On Nov 12, 10:37 pm, " wrote:

...As Larry Tapper points out, its main value
was an experiment in forensic game analysis. It was because of
this article that the case has been re-examined extensively.

Right, but I put it in the form of a conditional:

"It seems to me that if Evans contributed anything of value to the
debate, it had to be his experiment with forensic game analysis."

And in this case I believe that the antecedent is false.

It seems to me that Evans' theory of forensic analysis was basically a
non-starter because of his criteria for fishiness. Evans made the
reasonable conjecture that a top GM looking to throw a game would be
motivated to avert immediate suspicion and would therefore tend to
make subtle errors rather than blatantly obvious blunders. So far so
good. But the problem is that the outcomes of decisive GM games are
quite _typically_ determined by errors in this general category. Are
half of all GM victories therefore under a cloud of suspicion?

As I recall, Exhibit A in Evans' analysis was a rook endgame position
in which Keres unnecessarily placed his rook passively. A player of
Keres' caliber would never make a move like that, the argument went.
OK, but I have recent endgame books by Belyavsky and Dvoretsky that
feature dozens of examples of strong GMs making horrible mistakes in
fairly simple rook endgames. It is hard to say what a given GM would
never do --- remarkably bad things can happen to anyone who is tired
or nervous or short of time.

Actually if I set myself the task of throwing a game in a way that
would be hard to detect, my first inclination would be to get myself
into severe time trouble. In that situation, any blunder could
plausibly be explained away.

Be that as it may, I think even Larry Parr must admit that if
"scholars" now resoundingly agree that the games were thrown, as he
claims, it can't possibly be because of Evans' game analysis. The best
we can say about that analysis is that GM opinion remains divided. As
I recall Nunn and Seirawan were among those who were publicly
skeptical from the beginning. I asked a couple of American GMs myself,
and they didn't think much of Evans' analysis either. On the other
hand, I've noticed that Hans Ree is one recent convert to the fixed-
games theory.

(Note that Ree's article on the subject was published in Chess Cafe,
which Parr et al think of as a hotbed of anti-Evans bias. TK knows his
way around the Chess Cafe archives better than I do, maybe he could
find the relevant Ree piece.)

Larry T.




Evans concluded that to the extent the games could be relied
upon, they indicated the fix was in. However, He qualified this
conclusion, noting that there could not be certainty.

Indeed, even today, after a great deal more evidence has
appeared (including Botvinnik's admission that orders had been
received from Stalin and relevelations from Taimanov and Bronstein
that these kinds of orders were part of Soviet praxis) we still do not
have cosmic certainty.

Evans' offered a bit of semi-pioneering work on the subject that
NMnot Taylor Kingston -- the man who won't answer whether he used
false names here IN ORDER TO PRAISE HIS OWN ARGUMENTS initally priased
to the high heavens.

Later on, our NMnot reversed himself, though finally and sheepishly
adopting Evans' initial conclusions. Our NMnot says that Evans proved
correct for the wrong reasons. The truth is that NMnot Kingston dare
not cross Edward
Winter by praising Evans' early insights.

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 -- shoddy reproduction of
quotations from GM Evans, in the main part -- HIGHER than that claimed
by Eddie Winter for GM Evans. Winter's mistakes were surprising
because he was not
writing under a necessary deadline as GM Evans does.

Readers have noted the Winter technique. The game between
Borochow and Fine was a fine example. Evans made a single error that
Winter tried to
compound into several errors. His technique was to quote from an
article in Chess Beat -- a collection of earlier Evans newspaper
pieces -- as though the article had been written much later than it
was.

NMnot Kingston, as a somewhat frightened acolyte, will not
acknoweldge the Winterian method. What else does our NMnot fails to
acknowledge?

For Pete's sake, this Winter gelding is a beaut', as they say in
Australian racing circles.

Larry -- please supply to the rec.games.chess readers the quote
which supposedly shows me professing ignorance of the existence of a
dispute between Evans and Winter, or between Evans and myself. You

must do this, Larry, or die a chicken. -- Taylor Kingston's new challenge

RICHARD LAURIE AUTHORIZED ME TO RELEASE HIS LETTER TO TAYLOR KINGSTON
OVER A YEAR AGO

Playwright Richard Laurie is a chess fans with no axe to grind. ONCE
AGAIN here his exact words. Mr. Laurie doesn't want to be involved in
this debate ("Don't these people have lives?" he asked incredulously)
but will confirm his words if anyone asks me for his email.

************************************************** *************************************************

"Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty. He contacted me on the
Net,
then wanted to send me materials to try and win me over to his side
of
the argument -- that Evans was wrong. After that he said HE WOULD
LIKE
TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE QUIET [emphasis mine] just between us. It
sounded a little shaky, but so far I saw nothing wrong.

"Then he said he contacted the editor and asked if it would be okay
for him to say I had changed my mind.. That's when I jumped on him in
my last letter, that I had not changed my mind and agreed to look at
his materials only to see what he had to offer.. I found nothing
substantial there and I told him that as far as secrecy went, he
already violated that by jumping the gun and contacting the editor.

"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.

"Kingston wanted me to retract my printed view of the situation as it
appeared in Evans On Chess. He wanted me to say that I was wrong and.
therefore, Evans was wrong ..I even wrote the editor saying I had not
changed my mind, and that ended the matter.

"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

************************************************** ***************************

REPENT NOW!

"It said false things about me and Winter. It put Mr. Laurie in a bad
light. I did indeed have hopes of getting him to retract his
falsehoods, but unfortunately, he turned out to have the same aversion
to facts as you do, Larry....

"As I have pointed out in an earlier post in another thread, this and
Mr. Laurie's other allegations, by which you set such great store, are
false. It is interesting to see one liar believe another. Larry, if
you fabricate something people can use: food, clothing, housing, etc.,
you perform a service. If you fabricate quotations, you
may damn your own soul. Repent now." -- Taylor Kingston

CAPTAIN QUEEG STRIKES AGAIN

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.

Yours, Larry Parr



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:43 pm, " wrote:
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, [SIC]

Now that would *indeed* be farcical, for me to be unaware of a
dispute involving myself. Is our Larry in his cups? One supposes he
meant "between Evans and Winter." However, as I have already noted in
this thread, I never made any such statement to Richard Laurie, nor to
anyone else. This is sheer fabrication, something Parr does quite
frequently.
Larry -- please supply to the rec.games.chess readers the quote
which supposedly shows me professing ignorance of the existence of a
dispute between Evans and Winter, or between Evans and myself. You
must do this, Larry, or die a chicken.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -