SHOOTING IN THE DARK


Taylor Kingston regurgitated a ChessCafe piece in which Edward Winter
attacked Larry Evans' writing. No, Larry, I posted a link to
it.....With friends like you, Evans hardly needs enemies....


If only Larry Parr had half a brain, he might have realized that
hidden somewhere amidst his long-winded jabberings, was the
very "defense" of Larry Evans' article he so desperately seeks:

Larry Evans wrote a[n] article in Chess Life...
... It was because of this article that the case has been
re-examined extensively.


There you have it. There is no /need/ to construct fancy
ad hominem attacks on Taylor Kingston or Edward Winter.

There is no /need/ to prattle on about whose writing style
is superior, or who is imagined to be envious of their "vast
superiors". There simply is no /need/.

Rehashing all the sordid details merely drags the good
name of Larry Evans through the muck; it brings up what
EW referred to as his "innumerable" mistakes, and this is
the sort of thing which other posters have complained
about here.


Now, then, many of you have read my evisceration of Edward
Winter's attack on GM Larry Evans in which I found an incidence of
error

Two-wrongs-make-right idiocies like the above drags the
good name of Larry Evans down, into the muck. Why, oh
why does he not /fire/ Mr. Parr and find a better PR man?


Winter's mistakes were surprising because he was not
writing under a necessary deadline as GM Evans does.

Alas, many of LE's spelling errors and wrong dates
have more to do with carelessness than any fight with
some imagined deadlines or other windmills. In fact, I
note that it is precisely because Mr. Parr is no longer
editing Chess Lies that so many of GM Evans' recent
errors have managed to "creep in". With no proofing
and no editing, an aging writer is prone to more and
more such errors, deadlines or no deadlines. Let's
cut the man some slack here -- he is what? seventy
five years old? Is it any wonder that criticisms of LE
tend to focus mainly on his more recent work?


"Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty.

It's deja vue all over again! How many times have I
had some dispute with the likes of TK or IM Innes,
only to have one of them deny what they themselves
have written or done?


"Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free
to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
Kingston's article in Chess Life to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.

So much for the credibility of Richard Laurie.

For the record, Dr. Nunn /is/ the stronger player,
and he /was/ stronger at the time GM Evans wrote
the article in question. Let's just dismiss any
comparison of the two players at their respective
peaks as irrelevant, since neither applies. (I think
GM Evans may have peaked, objectively, at the
ripe old age of twenty! Was Dr. Nunn even born
yet?)



In "The Caine Mutiny" the good captain also claims that his crew is
disloyal and spread falsehoods about him as he rubs ball bearings
while on the witness stand. Yes, yes, everyone is lying except Taylor
Kingston. Even someone who has absolutely no axe to grind with him.
Yes, yes, everyone else is lying.

As I recall, in the end the lawyer agreed. He stated that
he /had to/ "torpedo" the Captain, but that each of the men
/was guilty/ of disloyalty. (This is yet another example of
Larry Parr's problem: he can't seem to get the basic facts
right.)

What Larry Evans really needs is not a poor PR-man like
Larry Parr; what he needs is someone who can compensate
where he has weaknesses (spellings, date-checking, etc.).
He might be far better off to fire LP, and replace him with a
chess historian like say, Neil Brennen.


-- help bot