"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

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!

"We"

Greg Kennedy who cannot admit his own name wants to contradict Taimanov and
Bronstein and Gulko, to name a couple and a half. I could go another 3.

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.

Experience at high level play against Soveit era manipulations, "has no
relevance here" says Greg Kennedy, the arbiter of what is relevant. he does
not say what that is, in his opionion, if a no-name can actually own one.

How much more shall I read?

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.

Is that far enough? Corn-fed has some problems with authority and
achievement. Any kind at all except his own. He is not currently percipient
to this fact, so talks fish instead.

That's enough. Whoever can write this preamble can conclude as 'we' wish.
shrug

Phil Innes


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