"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...
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,

Yes it is possible. But you have to want to make a clear answer

1) Are you arguing Soviet coercian, specifically Botvinnik & Keres

OR

2) Are you arguing about your spat with CL?

What i see you doing is saying you were abused by (2) and then arguing about
(1)

I read the rufused letter because you sent it to me. It had nothing about
(1) in it, and if (1) was the Evans article in the first place, your letter
was rejected because it did not address the subject - it addressed the
writers of the subject.


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:

See if you can choose (1) or (2) above.

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.

My very first reply was to put this subject before you - that is, if it is
all about your opinion, and those who agree or don't agree with you, then
you, and all others, need to get off 'owning' the subject, and instead
address the all instances within the entire context. Having done so there is
a possibility we then discuss it.

To my own knowledge, it would be exceptional within the Soviet system if
there /was not/ coercion. How players individually reacted to that coercion
is a subsequent subject of discussion - but you can't go there unless you
understand the initial premise - of widespread pressuring in that country. I
don't mean just accept what someone says, but from much reading or
experience of the place.

Anyway - tell us please if this issue is about (1) or (2) as above - since
like all correspondents you have on this subject, I too am confused when you
start to rubbish other people - since you are not a strong chess player,
neither do you know much Russian context - but /boom/ there you go with your
insensible writing!

Laurie & drugs - other people trashed and compared with dictators, and even
"Let's see if we can make it clearer to you:" when you first wrote to me
because you didn't know any context!

So its (1) or (2). If your answer is (2) or both, I agree with the CL editor
that your letter contained no content about (1). And I am not interested in
the issue.

If you want to discuss some general or specific about (1) Soviet fixing -
make that a clear topic and stick to it.

Phil Innes