous," though technically modifying "you,"
clearly refers to Mr. Winter's supposed act of
deduction.
The truth is that GM Evans has not issued
countless "attacks" on Mr. Winter. Indeed, he has
seldom ever written about the man and his doings. The
truth is that Mr. Winter's "alphabetical" list of
supposed "attacks on me" contained attacks on Mr.
Winter's work. The truth is that Mr. Winter fobbed
off a rhetorical lie when speaking of "countless"
attacks and compounded it with a substantive lie when
alleging that his "alphabetical" list contained
attacks on his person. Indeed, he himself refers to
one of the attacks as being on his writing.
Let us compare GM Evans' scrupulous regard, as
shown above, for keeping a discussion at a
professional rather than a personal level with Mr.
Winter's failure to separate the polemical from the
personal. Mr. Winter mentioned the word "crude,"
which we have seen that GM Evans employed to describe
a particular "effort" made by Mr. Winter in Kingpin.
Mr. Winter, too, has employed a noun form of the word
"crude" in his Chess Notes (item No. 1457).
GM Evans wrote with obvious initial friendliness
in No. 1457, "Meanwhile I hope you [Mr. Winter] keep
your curmudgeonly watch on the chess world. C.N. is
unique and lively. Incidentally, one of the reasons
Seattle lost out to Seville is that a lot of prize
money was structured as 'best game prizes' so Campo
could not get his greedy hands on it." Responded Mr.
Winter, "His 'Incidentally ...' sentence in the
penultimate paragraph is not relevant to anything that
has appeared in C.N. though it serves as a further
example of his crudity."
"His crudity." The reference is NOT to the
"sentence in the penultimate paragraph" but to how the
sentence testifies to GM Evans' quality of condition,
which is one of "crudity." That, in truth, is a
personal attack.
In his ChessCafe piece, Mr. Winter went still
further, evidently losing control for a moment:
And if, after somebody else pointed out such an
error, I published a huffy "correction" which also
turned out to be wrong, I would feel deeply ashamed.
Evans, in contrast, shows by his own words that he is
shameless.
"[H]e is shameless." Mr. Winter is not claiming that
GM Evans conducted himself shamelessly when writing as
he did but rather that what he wrote indicated that
"he is shameless." That, too, is a personal attack.
Am I arguing that Mr. Winter has launched
"countless" attacks on GM Evans' person? Not at all.
One need not flaunt prevaricating, mendacious
hyperbole a la Mr. Winter. My point is merely that
Mr. Winter has attacked GM Evans personally, whereas
the American grandmaster in the instances cited by Mr.
Winter confined his attacks to the latter's written
doings.
Mr. Winter claims in "The Facts" that GM Evans
"never subscribed" to Chess Notes, though "often
criticizing the magazine." He fails to mention that
GM Evans purchased a complete run of the magazine or
to adduce the asserted numerous criticisms of Chess
Notes. The truth, once again, is that GM Evans
virtually never talked about Chess Notes. The word
"often" is a substantive lie. If Mr. Winter would
care to trot out all of these criticisms of his
magazine, then I am prepared to retract my charge.
But such criticisms were actually quite rare. Yet
another puddle of dishonest slop deposited by Mr.
Winter.
When Mr. Winter wrote of "countless" attacks by
GM Evans on his person ("on me"), he lied
rhetorically. When Mr. Winter claimed that six
phrases, so absurdly paraded as being placed in
"alphabetical order," were attacks on his person ("on
me"), he lied substantively.
CONTRADICTORY PRAISE AND CONDEMNATION
In "The Facts," Mr. Winter childishly states that GM
Evans both praised and criticized his work. We all
understand that points of view change over the years,
and we all understand that such changes are related to
the condition of personal relations or simply passing
mood. In adult polemics of the real world, not a lot
is made of such contradictions. Instead, issues are
debated.
Mr. Winter quotes from GM Evans' CL
letter-to-the-editor of February 2000 - a response to
a criticism from Mr. Winter . Wrote GM Evans, "In his
pedantic eagerness to find flaws, he makes a false
charge by claiming I 'lifted' the Borochow and Junge
items from his work (which I find boring and cranky
[earlier in "The Facts," Mr. Winter quotes this phrase
as "cranky and boring"] on the rare occasions when I
glance at it)." In "Fast Eddie, Part I," I dealt with
the episode of GM Evans answering a letter from a
reader in the Philippines, who quoted from "our local
magazine Chess Asia," without mentioning that the
material came from Mr. Winter's column, which was
appearing in that little-known publication. GM Evans
answered the reader accurately, and Mr. Winter then
accused him of "[l]ifting" the material, which
mendaciously connotes a conscious intent to filch
without giving due credit. That, too, was an obvious
lie in rhetoric. But the point raised by Mr. Winter
is that GM Evans later praised him in Chess Life:
In passing, that remark ["boring and cranky"
or "cranky and boring," depending on which page one
reads of Mr. Winter's rant] may be contrasted with
Evans' words in the July 2001 Chess Life: "Mr. Winter
is a prolific writer on chess history who fully
deserves the very highest praise for keeping chess
authors on their toes by pointing out their boners."
The idea that any mortal being could keep Evans on his
toes is pie in the sky, but I quote that passage
merely to highlight yet another inconsistency in his
remarks about me. Of course, given his track-record
of inaccuracy, guile and self-contradiction, his
praise is as worthless as his censure.
Fair or unfair enough. This typically arch
Winterian putdown directed at a bit of praise may be
viewed as tartly just or as mean-spirited. But one
must also note Mr. Winter's own contradictions when
evaluating GM Evans' work.
In Chess Notes (item No. 323), Mr. Winter
reviewed GM Evans' The Chess Beat, which he described
as "a reproduction of 300 newspaper columns." The
fact that Mr. Winter understood that this volume was a
photographic "reproduction" is important when we nail
yet another of his sly lies a bit later. But, for the
moment, the subject is Mr. Winter's judgments in this
review that "[i]n some ways Larry Evans' journalism is
of a superior quality" and that his "best is very
good," though he stipulates that Evans is "not very
often at it," Elsewhere, he opines that "the contents
are mostly of some interest" and that Evans "is at
his best when recounting contemporary events, whether
it be a World Championship match or one more instance
of USCF mismanagement."
Later in CN item No. 1143, Mr. Winter prefaces a
criticism of GM Evans' views on Anatoly Karpov with
the sentence, "One would, however, have expected
better of Larry Evans, normally one of the sanest and
acutest of commentators."
Then, in a ChessCafe bulletin board entry of June
20, 2001, Mr. Winter wrote:
335-22 Mr. Evans' Skittles Room "article" quotes me as
calling him "normally one of the sanest and acutest of
commentators". The passage in question comes from
C.N. 1143 (Chess Notes, May-June 1986, page 51), and
in a separate Bulletin Board item I shall cite my full
comments about him on that occasion. They began, "One
would, however, have expected better of Larry Evans,
normally one of the sanest and acutest of
commentators", after which I gave chapter and verse on
how he had bungled matters relating to Fischer and
Karpov.
I had also criticized his inaccuracy and
slovenliness well before then, but I was certainly too
slow in recognizing the extent of the Evans problem
(which, in any case, has clearly worsened since then).
Other writers may have been slower still, but, yes,
my praise of him was unjustified.
The above simply will not do. Mr. Winter tells
us that he earlier read through hundreds of chess
columns by GM Evans and much of his magazine
commentary. Otherwise, the word "normally," which is
an adverb suggesting a regnant condition observed over
a period of years in this case, makes no sense. Mr.
Winter was not writing that GM Evans had his lucid
moments; he was claiming in CN item No. 1143 that this
future bete noire had met his requirements for being
"one of the sanest and acutest of commentators."
What changed?
GM Evans began to speak out against FIDE
outrages and started writing about the saurian
slithering of Anatoly Karpov while enthusing about
Garry Kasparov. That's what changed. Or, as Mr.
Winter put the matter in a telling Chess Explorations
footnote, "Larry Evans' subsequent handling of topical
issues matched his treatment of history."
So Mr. Winter's judgment of GM Evans' work and
person transmogrified. Yet in "The Facts" Mr. Winter
would chide GM Evans for publishing inconsistent views
of the former's work and person. A flip-flop that Mr.
Winter performed, he would deny to GM Evans.
BEAT GENERATION
In "The Facts" Mr. Winter spends more than a page on
GM Evans' treatment of the Borochow-Fine game, which
was an 11-move win for White and which Irving Chernev
once published as a seven-mover with the winner being
unclear in his book, The 1000 Best Short Games of
Chess (1955). Writes Mr. Winter, "The famous
miniature between Borochow and Fine at Pasadena, 1932
is yet another example of how facts in Evans' hands
stand no chance." But the truth is that Mr. Winter's
exposition is yet another example how the truth in his
hands stands no chance.
In Chess Life &Review (October 1977), GM Evans
wrote that Reuben Fine as Black won the game. He was
corrected in the August 1978 issue by G. S. G.
Patterson, the president of the Pasadena congress, who
provided the 11-move game ending with Black's
resignation.
Now, here comes Mr. Winter's authentically low
and scabrous zinger: "Even so, in a book published
several years later - The Chess Beat - Mr. Evans
repeated, in large bold letters, his claim that 'Black
won' (after 7. f4 e6), adding 'But Chernev says Black
resigned!' (page 24)."
What is missing from the above? What piece of
information would any honest broker of fact provide?
Why did Mr. Winter use the phrase, "in a book
published several years later"?
Mr. Winter "forgot" - if that is quite the word
- to mention that The Chess Beat was a photocopied
collection of GM Evans' newspaper columns in a large
eight by twelve format. One may argue that such
compilations of articles should be annotated with
footnotes and corrections, but purchasers know what
they are getting: reproductions of articles that have
already appeared. The column in question "Five Easy
Pieces," was published in 1976 (!!), though it
appeared in a book published in 1982. It was NOT
fresh work by GM Evans in which he contradicted his
recognition of Patterson's point made in 1978.
Did Mr. Winter know that the column was
published in 1976? Probably not, because the columns
are undated. As GM Evans wrote in the preface, "These
300 essays first appeared in my syndicated newspaper
column from 1973 - 1981." However, one thing is
certain: Mr. Winter was far too lazy to do the
elementary research to find out when the column was
written.
Please note: Mr. Winter accused GM Evans of
"lifting" copy from Chess Notes because the
grandmaster did not realize that a reader of a local
Filipino chess magazine had incorporated CN material
appearing there in a letter sent to GM Evans'Chess
Life column. The idea was that GM Evans was expected
to have on hand every chess publication in the world
or to have divined that Mr. Winter's material was used
by the Filipino correspondent even though there was no
reason to believe that anything was amiss. HOWEVER:
Mr. Winter did not research the date when "Five Easy
Pieces" appeared, though virtually any major library
would have on microfilm such important American
newspapers as the Chicago Tribune or Denver Post in
which the column in question appeared. Moreover, Mr.
Winter understood perfectly well that the date when
"Five Easy Pieces" appeared was absolutely crucial in
sustaining or subverting his contention that GM Evans
later contradicted a correction that he published in
1978.
Hence, Mr. Winter's lying phrase: "in a book
published several years later." Yes: Mr. Winter's
"fact" is true. Yes: the book was published in 1982.
Yes: the book contained a column contradicting a
correction that GM Evans made in 1978 of an earlier
error that he made. But: the book contained
reproductions of earlier newspaper columns. But: the
newspaper article in question was published in 1976.
But: Mr. Winter understood full well that he could
not place the date of that article. But: Mr. Winter
decided to hide this point by declining to inform
ChessCafe readers that the article might easily have
appeared BEFORE 1978.
Why couldn't this man have simply confined
himself to noting that GM Evans incorrectly reported
on Borochow-Fine in a newspaper column of 1976 and in
Chess Life &Review in 1977, which he then corrected
with a letter that he published in 1978? Why couldn't
this man have used the opportunity to inveigh against
unannotated collections of newspaper columns in chess
and in other fields?
Two reasons. First, the whole brouhaha over
Borochow-Fine was fundamentally over a small matter -
a misunderstanding about an 11-move game. Secondly,
for this man to wax wickedly about GM Evans' error
(which was followed by a correction), he had to
mislead readers into believing that GM Evans later
rescinded his correction in The Chess Beat (1982),
even though he did not know when the newspaper column
was written and, given the period covered, had a fair
idea that in all probability, it appeared before 1978.
What would an honest broker of fact have written
about GM Evans' treatment of Borochow-Fine? Probably
very little, given that GM Evans made an error and
then corrected it. But assuming that an honest broker
did feel impelled to write something, it might read as
follows (in summary): "In a Chess Life &Review
column of 1977, Larry Evans erred when claiming that
Black won the Borochow-Fine miniature (Pasadena,
1932). But in 1978, he published a letter that
corrected this mistake. Still, one must mention that
the initial error appears again in GM Evans' The Chess
Beat (1982), a book containing photo reproductions of
300 undated newspaper columns. Without research, it
is impossible to tell whether the column in which the
error appears was written before or after GM Evans'
correction of 1978."
What can one make of Mr. Winter's refusal to
mention that The Chess Beat was a photocopied
collection of old newspaper columns? Did he not
realize this fact? As noted earlier, he himself
refers to the work as "a reproduction of 300 newspaper
columns" in a review of the volume. In T. S. Eliot's
words, "The ways deep and the weather sharp,/The very
dead of winter."
"The very dead of [W]inter," indeed. For there
is nothing living in the mannered writing of this
hideous liar.
Mr. Winter's deliberate omission of vital
information - a structural and substantive lie of the
most malicious sort - is unspeakable and, in the
phrase of Professor Henry Higgins, "so deliciously
low." How this man's soul must freeze with chancrous
envy of GM Evans' fame and success.
SMEAR BY NON-ACCUSATION
One of Mr. Winter's more interesting rhetorical tricks
in "The Facts" is to level a smear at GM Evans without
providing an explicit accusation. Neat.
Mr. Winter quotes from a reader's letter to GM
Evans that appeared in Chess Life (July 2001). Wrote
the reader, "He [Mr. Winter] calls this column a
'monthly dumping ground' for your 'fantasies' and
concluded: 'Plain facts seldom stand a chance'." Mr.
Winter then claims that what he wrote in Kingpin was
"rather more explicit" (meaning: more elaborated): "
... Mr. Larry Evans, whose Chess Life column is a
monthly dumping ground for his obsessions, fantasies,
distortions and solecisms. Chess itself has been more
or less dropped, and plain facts seldom stand a
chance."
So far, nothing overtly dishonest. Now comes
the smear without an accusation:
It is naturally impossible for us to know why only
my word "fantasies" appeared in Evans' column, and not
"obsessions", "distortions" and "solecisms", i. e.
whether they were omitted by the correspondent or by
Evans himself. This further illustrates why it is
preferable, in the interests of both accuracy and
safety, to refer to all matters as having "appeared in
Evans' column", or a similar formulation, rather than,
at the risk of being mistaken, pointing an accusing
finger direct [sic] at Evans' correspondents. In any
case ....
The truth: it is naturally POSSIBLE to know why
portions of Mr. Winter's attack on GM Evans' column
did not appear. Letters from readers are kept on
file. GM Evans states that the letter was published
as provided by the author. Mr. Winter's smear is NOT
that GM Evans cuts portions of letters for reasons of
length or linguistical sanitation (which every Q &A
columnist must do); his smear is that GM Evans cuts
portions of letters to affect tone and meaning.
Writes Mr. Winter, "This further illustrates" -
stop right there. "This" has no antecedent beyond the
reference that it is "naturally impossible to know"
why a portion of Mr. Winter's tirade was not contained
in a reader's letter. Mr. Winter has provided no
foundation even in an unsubstantiated accusation to
merit the smear that GM Evans might alter letters to
affect tone and meaning.
Smear by non-accusation. Ya gotta love it.
AN AGONIZING APPRAISAL
Edward Winter is "Fast Eddie" without much speed. His
intellectual hands are not quicker than the mind's
eye.
We have seen him retail structural, substantive
and rhetorical lies, while sloppily misquoting GM
Evans on at least three occasions in an essay of 5,000
words - a rate of error by Mr. Winter, which were it
extrapolated to the 10 million or so words written by
GM Evans, would come to 6,000 misquotations. Still,
give the man some credit. He did find three games
that GM Evans muffed to varying degrees.
Mr. Winter's central structural lie was to argue
that the 25 mistakes he found defined the oeuvre of GM
Evans - a lie that he compounded when endeavoring to
make errors appear worse than they were. For example,
his failure to inform readers that The Chess Beat was
a photocopied collection of newspaper articles was a
dandy of a doozy. But what can one expect from a man
who lied about GM Evans mismatching authors and book
titles as a norm and who trumpeted errors on page 45
in one printing of GM Evans' The 10 Most Common Chess
Mistakes without mentioning that these errors were
corrected in a second printing?
What can one expect?
One can expect that Mr. Winter would and did
misattribute errors made by a reader to GM Evans
himself. One can expect that Mr. Winter would allege
"countless" personal attacks without finding one
example. One can expect that Mr. Winter would adduce
a list of attacks "on me" that were actually
criticisms of his published work. One can expect that
Mr. Winter would childishly attack GM Evans for
contradictory statements about himself, while
"forgetting" - if that is quite the word - that he
changed his views about GM Evans after this celebrated
grandmaster began to attack FIDE in earnest. One can
expect that Mr. Winter would level a smear against GM
Evans concerning his treatment of letters to his
column without grounding it even in an unsubstantiated
accusation.
One can expect, in short, that Mr. Winter would
live up to the monicker, "Fast Eddie." Fast with the
lies. Fast with the errors. And fast with his
beloved "facts."
Taylor Kingston
>
> Taylor Kingston regurgitated a ChessCafe
> piece in which Edward Winter attacked Larry Evans'
> writing.
No, Larry, I posted a link to it.
> He accused Evans' of making numerous errors.
> Several of those
> mistakes already had been acknowledged and corrected
> by GM Evans himself..
Ah, yes, like when he "corrected" the date of the Steinitz-Zukertort
WCh match, and still didn't even get the right decade. A marvelous
example of scholarship. But we must give Evans some credit for trying,
however ineptly.
So then, Larry, how about you emulate your idol and acknowledge,
correct, and apologize for the various errors, lies, distortions and
misrepresentations you've posted in this thread? I've pointed out
quite a few, and you haven't addressed a single one. Except I do
notice the list of errors/lies/sins/whatever you attribute to me has
been diminishing as each of your points has been refuted.
You know, this all really is so silly of you, Larry. GM Evans'
10/1996 article is a shoddy piece of work. Always has been, always
will be -- nothing you ever do can change that. A reasonable man would
simply accept the fact, but of course on the subject of Larry Evans
you are anything but reasonable. So all you can think of is to attack
me, or anyone else you find handy, by fair means or foul, almost
always the latter.
You imagine yourself to be defending Evans, but in fact you are a
serious embarassment to him. With friends like you, Evans hardly needs
enemies.
Larry Tapper
> ...You know, this all really is so silly of you, Larry. GM Evans'
> 10/1996 article is a shoddy piece of work.
But that article was a masterpiece compared to the follow-up article
entitled "Case Closed!" published in the September 2001 Chess Life. I
imagine that our bitter disputants (TK and LP) both have copies ready
to hand --- I've mislaid mine.
After following these various arguments for some time, I'm still one
of the doubting Thomases who think that it is simply not known whether
Keres deliberately threw any of the Botvinnik games. That is, there
isn't enough evidence to distinguish between the two scenarios: (1)
Keres was rattled by the political pressure; and (2) Keres consciously
gave in to the political pressure. (Of course there are other
possibilities, e.g. Keres was simply in poor form or Botvinnik had his
number.)
I trust that the _existence_ of the political pressure has never
really been in dispute, except maybe among some hard-core defenders of
the Soviet system. What we learned from the new Whyld evidence was
that the subject of Comrade Stalin preferring a Botvinnik victory was
explicitly discussed. But even had this not happened, Keres was smart
enough to understand what he was up against. So the so-called new
revelations do not really strike me as revelations at all. This is
where Taylor Kingston and I part ways --- I thought his apparent
recantation ("The Commies did it") was no more justified by the new
evidence at hand than it already had been long before that.
It seems to me that if Evans contributed anything of value to the
debate, it had to be his experiment with forensic game analysis
("emanations from the games", as Larry Parr put it). We didn't need
Evans to inform us that as a politically suspect Estonian challenger
in 1948, Keres must have been feeling the heat.
Larry T.
Taylor Kingston
> On Nov 12, 4:40 pm, Taylor Kingston <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> > ...You know, this all really is so silly of you, Larry. GM Evans'
> > 10/1996 article is a shoddy piece of work.
>
> But that article was a masterpiece compared to the follow-up article
> entitled "Case Closed!" published in the September 2001 Chess Life. I
> imagine that our bitter disputants (TK and LP) both have copies ready
> to hand --- I've mislaid mine.
You mention bitterness, Larry T., and sadly it is an apt word. Aside
from some satisfaction at (I hope) advancing research on what I
consider an important question in chess history, the main thing I've
gotten from the whole K-B business, insofar as it concerns GM Evans,
has been bitter disillusionment.
Like probably most Americans of my generation (I'm 58), I had always
held GM Evans in high esteem. Along with Fischer, Benko, and a few
others, he was one of my American chess heroes.
Even when my research into the Keres-Botvinnik case led me to change
my mind about the value of his 1996 article, I held Evans in respect,
and made sure that respect was expressed in my 1998 article, as anyone
who bothers actually to read what I wrote will see (
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt and http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
). I even defended Evans against what I considered uncalled-for
attacks by Chess Life readers ("wild charges", "crackpot theory," "a
fire sale on paranoia" etc.) and said that he was raising important
issues.
Yet all that came back from Evans, and his mouthpiece Parr, was a
cascade of falsehoods, distortions, misquotations and
misrepresentations, including Evans' 1999 letter to Kingpin, utterly
false and misleading statements in Chess Life and (through Parr) a
continual smear campaign on rec.games.chess that (as we see here) is
still going on (see http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf for
some of the details).
I don't know if Evans habitually thinks and acts this way, or if he
is merely led into it by Parr. Either way, I could no longer regard
him as any sort of chess hero, and was left with a definitely bitter
aftertaste.
parrt...@cs.com
Not only does this farceur ignore his lie to Richard Laurie that he
wasn't aware of the dispute between Evans and Kingston, he no longer
denies that he posted under bogus screen names, pretending to be
someone else IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS OWN ARGUMENT
<Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article
is a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time.> -- Taylor Kingston
That's hartdly what this gent first had to say after Chess Life
published THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by GM Evans
"Larry Evans's article 'The Tragedy of Paul Keres' in your October
1996 issue was one of the best pieces
of chess historical writing you've ever run. Evans's analysis of games
from the 1948 World Championship makes a strong case that Keres'
failure, and
Botvinnik's consequent success, were the result of coercion by Soviet
authorities...We could be on the verge of uncovering one of the major
scandals
in chess history." -- Taylor Kingston's Letter to the Editor of Chess
Life, August 1997).
Needless to add, he later disavowed the praise expressed in this
letter to the editor.
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:02 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
> >
> > KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN
>
> Nope, Larry, just stating facts. I must say, however, I do enjoy the
> ironic spectacle of you complaining about an alleged "smear campaign."
> Rather like Mike Tyson complaining about ear-biting. I will ignore
> your usual assortment of slurs, red herrings and fabrications and
> stick to the point.
>
> >
> > If Mr. Kingston wishes to dredge up this topic again and play the
> > numbers game, let him cite the scholars who disagree with GM Evans.
>
> False dichotomy, Larry. The plain fact is that scholars have
> virtually *_ignored_* Evans's article. It's not that some agree and
> some disagree - it's that they are entirely indifferent to it. And
> with good reason. The article is not the least bit scholarly - its
> citing of James Schroeder is by itself enough to disqualify it - and
> overall it just does a real lousy job of supporting Evans' thesis.
> Therefore scholars won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
> It is you who have made the claim that "most scholars" consider it
> "seminal," "groundbreaking" etc. It's entirely up to *_you_* to
> produce references to that effect
>
> > Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.
>
> Straw man, Larry. The question is not agreement or disagreement with
> Evans' *_conclusion_*. A blind idiot flipping a coin has a 50/50
> chance of being right on the question of coercion at Hague-Moscow 1948
> - it's basically a yes/no proposition. The question is whether Evans
> did a good job of *_supporting_* his conclusion. He did not, and
> scholars who have read the article know it.
> Evans's main technique was closer to the reading of animal entrails.
> To buttress this he skimmed through a small part of the relevant
> literature and chose quotes that supported his foregone conclusion,
> never dealing with sources that contradicted him.
>
> > First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history
>
> Translation: Winter has nailed historical errors by Evans so many
> times that Parr can only try to redefine him out of existence.
>
> > Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess,
> > who have supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene
>
> Ray Keene is a scholar while Winter is not?? Riiiight ... and the
> Monkees were a better band than the Beatles.
>
> > My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
> > position,
>
> Please cite a reference in which Saidy praised the Evans
> *_article_*. BTW, I contacted Saidy during my research circa 1997-98
> and he refused to go on the record with any opinion on the Keres
> matter.
>
> > Harry Golombek also strongly implies that Keres threw games.
>
> In view of the fact that Golombek died on January 7, 1995, while the
> Evans article appeared in October 1996, I rather doubt that he ever
> expressed any opinion on the article.
>
> Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article is
> a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
> scholars. It's just not worth their time.
> Interested readers can find my critiques of the Evans article here:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
Louis Blair
7 ... Kingston, who will not answer whether he posted here
7 under fake names IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF, ...
_
_
Has Larry Parr identified the "others" who supposedly agreed
with him on the "highlighted" and "singled out" controversy:
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. He simply selected a sentence from the
introduction to the game as an example of the
failure of GM Soltis to provide such information as
the round in which the game was played" - Louis
Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Nov 11, 10:28 pm):
7 ... What follows is an essay that I penned ...
7 ...
7 ... To my mind, Mr. Winter's lowest, in fact subterranean,
7 device is to argue that GM Evans is loath to admit mistakes.
7 ...
_
_
"Where is there a quote of Edward Winter saying
that GM Evans is loath to admit mistakes?" - Louis
Blair (4 Apr 2006 06:33:09 -0700)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Nov 11, 10:28 pm):
7 ... GM Evans was and is hungry, indeed ravenous, for such
7 corrections ...
_
_
"In the December 1999 Chess Life column, GM
Evans presented a letter from a reader that
contained these words: 'Wilhelm Steinitz was
50 when he defeated Johannes Zukertort (44) in
1892.'
_
Later, GM Evans wrote: 'obviously 1892
was a typo instead of 1872'.
_
Did GM Evans ever make it clear to his
readers that the year should have been
1886?" - Louis Blair (25 Mar 2006 17:22:26 -0800)
Taylor Kingston
> THE KINGSTON GAMBIT
>
> Not only does this farceur ignore his lie to Richard Laurie that he
Now that would *indeed* be farcical, for me to be unaware of a
dispute involving myself. Is our Larry in his cups? One supposes he
meant "between Evans and Winter." However, as I have already noted in
this thread, I never made any such statement to Richard Laurie, nor to
anyone else. This is sheer fabrication, something Parr does quite
frequently.
Larry -- please supply to the rec.games.chess readers the quote
which supposedly shows me professing ignorance of the existence of a
dispute between Evans and Winter, or between Evans and myself. You
must do this, Larry, or die a chicken.
help bot
> On Nov 12, 6:43 pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> > THE KINGSTON GAMBIT
>
> > Not only does this farceur ignore his lie to Richard Laurie that he
> > wasn't aware of the dispute between Evans and Kingston, [SIC]
>
> Now that would *indeed* be farcical, for me to be unaware of a
> dispute involving myself. Is our Larry in his cups?
"Kingston" was obviously a typo for "Winter"; these critics
all have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, not seeing
that the five-time U.S. champion is far more self-important
than they. Hmph!
-- Evans bot
parrt...@cs.com
<Taylor Kingston regurgitated a ChessCafe piece in which Edward Winter
attacked Larry Evans' writing. No, Larry, I posted a link to
it.....With friends like you, Evans hardly needs enemies....Ah, yes,
like when he "corrected" the date of the Steinitz-Zukertort WCh match,
and still didn't even get the right decade. > -- Taylor Kingston
Where to begin? Since this farceur imagines it was anything but a typo
(by GM Evans or the editor?) here is what GM Evans wrote in his
classic NEW IDEAS IN CHESS (1958): "A noted critic once wrote that
Steinitz's two match victories over Zukertort were attributable to the
fact that 'Zukertort was not yet Zukertort' in 1872 '(the date of
their first championship match), 'and was no longer Zukertort in
1886' (the date of their second match)."
NMnot Taylor Kingston -- the man who raised his rating by 500
points through the device of lying about his length of his number --
now avera that he did not
praise Edward Winter's attack on GM Larry Evans. He merely provided a
link.
Nonsense. NMnot has been a partisan of that attack from the
beginning, and his act of reproducing a link to it once again tells us
what he imagines to be its
merits. The man remains a mincing, tap-dancing liar.
Larry Evans wrote a scintillating article in Chess Life on the
Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948 world title tournament. He reviewed
the history of the debate, and he offered a GM's look at the games
themselves to find clues as to whether they were thrown to Botvinnik.
As Larry Tapper points out, its main value
was an an experiment in forensic game analysis. It was because of
this article that the case has been re-examined extensively.
Evans concluded that to the extent the games could be relied
upon, they indicated the fix was in. However, He qualified this
conclusion, noting that there could not be certainty.
Indeed, even today, after a great deal more evidence has
appeared (including Botvinnik's admission that orders had been
received from Stalin and relevelations from Taimanov and Bronstein
that these kinds of orders were part of Soviet praxis) we still do not
have cosmic certainty.
Evans' offered a bit of semi-pioneering work on the subject that
NMnot Taylor Kingston -- the man who won't answer whether he used
false names here IN ORDER TO PRAISE HIS OWN ARGUMENTS initally priased
to the high heavens.
Later on, our NMnot reversed himself, though finally and sheepishly
adopting Evans' initial conclusions. Our NMnot says that Evans proved
correct for the wrong reasons. The truth is that NMnot Kingston dare
not cross Edward
Winter by praising Evans' early insights.
Now, then, many of you have read my evisceration of Edward
Winter's attack on GM Larry Evans in which I found an incidence of
error -- shoddy reproduction of
quotations from GM Evans, in the main part -- HIGHER than that claimed
by Eddie Winter for GM Evans. Winter's mistakes were surprising
because he was not
writing under a necessary deadline as GM Evans does.
Readers have noted the Winter technique. The game between
Borochow and Fine was a fine example. Evans made a single error that
Winter tried to
compound into several errors. His technique was to quote from an
article in Chess Beat -- a collection of earlier Evans newspaper
pieces -- as though the article had been written much later than it
was.
NMnot Kingston, as a somewhat frightened acolyte, will not
acknoweldge the Winterian method. What else does our NMnot fails to
acknowledge?
For Pete's sake, this Winter gelding is a beaut', as they say in
Australian racing circles.
<Larry -- please supply to the rec.games.chess readers the quote
which supposedly shows me professing ignorance of the existence of a
dispute between Evans and Winter, or between Evans and myself. You
> must do this, Larry, or die a chicken.> -- Taylor Kingston's new challenge
RICHARD LAURIE AUTHORIZED ME TO RELEASE HIS LETTER TO TAYLOR KINGSTON
OVER A YEAR AGO
Playwright Richard Laurie is a chess fans with no axe to grind. ONCE
AGAIN here his exact words. Mr. Laurie doesn't want to be involved in
this debate ("Don't these people have lives?" he asked incredulously)
but will confirm his words if anyone asks me for his email.
**************************************************************************************************
"Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty. He contacted me on the
Net,
then wanted to send me materials to try and win me over to his side
of
the argument -- that Evans was wrong. After that he said HE WOULD
LIKE
TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE QUIET [emphasis mine] just between us. It
sounded a little shaky, but so far I saw nothing wrong.
"Then he said he contacted the editor and asked if it would be okay
for him to say I had changed my mind.. That's when I jumped on him in
my last letter, that I had not changed my mind and agreed to look at
his materials only to see what he had to offer.. I found nothing
substantial there and I told him that as far as secrecy went, he
already violated that by jumping the gun and contacting the editor.
"Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free
to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
Kingston's article in Chess Life to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
"Kingston wanted me to retract my printed view of the situation as it
appeared in Evans On Chess. He wanted me to say that I was wrong and.
therefore, Evans was wrong ..I even wrote the editor saying I had not
changed my mind, and that ended the matter.
"Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you are not aware
of the battle between Evans and Winter. I am troubled because I have
known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in preparing his
rebuttal to Mr.Winter's remarks as printed in Chess Life, October
2001.
"Further, it is my understanding and has been for months, that you
told Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please clear up this
seeming contradiction." -- Richard Laurie
****************************************************************************
REPENT NOW!
"It said false things about me and Winter. It put Mr. Laurie in a bad
light. I did indeed have hopes of getting him to retract his
falsehoods, but unfortunately, he turned out to have the same aversion
to facts as you do, Larry....
"As I have pointed out in an earlier post in another thread, this and
Mr. Laurie's other allegations, by which you set such great store, are
false. It is interesting to see one liar believe another. Larry, if
you fabricate something people can use: food, clothing, housing, etc.,
you perform a service. If you fabricate quotations, you
may damn your own soul. Repent now." -- Taylor Kingston
CAPTAIN QUEEG STRIKES AGAIN
In "The Caine Mutiny" the good captain also claims that his crew is
disloyal and spread falsehoods about him as he rubs ball bearings
while on the witness stand. Yes, yes, everyone is lying except Taylor
Kingston. Even someone who has absolutely no axe to grind with him.
Yes, yes, everyone else is lying.
Yours, Larry Parr
parrt...@cs.com
What follows is a portion of a longer essay on
Edward Winter's understanding of historical analysis.
I contrast it with the work done by Larry Evans.
Readers will have a chance to judge whether a
typo about a given country (a charge against GM Evans)
or deliberate misreading of historical texts and the
writing of others (the practice of Eddie Winter) is
the more serious lapse.
WHAT IS "HISTORICAL TRUTH"?
Now there's a question for you!
Dates? Ages of historical actors who strut the
stage? Yes, that is part of history. But we are
dealing with the rankest kind of philistinism to
equate these numbers with truth in history. Wrote Mr.
Winter in Kingpin (Spring 2000):
"Plain facts seldom stand a chance. A small example of the Evans
approach to historical truth [my italics] arises from his December
1999 column, which included the following: 'Wilhelm Steinitz was 50
when he defeated Johannes Zukertort (44) in 1892.' In the February
2000 Chess Life we pointed out that this seemed improbable, given
that Zukertort had died in 1888. Mr. Evans responded tartly that the
matter was unimportant because 'obviously 1892 was a typo instead of
1872.' Still not even the right decade."
On the issue of truth - pure and simple, without a preceding adjective
- Mr. Winter lied through his teeth when he deliberately misled an
English audience that GM Evans wrote the sentence Mr. Winter quoted.
A detailed analysis of the substance and syntax of this icy lie will
come in a later article of this series. For the moment, the subject
is what Mr. Winter calls "historical truth."
Mr. Winter, the bean-counter, provides what he says is an
"example" of how GM Evans approaches "historical truth." The example
contains some incorrect dates and ages written by a third party - a
reader of GM Evans' column in Chess Life. There are seventh-graders
who would shrink from a bookkeeper's equation of dates and ages with
an "approach" to "historical truth."
"History, rejecting absolutes," writes Jacques Barzun in Clio
and the Doctors, "gives no comfort to ... minds that crave finality
and certitude."
We know many dates and names with finality and certitude, but
they have less to do with "historical truth" than applying common
sense to raw data. Barzun, of course, is describing the process of
writing history - not necessarily arguing that history is ultimately
elative.
One "does" history by reading - and reading and reading. And
thinking and thinking. And winnowing. Oh, yes, winnowing. Ninety-
nine-plus percent of all
the names, dates and production statistics get dropped. What remains
is history, which is, by Barzun's reckoning, the historian's
understanding of how it really was back then or, in Leopold von
Ranke's phrase, wie es eigentlich gewesen. What remains in this
understanding is not necessarily the meaningless subjectivity of a
single person but the possibility for truthful understanding.
For, as Aleksandr Solzhenitysn wrote in his Nobel Lecture, truth
carries its own conviction. As an example, men understood that in
spite of Nazi propaganda, Theresienstadt was not a model for a noble
Nazi system of labor correction. "Arbeit Macht Frei" never
resonated. And when the first testimonies appeared about the
Holocaust, the Nazi historical enterprise collapsed. Even more
telling is how Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago completely leveled the
mountains of Soviet and Western apologias for Stalin's system. One
book versus thousands of books.
One work of truth versus a library of lies. Yet the single book
prevailed.
Truth in history can only be found through the mind of the
historian, though few historians measure up to writing works that
evoke consensus. Names and dates can be important, though are by no
means always so. But the capacity to understand what the raw facts
mean is always crucial. On this score, GM Evans is Mr. Winter's
distinct superior.
We turn in Part II of this series to Edward Winter's farce of
"Richard the Fifth."
MR. WINTER ATTACKS HIS BETTER - II
By Larry Parr
WINTER'S TALE ABOUT RICHARD THE FIFTH
"If the record in the Spence book is to be believed, there is
no justification for the nickname ["Richard the Fifth" for Richard
Teichmann] ... " - Edward Winter, Chess Notes (No. 929) and Chess
Explorations (p. 122)
"If the record in the Spence book is to be believed, my
judgment is that there is OVERWHELMING justification for the nickname,
Richard the Fifth." - GM Larry Evans in an e-mail message of June
30, 2001
Shakespeare had his tragedy of Richard III. Rowan Atkinson had
his comedy of Richard the Fourth. Edward Winter has his farce of
"Richard the Fifth."
Mr. Winter's work is true to the pedant's paradox: the deeper
you dig, the shallower it becomes. Take, as an example, his "Richard
the Fifth," which was No. 929 in Chess Notes and which appears on page
122 of Chess Explorations:
Richard the Fifth
It is frequently stated that Teichmann was called 'Richard
the Fifth' on account of the number of times he finished number five
in a tournament. If the
record in the [Jack] Spence book is to be believed, there is no
justification for the nickname; Teichmann is shown as finishing fifth
or equal fifth only nine times out of fifty tournaments. He was first
or equal first in eighteen.
Unmitigated, unhistorical swill. A veritable Reign of Error.
Even the weasel-conditional - "If the record in the Spence book is to
be believed" - doesn't help.
Where to begin?
The above is not chance nonsense from Mr. Winter. Not only did he
consider the
thoughts worthy of Chess Notes, he reprised the effort for a book. We
are dealing, then, with what Mr. Winter himself regards as mulled
cogitation worthy of
being republished.
Where to begin?
A key rule in historical analysis is that not all "likes" are alike.
That's common sense. Not all battle victories in a war are equal (the
final victory frequently being more important than preceding ones);
not all victories in tennis tournaments are equal (winning Wimbledon
counts more than winning the Cannibal Open in Ouagadougou); and not
all chess tournaments are equal (winning or, yes, finishing fifth at
Linares counts more for a great player's reputation than winning the
Kennesaw Monthly Sunday Swiss - reached, in the words of a Chess Life
TLA, "from Wade Green exit 118, west cross RR tracks, through alley to
City Hall").
Where to begin?
A key rule in historical analysis is that there is no mechanistic
formulation for analyzing what is important in a life. That's common
sense. The most important moments may come at the beginning of a life
or at the end or, most often, during the middle years. Bean-counters
may try to average out events in a life. Historians do not.
Reputations are rightly made by how one handles important moments or
challenges in a life. No historian, when writing about Bobby
Fischer's IQ, would average out his score on a Stanford-Binet during
his high school years with his scores on the same test at age one week
and, if Mr. Fischer remains with us,
at age 101.
Mr. Winter's weasel-conditional that there is "no justification"
for calling Richard Teichmann "Richard the Fifth" if the Spence tally
is "to be believed" (meaning, in plain English, largely accurate) is
fulfilled. Searching through Jeremy
Gaige's Chess Tournament Crosstables, I found nine fifth or shared
fifth prizes and 13 first or shared firsts out of 42 tables in which
Teichmann appears. That leaves eight other tables - if Mr. Winter's
count of 50 is "to be believed" - missing from the Gaige work.
Moreover, five of those missing eight are probably among the 18 first
prizes that Mr. Winter mentions in the book by Jack Spence. (My copy
is
packed away in New York.)
First, a disclaimer: I counted 42 Teichmann tables after sifting
through Gaige's pages twice. Could there be 43 or 44? Possibly, but
the overall picture will not change much. Counting the relevant
tables could help to pass the time for Mr. Winter or his ratpackers.
If I have erred, we shall hear about it, for sure. If not, they will
likely keep their traps shut.
The defining tournaments of the old Europe of Barbara Tuchman's
Proud Tower, which is to say essentially the decade and lustrum before
World War I,
were the great casino and resort competitions. Whether Mr. Winter was
aware of this common understanding, he certainly had before him on
Jack Spence's list the names of such places as Monte Carlo, Ostend and
Carlsbad. These tournaments and a few ohers were the key
competitions of early 20th century chess.
Here is a list of Richard Teichmann's results in the Wimbledons and
French Opens of his time:
Monte Carlo 1902
4th (of 20)
Monte Carlo 1903
5th (of 14)
Vienna 1903
5th= (of 10)
Cambridge Springs 1904
10th-11th (of 16)
Ostend 1905
5th= (of 14)
Ostend 1905
4th (of 4)
Ostend 1906
5th= (of 36)
Carlsbad 1907
7th= (of 21)
Ostend 1907
6th (of 29)
Prague 1908
5th (of 20)
Vienna 1908
5th (of 20)
Munich 1909
1st (of 4 -- a small but fairly strong
quad)
St. Petersburg 1909
6th (of 19)
Hamburg 1910
5th= (of 17)
Carlsbad 1911
1st (of 26)
San Sebastian 1911
10th (of 15)
Breslau 1912
3rd (of 18)
Budapest 1912
5th= (of 6)
Pistyan 1912
5th= (of 18)
San Sebastian 1912
8th-9th (of 11)
The above list contains the strongest tournaments in which
Teichmann competed during his prime years, though Breslau 1912 (a
third-place
finish),Ostend 1905 (a fourth-place finish and a quad),and Munich 1909
(a first prize and another quad) may not belong on a list that
contains such massive events as Ostend 1906 and 1907 with 36 and 29
players, respectively. Still, even including these tournaments, one
has enough to judge the adequacy of Winter's judgment that "there is
no justification for the nickname" of Richard the Fifth. Notice the
arrant, errant phrase, "no justification."
Mr. Winter's judgment is slop - the mental math of a
bookkeeping antiquarian rather than the reasoned reflection of a
historian. He utterly fractures the first rule that not all likes are
alike -- or, in the context of this discussion, not all chess
tournaments are equal.
Here is what Larry Evans, a grandmaster and scintillating writer
has to say on the same subject: "Teichmann's monicker, 'Richard the
Fifth,' came from his performances in the great tournaments of his
prime years. These were massive events held in spas and casinos, and
they defined tournament chess at the
beginning of the 20th century. Teichmann's results in these
tournaments informed his career. That's historical common sense. Just
read Lasker, for crying out loud."
The reference is to Edward, not Emanuel, Lasker and his lovely
memoir, Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters, where Teichmann's
propensity for
finishing fifth is mentioned. "It was said of him," wrote Lasker the
Lesser, "that he had a season ticket for fifth place."
Now, then, GM Evans is a historically literate chess writer -
not a chess historian. He is a jack of all chess trades and master of
a few. He entertains
with lively writing which at its best, as Mr. Winter once noted, "is
very good." His rehearsal of why Teichmann was called Richard the
Fifth is not that of a Clio-accountant; it is a logical appraisal of
the major moments in Teichmann's career by someone whom Mr. Winter
once described as "normally one of the sanest and acutest of
commentators."
Now, back to those numbers. Of the 20 tournaments listed (we
will soon be discussing what is not listed) Teichmann finished fifth
or equal fifth nne times, fourth twice, sixth twice, and 7th= once. In
14 of 20 tournaments, he was either fifth or hovering very nearby. No
one, except a party-line Winterian ratpacker, would defend Mr.
Winter's idiot-savant, number-crunching judgment that there is
"no justification" for the monicker of Richard the Fifth.
Indeed, GM Evans is clearly correct to say that there is
"OVERWHELMING justification" for Teichmann's nickname.
I asked one statistician over here in Malaysia about the odds
against so many fourth, fifth and sixth places in tournaments with
large numbers of competitors. His response was NOT what I wished to
hear: the odds could be many guh-zillions to one IF Teichmann were
not fifth-place rating material or they could be considerably lower if
he were. I asked him to work out the odds, and he wanted dollars in
return.
Perhaps some statistician could venture a ballpark figure for the odds
against so many fifth places in tournaments with, respectively, 14,
10, 14, 36, 20, 20, 17, 6 and 18 players. One ought also to mention
that several of Teichmann's non-fifth finishes were very close to the
target. His 7th= at Carlsbad 1907 was a point shy of fifth; his 6th
at Ostend 1907 was a half-point short; his 6th at St. Petersburg 1909
was a half-point below; his 10th at San Sebastian 1911 was one-point
below fifth; and his 3rd at Breslau was a half-point above fifth-
equal.
Another issue to consider is how Teichmann achieved these fifth-
ish results. Was he creating a dynamic stir with wins wildly
alternating with losses, forcibly suggesting other possible
nicknames? Or was he often playing somnolent, though powerful chess,
drawing against the strong and preying a la Darwin on the weak,
thereby ensconcing himself comfortably in the upper half of most
tournament tables? Did his game results suggest a strong also-ran or
a win-loss
mad dog?
I think the game results suggest a strong also-ran, especially
during his maturity, though there are exceptions such as Vienna 1903,
a gambit tournament. At Prague 1908 he was +1 =8 against the top
half; at Vienna 1908 he was =8 against the top eight and +4 against
the bottom four. At St. Petersburg 1909, he did NOT draw a lot
against the top half because he lost a lot. But at San Sebastian
1911, a 10th-place finish, he was +1 -2 =4 against the top half but
failed to assassinate the lower half that time around.
The reader will notice that I consider fourth-place and sixth-
place finishes to have some bearing on calling Teichmann "Richard the
Fifth." There were four such instances (two fourths, two sixths), and
one can readily understand how these
placings, when interspersed among nine fifths or equal fifths, would
contribute to the picture of Teichmann as Richard the Fifth because
that is where or NEAR
where he always seemed to be finishing. That is common sense, though
it is evidently not Winter sense.
Notice how this collector of trivia and bean-counter mechanically
refers only to fifth or equal fifth finishes and first or equal first
finishes. Notice how he fails to differentiate between great
tournaments and lesser vehicles.
Another rule of thumb in historical analysis, as mentioned
earlier, is that the ultimate judgment on a given individual seldom
involves averaging out the person's life. What he does as a child
(pace Mill and Mozart) or as an octogenarian (pace Colonel Sanders and
George Burns) is seldom as significant as what he does in middle age.
Mr. Winter, of course, made no attempt to differentiate not only among
results in major versus minor tournaments, but he also lumped together
first prizes obtained in minor tournaments in Teichmann's early and
late years.
Here is Teichmann's early record in tournaments through 1900:
Berlin 1890-91
1st (of 11 -- only players of some note, Caro and Walbrodt)
Berlin 1891-92
10th (of 11 -- Caro, Walbrodt, Bardeleben, B. Lasker - not a landmark
event)
Leipzig 1894
3rd (of 18 -- an important but not a great tournament of the
1890s)
Hastings 1895
7th-8th (of 22 --THE famous Hastings event)
London 1896
1st (of 12)
Nuremberg 1896
19th (of 19 --one of the great events of the 1890s)
Berlin 1897
16th (of 20 -- one of the nearly great events of the 1890s)
London 1899
15th (of 15 -- one of the great events of the 1890s)
London 1900
1st (of 13 -- a club event
London 1900
1st (of 5 -- at Simpson's Divan vs. Lee, Muller, van Vliet, Mortimer
- kinda
speaks for itself)
The historian would not look at this period of Teichmann's career
as defining. His awful results at Nuremberg 1896, Berlin 1897 and
London 1899 more than
offset the respectable finish at Hastings 1895. The four first prizes
in weak or relatively weak tournaments rightly created little notice.
During Teichmann's defining years, I did not include the
following tournaments in the initial list given above:
London 1904
2st (of 17 -- Napier, Blackburne, Gunsberg, Leonhardt and a
nearly dead Mason - once again, not a tournament to list along those
included)
London 1904
1st (of 9 -- a Rice Gambit tournament with Leonhardt, Napier,
Gunsberg and
Mortimer, Dickinson, MacBean - kinda speaks for
itself)
Berlin 1907
1st (of 12 -- the only other undisputed GM was Spielmann; maybe
Leonhardt)
Berlin 1909
1st= (of 4 -- a six-round cafe event with Cohn, Spielmann,
Bardeleben)
Berlin 1909
1st= (of 10 -- an undistinguished BLITZ tournament)
Berlin 1910
1st (of 5 -- an eight-round cafe tournament with no other
grandmaster)
Some of the ratpackers will probably stoop low enough to suggest
that the above six tournaments should be listed alongside the great
events of Teichmann's prime. Even if they were, the picture would not
change much. Nine fifths, two fourths and two sixths, would still
stand out in any reckoning of 26 (instead of 20) tournaments.
After 1914, I found mention of five tournaments in Gaige, the
two most important being Teplitz-Schoenau 1922 (7th of 14) and
Carlsbad 1923 (9th of 18), though Berlin 1924 (3rd of 4), a double-
round quad with Paul Johner, Rubinstein and Mieses, was a worthy
little event. Berlin 1924 and Leipzig 1925, two 1st= finishes, were
much lesser vehicles.
An historian looking at the above data would conclude that
Richard Teichmann WAS Richard the Fifth, especially given the helpful
coincidence of the first names. His fifth places and his near-fifths
occurred in the greatest tournaments of his era. His famous first -
the great exception that proves the rule - at 25-round Carlsbad 1911
was matched by no other comparable result. His first at Munich
1909? This
double-round quad included Alapin, Spielmann and Przepiorka. Six-
rounds. The "Historian" may do some ratpacking duty, but few others
will.
Conclusion: Edward Winter wrote slop, though it was evidently
his considered and republished judgment, when he claimed that there is
"no justification" for the nickname Richard the Fifth.
None of the above is meant to cast aspersions on Teichmann's
strength. Capablanca once ranked him among the first five in the
world, listing "Lasker, Rubinstein, Schlechter, Teichmann and the
present writer." The order in this list could be taken as
alphabetical or, given that Capa coyly lists himself last, in order of
strength.
Who, then, would have been fifth strongest in the world? You
got it. Good old "Richard the Fifth" himself!
MR. WINTER'S CONTUMELY
Was Mr. Winter really unaware that Teichmann was a human 1/5-fraction
at the great events of his prime years? I don't think so. He knows
his dates and
name-spellings well enough. But he could not restrain his disdain for
conventional wisdom, even when that wisdom is evidently sound. He HAD
to heap scorn on
what others have long thought. Such is Mr. Winter's contumely.
How does Mr. Winter's contumacious misrepresentation of
Teichmann's career compare with Larry Evans permitting or not having
the chance to proof the typo "Austalia" in his column or with having
the name "Book" appear in his column without umlauts because of a CL
style convention or with writing "of" instead of "to" in the title of
a book or with misremembering when one Quesada died or with
misdentifying the winner of a game between Fine and Borochow, etc.?
The few errors that appear in the millions of words written by GM
Evans were mistakes made in good faith. They were not major
misjudgments motivated by scorn for the understanding and work of
others.
Louis Blair
7 ...
7 ... What follows is an essay that I penned ...
7 ...
7 corrections ...
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:08:29 -08):
7 ...
7 ... Edward Winter ... accused Evans' of making numerous errors.
7 To prove his point, he offered about 25 mistakes in an oeuvre of
7 some 10 million words. Several of those mistakes already had
7 been acknowledged and corrected by GM Evans himself..
7 ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:40:40 -0800):
7 ...
7 Ah, yes, like when he "corrected" the date of the Steinitz-Zukertort
7 WCh match, and still didn't even get the right decade. A marvelous
7 example of scholarship. But we must give Evans some credit for
trying,
7 however ineptly.
7 ...
_
I wrote (Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:39:16 -0000):
7 "In the December 1999 Chess Life column, GM
7 Evans presented a letter from a reader that
7 contained these words: 'Wilhelm Steinitz was
7 50 when he defeated Johannes Zukertort (44) in
7 1892.'
7
7 Later, GM Evans wrote: 'obviously 1892
7 was a typo instead of 1872'.
7
7 Did GM Evans ever make it clear to his
7 readers that the year should have been
7 1886?" - Louis Blair (25 Mar 2006 17:22:26 -0800)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:37:54 -0800):
7 ...
7 ... Since [Taylor Kingston] imagines it was anything but a
7 typo (by GM Evans or the editor?) here is ...
7 ...
_
_
"I am not sure what Larry Parr is trying to say.
Does he mean that the reader had meant to
write 1886 and accidentally typed 1892
instead, or does he mean that the reader had
written 1886 and Evans, while transcribing the
letter, had accidentally turned the year into
1892? Is 'a typographical error' being offered
as the explanation for why Evans brought the
year 1872 into the discussion?
_
And, again: Did GM Evans ever make it clear
to his readers that the year should have been
1886?" - Louis Blair (20 May 2005 09:38:30 -0700)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:37:54 -0800):
7 ...
7 ... Kingston -- the man who won't answer whether he used false names
7 here IN ORDER TO PRAISE HIS OWN ARGUMENTS initally priased
7 to the high heavens. ...
7 ...
_
_
Has Larry Parr identified the "others" who supposedly agreed
with him on the "highlighted" and "singled out" controversy?
Chess One
"Larry Tapper" <larry_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194906429.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 4:40 pm, Taylor Kingston <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
> After following these various arguments for some time, I'm still one
> of the doubting Thomases who think that it is simply not known whether
> Keres deliberately threw any of the Botvinnik games. That is, there
> isn't enough evidence to distinguish between the two scenarios: (1)
> Keres was rattled by the political pressure; and (2) Keres consciously
> gave in to the political pressure. (Of course there are other
> possibilities, e.g. Keres was simply in poor form or Botvinnik had his
> number.)
or (3) he was exhausted?
Contextually though any lapsus on the part of Keres can be argued by
exclusion; that is, what set Keres/Botvinnik apart from all other Russian
championships so that there would be no pressure? Contexts can attain more
or less weight in any individual case - yet the context of coercian here was
the norm, no?
> I trust that the _existence_ of the political pressure has never
> really been in dispute, except maybe among some hard-core defenders of
> the Soviet system. What we learned from the new Whyld evidence was
> that the subject of Comrade Stalin preferring a Botvinnik victory was
> explicitly discussed.
He gained his understanding from the Linders [father and son] when they met
in Berlin. Pity Ken didn't consult a certain GM in the Crimea, or in fact,
use second sourcing since he would corroborate the issue more fully.
The argument, Larry, is if there was coercian, there are also those who
would hide it, diminish it. Those who would are openly discussed in Russian
chess circles. In this instance we have to understand the weight of Stalin's
'preference' as an instruction to one of the 3 cultural shows put on by the
Soviets.
> But even had this not happened, Keres was smart
> enough to understand what he was up against. So the so-called new
> revelations do not really strike me as revelations at all. This is
> where Taylor Kingston and I part ways --- I thought his apparent
> recantation ("The Commies did it") was no more justified by the new
> evidence at hand than it already had been long before that.
>
> It seems to me that if Evans contributed anything of value to the
> debate, it had to be his experiment with forensic game analysis
> ("emanations from the games", as Larry Parr put it). We didn't need
> Evans to inform us that as a politically suspect Estonian challenger
> in 1948, Keres must have been feeling the heat.
Look Larry, its not 'heat'. Its Siberia! His Estonian background would have
weighed against him somewhat, but hob-nobbing around Germany during the war
weighed more, eh? The Soviets hardly engaged outside the Bloc until 1953
since they feared foreign agents polluting their scene [and sometimes by
reporting it!]
I think a second point is that whatever Evans can relate to us about his
opinion, and however well, we have to remember that he is not referring to
any abstraction, as if to say, by comparitive evaluations by Fritz of the
suspect games.
The psychological and social pressure on these games is a very strong
factor, and indeed, they can be invisible to most of us since we never
experienced it in our own play. But GMs do, and some have written supporting
this otherwise invisible factor. Its not like the annoyance of a rainy day
at Manhattan Beach. The context is Josef Stalin's 'preferrences'. On the
whole, he seems to have got his way even if it meant shifting a million
people or so.
It was much later in the Soviet era until any semi-open dissent appeared -
after the Age of the Dictators was in decline, and perhaps first emerged
with 'bad boy' Boris Spassky.
So if you were engaged with that subject in an earlier time, you knew there
were no exceptions tolerated without great risk being attached, even lethal
risk, and then the conversation turns to the /extent/ of 'pressure' on
various individuals, not the existence of it.
Phil Innes
> Larry T.
>
Chess One
"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1194914356.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> "... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
> game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
> position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
> failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
> about the best-known position in the famous game.
Look! Its Louis, ex of the Forum Tribunal thingee :))
Welcome back!
But, immediately to the point - we are talking about a series of games
Keres/Botvinnik, and the state of the conversation is that Taylor Kingston
has asserted in previous posts, albeit they are self-contradictory
statements, that he does not dissagree with the Evans conclusion, but also,
"Even when my research into the Keres-Botvinnik case led me to change my
mind about the value of his 1996 article, ..."
Now - what this research is, remains unclear, even as much as the statement
of diminished 'value' of raising the subject is vague.
Instead of any 'research' presented in discussion, instead we have a spat by
Kingston, the letter writer, with Evans the journalist. No other issue has
been mentioned by Kingston.
> Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
> '... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
> to have chosen another position if I were not up to
> the mark of pointing out the most important point in
> the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
> 19:05:22 -0700)
I think if you review a book of 100 best games but don't actually play
through the games, then whatever is reviewed is other than the games, no?
The Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) reporting episode is an exact parallel to
Keres/Botvinnik, which is to say, that it is not any analysis of the chess.
Should Taylor Kingston have a more specific contributionto make on the issue
of Keres Botvinnik, either contextually which would mean showing that there
was no coercian in the games - a fact which would be //unusual//, or some
commentary on the play of the games - he might make himself clearer.
Both those items would contribute to schoarly approach, whereas a publish-me
spat by a commentator to a columnist does not.
Those are the central issues here, and for you, Louis, to join the
conversations here late to only discuss the spat, and not Keres Botvinnik,
is your choice.
But you might make yourself clear on what subject you write, at least so you
are not deluding yourself that you write about anything other than a
dissapointed letter-writer to CL.
Phil Innes
Chess One
> On Nov 12, 6:43 pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>> THE KINGSTON GAMBIT
>>
>> Not only does this farceur ignore his lie to Richard Laurie that he
>> wasn't aware of the dispute between Evans and Kingston, [SIC]
>
> Now that would *indeed* be farcical, for me to be unaware of a
> dispute involving myself. Is our Larry in his cups? One supposes he
> meant "between Evans and Winter." However, as I have already noted in
> this thread, I never made any such statement to Richard Laurie, nor to
> anyone else.
Although you may have stated other reasons to contact someone - such as
wanting to speak with Laurie on Alekhine?
> This is sheer fabrication, something Parr does quite
> frequently.
> Larry -- please supply to the rec.games.chess readers the quote
> which supposedly shows me professing ignorance of the existence of a
> dispute between Evans and Winter, or between Evans and myself. You
> must do this, Larry, or die a chicken.
Was it Peter Kurzdorfer who refused your letter to CL? For example, did you
write this to me on
Saturday, February 16, 2002 12:22 PM
In fact, I see the stem here to be "Chess Life, March 2002, continues the
discussion by
printing a letter by Richard Laurie of Pennsylvania citing Krylenko's
influence on Stalin to bribe and cheat "as a matter of national policy."
As someone wrote me, and then a double misrepresentation of the someone.
I just can't figure out what your issue is - if you do not contest the
issues raised by Evans by your own researches, then you [rightly or wrongly]
seek redress for the discontinuation of your correspondence on the subject
in CL.
But your writing dances in between the 2 subjects, as if to validate one is
to validate the other.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
>
> LP: Taylor Kingston regurgitated a ChessCafe piece in which Edward Winter
> attacked Larry Evans' writing.
> TK: No, Larry, I posted a link to it.
> LP: Taylor Kingston ... now avera [sic] that he did not
> praise Edward Winter's attack on GM Larry Evans.
Gee, when did I say that, Larry? I think your dyslexia is kicking up
again. I did and do praise the Winter article. But I did not
regurgitate it. "Praise" means to commend, to speak highly of.
"Regurgitate" means to vomit. A dictionary can aid you in grasping
these subtle distinctions.
> TK: Larry -- please supply to the rec.games.chess readers the quote
> which supposedly shows me professing ignorance of the existence of a
> dispute between Evans and Winter, or between Evans and myself. You
> must do this, Larry, or die a chicken.> -- Taylor Kingston's new challenge
>
> RICHARD LAURIE AUTHORIZED ME TO RELEASE HIS LETTER TO TAYLOR KINGSTON
> OVER A YEAR AGO
That's nice, Larry, but quite irrelevant. One does not prove Person
A said X by quoting Person B, though of course such factual
fundamentals are alien to you. Fortunately, I saved all my
correspondence with Mr. Laurie, and thus am able to quote what I
actually said. The relevant passages:
Kingston to Laurie, 21 February 2002:
"Two, you wrote 'I am always appalled by those who meet a solid
argument with a personal attack, like Edward Winter' ... I am not
aware of any personal attacks by Mr. Winter, though admittedly I do
not have the full voluminous record of words that have passed between
those two ..."
*** Please explain to us, Larry, how I can profess to know of the
existence of a "voluminous record of words that have passed between"
Winter and Evans, and yet be simultaneously professing ignorance of
their dispute? ***
Kingston to Laurie, 6 March 2002:
"[Y]our letter makes evident certain gaps in our understanding of
each other. I can only assume that you wrote it before going through
the material I sent you. I will now speak frankly.
"To deal with your final point first, you said: 'I am troubled by
your bald assertion that you are not aware of the battle between Evans
and Winter.'
"That is a complete misreading on your part. I made no such
statement. If you will re-check my message of 2/12/2002, you will see
that the relevant portion says:
"'Also I am not aware of any personal attacks by Mr. Winter, though
admittedly I do not have the full voluminous record of words that have
passed between those two ...'
"This cannot be interpreted as pretended ignorance of the Winter-
Evans dispute. I am well aware of the public antipathy between them
for perhaps two years or more."
*** end excerpts from 2002 correspondence ***
So you see, Larry, in claiming that I made a "bald assertion that
you are not aware of the battle between Evans and Winter," Mr. Laurie
committed a plain falsehood, one of several. Which you, of course,
were only too eager to believe and spread.
I must say, it's rather satisfying to see one liar deceived by
another.
help bot
SHOOTING IN THE DARK
> <Taylor Kingston regurgitated a ChessCafe piece in which Edward Winter
> attacked Larry Evans' writing. No, Larry, I posted a link to
> it.....With friends like you, Evans hardly needs enemies....
If only Larry Parr had half a brain, he might have realized that
hidden somewhere amidst his long-winded jabberings, was the
very "defense" of Larry Evans' article he so desperately seeks:
> Larry Evans wrote a[n] article in Chess Life...
> ... It was because of this article that the case has been
> re-examined extensively.
There you have it. There is no /need/ to construct fancy
ad hominem attacks on Taylor Kingston or Edward Winter.
There is no /need/ to prattle on about whose writing style
is superior, or who is imagined to be envious of their "vast
superiors". There simply is no /need/.
Rehashing all the sordid details merely drags the good
name of Larry Evans through the muck; it brings up what
EW referred to as his "innumerable" mistakes, and this is
the sort of thing which other posters have complained
about here.
> Now, then, many of you have read my evisceration of Edward
> Winter's attack on GM Larry Evans in which I found an incidence of
> error
Two-wrongs-make-right idiocies like the above drags the
good name of Larry Evans down, into the muck. Why, oh
why does he not /fire/ Mr. Parr and find a better PR man?
> Winter's mistakes were surprising because he was not
> writing under a necessary deadline as GM Evans does.
Alas, many of LE's spelling errors and wrong dates
have more to do with carelessness than any fight with
some imagined deadlines or other windmills. In fact, I
note that it is precisely because Mr. Parr is no longer
editing Chess Lies that so many of GM Evans' recent
errors have managed to "creep in". With no proofing
and no editing, an aging writer is prone to more and
more such errors, deadlines or no deadlines. Let's
cut the man some slack here -- he is what? seventy
five years old? Is it any wonder that criticisms of LE
tend to focus mainly on his more recent work?
> "Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty.
It's deja vue all over again! How many times have I
had some dispute with the likes of TK or IM Innes,
only to have one of them deny what they themselves
have written or done?
> "Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
> showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free
> to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
> Kingston's article in Chess Life to see that he denigrated Evans'
> ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
So much for the credibility of Richard Laurie.
For the record, Dr. Nunn /is/ the stronger player,
and he /was/ stronger at the time GM Evans wrote
the article in question. Let's just dismiss any
comparison of the two players at their respective
peaks as irrelevant, since neither applies. (I think
GM Evans may have peaked, objectively, at the
ripe old age of twenty! Was Dr. Nunn even born
yet?)
> In "The Caine Mutiny" the good captain also claims that his crew is
> disloyal and spread falsehoods about him as he rubs ball bearings
> while on the witness stand. Yes, yes, everyone is lying except Taylor
> Kingston. Even someone who has absolutely no axe to grind with him.
> Yes, yes, everyone else is lying.
As I recall, in the end the lawyer agreed. He stated that
he /had to/ "torpedo" the Captain, but that each of the men
/was guilty/ of disloyalty. (This is yet another example of
Larry Parr's problem: he can't seem to get the basic facts
right.)
What Larry Evans really needs is not a poor PR-man like
Larry Parr; what he needs is someone who can compensate
where he has weaknesses (spellings, date-checking, etc.).
He might be far better off to fire LP, and replace him with a
chess historian like say, Neil Brennen.
-- help bot
Larry Tapper
> ...As Larry Tapper points out, its main value
> was an experiment in forensic game analysis. It was because of
> this article that the case has been re-examined extensively.
Right, but I put it in the form of a conditional:
"It seems to me that if Evans contributed anything of value to the
debate, it had to be his experiment with forensic game analysis."
And in this case I believe that the antecedent is false.
It seems to me that Evans' theory of forensic analysis was basically a
non-starter because of his criteria for fishiness. Evans made the
reasonable conjecture that a top GM looking to throw a game would be
motivated to avert immediate suspicion and would therefore tend to
make subtle errors rather than blatantly obvious blunders. So far so
good. But the problem is that the outcomes of decisive GM games are
quite _typically_ determined by errors in this general category. Are
half of all GM victories therefore under a cloud of suspicion?
As I recall, Exhibit A in Evans' analysis was a rook endgame position
in which Keres unnecessarily placed his rook passively. A player of
Keres' caliber would never make a move like that, the argument went.
OK, but I have recent endgame books by Belyavsky and Dvoretsky that
feature dozens of examples of strong GMs making horrible mistakes in
fairly simple rook endgames. It is hard to say what a given GM would
never do --- remarkably bad things can happen to anyone who is tired
or nervous or short of time.
Actually if I set myself the task of throwing a game in a way that
would be hard to detect, my first inclination would be to get myself
into severe time trouble. In that situation, any blunder could
plausibly be explained away.
Be that as it may, I think even Larry Parr must admit that if
"scholars" now resoundingly agree that the games were thrown, as he
claims, it can't possibly be because of Evans' game analysis. The best
we can say about that analysis is that GM opinion remains divided. As
I recall Nunn and Seirawan were among those who were publicly
skeptical from the beginning. I asked a couple of American GMs myself,
and they didn't think much of Evans' analysis either. On the other
hand, I've noticed that Hans Ree is one recent convert to the fixed-
games theory.
(Note that Ree's article on the subject was published in Chess Cafe,
which Parr et al think of as a hotbed of anti-Evans bias. TK knows his
way around the Chess Cafe archives better than I do, maybe he could
find the relevant Ree piece.)
Larry T.
> **************************************************************************************************
> ****************************************************************************
> > must do this, Larry, or die a chicken.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Taylor Kingston
I don't think it was all that recent, Larry. As long as I've known
Hans, his opinion has remained unchanged.
> (Note that Ree's article on the subject was published in Chess Cafe,
> which Parr et al think of as a hotbed of anti-Evans bias. TK knows his
> way around the Chess Cafe archives better than I do, maybe he could
> find the relevant Ree piece.)
You are probably thinking of this article, Larry:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans69.pdf
Ree mentions the same rook endgame you referred to, and draws a
different conclusion.
Hans and I have exchanged several e-mails on this whole subject over
the years, discussing (quite cordially, in pleasant contrast to Parr/
Evans) the opinions of Watson, Evans, Nunn, IM Kim Commons and others
who have weighed in on K-B and other allegations of Soviet tampering.
In general, Ree gives more weight to moves on the board than I do in
such situations. He cites the 1979 Karpov-Smyslov game as one where he
believes the moves themselves indicate collusion and chicanery, while
I consider actions away from the board more significant, for example
the fact that Karpov left the game for about 45 minutes.
Surprisingly, however, while Ree sees that Keres endgame as evidence
of coercion, he is rather dismissive of the idea of coercion at the
1953 Candidates Tournament, where we have direct testimony that
pressure was indeed applied. For example, he discounts Bronstein's
claim that the Soviet political troika (Postnikov, Moshintsev, and
Bondarevsky) pressured Keres not to beat Smyslov at one point in the
tournament. Ree feels Keres just shrugged off this pressure and tried
to win anyway, while in my opinion it could not have failed to affect
him negatively.
help bot
> > (Note that Ree's article on the subject was published in Chess Cafe,
> > which Parr et al think of as a hotbed of anti-Evans bias. TK knows his
> > way around the Chess Cafe archives better than I do, maybe he could
> > find the relevant Ree piece.)
>
> You are probably thinking of this article, Larry:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans69.pdf
In that article, Mr. Ree seems reluctant to draw rather
obvious conclusions, such as when someone's story
in inconsistent, self-contradicting, or incoherent.
But it does draw to light the fact that not only is the
picture painted by L. Parr/Evans grossly distorted, but
these outside influences can work both ways, and the
complainers, when given the right conditions, make
excuses for *their own* cheating.
Far from only "Westerners" being subjected to
this sort of thing, we see in these articles that the
targets were often /Russians/. At one point, it was
reluctantly admitted that Western team captains
are no different from these supposedly evil Russians,
that they too, make arrangements, and this fits the
facts as I have observed them /personally/.
Where Mr. Ree seems to part company with the
rabid anti-Soviets is in his assessment of Sammy
Reshevsky's strength; he seems to believe no huge
conspiracy was really necessary to ensure that one
of the Soviet players finished first -- at least not
until about the year 1972... .
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
Richard Laurie is, alas, a thorough gentleman as
well as a produced dramatist. I would hope that he
will permit us to post some more of the stuff that he
got from Kingston (under the clock of secrecy)
. We shall see.
In any contest of veracity, between Laurie and
NMnot Taylor Kingston -- well, to believe Kingston
would be to believe Campomanes when he told the world
that he did not know what decision he would make about
cancelling KKI, even as Tass had announced the
decision some 10 minutes earlier!
Ah yes, NMnot Kingston: the man who wrote under
false names on this forum in PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for
Pete's sake.
By now, NMnot's deafening silence on the lies
and shoddy historical analysis of Edward Winter is as
evident as his failure to answer whether and why he
posted as Xylothist, Paulie Graf and other monickers.
We are a relatively tiny family here, and I
think it fair to conclude that NMnot's silence is
assent to the dirty stuff produced by Winter.
In return, NMnot may talk about a typo such as
"Austalia" instead of Australia or the absence of diacritical
diareses over the o's in "Book" because such were not in the
Chess Life stylebook and hence missing from an article written
by GM Evans. As for Winter misleading readers about the
Borochow-Fine game, not a peep from our NMnot in defense
of his mentor.
.
No matter what intellectual outrage Winter may
commit (short of his supporting Evans in the Keres
debate) NMnot will never cross Fast Eddie. He is
scared scheisselos.
Finally, Greg Kennedy got something right. My
reference to Kingston in a debate was indeed an
obvious, evident typo.
Yours, Larry Parr
P.S. My next post will describe in detail the item in Chess Life that
Taylor Kingston wanted playwright Richard Laurie to retract
(confidentially of course)!
Taylor Kingston
>
> Richard Laurie is, alas, a thorough gentleman as
> well as a produced dramatist.
I would agree with the latter, Larry, but not the former. A
gentleman does not lie, distort, misquote and insult as Mr. Laurie
did. It seemed as if he had been coached by you.
> I would hope that he
> will permit us to post some more of the stuff that he
> got from Kingston (under the clock of secrecy)
Is that clock of yours a digital clock, a pendulum clock, or a
cuckoo clock?
> . We shall see.
But we have already, Larry. I've produced the quotes, you have not.
I still have my full correspondence with Mr. Laurie. I have the facts,
while you have your fevered, fetid imagination. You've already made a
fool of yourself and Evans; if you want to add Laurie, I can't stop
you.
> We are a relatively tiny family here, and I
> think it fair to conclude that NMnot's silence is
> assent to the dirty stuff produced by Winter.
Larry, I am no more obliged to reply to every lie, fabrication,
distortion and insult you offer than I am obliged to clean up after
your dog. And if we're going to deal with unanswered questions, the
number you've avoided is beyond reckoning.
help bot
THE CLOCK OF SECRECY
> Richard Laurie is, alas, a thorough gentleman as
> well as a produced dramatist. I would hope that he
> will permit us to post some more of the stuff that he
> got from Kingston (under the clock of secrecy)
While ad hominizing Taylor Kingston may be better
than any more rehashing of GM Evans' gaffes, it hardly
serves to repair the damage already done.
> Ah yes, NMnot Kingston: the man who wrote under
> false names on this forum in PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for
> Pete's sake.
How long before LE *finally* comes to his senses, and
fires LP? Time will tell. Just keep your eyes on the
clock... of secrecy.
> > > Larry Evans wrote a[n] article in Chess Life...
> > > ... It was because of this article that the case has been
> > > re-examined extensively.
>
> > There you have it. There is no /need/ to construct fancy
> > ad hominem attacks on Taylor Kingston or Edward Winter.
Maybe someone will simply volunteer, and then a
side-by-side comparison to LP's, um, work, will be
shown for what it really is. No matter how stylized
the language, no matter how clever the methods of
deception, you just can't put lipstick on a pig.
-- help bot
David Kane
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1194990287.1...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> KINGSTON CALLS LAURIE A LIAR AGAIN
>
> Richard Laurie is, alas, a thorough gentleman as
> well as a produced dramatist. I would hope that he
> will permit us to post some more of the stuff that he
> got from Kingston (under the clock of secrecy)
>
> . We shall see.
>
> In any contest of veracity, between Laurie and
> NMnot Taylor Kingston -- well,
It's no contest because Kingston supplied the actual quotation
revealing Laurie's dishonesty. We don't *need* to believe
Kingston to know that he's right in this case. His veracity
in general is high precisely because he habitually supports
his claims with evidence.
Chess One
>
> Richard Laurie is, alas, a thorough gentleman as
> well as a produced dramatist. I would hope that he
> will permit us to post some more of the stuff that he
> got from Kingston (under the clock of secrecy)
I too have received information which carries that caveat - confidential! it
says, not for distribution. These are the infamous Kingston files.
> . We shall see.
>
> In any contest of veracity, between Laurie and
> NMnot Taylor Kingston -- well, to believe Kingston
> would be to believe Campomanes when he told the world
> that he did not know what decision he would make about
> cancelling KKI, even as Tass had announced the
> decision some 10 minutes earlier!
>
> Ah yes, NMnot Kingston: the man who wrote under
> false names on this forum in PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for
> Pete's sake.
>
> By now, NMnot's deafening silence on the lies
> and shoddy historical analysis of Edward Winter is as
> evident as his failure to answer whether and why he
> posted as Xylothist, Paulie Graf and other monickers.
>
> We are a relatively tiny family here, and I
> think it fair to conclude that NMnot's silence is
> assent to the dirty stuff produced by Winter.
They will call you names for running to conclusions - yet the very evidence
of such stuff is denied by our Taylor. Show me my e-mails, he wrote me, and
I wil tell you which of them is true!
> In return, NMnot may talk about a typo such as
> "Austalia" instead of Australia or the absence of diacritical
> diareses over the o's in "Book" because such were not in the
> Chess Life stylebook and hence missing from an article written
> by GM Evans. As for Winter misleading readers about the
> Borochow-Fine game, not a peep from our NMnot in defense
> of his mentor.
> .
> No matter what intellectual outrage Winter may
> commit (short of his supporting Evans in the Keres
> debate) NMnot will never cross Fast Eddie. He is
> scared scheisselos.
>
> Finally, Greg Kennedy got something right. My
> reference to Kingston in a debate was indeed an
> obvious, evident typo.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
> P.S. My next post will describe in detail the item in Chess Life that
> Taylor Kingston wanted playwright Richard Laurie to retract
> (confidentially of course)!
Quite!@
But what is this all about? I keep asking Kingston if it is to do with
subject matter, or with a tiff with Larry Evans. Since the original issue
dated 1996 he has been unable to even notice this question.
Maybe Xylotwist should notice it for him, or the "I speak Chermen!" Paulie
Graf.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Chess One
"David Kane" <david...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aIydnb13_bLQr6fa...@comcast.com...
I previously offered to 'out' Kingstons' own writing on this subject, in
private, not these public postures which insist that others are crooked, and
Our Taylor even demanded proof that he ever inquired of me. Just today he
has asked where any contrary notice exists on newsgroups - as if he did not
conduct a campaign by e-mail.
After returning 2 of his messages at his own request to contradict his own
statements, there was a zzzzz
One does not need to believe anything if (a) one can see the 'keep private'
writing, and (b) one knows even just a little about the Soviet Union. Taylor
Kingston did not even know the Russian word for 'mister'.
And so - an issue stemming from 1996 [!] to do with Larry Evans' editor's
opinion is challenged by Kingston, who has not said a word in public about
the subject that Larry Evans addressed, which is Keres/Botvinnik!
Should you take this together with the reluctance to admit the evasion by
the Oxford Encyclopopedia's description of Gulko as away from chess, when he
and his wife were being duffed up by the KGB, plus the reluctance to ask
Kingston's interviewee Averbakh a straight questions on this very subject of
soviet fixing [or even indirect question] AFTER Kingston asked me and was
told how truthfully his interviewee might respond, citing 2 people he could
ask, you might conclude that Our Taylor is in some danger of appearing a
trifle pink.
Phil Innes
help bot
FLOTSAM AND JETSAM
> > P.S. My next post will describe in detail the item in Chess Life that
> > Taylor Kingston wanted playwright Richard Laurie to retract
> > (confidentially of course)!
>
> Quite!@
>
> But what is this all about? I keep asking Kingston if it is to do with
> subject matter, or with a tiff with Larry Evans.
It looks to me like TK recklessly jumped in with some
praise of an article by LE; *then* he bothered to do his
due diligence work; next he (TK) corrected his earlier
comments; and finally, GM Evans made a careless boo
boo by quoting TK's original, wrong position in support of
him.
Soon afterward, LP jumped in -- and you know what
that means: total chaos!
What's amusing is the fact that apparently, Larry
Evans considered TK credible enough to mention in
support of his own, um, work, but ever since his boo
boo was discovered, LP has diligently worked to
/undermine/ TK's credibility, since he had *reversed*
his position. LOL! It is, quite honestly, hard to even
imagine a more effective undermining of LE than the
job Mr. Parr has done here in rgc over the years. :<(
With "friends" like LP, GM Evans certainly has no
need of enemies. Yet the man's heart is in the right
place, as can be seen by LP's diligence in promoting
the recently-released book; it's more a question of
/incompetence/ than any lack of effort or desire on
LP's part.
Now for a brief but important message from our
sponsor: the bitterness of these petty disputes can
seem to disparage all parties concerned.
Take, for example, the "counterattack" launched
by Edward Winter, in which he in fact did precisely
what Larry Parr has charged him with doing: counting
a single error several times over, when subsequent
volumes were reprinted without any corrections
(although it must be said that that was in itself a
poor move). If it were me, I would edit and correct
such errors before going back to press, but then, it
wasn't me. I also would have resigned that game
GM Evans drew against Reshevsky, BTW... . :>D
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
(confidentially, of course!)
Playwright Richard Laurie is a chess fan with no axe to grind. Here is
the item in Chess Life from Evans On Chess that Kingston tried to
persuade Laurie to retract in a series of emails Kingston marked
CONFIDENTIAL. Why the need for this topic, of public interest, to
remain confidential?
KERES & BOTVINNIK
Richard Laurie
Eric, Pennsylvania
Q. Finally, I don't know who Taylor Kingston is and I don't recall
much about his Chess Life article (in May 1998) except he denigrated
your ability to analyze five Keres-Botvinnik games to show that Keres
was coerced. I am always appalled by those who meet a solid argument
with a personal attack -- like Edward Winter (who called you
"shameless") and Kingston (who called you "dishonest"). Either Keres
threw the games or he did not. Nothing else matters. The 1919 Black
Sox
Scandal in baseball was uncovered because experts like Christy
Mathewson circled suspicious plays. This is basically what you did in
"The Tragedy of Paul Keres" (October 1996) to reopen an old scandal.
LAURIE ANSWERS KINGSTON'S REQUEST TO RETRACT THIS ITEM
[Mr. Laurie authorized me to issue this statement on his behalf.]
"Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty. He contacted me on the
Net, then wanted to send me materials to try and win me over to his
side of the argument -- that Evans was wrong. After that he said HE
WOULD LIKE TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE QUIET [emphasis mine] just
between us. It sounded a little shaky, but so far I saw nothing
wrong.
"Then he said he contacted the editor and asked if it would be okay
for him to say I had changed my mind.. That's when I jumped on him in
my last letter, that I had not changed my mind and agreed to look at
his materials only to see what he had to offer.. I found nothing
substantial there and I told him that as far as secrecy went, he
already violated that by jumping the gun and contacting the editor.
"Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free
to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
Kingston's article in Chess Life to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
"Kingston wanted me to retract my printed view of the situation as it
appeared in Evans On Chess. He wanted me to say that I was wrong and,
therefore, Evans was wrong ..I even wrote the editor saying I had not
changed my mind, and that ended the matter.
"Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you are not aware
of the battle between Evans and Winter. I am troubled because I have
known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in preparing his
rebuttal to Mr.Winter's remarks as printed in Chess Life, October
2001. Further, it is my understanding and has been for months, that
you told Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please clear up
this seeming contradiction." -- Richard Laurie
THIS LETTER FROM ONE LAWRENCE ZIMMERMAN WAS BANNED FROM CHESSCAFE IN
2001 AT THE HEIGHT OT THE EVANS-WINTER DISPUTE
Mr. Kingston's six-page review of the evidence for Chess Life in May
1998 added nothing new to the debate and cited several Russian experts
who backed GM Evans. Since then a mountain of evidence has surfaced.
Botvinnik, for example, finally admitted that Stalin personally
intervened; and Keres told friends he was ordered to finish behind
Botvinnik. Can anyone who is intellectually honest still entertain
serious doubts? Yet, predictably, Mr. Winter endorses the claim that
there "isn't even a shred of actual evidence." And this is the guy --
I kid you not! -- that Mr. Kingston has anointed "to clean up the
mess and put chess history on a sound basis." I could go on and on.
Why bother? Nobody needs me to see through the slime.
KINGSTON TOOK NOT ONE BUT TWO MOVES BACK
Needless to add, Mr. Kingston retracted TWO letters that he wrote to
the editor of Chess Life praising GM Evans' article "The Tragedy of
Paul Keres."
Then Mr. Kingston changed his mind.
Then Mr. Kingston changed his mind again.
Finally, Mr. Kingston in a Further Review of the Evidence arrived at
the same conclusion as GM Evans about the Soviet fix in 1948: the
Commies did it.
Taylor Kingston
> I think even Larry Parr must admit that if
> "scholars" now resoundingly agree that the games were thrown, as he
> claims, it can't possibly be because of Evans' game analysis. The best
> we can say about that analysis is that GM opinion remains divided.
> in which Keres unnecessarily placed his rook passively. A player of
> Keres' caliber would never make a move like that, the argument went.
> OK, but I have recent endgame books by Belyavsky and Dvoretsky that
> feature dozens of examples of strong GMs making horrible mistakes in
> fairly simple rook endgames. It is hard to say what a given GM would
> never do --- remarkably bad things can happen to anyone who is tired
> or nervous or short of time.
All very good points, Larry T. In the same vein, one point I'd like
to add here is that "forensic analysis" a la Evans is obviously
worthless without certain assumptions derived from context. Just given
raw game scores, with nothing about who played whom, when, where etc,
no one could possibly say with the least certainty that "34...Rd6
proves coercion." If Keres made a bad move in, say, a British
tournament where he was the only Soviet player, no one would dream of
saying he was throwing a game to let a Brit win. If Joe Smith made the
same move in the same position in a weekend Swiss, the notion of
conspiracy would be laughed at. But put the same move in Hague-Moscow
1948, and people are all too eager to say "You see, the fix is in!"
with no more factual basis than they have in the other contexts.
My point is that it takes far more than mere analysis to prove any
sort of fix. Evidence from sources other than the board is required.
help bot
> All very good points, Larry T. In the same vein, one point I'd like
> to add here is that "forensic analysis" a la Evans is obviously
> worthless without certain assumptions derived from context. Just given
> raw game scores, with nothing about who played whom, when, where etc,
> no one could possibly say with the least certainty that "34...Rd6
> proves coercion." If Keres made a bad move in, say, a British
> tournament where he was the only Soviet player, no one would dream of
> saying he was throwing a game to let a Brit win. If Joe Smith made the
> same move in the same position in a weekend Swiss, the notion of
> conspiracy would be laughed at. But put the same move in Hague-Moscow
> 1948, and people are all too eager to say "You see, the fix is in!"
> with no more factual basis than they have in the other contexts.
> My point is that it takes far more than mere analysis to prove any
> sort of fix. Evidence from sources other than the board is required.
In the article by Hans Ree, it became necessary for
him to grossly distort the facts in order to fit the
conspiracy theory under examination.
In essence, HR made a case that no strong GM
would *ever* play a stupid Rook maneuver where he
retreats the Rook, and then places it behind a weak
pawn on the edge of the board. However, instead of
showing us that this in fact happened, he gives some
in-between moves that change everything, that show
it was not the "elementary maneuver" in question.
If this was not grossly dishonest, then it was
grotesquely incompetent, analysis.
I also found the analysis taken from S&L to be
very lame here. Instead of the obviously-correct
strategy adopted by GM Botvinnik, Hans Ree has
S&L -- endgame experts -- giving ridiculous moves
as supposed evidence of a draw. My guess is that
were it possible to enter such "theory" into any top
chess program, GMs Smyslov Levenfish, and Ree
would all three bite the dust here in short order.
One does not draw such endings by merely huffing
and puffing that it is a theoretical draw; it is
necessary for the inferior side to find the best move
or plan at every turn, and you must not avoid facing
the best tries for the opponent via self-deceit.
Mr. Kingston observed that a strategy for losing
believably might entail getting oneself into time
pressure. Well, in that same vein, the last thing
you would want to do is get into a simple Rook
ending before blundering intentionally, for this
could arouse suspicion. Also note the wasted
energy, which might well have been conserved by
erring early in the opening, like GM Reshevsky
did repeatedly.
For me, the final blow was when Mr. Ree quoted
"hapless victim" GM Bronstein making excuses for
his own fixing of games; you cannot have it both
ways -- whining of being cheated and yet being one
of the many cheaters yourself. The fact that the
Evans ratpackers have decided to support one
cheater over all other such cheaters does not
arouse my sympathy in the least; rather, I am just
disgusted.
-- help bot
Louis Blair
7 ... [Mr. Laurie authorized me to issue this statement on his
7 behalf.]
7
7 "...
7 ... All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess
7 Life to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to analyze by
7 saying Nunn was the better player.
7 ..." -- Richard Laurie
_
_
Does Larry Parr disagree with the claim that Nunn was the
better player?
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:07:03 -0800):
7 ... LETTER FROM ONE LAWRENCE ZIMMERMAN ...
7
7 ... Since [Mr. Kingston's six-page review of the evidence
7 for Chess Life in May 1998] a mountain of evidence has
7 surfaced. Botvinnik, for example, finally admitted that
7 Stalin personally intervened; and Keres told friends he
7 was ordered to finish behind Botvinnik. Can anyone who
7 is intellectually honest still entertain serious doubts?
7 Yet, predictably, Mr. Winter endorses the claim that
7 there "isn't even a shred of actual evidence. ..."
_
_
The 'shred' quote is from John Watson. Winter reproduced
it while telling the story of how GM Evans used a quote of a
1997 Kingston letter. I do not think it can be claimed with
certainty that Edward Winter endorsed the Watson 'shred'
quote. In any event, the statement was in the past tense:
_
"... Evans ... did dispute Watson's description of Taylor
Kingston as a critic of Evans' claims (claims made, wrote
Watson, without 'even a shred of actual evidence') ..."
_
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html
_
It is somewhat misleading to transform the assertion to the
present tense and give the impression that it was a
comment on evidence that has been presented in the years
after GM Evans claims that were criticized by Taylor
Kingston in 1998.
help bot
> Q. Finally, I don't know who Taylor Kingston is and I don't recall
> much about his Chess Life article (in May 1998) except he denigrated
> your ability to analyze five Keres-Botvinnik games to show that Keres
> was coerced. I am always appalled by those who meet a solid argument
> with a personal attack -- like Edward Winter (who called you
> "shameless") and Kingston (who called you "dishonest").
Or Larry Parr, who sets the bar in this event.
Or like Larry Evans -- who attacks those who
point out his many gaffes as peons who ought
not to attack their "vast superiors".
I am beginning to wonder about this fellow,
this myopic dolt, RL... .
> Either Keres threw the games or he did not.
> Nothing else matters.
Good. Then we can dispense with personal
commentaries and pretenses regarding who
might have the moral high ground, then. When
does RL plan to begin the project?
> The 1919 Black Sox
> Scandal in baseball was uncovered because experts like Christy
> Mathewson circled suspicious plays. This is basically what you did in
> "The Tragedy of Paul Keres" (October 1996) to reopen an old scandal.
Translation: Mr. Laurie does not wish to discuss
details regarding /how/ LE handled the matter; he
wants to focus on just the fact that LE reopened
an old "scandal". (This is precisely what I was
saying before, but which lousy PR-man Larry Parr
missed: don't go into the details!)
> "Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty.
That, we already knew. But we also know from
the above that RL is no recall-machine either; he
was not able to remember anything about an
article he discusses and denigrates above, except
that TK criticized LE. Sheesh. You would think
he could at least have done a bit of research,
rather than write in about something he can't even
recall.
> "Then he said he contacted the editor and asked if it would be okay
> for him to say I had changed my mind.. That's when I jumped on him in
> my last letter, that I had not changed my mind and agreed to look at
> his materials only to see what he had to offer.. I found nothing
> substantial there
Is there any guarantee that had there been anything
substantial there, this dolt would have been able to find
it? I don't think so. He already missed things like LE's
*many* personal attacks on his critics, for instance --
things which were nearly impossible to miss.
> and I told him that as far as secrecy went, he
> already violated that by jumping the gun and contacting the editor.
>
> "Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
> showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free
> to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
> Kingston's article in Chess Life to see that he denigrated Evans'
> ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
Like I said, a dolt. GM Nunn *was* in fact the better
player, since LE was an old man and well past his prime
in chess when he penned that article.
Saying this denigrates LE is like observing that a
bird can fly faster than a fish can swim, and this is an
insult to the fish.
> "Kingston wanted me to retract my printed view of the situation as it
> appeared in Evans On Chess. He wanted me to say that I was wrong and,
> therefore, Evans was wrong ..I even wrote the editor saying I had not
> changed my mind, and that ended the matter.
Wrong! This matter may well not die until LP and/or
LE do.
> KINGSTON TOOK NOT ONE BUT TWO MOVES BACK
That would make him even better than Gary Kasparov
(at cheating). In fact, it would make him better than
most skilled cheaters I have played -- and they were
pretty darned good!
> Finally, Mr. Kingston in a Further Review of the Evidence arrived at
> the same conclusion as GM Evans about the Soviet fix in 1948: the
> Commies did it.
Don't kid yourself: even Capitalists could do this,
if they studied and prepared and trained.
It's like GM Tal: no one could play with us, if we
would only learn to program ourselves (to cheat)
properly.
A good red herring dinner. But we all know that
the real issue was the flawed GM Evans article, not
TK, EW, or RL's inane opinions. Anybody with a
mega-base can set up a Rook ending and find
similar gaffes by GMs which involved no hanky-
panky. A better approach would have been to
gather all relevant information, weed out the chaff,
and then coalesce the remainder into a logical
discussion of known facts, not speculations (and
certainly not arrogant claims to singular chess
abilities unique to LE). Too late now; you can't
go back in time -- not even with your clock of
silence.
-- help bot
Louis Blair
(Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:44:47 -0800)
parrt...@cs.com
LAURIE REBUTS KINGSTON'S VERSION OF EVENTS
[Playwright Richard Laurie just authorized me to post this message.]
"When I refused to retract my letter to Chess Life, Taylor Kingston
told me, in effect, that I was even more evil than Larry Evans. That
was the last I heard from him directly. I will keep looking for his e-
mails to me. It is largely a matter of time. I have them somewhere
and will keep searching." -- Richard Laurie
parrt...@cs.com
One of NMnot Taylor Kingston's trademarks is to
explain away cowardice (his obvious horror of losing a
match to Sam Sloan) and rank intellectual dishonesty
(writing under false names IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF) with
a series of shifting or absurd explanations and justifications.
What follows is a bit of past history. NMnot Kingston
told us that he marked his correspondence with Richard
Laurie "Confidential" because ... well, here is his reason:
>The reason should be obvious to anyone familiar with Mr. Parr's newsgroup
tactics, with which by then I was thoroughly familiar. I knew that if
Laurie told Evans, Evans would tell Parr, and Parr would mount a smear
campaign,
misrepresenting my correspondence with Mr. Laurie.> -- Taylor
Kingston, May 23, 2005
NMnot Kingston feared a smear campaign; therefore, the gent
preferred to keep his pristine, totally innocent correspondence
private. Nonsense. He could defend innocence, but what he could not
defend was what playwright Laurie smelled.
Smelled? That was the excuse NMnot Kingston used to avoid
playing Sam Sloan. He jabbered to us that he feared his olfactory
senses would be offended by breathing the same air in the same room
with Sam. The actual reason why our self-proclaimed, 2300+ Elo NMnot
refused to play 1900-or-so rated Sam for four-figure money was obvious
to everyone else.
We continue with yet another NMnot excuse for trying to keep his
e-mails with Richard Laurie from ever seeing the light of day. Like a
good defense lawyer, he tailored his responses as the pressure
mounted.
<[But] the first time around Mr. Kingston claimed he marked many of
his letters CONFIDENTIAL and that it had no special significance.> --
Larry Parr
<That is also true. I was trying to spare your feelings, Larry,
then I realized you have none. If you consider this condemnatory, I'm
sorry. ;-D -- >Taylor Kingston
Readers will judge for themselves whether NMnot acted to spare
this writer's feelings. Yet another lie replete with the man's proud
contumely.
NMnot Kingston tells us he has "standards."
WE ASK ONCE AGAIN: Did our NMnot post under false names on this
forum (Xylothist, Paulie Graf) in PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for Pete's
sake? Does he regard self-praise using false monickers as an example
of his "standards."
He won't answer. Never has. Never will.
Finally, we ask that he make ALL of his e-mails with Richard
Laurie public, not just the "relevant" portions that he wants us to
see so we can compare them with the e-mails that Laurie actually
received. Let there be no gaps a la president Richard Nixon.
Yours, Larry Parr
parrt...@cs.com
Over the past couple of days, I have been reprising several
essays that I wrote on Edward Winter's tactics when attacking GM Larry
Evans, his superior as a writer and, of course, his superlative as a
player and analyst.
Yesterday I present a portion of an essay dealing with how
Winter fabricated an error that Larry Evans never made. Readers may
recollect that Larry Evans reversed the identity of players in
Borochow-Fine. A CL reader pointed out such, and GM
Evans acknowledged the correction in his Chess Life. Enter Mr.
Winter's frosty, malevolent dishonesty: he quoted from a collection
of GM Evans' chess columns, a book that appeared in 1982. His point
was to make it appear that GM Evans was once again reversing the
players in Borochow-Fine after the correction made in 1978. He did
NOT tell readers that the 1982 volume contained photographic
reproductions of Evans' newspaper articles as they had appeared
during the 1970s. The column in question appeared in 1976 BEFORE the
correction was made in Chess Life.
That is the kind of stuff that NMnot Taylor Kingston regards as
honest polemical conduct. Nor will he tell us that it was deeply
dishonest. His response thus far has been the formulaic one for
Winter's disciples. NMnot Kingston told us he is not obligated to
comment on everything under the sun. The alternative explanation for
his silence is cowardice.
Here is a continuation of an essay presented earlier. We see
here yet another Winter technique of attack that apparently meets the
"standards" of his disciple Taylor Kingston.
MR. WINTER'S CONTUMELY
Was Mr. Winter really unaware that Teichmann was a
human 1/5-fraction at the great events of his prime
years? I don't think so. He knows his dates and
name-spellings well enough. But he could not restrain
his disdain for conventional wisdom, even when that
wisdom is evidently sound. He HAD to heap scorn on
what others have long thought. Such is Mr. Winter's contumely.
How does Mr. Winter's contumacious misrepresentation of
Teichmann's career compare with Larry Evans misremembering when one
Quesada died or with
misdentifying the winner of a game between Fine and Borochow, etc.?
The few errors that appear in the millions of words written by GM
Evans over the course of half a century were mistakes made in good
faith. They were not major misjudgments
motivated by scorn for the understanding and work of others.
On the subject of Mr. Winter's contumely, one of his favorite
devices is to affect obtuseness so as to score debater's points. A
typical snippet of nastiness is his "Horowitz philosophe" in the
"Gaffes" chapter of Chess Explorations. Writes Mr. Winter, "On page
24 of The Chess Beat [by GM Evans] Al Horowitz is quoted:
'Chess is a great game. No matter how good one is, there is always
somebody better. No matter how bad one is, there is always somebody
worse.'" To which
Mr. Winter responds tartly, "What other game can match that?"
Just awful. Even at the level of formal logic, Mr. Winter's
putdown falls flat. For, of course, there is at any given split
second one person who is the very best and one person who is the very
worst. So, in fact, there is not "always" somebody better or
"always" somebody worse. So, contrary to Mr. Winter's obtusely ironic
claim, no other game can match that does not really exist.
But forget the formal logic. Even most of his ratpackers
understand that Al Horowitz committed no gaffe. Horowitz was speaking
jocosely and, in truth, rather deeply. He was claiming that egos
among chess players are such that we have all seen club players
looking for some poor sucker to lord it over - some young kid or old
duffer to whom one can pose as the genius of the age. Horowitz was
speaking with a chuckle about the foibles of chess players and,
perhaps wrongly though interestingly, suggesting that the trait of
seeking out dragons to slay or schlumps
to dominate is stronger among chess players than among players of
other games.
The New York Times obituary of Horowitz included part of the
quotation that Mr. Winter calls a "gaffe" because the obit writers
understood that a point was being made about human nature not about
the mathematics of exceptions.
I am sure that Mr. Winter also understood orowitz's thrust. He
chose to take the man's words at face value so as to tar a great man
of chess with the ironic subhead, "Horowitz philosophe."
(A minor point of connotation: A rather tin-eared Mr. Winter
would have served his malign purpose better by titling the paragraph,
"Horowitz the Philosopher." I am sure that a few readers know that in
English the word "philosophe" [Mr. Winter did not italicize it to
suggest strictly a French connotation.] has a somewhat negative
connotation. "The philosophes" or "the philosophe party" occupy a
niche just above "artistes" with an "e." Kant was a philosopher,
Diderot a philosophe.)
Another example of Mr. Winter dishonestly playing straight man so
as to ignore jocose humility was his absurdly arch reaction in Chess
Notes to GM Evans'
admission of error re the game between Prins and Quesada. Wrote
Evans, "I recalled Prins winning a hopeless adjournment from Quesada,
who died before the
game could be finished. I no longer have the scoretable of Havana
1952 but if Prins says he resigned, far be it from me to quibble. I
stand corrected even though you must admit it makes a good story."
Responded Mr. Winter icily, "The Prins-Quesada episode is not a
'good story' once it is shown to be untrue."
Now, in Chess Explorations, Mr. Winter writes, "'It makes a good
story' was also the reply received from Fred Wilson after we
complained that he had published inaccuracies regarding Staunton's
background."
The point here is that "It makes a good story" s a standard way
to admit error and poke fun at oneself rather than to insist, in spite
of the literal meaning of the words, that what is untrue is a good
story. Most of us understand that the phrase is an idiomatic device
to concede a blunder just as the famous editorial advice, "Never let
the facts stand in the way of a good story," is an example of
journalists laying the lash on themselves rather than advocating
deliberate error.
Did Mr. Winter dishonestly play the part of an obtuse pedant to
administer a cranky putdown? The answer is obviously yes unless we
assume utter ignorance on his part of a well-known piece of ironic
idiom.
Deliberate obtuseness cuts both ways. Take Mr. Winter's
apparently absurd claim on page 95 of Chess Explorations: "As
recorded on page 27 of Dale
Brandreth's edition of the Kemeri-Riga, 1939 tournament book, the Ruy
Lopez was played in that event only once in the 120 games ....It will
be surprising if a reader can quote a comparable case concerning this
most popular of openings."
"This most popular of openings"? Certainly not by the number of
games played! The Sicilian utterly swamps this "most popular" of
openings. What a "gaffe"!
Whoa thar, Nelly! Isn't the phrase, "this most popular of
openings," an old-fashioned, rather constipated rhetorical device used
to indicate wide popularity or even merely limited popularity among
certain circles? Am I not being unfair to take Mr. Winter's words at
face value?
Of course I am being unfair. But no more unfair than Mr. Winter,
who dishonestly feigned obtuseness when taking potshots at Al
Horowitz, Larry Evans and
Fred Wilson.
Or there is Mr. Winter's absurd reference to recorded chess
games coming from the "pre-history" of chess. Ought we to take him
literally, as he does others, or ought we to say that the phrase was a
permissible idiomatic contradiction of what the word "history" - above
all else the study of written records - actually means?
MALICE AFORETHOUGHT
Mr. Winter often permits his canker to overcome cold calculation,
though not because, in my view, he is careless. The man HAD to tell
the lie in Kingpin of
attributing words to GM Evans written by another. He HAD to make a
historically illiterate claim in his "Richard the Fifth," though
knowing full well that his attempt to debunk a piece of conventional
wisdom was bunk itself. He HAD to splatter mud at Al Horowitz and GM
Evans by taking literally some words that were intended jocularly and
ironically. He HAD to do these things because his malign enterprise
of endeavoring to humiliate those who commit honest errors in dates
and spellings is a narrow, inadequate duct for his bile. He needs a
wider latitude than the narrow channel of dates and spellings.
Hence the lies. Hence the historically illiterate contumely.
Hence the feigned obtuseness. Hence the nitpicking.
"I Can't Get No Satisfaction" is the theme song for any career
based on cheap shots derived from the mistakes of others. How
barren. How vile, really.
Taylor Kingston
> LAURIE REBUTS KINGSTON'S VERSION OF EVENTS
>
> [Playwright Richard Laurie just authorized me to post this message.]
>
> "When I refused to retract my letter to Chess Life, Taylor Kingston
> told me, in effect, that I was even more evil than Larry Evans.
Oh, man, this is getting rich. Jeez, I was drinking coffe when I
read this, and I laughed so hard it darn near came out my nose!
Is Mr. Laurie dabbling in hallucinogenics now? I have never said
anything of the sort, about either Mr. Laurie nor GM Evans. Hitler was
evil. Stalin was evil. Sauron was evil. Lex Luthor was evil. Simon Bar
Sinister was evil. Boris and Natasha were evil. Snidely Whiplash was
evil. But Evans and Laurie? Dishonest at worst, laughably inept at
best.
> That
> was the last I heard from him directly.
Actually my last direct communication to Mr. Laurie was an offer to
reimburse his postage expenses for some printed materials we
exchanged.
> I will keep looking for his e-
> mails to me. It is largely a matter of time. I have them somewhere
> and will keep searching." -- Richard Laurie
I look forward eagerly to learning what Mr. Laurie considers to be
this Proclamation of Evil.
parrt...@cs.com
All Taylor Kingston has to do is release all his e-mails to Richard
Laurie to prove his case so that we can see who is lying.
Taylor Kingston
> A SIMPLE SOLUTION
>
> All Taylor Kingston has to do is release all his e-mails to Richard
> Laurie to prove his case so that we can see who is lying.
Larry, I have no "case" to "prove." You're the one making all the
crazy accusations. If I were to post everything I've ever written in
my entire life, you would still be throwing out the same lies.
I don't know how it works over in Malaysia, but I live in the United
States of America. Over here, the burden of proof lies on the
prosecution. It's entirely up to you to produce supporting evidence.
But you don't have any evidence, do you? There is no quote of me
"denigrating Evans' analysis." There is no quote of me telling Peter
Kurzdorfer that Laurie had changed his mind. There is no quote of me
calling Laurie and Evans "evil." And why are there no such quotes?
Very simple -- I never wrote nor said any such thing.
You are just a worthless mud-slinger, Larry. You don't give a damn
what you say, whether there's the least truth to it. If you hate
someone, you'll say anything, and the facts be damned. It's just Josef
Goebbels all over again -- one Big Lie after another.
I might be tempted to call you evil, but you're just too laughably
incompetent to be taken anywhere near that seriously. But I will say
it's pretty clear you are not quite right in the head. I strongly urge
you to get some therapy.
Larry Tapper
Richard Laurie:
> "Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
> showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free
> to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
> Kingston's article in Chess Life to see that he denigrated Evans'
> ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
help bot:
hb> Like I said, a dolt. GM Nunn *was* in fact the better
player, since LE was an old man and well past his prime
in chess when he penned that article.
hb> Saying this denigrates LE is like observing that a
bird can fly faster than a fish can swim, and this is an
insult to the fish.
This issue was also raised by Louis Blair.
It's tricky to compare across eras, but it seems to me that Nunn in
his prime was maybe a tad better than Evans in his. So help bot's
allusion to Evans' being long in the tooth wasn't really necessary.
More to the point, Evans' favorite example was a rook and pawn
endgame, and Nunn has unquestioned expertise in that area in addition
to being a strong GM.
Also, another critic of Evans' original analysis was Seirawan, who I'd
say was definitely a stronger player than Evans.
LT
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1195002423.7...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> WHAT DID KINGSTON WANT LAURIE TO RETRACT?
> (confidentially, of course!)
>
> Playwright Richard Laurie is a chess fan with no axe to grind. Here is
> the item in Chess Life from Evans On Chess that Kingston tried to
> persuade Laurie to retract in a series of emails Kingston marked
> CONFIDENTIAL. Why the need for this topic, of public interest, to
> remain confidential?
>
> KERES & BOTVINNIK
>
> Richard Laurie
> Eric, Pennsylvania
>
> Q. Finally, I don't know who Taylor Kingston is and I don't recall
> much about his Chess Life article (in May 1998) except he denigrated
> your ability to analyze five Keres-Botvinnik games to show that Keres
> was coerced.
I am confused Larry. Just a few days ago Kingston himself said he did not
question Evans' judgment.
For a spat, I thought 9 years a long time to remember, but maybe it was a
big deal to him?
ON THE RECORD, Kingston also wrote me initially, as 'not for publication'
and 'private' which was hard to understand if the subject was ever Keres
Botvinnik, and only less so if it was Kingston contra mundam, at least
contra Laurie, Evans, and all else.
> I am always appalled by those who meet a solid argument
> with a personal attack -- like Edward Winter (who called you
> "shameless") and Kingston (who called you "dishonest"). Either Keres
> threw the games or he did not. Nothing else matters. The 1919 Black
> Sox
> Scandal in baseball was uncovered because experts like Christy
> Mathewson circled suspicious plays. This is basically what you did in
> "The Tragedy of Paul Keres" (October 1996) to reopen an old scandal.
>
> LAURIE ANSWERS KINGSTON'S REQUEST TO RETRACT THIS ITEM
>
> [Mr. Laurie authorized me to issue this statement on his behalf.]
>
> "Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty. He contacted me on the
> Net, then wanted to send me materials to try and win me over to his
> side of the argument -- that Evans was wrong. After that he said HE
> WOULD LIKE TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE QUIET [emphasis mine] just
> between us. It sounded a little shaky, but so far I saw nothing
> wrong.
Neither did I. I wrote that of course you [Larry Parr] were a shameless
hussy, and such mediating phrases as a forced intermediatory can sensibly
come up with, but continued to inquire as if after some topical matter,
until Kingston could no longer catch my drift.
> "Then he said he contacted the editor and asked if it would be okay
> for him to say I had changed my mind.. That's when I jumped on him in
> my last letter, that I had not changed my mind and agreed to look at
> his materials only to see what he had to offer.. I found nothing
> substantial there and I told him that as far as secrecy went, he
> already violated that by jumping the gun and contacting the editor.
And such forced secrecy on any correspondent on a public and historic
circumstance, such as Soviet era chess, is itself rather weird - does it
oblige those who are acknowledged to know things not to mention the fact
that those who ask them, require their secrecy?
Enter the rat!
> "Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
> showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free
> to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
> Kingston's article in Chess Life to see that he denigrated Evans'
> ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
>
> "Kingston wanted me to retract my printed view of the situation as it
> appeared in Evans On Chess. He wanted me to say that I was wrong and,
> therefore, Evans was wrong ..I even wrote the editor saying I had not
> changed my mind, and that ended the matter.
>
> "Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you are not aware
> of the battle between Evans and Winter. I am troubled because I have
> known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in preparing his
> rebuttal to Mr.Winter's remarks as printed in Chess Life, October
> 2001. Further, it is my understanding and has been for months, that
> you told Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please clear up
> this seeming contradiction." -- Richard Laurie
>
> THIS LETTER FROM ONE LAWRENCE ZIMMERMAN WAS BANNED FROM CHESSCAFE IN
> 2001 AT THE HEIGHT OT THE EVANS-WINTER DISPUTE
And at the very time I asked Kingston [I still do not share his private
responses publicly - but be damned if this requires /my/ silence on the
issue! How come Chesscafe is practicing this ban on this subject?
Of course, I am not a liberty - or at least do have Taylor Kingston's
permission - to quote his own reply, since he /did/ offer one!
> Mr. Kingston's six-page review of the evidence for Chess Life in May
> 1998 added nothing new to the debate and cited several Russian experts
> who backed GM Evans.
Yes. And we have all said all this before, at very great length, and at
extroardianry length in private communications - mine alone must be 1,000
with Russians.
> Since then a mountain of evidence has surfaced.
> Botvinnik, for example, finally admitted that Stalin personally
> intervened; and Keres told friends he was ordered to finish behind
> Botvinnik. Can anyone who is intellectually honest still entertain
> serious doubts?
Can any candid mind who assesses the situation even think this is unusual?
> Yet, predictably, Mr. Winter endorses the claim that
> there "isn't even a shred of actual evidence." And this is the guy --
> I kid you not! -- that Mr. Kingston has anointed "to clean up the
> mess and put chess history on a sound basis." I could go on and on.
> Why bother? Nobody needs me to see through the slime.
As I understand Kingston's points, it rather depends on which message is
cited or quoted to determine if this is some matter of editorial policy at
both Chess Life and Chesscafe, or if it has to do with Soviet coercian.
While Kingston remains silent on linking his various communications and
achieving a [public] concinnity, whose point of view is he representing
other than his own and that of Edward Winter? Even Nunn will not say there
was no Soviet coercian, no general Soviet coercian, or that he understood
something more than Fritz could, the atmosphere of actually engaging that
system in direct experience - since he is of no age to have done so.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
An interesting pairing, Larry T. Checking Divinsky's rankings of all-
time best 10-year strengths, Nunn comes in at #42, just behind Larsen,
while Seirawan is #43, just ahead of Szabo. Evans is not mentioned in
the book at all.
samsloan
It does not matter who was better, Nunn or Evans, because you do not
have to be a 2500 player or even a 1900 player to see that Keres made
a series of unbelievably weak moves, so weak that no strong player
would have ever played them.
The position is on my website at
http://www.ishipress.com/keres-bo.htm
Also, you need to know that during World War II Estonia was allied
with Nazi Germany and Keres, an Estonian, lived in Nazi Germany during
World War II and played in tournaments there. When Stalin took over
Estonia after the end of World War II, many Estonians were killed or
disappeared never to be seen again. Keres was foolish to return to
Estonia after the conclusion of the war. Somehow, he survived. Even
without subtle hints from the KGB the pressure on him to lose to
Botvinnik must have been enormous.
I never met Keres but those who met him have told me that his
appearance was the epitome of the ideal of the Master Race, blond
hair, blue eyes, fair complexion, just exactly what superior beings
were supposed to look like according to the Nazis.
Sam Sloan
help bot
> hb> Like I said, a dolt. GM Nunn *was* in fact the better
> player, since LE was an old man and well past his prime
> in chess when he penned that article.
>
> hb> Saying this denigrates LE is like observing that a
> bird can fly faster than a fish can swim, and this is an
> insult to the fish.
>
> This issue was also raised by Louis Blair.
>
> It's tricky to compare across eras, but it seems to me that Nunn in
> his prime was maybe a tad better than Evans in his. So help bot's
> allusion to Evans' being long in the tooth wasn't really necessary.
DON'T IGNORE THE FACTS
The whole key to this issue is not to determine
whether Larry Evans or John Nunn was the stronger
career player, or which one may have peaked the highest,
or who might have won a match between them, had their
careers aligned in time; instead, the issue of analytical
skill *must* not ignore the facts. One crucial fact is that
Larry Evans did his so-called analysis when he was far,
far beyond his peak years. Thus, it is vital when making
any assessment of whose skills were "denigrated", to
recognize that it was simply impossible for such a
comparison to have "denigrated" LE by merely pointing
out that JN was the stronger player at that particular
time.
But above this lies the still more crucial fact that LE
erred in his whole approach. As Taylor Kingston has
already pointed out, entire books have been written
(by GMs) based upon such errors as the ones LE
tried to portray as absurd anomalies, indicative of
cheating. Even in the pages of Chess Lies -- right
alongside the articles written by GM Evans -- there
have appeared countless articles in which strong
GMs, just like Paul Keres, have "inexplicably"
blundered in like manner. On top of this, there is
the "inconvenient truth" that Sammy Reshevsky
lost head-to-head to GM Botvinnik, and nobody is
going to suggest that he "threw" those games.
> More to the point, Evans' favorite example was a rook and pawn
> endgame, and Nunn has unquestioned expertise in that area in addition
> to being a strong GM.
Well, it seems to me that Hans Ree quoted some
other experts on that ending, and their quoted
lines of play (perhaps incomplete or misrepresented)
were simply awful. The plan followed by GM
Botvinnik in the actual game was exceedingly
obvious, yet HR gave some berserk ones in its
stead, to demonstrate an "easy draw". It would
hardly surprise me if GM Nunn followed their
example, or if he just accepted the reality -- it's
more a matter of /objectivity/, than of strength.
> Also, another critic of Evans' original analysis was Seirawan, who I'd
> say was definitely a stronger player than Evans.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that Yasser
Seirawan actually rejected LE's chess analysis.
My impression has been that it was LE's absurd
"reasoning" and rabid anti-everything attitude that
YS has rejected. But it is important to recognize
that LE's claim was that he, and he alone, was
clever enough, and strong enough, to decipher
hidden clues contained in the moves themselves;
yet even after allegedly obtuse GMs with even
greater chess skills were shown these "clues"
by detective Evans, they rejected his method
as bogus.
My point is that not only was the method itself
horribly flawed, but even if we were to accept that
method, Larry Evans *still* falls flat on his face on
the basis of his authority argument.
-- help bot
SBD
crackpot theory anymore.
Chess One
"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1195011289.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> It is somewhat misleading to transform the assertion to the present
> tense
> and give the impression that it was a comment on evidence that has
> been presented in the years after GM Evans claims that were criticized
> by Taylor Kingston in 1998.
Taylor Kingston has stated directly to my inquiry that he did not dispute
Evans conclusions, but 2 days latter he can write to Larry Tapper
' All very good points, Larry T. In the same vein, one point I'd like
to add here is that "forensic analysis" a la Evans is obviously
worthless without certain assumptions derived from context"
The questions regarding Kingston is which it is? Some "forensic analysis" as
he would put it, or if his missif was dismissed by Evan's editor, since it
lacked anything worth publishing in CL.
Phil Innes
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1195051286....@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 3:08 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>> LAURIE REBUTS KINGSTON'S VERSION OF EVENTS
>>
>> [Playwright Richard Laurie just authorized me to post this message.]
>>
>> "When I refused to retract my letter to Chess Life, Taylor Kingston
>> told me, in effect, that I was even more evil than Larry Evans.
>
> Oh, man, this is getting rich. Jeez, I was drinking coffe when I
> read this, and I laughed so hard it darn near came out my nose!
>
> Is Mr. Laurie dabbling in hallucinogenics now?
fucking hell Kingston!
what sort of cheapist verbalism can you do next? having abandoned the
dicatatorial comparisons usual to your posts, Stalim, Mussolini and Hitler,
as 'nearest' references to your mind, you now re-present the cheapest
possible net-shit as if Lauire is on drugs?
if anyone should seriously employ you again in chess, let me assure you that
they will read this very message! is that fair? you shouldn't mind, eh?
since you cannot take a hint from the entire chess pantheon that you are
profoundly wrong, and besides, continue despite having opportunity after
long rehersal before, to contine the damn subject - always at someone else's
cost
would you like me to publish your private thoughts? you deny me and laurie &
evans that you even had them - not deny! that is too definitive for you -
instead you equivocate
you pretend forever that you didn't oblige, as privileledge of writing to
you, this secrecy stuff about what you said?
and what you said was insensibly mixed with being miffed with refusal by
Evans' editor and content issues aboutwhat evans said
it is 9 years later, man! get over yourself! you had nothing to add to Keres
Botvinnik then, nor now - if you continue to contrast what you actually did
with these opionions, i release myself from your condition on our
correspondence, and will simply publish the kingston files for all to see -
i do not see what obligation now exists for me to respect such confidence
while you posture away here like some vaudeville queen, and to the damage of
other people you name
okay with you, brave mouth?
Phil Innes
Kenneth Sloan
> Well, if Sam chimes on in on Evans' side, then it certainly can't be a
> crackpot theory anymore.
>
--
Kenneth Sloan Kennet...@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
Taylor Kingston
> "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:1195011289.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It is somewhat misleading to transform the assertion to the present
> > tense
> > and give the impression that it was a comment on evidence that has
> > been presented in the years after GM Evans claims that were criticized
> > by Taylor Kingston in 1998.
>
> Taylor Kingston has stated directly to my inquiry that he did not dispute
> Evans conclusions, but 2 days latter he can write to Larry Tapper
>
> ' All very good points, Larry T. In the same vein, one point I'd like
> to add here is that "forensic analysis" a la Evans is obviously
> worthless without certain assumptions derived from context"
Quite so, Phil.
> The questions regarding Kingston is which it is? Some "forensic analysis" as
> he would put it, or if his missif was dismissed by Evan's editor, since it
> lacked anything worth publishing in CL.
It's impossible to make sense of that absurd dichotomy of yours,
Phil, but the distinction between straightforward chess analysis and
"forensic analysis a la Evans" is quite simple. Let's see if we can
make it clearer to you:
Chess analysis: "13...exd4 is an inferior move because it opens the
long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop." -- This is the kind of
conclusion one can draw from the position itself. I have no
disagreement with Evans in this regard.
"Forensic" analysis: "A move like 13...exd4 makes it obvious Keres
was ordered to throw the game." -- This is the kind of thing on which
Evans and I disagree. For this sort of conclusion, the mere chess
position is nowhere near sufficient basis, in my opinion. Further
evidence is required.
help bot
> It's impossible to make sense of that absurd dichotomy of yours,
> Phil, but the distinction between straightforward chess analysis and
> "forensic analysis a la Evans" is quite simple. Let's see if we can
> make it clearer to you:
>
> Chess analysis: "13...exd4 is an inferior move because it opens the
> long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop." -- This is the kind of
> conclusion one can draw from the position itself. I have no
> disagreement with Evans in this regard.
>
> "Forensic" analysis: "A move like 13...exd4 makes it obvious Keres
> was ordered to throw the game." -- This is the kind of thing on which
> Evans and I disagree. For this sort of conclusion, the mere chess
> position is nowhere near sufficient basis, in my opinion. Further
> evidence is required.
Now you've done it. After seventy-two years of "clocked"
secrecy, IM Innes is now left with no choice but to print
the secret, innermost thoughts of Taylor Kingston, as
revealed in emails sent him by the latter in 1935.
I for one am anxious to learn whether or not TK even
realized there was a depression going on, and more
critically here, what he may have said regarding the
fluke performance of Dr. von Alekhine at San Remo,
which forensic studies since then have determined to
have been "mathematically impossible, except perhaps
for Bobby Fischer, armed with Fritz".
As we await the inevitable posting from IM Innes, it
may be wise to notify Larry Parr so he can begin
writing the usual ad hom. barrage to go along with
and "enhance" it. Don't try to stop him -- no one
can; when IM Innes says he will post the emails, it
is an undeniable fact -- like the Sun rising in the East.
Like the tides, or like gravity, or like fish being able to
swim. When the great IM Innes makes up his mind
to do something, it is as good as done. If he says
he will print the emails, you can bank on it getting
done. Nothing short of Death can stop him -- such
is his level of determination, his dedication, his...
(I have to go now. The library closes in five minutes.)
-- help bot
P.S. ...to be continued...
SBD
> SBD wrote:
> > Well, if Sam chimes on in on Evans' side, then it certainly can't be a
> > crackpot theory anymore.
>
> It's now been elevated to psychoceramics.
A new one for me. Thanks Ken.
help bot
> "... of secrecy ..." - Larry Parr
> (Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:44:47 -0800)
I stand corrected.
-- help bot
(You may need to start a new file, as this is a first for me.)
Chess One
> On Nov 14, 10:34 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>> A SIMPLE SOLUTION
>>
>> All Taylor Kingston has to do is release all his e-mails to Richard
>> Laurie to prove his case so that we can see who is lying.
>
> Larry, I have no "case" to "prove." You're the one making all the
> crazy accusations. If I were to post everything I've ever written in
> my entire life, you would still be throwing out the same lies.
>
> I don't know how it works over in Malaysia, but I live in the United
> States of America. Over here, the burden of proof lies on the
> prosecution. It's entirely up to you to produce supporting evidence.
And who has prosecuted what? Why maintain your own e-mails as private on a
public matter? Lary Parr is asking for you to say in public what you have
supposed in private - is that fair in the United States of America?
> But you don't have any evidence, do you?
I do!
> There is no quote of me
> "denigrating Evans' analysis." There is no quote of me telling Peter
> Kurzdorfer that Laurie had changed his mind. There is no quote of me
> calling Laurie and Evans "evil." And why are there no such quotes?
> Very simple -- I never wrote nor said any such thing.
You mean, you did not use those words, or you did not write to that effect?
> You are just a worthless mud-slinger, Larry. You don't give a damn
> what you say, whether there's the least truth to it. If you hate
> someone, you'll say anything, and the facts be damned. It's just Josef
> Goebbels all over again -- one Big Lie after another.
ROFL!
Our Californian brother,Taylor, can't help but do these Age of Dictator
references, supremely blithe to the fact that he is writing to people who
actually dealt with real dictators and the consequences of their
oppressions.
> I might be tempted to call you evil, but you're just too laughably
> incompetent to be taken anywhere near that seriously. But I will say
> it's pretty clear you are not quite right in the head. I strongly urge
> you to get some therapy.
Isn't that the third newbie abuse line on usenet, after being on drugs, a
random second....
Has Taylor Kingston addressed even one issue to do with the //topic///?
What is the topic? Is it Keres/Botvinnik? Is it Kingston/Evans?
For nine years now, we do not know which it is. And Larry Parr 'laughably'
asks the same question as I do, which is it Mr. K?
I mean, for someone who can hike their rating 500 points, and 'expect' this
to be understood as OTB, you do not start with any general credence. That
you should write under false names to substantiate your own points, is
infamous.
What is Taylor Kingston's point, anyone? What does it seem to be? Is he
contesting Soviet fixing generally, specifically, or not at all, but
congesting how Larry Evans would know?
Phil Innes
parrt...@cs.com
I join Phil Innes and, no doubt, many others
whom NMnot Taylor Kingston, the man who added 500
points to his chess rating in a famous fit of generosity
to self, would counsel to seek psychiatric therapy.
For the record, these effusions are typical of
NMnot. We are discussing his "confidential"
correspondence with Richard Laurie, a man of
accomplishment as a dramatist, who avers that NMnot
sneakily snuck. NMnot does not counsel Mr. Laurie to
seek counselling and therapy. He simply calls him a liar
without offering any proof.
.
Our NMnot, the man of proud contumely, posted on
these forums using false names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
He assured us that he has "standards."
We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
under false names in praise of oneself, which some
people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
the act that defines his "standards."
He won't answer. Can't answer.
Back to the point of the "confidential" correspondence with
dramatist Laurie. NMnot now tells us that we have entered the
courtroom of evidentiary admissions and their proper ordering.
Nonsense. We are having a debate on a public forum.
Will NMnot Kingston post his correspondence with
Mr. Laurie in its entirety instead of the portions that he
deems "relevant."? It will help us to discern further what
he means by the word "standards," which he claims to
possess. We wish to enlarge our knowledge of his "standards."
Meanwhile, NMnot has nothing to say about Edward
Winter's notable lies and, still worse, actual fabrication
of "evidence" to attack GM Larry Evans.
Our NMnot falls back upon the ratpacker pat
answer: in our tiny family, one cannot address all
points, not even those involving their exemplar, Fast
Eddie. Indeed, one can never address any issue
involving Eddie, except to praise him.
KINGSTON TAKES THE FIFTH
NMnot Taylor Kingston is evidently taking the 5th Amendment these
days by refusing to post his e-mails to playwright Richard Laurie in
its entirety. It is his constitutional right to do so, but we hope
to obtain them soon from Mr. Laurie, a man with no axe to grind, who
is still searching his records.
.
On the subject of ChessCafe and the Evans-Winter debate, several
defenses of Evans were quashed by the Cafe, which had financial
dealings with Winter. I
will be posting a long series of essays on that episode, including how
a defense of GM Raymond Keene was also quashed by moderator Hanon
Russell.
Yours, Larry Parr
J.D. Walker
> I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO GET SOME THERAPY (Kingston to Parr)
>
> I join Phil Innes and, no doubt, many others
> whom NMnot Taylor Kingston, the man who added 500
> points to his chess rating in a famous fit of generosity
> to self, would counsel to seek psychiatric therapy.
>
> For the record, these effusions are typical of
> NMnot. We are discussing his "confidential"
> correspondence with Richard Laurie, a man of
> accomplishment as a dramatist, who avers that NMnot
> sneakily snuck. NMnot does not counsel Mr. Laurie to
> seek counselling and therapy. He simply calls him a liar
> without offering any proof.
> .
> Our NMnot, the man of proud contumely, posted on
> these forums using false names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
> He assured us that he has "standards."
>
> We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
> under false names in praise of oneself, which some
> people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
> the act that defines his "standards."
>
> He won't answer. Can't answer.
I see. Lie down on the couch and relax. Tell me more... Go on...
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti
help bot
**CONFIDENTIAL**:
TO LARRY PARR & RATPACK
Please keep this communique confidential!
I see you are following my advice, Mr. Parr.
Rather than discuss the many slips or careless
errors -- a few of which were pinpointed by the
sinister Edward Winter -- made by your mentor,
five-time U.S. Champion Larry Evans, you have
finally recognized that doing so only leads to
further embarrassment for him, and more work
for you. Hence, it only makes sense to save
yourself all that trouble and focus on your main
job: ad hominizing critics like Taylor Kingston.
It's a big job, both time consuming and in this
case, requiring that you work, work, work to get
the thing done on schedule; there really is no
time for dilly dallying here. You of course will
understand that I was only kidding about GM
Evans "firing" you -- he would never even think
of doing that! Keep up the good (ad hom.) work.
> For the record, these effusions are typical of
> NMnot. We are discussing his "confidential"
> correspondence with Richard Laurie, a man of
> accomplishment as a dramatist, who avers that NMnot
> sneakily snuck. NMnot does not counsel Mr. Laurie to
> seek counselling and therapy. He simply calls him a liar
> without offering any proof.
> .
> Our NMnot, the man of proud contumely, posted on
> these forums using false names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
> He assured us that he has "standards."
Oh, BTW: this is a rather low-brow group, so you
might want to tone it down a bit with the freaky
vocabulary. Try using big words most readers are
familiar with, like say, fianchetto or zugzwang.
Here's another pointer: when confronted with a
difficult analytical task, evil Ed Winter just handed
the work off to a little-known chess player rather
than try and tackle the job himself; why do you
suppose he would do that? That's right! Because
he wasn't up to the task. Now, heavily-armed with
Fritz, I don't think you (or your dull-witted henchman,
IM Innes) would have too much trouble skewering
EW's agent's analysis, published on his Web site
in his own articles. I just finished one where every
single analyst -- including a long list of world
champs -- mucked up their analysis of a famous
game from 1925. And that included EW's agent.
If Fritz were a boxer, his motto might be: "I'm a
baaaaaaaaaaaad program!"
-- help bot
help bot
> > We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
> > under false names in praise of oneself, which some
> > people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
> > the act that defines his "standards."
>
> > He won't answer. Can't answer.
>
> I see. Lie down on the couch and relax. Tell me more... Go on...
You joke about this now, but imagine what might
happen when (not if) Mr. Parr's idol eventually kicks
the bucket (he's around seventy-five years old already).
If you think the ranting and raving is bad now... just
wait!
---------
Now, as far as therapy goes... there's this guy -- a
computer cheat -- named Zebediah, who has passed
me on GetClub. I am no longer the top-rated player
(on GetClub) in the world... sob... what can I do? It's
not like I can compete with Fritz. Computers have
destroyed... sob... have destroyed chess... Jewish
computers... or maybe Nazi computers... what does
it matter -- they're all out to get me. Oh well... I still
have all my belongings, in a storage room back in
Pasadena. They can't take that away from me... .
-- insane bot
-- help bot
Sanny
> On Nov 14, 10:17 pm, "J.D. Walker" <j.d.wal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
> > > under false names in praise of oneself, which some
> > > people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
> > > the act that defines his "standards."
>
> > > He won't answer. Can't answer.
>
> > I see. Lie down on the couch and relax. Tell me more... Go on...
>
> You joke about this now, but imagine what might
> happen when (not if) Mr. Parr's idol eventually kicks
> the bucket (he's around seventy-five years old already).
>
> If you think the ranting and raving is bad now... just
> wait!
>
> ---------
>
> Now, as far as therapy goes... there's this guy -- a
> computer cheat -- named Zebediah, who has passed
> (onGetClub) in the world... sob... what can I do? It's
> not like I can compete with Fritz. Computers have
> computers... or maybe Nazi computers... what does
> it matter -- they're all out to get me. Oh well... I still
> have all my belongings, in a storage room back in
> Pasadena. They can't take that away from me... .
>
> -- insane bot
>
> -- help bot
Yes, It looks like Zebediah uses computer as On analysing the moves I
found he sees 10-12 moves advance That is only possible through Fritz
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Chess One
> On Nov 14, 4:42 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1195011289.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > It is somewhat misleading to transform the assertion to the present
>> > tense
>> > and give the impression that it was a comment on evidence that has
>> > been presented in the years after GM Evans claims that were criticized
>> > by Taylor Kingston in 1998.
>>
>> Taylor Kingston has stated directly to my inquiry that he did not dispute
>> Evans conclusions, but 2 days latter he can write to Larry Tapper
>>
>> ' All very good points, Larry T. In the same vein, one point I'd like
>> to add here is that "forensic analysis" a la Evans is obviously
>> worthless without certain assumptions derived from context"
>
> Quite so, Phil.
>
>> The questions regarding Kingston is which it is? Some "forensic analysis"
>> as
>> he would put it, or if his missif was dismissed by Evan's editor, since
>> it
>> lacked anything worth publishing in CL.
>
> It's impossible to make sense of that absurd dichotomy of yours,
Yes it is possible. But you have to want to make a clear answer
1) Are you arguing Soviet coercian, specifically Botvinnik & Keres
OR
2) Are you arguing about your spat with CL?
What i see you doing is saying you were abused by (2) and then arguing about
(1)
I read the rufused letter because you sent it to me. It had nothing about
(1) in it, and if (1) was the Evans article in the first place, your letter
was rejected because it did not address the subject - it addressed the
writers of the subject.
> Phil, but the distinction between straightforward chess analysis and
> "forensic analysis a la Evans" is quite simple. Let's see if we can
> make it clearer to you:
See if you can choose (1) or (2) above.
> Chess analysis: "13...exd4 is an inferior move because it opens the
> long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop." -- This is the kind of
> conclusion one can draw from the position itself. I have no
> disagreement with Evans in this regard.
>
> "Forensic" analysis: "A move like 13...exd4 makes it obvious Keres
> was ordered to throw the game." -- This is the kind of thing on which
> Evans and I disagree. For this sort of conclusion, the mere chess
> position is nowhere near sufficient basis, in my opinion. Further
> evidence is required.
My very first reply was to put this subject before you - that is, if it is
all about your opinion, and those who agree or don't agree with you, then
you, and all others, need to get off 'owning' the subject, and instead
address the all instances within the entire context. Having done so there is
a possibility we then discuss it.
To my own knowledge, it would be exceptional within the Soviet system if
there /was not/ coercion. How players individually reacted to that coercion
is a subsequent subject of discussion - but you can't go there unless you
understand the initial premise - of widespread pressuring in that country. I
don't mean just accept what someone says, but from much reading or
experience of the place.
Anyway - tell us please if this issue is about (1) or (2) as above - since
like all correspondents you have on this subject, I too am confused when you
start to rubbish other people - since you are not a strong chess player,
neither do you know much Russian context - but /boom/ there you go with your
insensible writing!
Laurie & drugs - other people trashed and compared with dictators, and even
"Let's see if we can make it clearer to you:" when you first wrote to me
because you didn't know any context!
So its (1) or (2). If your answer is (2) or both, I agree with the CL editor
that your letter contained no content about (1). And I am not interested in
the issue.
If you want to discuss some general or specific about (1) Soviet fixing -
make that a clear topic and stick to it.
Phil Innes
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195082095.7...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 5:38 pm, Taylor Kingston <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It's impossible to make sense of that absurd dichotomy of yours,
>> Phil, but the distinction between straightforward chess analysis and
>> "forensic analysis a la Evans" is quite simple. Let's see if we can
>> make it clearer to you:
>>
>> Chess analysis: "13...exd4 is an inferior move because it opens the
>> long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop." -- This is the kind of
>> conclusion one can draw from the position itself. I have no
>> disagreement with Evans in this regard.
>>
>> "Forensic" analysis: "A move like 13...exd4 makes it obvious Keres
>> was ordered to throw the game." -- This is the kind of thing on which
>> Evans and I disagree. For this sort of conclusion, the mere chess
>> position is nowhere near sufficient basis, in my opinion. Further
>> evidence is required.
we are talking about real oppression and coercion in a country where they
were normal - and you are talking like this!
that's all! but even in england people didn't want to look at the SU as it
was - and instead glamorized it, and wanted to adopt it! in the US you have
nothing even resembling a left-wing party, but in europe the idea of a
people's paradise in their own country was a constant post-war threat
when people start to whittle away at that with uninformed comments - then
that too is dangerous, and needs challenging - since after all, if you can't
make sincere observations about the chess scene, how can you make them about
more important ones?
so when writers 'challenge' the issue, you have to ask why? what i wrote
above is much looser than what orwell did in 1940, but the same thing about
the extraordinary laxity of attention that people had in the age of
dictators, an age, IMO, not quite closed! and one measured by body-bags
phil innes
Chess One
"J.D. Walker" <j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1u-dnS2j3NqGJ6ba...@comcast.com...
>> He won't answer. Can't answer.
>
> I see. Lie down on the couch and relax. Tell me more... Go on...
You ever watch Good Will Hunting? You gotta watch out for these shrinks,
since quite a lot of it is all about them ;)
its one of those 'living vicariously' occupations
> Cheers,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
>
> 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
> -- (Exodus 23:2)
> 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
> society.'
> -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
i went to brockwood once, to the big tent, where sitting alone and the focus
of all attention, he led the conversation about there being no gurus...
that of course is not all he spoke of - and it was, i agree jakob needleman,
stimulating to pay attention to that moment before thought, as if it too was
of some import, the insight there even obviating the need for thought
he was probably the most beautiful man i ever saw - physically beautiful,
not handsome, and while i did enjoy my visit one sunny afternoon in sussex,
i wondered about the people who went there rather a lot, since in effect he
made the same statement over and over - and if indeed it was not to simply
to stare at him
phil innes
parrt...@cs.com
<By the way, one of the participants sent me a private email offering
to send me scads of dirt on an opponent proving that the man was a
complete scoundrel. No, thanks. Not interested.> Rev. J.D. Walker,
U.C.
"For the record, our NMnot Kingston is a private email type who wants
to send dirt on this or that opponent. See, for example, his
"confidential" attempts with Richard Laurie, author of an interesting
play on Alekhine that has been produced. He tried to
persuade Laurie to retract an item he submitted to Chess Life." --
Larry Parr 11/6/07
"I must say, it's rather satisfying to see one liar deceived by
another." -- Taylor Kingston referring tog Larry Parr and Richard
Laurie 11/13/07
NMnot Kingston now refuses to release his "confidential" letters to
playwright Laurie spreading in order to back up his claim that Laurie
lied about the contents. I have no reason not to believe Mr. Laurie,
a man with no axe to grind, and we will soon get to the bottom of this
case to see who is really lying and who peddled dirt.
Taylor Kingston
> Back to the point of the "confidential" correspondence with
> dramatist Laurie. NMnot now tells us that we have entered the
> courtroom of evidentiary admissions and their proper ordering.
> Nonsense. We are having a debate on a public forum.
No, Larry, I would hardly call this thread a "debate." It has been
merely a series of accusations by you against me, accusations made, to
use your idol's phrase, "without a scintilla of evidence." I have been
patiently rebutting and refuting them, but my patience is done. You
just keep fabricating more, or repeating the same ones, as if the
facts made no difference. It's quite tedious.
> Taylor Kingston is evidently taking the 5th Amendment these
> days by refusing to post his e-mails to playwright Richard Laurie in
> its entirety. It is his constitutional right to do so, but we hope
> to obtain them soon from Mr. Laurie, a man with no axe to grind, who
> is still searching his records.
Complete bull, Larry. You claim I said X. I know I did not. It is
not up to me to prove I never said X. You know very well that is the
logical fallacy of proving a negative. And if I were to post
everything I've ever written, you'd still say I was holding back.
You're not interested in the facts, only in the smear.
It's entirely up to *_you_* to produce evidence that I did say X,
e.g that Laurie and Evans were "evil," or whatever droppings you're
spreading around today.
Accusations can be fabricated endlessly. For example, one could
claim that a certain Fred Smith, a man with no axe to grind, has
stated that you and Larry Evans were involved in the 9/11 attacks. By
your logic, Larry, I would be within my rights to insist that you must
post all your corresponce with Evans here, and if you did not, we
would be entitled to assume you were guilty.
And then one could start all over again with another accusation. And
another. And another. Et cetera ad infinitum.
By all means have Mr. Laurie go through his records. And when he
comes up empty, and you have nothing to back your worthless smears,
you'll apologize here, won't you, Larry?
Sure you will.
parrt...@cs.com
LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON
March 2, 2002
Taylor Kingston
16 Wild Ginger Lane
Shelburne, Vt 05482
Dear Mr. Kingston
I am finally able to sit down and write this overdue response. I wish
I could have gotten to it sooner, but the business of everyday living
just keeps getting in the way.
First a little about myself. When I got out of the army in 1971 (No, I
was nowhere near Viet Nam), I began to write. Along the way I have
worked at a number of different jobs in manufacturing, construction,
bookstores, and bars. I have also picked up a degree in anthropology
concentrating on archeology and have been on two digs.
My interest in chess began when my older brother and I first learned
the moves from the encyclopedia. It has waxed and waned over the years
and it would be nice to say I became a world-beater, but, alas, I am
stuck in the "C" class and will probably remain there.
I have had a couple of poems published and have two plays produced.
KNIGHT OF THE ID was the latter. It is getting some consideration and
serious read-throughs, but in the end, it remains in the eyes of those
in "the Biz," a p\ay about a dead Russian chess player and they are
basically looking for what they saw make money last year.
When ID was being readied for production, I wrote to a number of chess
journalists around the country to offer a script for their opinion.
Never mind who did not respond because two did. They were Gms Larry
Evans and Andy Soltis. I gave a copy to [Chess Life editor] Peter
Kurzdorfer when I met him at a tournament here in Erie (which I
believe he won, by the way) and he was nice enough to post it on his
website.
Since then copies of the tape of the show have made it to Ed Winter,
Ken Whyld, the late GM Edmar Mednis, and Fox & James of Addicts'
Corner in the British magazine CHESS. A number of suggestions have
been made and if I can ever gain another production, they will be
taken into consideration for the rewrite.
Now, for the issue at hand. I am not writing in defense of GM Evans,
nor for Larry Parr. Both are big boys and can take care of that
themselves. Furthermore, as everyone seems to agree that the "Commies
did it" this whole dispute recalls the big dust-up between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky when I was considering post-graduate work. Both said
basically the same thing but came from slightly different angles and
when they were brought together for a debate, it became painfully
obvious that they just did not like each other. This was one reason I
opted out of academia.
I am writing to further explain my impressions of what you wrote. The
only place I have read anything under your name is in Chess Life. I
have reviewed all of the relevant articles and letters. As a general
rule I stay off the electronic media. No matter what the interest:
politics, philosophy, or sports, Bulletin Boards and Chat Rooms are
often filled with pseudonymous catcalls and insults of such a puerile
nature it would make a sophomore blush. Often articles are of a much
lesser discipline than print journalism. I just avoid it.
Now, I said I did not know who you were. As I have explained, this
might seem harsh; but sarcasm was not intended. I did not and truth to
tell, I still don't. I only have those few letters and that one
article to go by. From that article, I drew several conclusions.
First, it did strike me and still seems to me that you did impugn
Evans' ability to analyze chess games. You cite the words of Nunn (on
page fifty of CL May 1998) and state that Nunn is "generally
considered a stronger player than Evans" but present no counter
analysis. It seems to be that a better way to dispute Evans would be
to show such an error "21 Re1" was typical of the type of error Keres
was prone to make.
True, I have only seen this type of analysis done twice, on Fischer
(Elie Agur's FISCHER: HIS APPROACH TO CHESS) and Morphy (Macon
Shibut's PAUL MORPHY AND THE EVOLUTION TO CHESS THEORY); but it can be
done.
As for who was the stronger player, Nunn or Evans...This is totally
irrelevant to the question and that question remains, "Did the Soviets
try to fix World Championship Chess and in doing so force Keres to go
in the tank?"s
Now, this question will never be more than a footnote to a footnote in
History, but in the History of Chess it is important. One question
that is always asked but never really answered is, "Why would they do
this?"
The answer is because Krylenko was a lover of chess and he convinced
Stalin that success in chess would show the world how efficient the
Soviet system was when compared to the rest of the world. This
argument was later used when the Soviet Union decided to enter the
Olympics and to allow the countries of the Soviet Bloc to enter as
well.
The other matter is that you have called GM Evans dishonest. You
seemed to imply it in the May 1998 article because you cited Schroeder
and you say Evans "...disturbingly misrepresented Hooper and Whyld." I
have not been able to see this and without direct counter quotes and
arguments, I cannot see where you find it. In your first note to me
you flat out said it. It is too bad you have not had as happy an
acquaintance as I have had with him, but that is life.
This is getting rather long and there may be several points I have not
answered. I will be happy to continue our debate if you would like to
do so, but there are a couple of things in your notes to me that do
trouble me.
First, you asked me to keep this correspondence a secret. I cannot see
the point of this. It is reminiscent of closed door deal making. I
have been involved in too many situations to engage in such. I will
not, however, forward your notes to any third party without your
permission. Nor will I quote directly from you; but I can see no
reason not to notify people of the fact and substance of our
discussions. As you can see a copy of this is going on to Evans.
Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you are not aware
of the battle between Evans and Winter. I am troubled because I have
known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in preparing his
rebuttal to Mr. Winter's remarks as printed in CL, October 2001.
Further, it is my understanding and has been for months, that you told
Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please clear up this seeming
contradiction.
Sincerely,
Richard Laurie
cc: Larry Evans
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:aaf3e1b6-ebe6-4f0e...@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON
---<snipped>---
>> By all means have Mr. Laurie go through his records. And when he
>> comes up empty, and you have nothing to back your worthless smears,
>> you'll apologize here, won't you, Larry?
>> Sure you will.
I think Larry just 'apologised.'
Will you do the same, Taylor, then we can all discuss the issues again
freely, without aforesaid entanglements - and all continue to muddle through
together, pro bono Caissa.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
>
> LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON
>
> March 2, 2002
>
> Taylor Kingston
> 16 Wild Ginger Lane
> Shelburne, Vt 05482
Gee, Larry, I do not recall giving you permission to post any
personal information of mine, nor did I give Mr. Laurie permission to
share it with you. How about we post your phone and bank account
numbers here for every crook and crackpot to read?
As for the rest of this, what is it supposed to prove? A few
comments here and there below:
As I have said many times before, this is a bizarre hallucination of
Mr. Laurie's. I have never "impugned Evans' ability to analyze chess
games." We have yet to see either Parr, Laurie or anyone present any
statement of mine to that effect, whereas I have repeatedly pointed
out positive statements of mine about Evans' analysis, for example
this, from the 5/1998 Chess Life:
"The bulk of Evans' article is devoted to analysis of points in
those games which strike him as suspicious. It appears valid, insofar
as he finds inferior moves by Keres."
Checking my dictionary and thesaurus, I see no way that "valid" can
be construed as derogatory, except in the confused mind of Mr. Laurie.
It was this flatly wrong claim of his, published in Evans' column,
that prompted me to contact Mr. Laurie in the first place.
> You cite the words of Nunn (on
> page fifty of CL May 1998) and state that Nunn is "generally
> considered a stronger player than Evans" but present no counter
> analysis.
Why would I want to present "counter analysis" when I agree that
Evans' analysis is correct?
None are so blind as those who will not see. To quote the relevant
passage from my 5/1998 article (which I sent to Laurie in its
entirety):
"I asked Evans if he had a 'smoking gun,' stating clearly the KGB
told Keres 'lose or we kill you.' He admitted (CL, 4/97, p. 28) 'I
doubt such a document will ever surface.' He then cited the
aforementioned 'Oxford Companion' entry: 'In return [for official
forgiveness] Keres promised not to interfere with Botvinnik's
challenge to Alekhine.' That, printed in 1984, is nothing new. Its
meaning is also clearly narrower than Evans' blanket statement 'the
price of [Keres'] reprieve was to abandon his quest for the crown.'
Evans is claiming more than it appears he can document."
> In your first note to me
> you flat out said it. It is too bad you have not had as happy an
> acquaintance as I have had with him, but that is life.
>
> This is getting rather long and there may be several points I have not
> answered. I will be happy to continue our debate if you would like to
> do so, but there are a couple of things in your notes to me that do
> trouble me.
>
> First, you asked me to keep this correspondence a secret. I cannot see
> the point of this. It is reminiscent of closed door deal making. I
> have been involved in too many situations to engage in such. I will
> not, however, forward your notes to any third party without your
> permission. Nor will I quote directly from you; but I can see no
> reason not to notify people of the fact and substance of our
> discussions. As you can see a copy of this is going on to Evans.
>
> Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you are not aware
> of the battle between Evans and Winter.
This is another of Mr. Laurie's hallucinations. I never wrote any
such thing, "baldly" or otherwise. At the time of this letter, March
2002, I had been aware of the antipathy between Winter and Evans for
several years, and have never said otherwise.
> I am troubled because I have
> known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in preparing his
> rebuttal to Mr. Winter's remarks as printed in CL, October 2001.
> Further, it is my understanding and has been for months, that you told
> Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please clear up this seeming
> contradiction.
There is no contradiction to clear up, except in the confused mind
of Mr. Laurie.
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard Laurie
>
> cc: Larry Evans
That's it, Larry? This is your "proof"? This is your Zimmerman
Telegram? Where does it show me denigrating Evans's ability to
analyze? Where was anyone called "evil"? All you have proven is that
Mr. Laurie has definite deficiencies in reading comprehension and
factual reporting.