"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 10, 4:02 am, " wrote:
KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Nope, Larry, just stating facts. I must say, however, I do enjoy the
ironic spectacle of you complaining about an alleged "smear campaign."
It is simply extraordinary that Taylor Kingston is going to contest this
issue - his source appears to be a cataloger of chess datum, who is a very
modest player, and in the face of some of the strongest players in the
world - who were around at the time!
Although I have a terrible feeling that I will not be able to identify from
Kingston's pen exactly what the issue is [lets see at the end of this post]
....
....by all means! Let the Facts begin!
Rather like Mike Tyson complaining about ear-biting. I will ignore
your usual assortment of slurs, red herrings and fabrications and
stick to the point.
Not a good start with that Mike Tyson analogy, but, at least it wasn't
Stalin. But back to the point... the facts...
If Mr. Kingston wishes to dredge up this topic again and play the
numbers game, let him cite the scholars who disagree with GM Evans.
False dichotomy, Larry. The plain fact is that scholars have
virtually *_ignored_* Evans's article. It's not that some agree and
some disagree - it's that they are entirely indifferent to it.
Ah! These 'scholars' are people who are presumed expert, yet, we are to
understand, they are far from refuting any points made by Evans, since they
haven't even read him.
And
with good reason. The article is not the least bit scholarly - its
citing of James Schroeder is by itself enough to disqualify it - and
overall it just does a real lousy job of supporting Evans' thesis.
So these as yet unnamed scholars are not even reacting to what a character
called Schroeder said, but his name. And otherwise 'it' does support Evans,
not well enough for [shall we presume them real?] scholars.
Just a process point: at top I said I would be struggling to determine what
any context was - what is being argued here - and so far it is not Keres
Botvinnik, but a review of the cast of commentators including one Schroeder,
plus the 'scholars'.
Therefore scholars won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
It is you who have made the claim that "most scholars" consider it
"seminal," "groundbreaking" etc. It's entirely up to *_you_* to
produce references to that effect
Quite apart from the logical fallacy inherent in the formation of that
proposition, unfortunately itis not a sentence since it lacks a subject: to
wit: prove to /whom/?
To as yet unnamed scholars?
The logic implied in the process is that the scholars would agree on the
basis of any proof, and indeed, are capable of understanding a proof, and
thirdly, that the scholars to be presented, actually exist.
Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.
Straw man, Larry. The question is not agreement or disagreement with
Evans' *_conclusion_*.
Ah! The contention is not about the conclusion.
A blind idiot flipping a coin has a 50/50
chance of being right on the question of coercion at Hague-Moscow 1948
Oops! Another logical fallacy. Since it argues statistically that the result
of a sequenced conclusion is chance.
- it's basically a yes/no proposition. The question is whether Evans
did a good job of *_supporting_* his conclusion.
There is at least a direct statement, albeit, without qualifying what
supporting entails.
He did not, and
scholars who have read the article know it.
Though apparently they are as unable to say what they know about it? To wit:
what qualifies support, in their opionion?
Evans's main technique was closer to the reading of animal entrails.
I know that FIDE hires a chiropractor instead of a neuroscientist to
determine mind-drugs, but can Taylor Kingston's experts be voodoo dudes -
the Shamnistic lodge of Greater Burlington, proud members of the chamber of
commerce?
I suppose the writer means to address 'what proper techniqueis', in his
opinion, or in the Shamans' opinion.
To buttress this he skimmed through a small part of the relevant
literature and chose quotes that supported his foregone conclusion,
This criticism states that the Evans opinion was prescriptive to a result.
What evidence is there of this in his writing except for dealing with
'sources' of another view? i.e., who are the other sources and what do they
have to say for themselves?
never dealing with sources that contradicted him.
First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history
Translation: Winter has nailed historical errors by Evans so many
times that Parr can only try to redefine him out of existence.
Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess,
who have supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene
Ray Keene is a scholar while Winter is not?? Riiiight ... and the
Monkees were a better band than the Beatles.
How interesting! I really don't think Winter could sit down and actually
beat the player in question, do you? But Keene beat Botvinnik. The Monkey,
methinks, is on the other foot. I presume that Keene could also supplement
his opinion of what he reads by the very natural process of also
understanding it, from high level play.
If the issue is, which of Winter or Keene could better detect high level
weak moves, which is the expert and which in Taylor Kingston's term, is the
monkey?
My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
position,
Please cite a reference in which Saidy praised the Evans
*_article_*. BTW, I contacted Saidy during my research circa 1997-98
and he refused to go on the record with any opinion on the Keres
matter.
Harry Golombek also strongly implies that Keres threw games.
In view of the fact that Golombek died on January 7, 1995, while the
Evans article appeared in October 1996, I rather doubt that he ever
expressed any opinion on the article.
The senetnece responded to above says what real scholars do - that is,
people competent to comprehend what they are investigating, put thier
attention to the source, which is Keres Botvinnik. This is what Larry Parr
says Golombek did.
Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article is
a travesty of historiograhy.
O good.
That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time.
Interested readers can find my critiques of the Evans article he
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
Okay - at the top I wrote that I feared the very subject matter would remain
unclear despite the initial declaration of facts, just the facts!~
At the end I see that this is not a scholarly refutation of Evans comments
on Keres Botvinnik, since it entirely ignores the subject matter, Keres
Botvinnik.
ROFL.
I feared Larry Parr would be so slaughtered by Taylor Kingston's reply that
he would crack a rib laughing, and have to swear off the newsgroup for a
month unless he cracked another one. Then I could come in with what Russians
themselves actually say about the issue, and begine to cite from Bronstein,
Taimanov, Roschal, Gulko, Khalifman, and so on, to the 'scholars' who ...
if they exist
.... who won't /care/ to look.
Phil Innes