Larry Parr wrote (Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:28:09 -0800):
7 ...
7 ... What follows is an essay that I penned ...
7 ...
7 ... GM Evans was and is hungry, indeed ravenous, for such
7 corrections ...
7 ...
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:08:29 -08):
7 ...
7 ... Edward Winter ... accused Evans' of making numerous errors.
7 To prove his point, he offered about 25 mistakes in an oeuvre of
7 some 10 million words. Several of those mistakes already had
7 been acknowledged and corrected by GM Evans himself..
7 ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:40:40 -0800):
7 ...
7 Ah, yes, like when he "corrected" the date of the Steinitz-Zukertort
7 WCh match, and still didn't even get the right decade. A marvelous
7 example of scholarship. But we must give Evans some credit for
trying,
7 however ineptly.
7 ...
_
I wrote (Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:39:16 -0000):
7 "In the December 1999 Chess Life column, GM
7 Evans presented a letter from a reader that
7 contained these words: 'Wilhelm Steinitz was
7 50 when he defeated Johannes Zukertort (44) in
7 1892.'
7
7 Later, GM Evans wrote: 'obviously 1892
7 was a typo instead of 1872'.
7
7 Did GM Evans ever make it clear to his
7 readers that the year should have been
7 1886?" - Louis Blair (25 Mar 2006 17:22:26 -0800)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:37:54 -0800):

7 ...
7 ... Since [Taylor Kingston] imagines it was anything but a
7 typo (by GM Evans or the editor?) here is ...
7 ...
_
_
"I am not sure what Larry Parr is trying to say.
Does he mean that the reader had meant to
write 1886 and accidentally typed 1892
instead, or does he mean that the reader had
written 1886 and Evans, while transcribing the
letter, had accidentally turned the year into
1892? Is 'a typographical error' being offered
as the explanation for why Evans brought the
year 1872 into the discussion?
_
And, again: Did GM Evans ever make it clear
to his readers that the year should have been
1886?" - Louis Blair (20 May 2005 09:38:30 -0700)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:37:54 -0800):

7 ...
7 ... Kingston -- the man who won't answer whether he used false names
7 here IN ORDER TO PRAISE HIS OWN ARGUMENTS initally priased
7 to the high heavens. ...
7 ...
_
_
Has Larry Parr identified the "others" who supposedly agreed
with him on the "highlighted" and "singled out" controversy?
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. He simply selected a sentence from the
introduction to the game as an example of the
failure of GM Soltis to provide such information as
the round in which the game was played" - Louis
Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)