"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:
You could make the same historical error if you didn't know the moves
but
not if you were a chess writer - since the game is FAMOUS for the
error.

Hey, Phil -- will you tell us _honestly_ when *you* first became
aware of this FAMOUS error?

It's not a diversion at all, Phil. I'm just testing your claim that
any chess writer should already have known this FAMOUS game. Or do you
no longer claim to be a chess writer?

I did not 'claim' anything. You made the claim on my behalf, you continue to
skip the main issue with diversion not addressing anything below what is
written here. You are saying in effect that your excuse is that everyone is
as dumb as you were.

Phil Innes

You are getting a bit desperate with this diversion Mr. Kingston. But its
okay to say you never heard of it and never read through the games.

Really - its okay.

It doesn't depend on how many people are equally unaware of what you
report.
The problem is that you do not acknowledge it AFTER you know better.

Since I have been through a similar scenario with you in respect of
interviewing Averbakh, on a more sober subject of ****ing over Soviet
Jews,
where you said you were under-researched, but then suggested to this
newsgroup that you could not recall our correspondence, are you quite fit
for the job?

I mean, if you admitted to the group that you did 'recall', then after I
returned your e-mails to you - privately - without disclosing them,
though
you called me a liar in public - you then neither retracted your
statement,
offered an apology [not that I asked for one] nor corrected any record.

And now this guffaw [however human it is to err], it must be asked: why
you
care for any objective truth at all?

So, Phil, despite your claim that this is a FAMOUS position, that any
chess writer should know, you are admitting that you did not know of
it?