On Nov 13, 8:07 pm, " wrote:


Q. Finally, I don't know who Taylor Kingston is and I don't recall
much about his Chess Life article (in May 1998) except he denigrated
your ability to analyze five Keres-Botvinnik games to show that Keres
was coerced. I am always appalled by those who meet a solid argument
with a personal attack -- like Edward Winter (who called you
"shameless") and Kingston (who called you "dishonest").


Or Larry Parr, who sets the bar in this event.

Or like Larry Evans -- who attacks those who
point out his many gaffes as peons who ought
not to attack their "vast superiors".

I am beginning to wonder about this fellow,
this myopic dolt, RL... .


Either Keres threw the games or he did not.
Nothing else matters.

Good. Then we can dispense with personal
commentaries and pretenses regarding who
might have the moral high ground, then. When
does RL plan to begin the project?


The 1919 Black Sox
Scandal in baseball was uncovered because experts like Christy
Mathewson circled suspicious plays. This is basically what you did in
"The Tragedy of Paul Keres" (October 1996) to reopen an old scandal.

Translation: Mr. Laurie does not wish to discuss
details regarding /how/ LE handled the matter; he
wants to focus on just the fact that LE reopened
an old "scandal". (This is precisely what I was
saying before, but which lousy PR-man Larry Parr
missed: don't go into the details!)



"Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty.

That, we already knew. But we also know from
the above that RL is no recall-machine either; he
was not able to remember anything about an
article he discusses and denigrates above, except
that TK criticized LE. Sheesh. You would think
he could at least have done a bit of research,
rather than write in about something he can't even
recall.


"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

Is there any guarantee that had there been anything
substantial there, this dolt would have been able to find
it? I don't think so. He already missed things like LE's
*many* personal attacks on his critics, for instance --
things which were nearly impossible to miss.


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.

Like I said, a dolt. GM Nunn *was* in fact the better
player, since LE was an old man and well past his prime
in chess when he penned that article.

Saying this denigrates LE is like observing that a
bird can fly faster than a fish can swim, and this is an
insult to the fish.


"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.

Wrong! This matter may well not die until LP and/or
LE do.



KINGSTON TOOK NOT ONE BUT TWO MOVES BACK

That would make him even better than Gary Kasparov
(at cheating). In fact, it would make him better than
most skilled cheaters I have played -- and they were
pretty darned good!


Finally, Mr. Kingston in a Further Review of the Evidence arrived at
the same conclusion as GM Evans about the Soviet fix in 1948: the
Commies did it.

Don't kid yourself: even Capitalists could do this,
if they studied and prepared and trained.
It's like GM Tal: no one could play with us, if we
would only learn to program ourselves (to cheat)
properly.


A good red herring dinner. But we all know that
the real issue was the flawed GM Evans article, not
TK, EW, or RL's inane opinions. Anybody with a
mega-base can set up a Rook ending and find
similar gaffes by GMs which involved no hanky-
panky. A better approach would have been to
gather all relevant information, weed out the chaff,
and then coalesce the remainder into a logical
discussion of known facts, not speculations (and
certainly not arrogant claims to singular chess
abilities unique to LE). Too late now; you can't
go back in time -- not even with your clock of
silence.


-- help bot