"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...

"... 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.

Look! Its Louis, ex of the Forum Tribunal thingee )

Welcome back!

But, immediately to the point - we are talking about a series of games
Keres/Botvinnik, and the state of the conversation is that Taylor Kingston
has asserted in previous posts, albeit they are self-contradictory
statements, that he does not dissagree with the Evans conclusion, but also,
"Even when my research into the Keres-Botvinnik case led me to change my
mind about the value of his 1996 article, ..."

Now - what this research is, remains unclear, even as much as the statement
of diminished 'value' of raising the subject is vague.

Instead of any 'research' presented in discussion, instead we have a spat by
Kingston, the letter writer, with Evans the journalist. No other issue has
been mentioned by Kingston.


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)

I think if you review a book of 100 best games but don't actually play
through the games, then whatever is reviewed is other than the games, no?
The Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) reporting episode is an exact parallel to
Keres/Botvinnik, which is to say, that it is not any analysis of the chess.

Should Taylor Kingston have a more specific contributionto make on the issue
of Keres Botvinnik, either contextually which would mean showing that there
was no coercian in the games - a fact which would be //unusual//, or some
commentary on the play of the games - he might make himself clearer.

Both those items would contribute to schoarly approach, whereas a publish-me
spat by a commentator to a columnist does not.

Those are the central issues here, and for you, Louis, to join the
conversations here late to only discuss the spat, and not Keres Botvinnik,
is your choice.

But you might make yourself clear on what subject you write, at least so you
are not deluding yourself that you write about anything other than a
dissapointed letter-writer to CL.

Phil Innes

_
"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)