On Nov 14, 1:28 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:
Richard Laurie:

"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.

help bot:

hb 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.

hb 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.

This issue was also raised by Louis Blair.

It's tricky to compare across eras, but it seems to me that Nunn in
his prime was maybe a tad better than Evans in his. So help bot's
allusion to Evans' being long in the tooth wasn't really necessary.

More to the point, Evans' favorite example was a rook and pawn
endgame, and Nunn has unquestioned expertise in that area in addition
to being a strong GM.

Also, another critic of Evans' original analysis was Seirawan, who I'd
say was definitely a stronger player than Evans.

An interesting pairing, Larry T. Checking Divinsky's rankings of all-
time best 10-year strengths, Nunn comes in at #42, just behind Larsen,
while Seirawan is #43, just ahead of Szabo. Evans is not mentioned in
the book at all.