On Nov 6, 10:24 pm, " wrote:

All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life
(about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World
Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to
analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.


That statement grossly misrepresents the facts.

What GM Evans tried to do was argue that he, and he
alone was a good enough analyst to "detect" certain
"clues" embedded in the moves of some chess game.

That argument was easily skewered by pointing out
that even after seeing these alleged "clues", much
stronger players than GM Evans disagreed with his
"analysis".

The fact remains that this is and was not chess
analysis per se, so the question of relative strength
is merely an aside to the real question; but even so,
there can be no doubt that at his advanced age, GM
Evans was no longer any match for a host of younger
players, including GM Nunn. Personally, I find this
ego-stroking business appalling -- all the more since
chess is only a game.

The real issue can be settled in the realms of logic
and reason -- even by the weakest of chess players;
even by the likes of Sanny or Rob Mitchell. It merely
requires an ability to think /rationally/.

In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been
shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet
cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must
have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the
case, but we may never see it, thanks to these
hacks.


-- help bot