THE KINGSTON GAMBIT
Not only does this farceur ignore his lie to Richard Laurie that he
wasn't aware of the dispute between Evans and Kingston, he no longer
denies that he posted under bogus screen names, pretending to be
someone else IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS OWN ARGUMENT
Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article
is a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time. -- Taylor Kingston
That's hartdly what this gent first had to say after Chess Life
published THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by GM Evans
"Larry Evans's article 'The Tragedy of Paul Keres' in your October
1996 issue was one of the best pieces
of chess historical writing you've ever run. Evans's analysis of games
from the 1948 World Championship makes a strong case that Keres'
failure, and
Botvinnik's consequent success, were the result of coercion by Soviet
authorities...We could be on the verge of uncovering one of the major
scandals
in chess history." -- Taylor Kingston's Letter to the Editor of Chess
Life, August 1997).
Needless to add, he later disavowed the praise expressed in this
letter to the editor.
Taylor Kingston wrote:
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."
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.
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. 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.
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
Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.
Straw man, Larry. The question is not agreement or disagreement with
Evans' *_conclusion_*. A blind idiot flipping a coin has a 50/50
chance of being right on the question of coercion at Hague-Moscow 1948
- it's basically a yes/no proposition. The question is whether Evans
did a good job of *_supporting_* his conclusion. He did not, and
scholars who have read the article know it.
Evans's main technique was closer to the reading of animal entrails.
To buttress this he skimmed through a small part of the relevant
literature and chose quotes that supported his foregone conclusion,
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.
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.
Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article is
a travesty of historiograhy. 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