On Nov 14, 4:42 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in message

ups.com...

It is somewhat misleading to transform the assertion to the present
tense
and give the impression that it was a comment on evidence that has
been presented in the years after GM Evans claims that were criticized
by Taylor Kingston in 1998.

Taylor Kingston has stated directly to my inquiry that he did not dispute
Evans conclusions, but 2 days latter he can write to Larry Tapper

' All very good points, Larry T. In the same vein, one point I'd like
to add here is that "forensic analysis" a la Evans is obviously
worthless without certain assumptions derived from context"

Quite so, Phil.

The questions regarding Kingston is which it is? Some "forensic analysis" as
he would put it, or if his missif was dismissed by Evan's editor, since it
lacked anything worth publishing in CL.

It's impossible to make sense of that absurd dichotomy of yours,
Phil, but the distinction between straightforward chess analysis and
"forensic analysis a la Evans" is quite simple. Let's see if we can
make it clearer to you:

Chess analysis: "13...exd4 is an inferior move because it opens the
long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop." -- This is the kind of
conclusion one can draw from the position itself. I have no
disagreement with Evans in this regard.

"Forensic" analysis: "A move like 13...exd4 makes it obvious Keres
was ordered to throw the game." -- This is the kind of thing on which
Evans and I disagree. For this sort of conclusion, the mere chess
position is nowhere near sufficient basis, in my opinion. Further
evidence is required.