http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...hess_game.html

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...es_ranked.html

I guess, if we apply Parr's standards to IM John Donaldson and IM
John Watson, we must add a second "I" to their titles -- for Ignoramus.
But seriously, let's put the "i" where it really belongs -- in Liarry
Parr.

IM John Watson's comments seem to support what I stated earlier: that
Soltis probably pasted together these games with no real attempt at
chess analysis; hence, the famous GM overlooking an obvious blunder
while perpetuating a poor game annotation, the probable cause being
laziness.

OTOH, the fact that IM Watson failed to point out the refutation to
Duras-Teichmann in no way supports Taylor Kingston in the way he
suggests; in fact, right at the beginning of the review, we learn that
Watson considered such effort not worthy of his time for this
particular book. He panned the book, observing that Soltis was both
inconsistent and sloppy, and so far as I could tell Watson didn't
attempt to refute *any* of Soltis' analytical errors. In essence,
Watson settled for making *generalised* observations, just as Taylor
Kingston did when he mentioned the intros to the games, but without the
specific examples. Watson did make generalised comments which tend to
support the idea that he found errors such as the one in question, but
since he was not specific, there is no way to know either way regarding
the particular game.

The real issue of course is Larry Parr and Ray Keene deliberately
misrepresenting the facts in order to further their silence-the-critics
agenda. This tendency has been duly noted, and will not quickly be
forgotten. But I don't go so far as to advocate use of the bomb, the
kill-file; no, it is sufficient to simply hold one's nose, and wear
hip-high rubber boots when they're around.


-- help bot