I have never understood why Larry Evans cannot speak for himself in this
forum. How do we know Mr Parr has the right to speak for him?
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)


wrote in message
ups.com...
KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN

"I didn't want to spend three months of my life watching Soviets throw
games to each other." -- GM Reuben Fine explaining to Larry Evans why
he declined his invitation to the 1948 World Championship held in
Holland and the USSR.

It's well known by anyone who followed these threads that Edward
Winter and his disciple Taylor Kingston are sworn enemies of GM Larry
Evans. To ignore questions about whether he ever used bogus screen
names to praise his own arguments or his offer to shovel dirt about
political opponents to Rev. Walker, NMnot Kingston has seized upon
the phrase that "most scholars" agree with GM Evans' theory that Keres
was forced to throw games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World
Championship.

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.
Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.

First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history, as
opposed to an antiquarian (for the distinction, consult Herbert
Butterfield's "Man on His Past") if by scholar one means a person who
has written histories or memoirs about the game. Winter has done
neither. He has produced a book of annotated documents on Capablanca
and compendia of Q&A plus some essays that were not very good. The man
writes in turgid, mannered Victorianese -- an easy style to emulate.

Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess, who have
supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene, whose Illustrated
History of Chess is more ambitious on the subject than anything done
by Winter. My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
position, and his work in terms of understanding and style is in the
major leagues when compared with a Winter.

The book on the 1948 World Championship by arbiter Harry Golombek also
strongly implies that Keres threw games. This writer, who has
attempted history and won several awards such as the 1996 Book of the
Year with Arnold Denker, has no doubt that GM Evans is correct.
Charges about the fix have been around ever since 1948 but 5-time U.S.
Champion Evans was the first to deconstruct all Keres-Botvinnik games
(without help from computers in 1996) documenting suspicious moves.

Indeed, NMnot Taylor Kingston, were he a scholar of chess history,
could be included as one who ended up agreeing with GM Evans ("the
Commies did it") though it took the slowish lad a mite long to come
around.

I have not clicked as yet the Winter reference provided by NMnot
Kingston, but if it is the scurrilous and dishonest article attacking
GM Evans in 2001, then perhaps it's time to repost several of my long
essays refuting that article where I noted how Winter doctored
"evidence." The technique was interesting, and I exposed it.

WE NOTE THAT NMNOT KINGSTON still has not answered whether he posted
under other names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF. He claimed that practice, by
the way, as an example of his having "standards." Yes, really he did.

NAILING ANOTHER KINGSTON LIE

In a reply to Kingston's "confidential" letter, playwright Richard
Laurie noted: "Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you
are not aware of the battle between Evans and Winter. I am troubled
because I have known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in
preparing his rebuttal to Mr.Winter's remarks as printed in Chess
Life, October 2001. Further, it is my understanding and has been for
months, that you told Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please
clear up this seeming
contradiction." -- Richard Laurie

This topic was rehashed here long ago, as demonstrated by my posting
of 2/18/02.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Parrthenon)
Date: 18 Feb 2002 16:40:20 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 8:40 am
Subject: Keres-Botvinnik 1948

KERES-BOTVINNIK

TWO SMOKING GUNS

By Larry Parr


Evans concludes: "The truth about Botvinnik and Keres may never be
known, but until a smoking gun is found in KGB files, I firmly believe
the games
themselves contain the best evidence of a fix." -- Quoted by Larry
Tapper

Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on
Keres
seems willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor
Kingston

CASE CLOSED!?

While in London for the Kasparov-Kramnik title match in 2000, GM Evans
told
me that he asked GM Yuri Averbach, who lived through the Soviet era,
if he was
going to shed any new light on the Keres-Botvinnik controversy in his
memoirs.
Averbach said he had nothing new to offer.

In his Further Review of the Evidence at ChessCafe, Mr. Kingston
mentioned
two smoking guns (also cited by GM Evans in Chess Life) that erased
his
lingering doubts about whether Keres was coerced. Here are a few
pertinent
excerpts:

1. Briton Ken Whyld, co-author of The Oxford Companion to Chess, is
another
highly respected chess historian. His contribution to this discussion
is best
expressed in his own words: "Keres told me in private, when he was my
guest in
Nottingham, that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik,
and was
not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that
if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault
of Keres."

This constitutes, I believe, an important corroboration of Cafferty's
thesis,
perhaps even a long-sought "smoking gun." The Krabbé Diary was its
first
publication. That Whyld would keep it secret for nearly 38 years
puzzled me. In
another e-mail dated 11 August 2001 he clarified, and hedged
somewhat:

"I never regarded it as something to repeat in his lifetime, although
he was
probably secure enough in his later years. Later I thought it not
worth
repeating. Firstly there is only my word for it, and secondly he might
not have
been telling the truth."

Mr. Whyld is becomingly modest, and a skeptic might focus on the doubt
of that
last sentence, but I am inclined to take the story at face value.

2. A few months before Whyld's revelation, another relevant item
appeared on
Krabbé's site. Item #42, posted 10 December 1999, describes an
interview
with Botvinnik, by Dutch journalist Max Pam with émigré GM Genna
Sosonko
translating. Pam apparently did not realize the significance of what
he had,
for he did not publicize it widely to the chess world. Instead, the
interview
appeared only in the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland (20 August 1991),
a
general-interest weekly not devoted to chess. It attracted little
attention
until Krabbé translated a portion into English and put it on his site
over 8
years later.

In the key passage, Botvinnik was asked if he had ever known of
collusion
between Soviet players. His reply:


"I have experienced myself that orders were given. In 1948 I played
with Keres,
Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the world title. After the first half
of the
tournament, which took place in the Netherlands, it was clear that I
was going
to be world champion." (Note: strictly speaking, Holland was venue for
the
first 2/5 of the tournament, not "the first half."

After two laps, eight rounds, when the contestants had played each
other twice, the score stood Botvinnik 6, Reshevsky 4½, Keres and
Smyslov 4, Euwe 1½.)


"During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. At a
very high
level, it was proposed that the other Soviet players [i.e. Keres and
Smyslov]
would lose to me on purpose, in order to make sure there was going to
be a
Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally who proposed
this." (emphasis
added)


Amazing! For the first time, Botvinnik publicly states the existence
of a
conspiracy, with orders from the very top, none other than Stalin
himself.
Obviously, we have here the long-sought smoking gun.

Or do we? The rest of Botvinnik's statement clouds the pictu "But
of
course I refused! It was an intrigue against me, to belittle me. A
ridiculous
proposal, only made to put down the future World Champion. In some
circles,
people preferred Keres to be World Champion. It was disgraceful,
because I had
already proven by and large that I was stronger at that time than
Keres and
Smyslov."


Bizarre. The fix proposal was intended to insult him, and perhaps to
help
Keres? Nonsensical, as Krabbé notes. Botvinnik had something of a
persecution
complex, and it seems to be badly skewing his interpretation of events
here.
And what of the claim that he refused? Not his only such; see for
example
Achieving the Aim, p. 43, where he rejects Krylenko's suggestion that
Rabinovitch throw him a game in 1935. But the two incidents are not
entirely
comparable. Rejecting a suggestion by Krylenko is perhaps conceivable,
but
refusing orders from Stalin himself? Hard to believe. In most areas of
policy
Stalin was no more flexible than Hitler, and at least as brutal. Was
chess so
different, or Botvinnik so privileged?


So do we accept Botvinnik 100%? Do we dismiss it all as the grousings
of a
grumpy paranoid octogenarian, or pick and choose what to believe? I
prefer to
avoid speculation on each detail. Clearly it is at very least another
confirmation of the basic thesis of official pro-Botvinnik pressure.
Coupled
with Whyld's testimony, it shows, at a minimum, that there was an
officially
desired outcome, and both Keres and Botvinnik knew what it was.


There is another argument for at least partial acceptance. Botvinnik
's admission of a fix order is so different, so at odds with
everything he and Soviet officialdom have said before, that it is very
hard to explain unless it were a fact.

TAYLOR KINGSTON'S REPLY WHERE HE POSED AS XYLOTHIST (among a host of
other pseudonyms):


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Date: 18 Feb 2002 19:48:03 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 11:48 am
Subject: Politicising History in Chess Life and ChessCafe

"Such are the standards of those holding forth on the censored
ChessCafe
bulletin board." - Larry Parr.

Larry Parr talking of "standards" is like Bill Clinton lecturing on
marital
fidelity. He disparages others' education, yet he allows himself
double
standards a college freshman could see through, and repeatedly
violates
standards of civil discourse by resorting to personal insult. To
enumerate:


1. He complains that "Xylothist" is a pseudonym. This is rich coming
from
"Wmiketwo," under which alias Parr has made postings praising himself
while
insulting others on this forum. [This is a lie. I never posted under
any bogus screen names and offered a lie detector challenge for big
bucks declined by Mr. Kingston.]

2. Parr claims Taylor Kingston made the "silly" statement that "no one
dared to
defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp." I responded
by saying
Kingston had not said this, but showed that Parr himself had said
something
very like that. Parr complains that was taken out of context. Yet
when
challenged to present the Kingston quote he refers to, Parr presented
a passage
that, in context, clearly applies specifically to Botvinnik, and
cannot
reasonably be construed to include Kapitsa or others. It is Parr who
uses the
absolute terms "no one" and "any person," not Kingston.

Parr wants it both ways. He complains about "context," yet he ignores
the
context of the Kingston quote, fabricating a whole new meaning for it.
He
invokes Stalin's severity to support his own belief (documented on
this
newsgroup) that Botvinnik did not defy Stalin, yet he wants to label
Kingston
"silly" because Kingston wonders if Botvinnik had the wherewithal to
defy Stalin.

Kingston finds it "hard to believe" that Botvinnik might have defied
Stalin,
and Parr says "Botvinnik ... had everything to gain by complying and
everything
to lose by not complying" with Stalin. Yet according to Parr, Kingston
is being
"silly" while Parr is showing superior knowledge, education and
intellect. Wow.

3. Parr insults my educational level, about which he knows nothing,
and refers
to Kingston (and many others) by the charming term "ratpacker." Ad
hominem
attacks, unfounded gratuitous insults, and juvenile epithets - this is
rhetoric at its best!

The bizarre thing is that, as far as I can tell, Parr and Kingston
both hold
a very negative view of Stalin, yet Parr is not content - even where
someone
agrees with him, Parr must prove that Parr is superior, even if it
means
fabricating differences.

What drives Parr to these extremes of petty demagoguery I cannot
imagine. In
any event, they merit no further response.