On Nov 7, 7:15 am, "Chess One" 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.

Pardon me!

What a farce of an argument.

If you don't like American opinion
I can, and have done, offered Russian
ones which make any Evans statement seem quite mild in contrast.

I have no objection to having opinions. Just don't try
and pass them off as established facts, utilizing bogus
methods such as ad hominem, broiled red herring, etc.,
etc. We've all we can eat here!


And this is merely to answer in the rather narrow vein proposed by those who
contest what Evans has said. To mention but a couple of factors, the
//experience// of engaging Russian chess at this level during the cold war
is rather different than having 'opinions' about it by latter-day saints and
GM Nunn!

Indeed. But that has no relevance here. If LE wanted
to argue than /in his opinion/ this could very well have
happened, he is perfectly welcome to do that.


Larry Parr is correct to repeat here a little e-mail campaign to revoke or
reverse Laurie on this subject.

Baked, broiled or fried herring? Fish contains omega-fatty
acids, you know. Just beware of mercury.


Though such campaigning is a 'shy subject' for Taylor Kingston is quite
beside the point of whether he is right or not. What is at point is
Kingston's resentment of Evans because he declined to give even more space
to his protestations.

I see. So you are obsessed with the issue of TK
vs. LP, who wins, and in what round?

---------

I was objecting to the logical error wherein some
poor fool claimed that Larry Evans' chess ability was
chopped and grated by merely pointing out facts. In
reality, the playing strength of LE is irrelevant, since
the flaw in his article lay elsewhere. But for the
record, at the time LE published his article, he was
no longer in the same class as Dr. Nunn, so it also
falls flat from that approach, though that is really
irrelevant and immaterial.

--------


This is interpreted by Kingston as avoiding an unpleasant truth - whereas,
and I have somewhere, the declined letter - any continuation of the subject
in Chess Life cannot have seemed fruitful to Evans because Kingston never
improved upon or developed his first contested point.

TK should never have expected a "fair trial" treatment
in the pages of Chess Lies. That would have been an
anomaly, much like you or me winning the World Open.


I might add that it also sought to lionise the issue between two poles - and
if extensive correspondance on those lines were to be developed, published
and so on, it would be, IMO, insufficient to compass the issue.

As Larry Evans himself noted, there is little point in
participating in censored (or otherwise manipulated)
mediums such as the USCF forum -- or here, Chess
Lies magazine.

Every editor or column writer will skew things his
own way, so the best advice is like that for dealing
with lobes-be-three weeds: leave it be.


-- help bot