LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

March 2, 2002

Taylor Kingston
16 Wild Ginger Lane
Shelburne, Vt 05482

Dear Mr. Kingston

I am finally able to sit down and write this overdue response. I wish
I could have gotten to it sooner, but the business of everyday living
just keeps getting in the way.

First a little about myself. When I got out of the army in 1971 (No, I
was nowhere near Viet Nam), I began to write. Along the way I have
worked at a number of different jobs in manufacturing, construction,
bookstores, and bars. I have also picked up a degree in anthropology
concentrating on archeology and have been on two digs.

My interest in chess began when my older brother and I first learned
the moves from the encyclopedia. It has waxed and waned over the years
and it would be nice to say I became a world-beater, but, alas, I am
stuck in the "C" class and will probably remain there.

I have had a couple of poems published and have two plays produced.
KNIGHT OF THE ID was the latter. It is getting some consideration and
serious read-throughs, but in the end, it remains in the eyes of those
in "the Biz," a p\ay about a dead Russian chess player and they are
basically looking for what they saw make money last year.

When ID was being readied for production, I wrote to a number of chess
journalists around the country to offer a script for their opinion.
Never mind who did not respond because two did. They were Gms Larry
Evans and Andy Soltis. I gave a copy to [Chess Life editor] Peter
Kurzdorfer when I met him at a tournament here in Erie (which I
believe he won, by the way) and he was nice enough to post it on his
website.

Since then copies of the tape of the show have made it to Ed Winter,
Ken Whyld, the late GM Edmar Mednis, and Fox & James of Addicts'
Corner in the British magazine CHESS. A number of suggestions have
been made and if I can ever gain another production, they will be
taken into consideration for the rewrite.

Now, for the issue at hand. I am not writing in defense of GM Evans,
nor for Larry Parr. Both are big boys and can take care of that
themselves. Furthermore, as everyone seems to agree that the "Commies
did it" this whole dispute recalls the big dust-up between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky when I was considering post-graduate work. Both said
basically the same thing but came from slightly different angles and
when they were brought together for a debate, it became painfully
obvious that they just did not like each other. This was one reason I
opted out of academia.

I am writing to further explain my impressions of what you wrote. The
only place I have read anything under your name is in Chess Life. I
have reviewed all of the relevant articles and letters. As a general
rule I stay off the electronic media. No matter what the interest:
politics, philosophy, or sports, Bulletin Boards and Chat Rooms are
often filled with pseudonymous catcalls and insults of such a puerile
nature it would make a sophomore blush. Often articles are of a much
lesser discipline than print journalism. I just avoid it.

Now, I said I did not know who you were. As I have explained, this
might seem harsh; but sarcasm was not intended. I did not and truth to
tell, I still don't. I only have those few letters and that one
article to go by. From that article, I drew several conclusions.

First, it did strike me and still seems to me that you did impugn
Evans' ability to analyze chess games. You cite the words of Nunn (on
page fifty of CL May 1998) and state that Nunn is "generally
considered a stronger player than Evans" but present no counter
analysis. It seems to be that a better way to dispute Evans would be
to show such an error "21 Re1" was typical of the type of error Keres
was prone to make.

True, I have only seen this type of analysis done twice, on Fischer
(Elie Agur's FISCHER: HIS APPROACH TO CHESS) and Morphy (Macon
Shibut's PAUL MORPHY AND THE EVOLUTION TO CHESS THEORY); but it can be
done.

As for who was the stronger player, Nunn or Evans...This is totally
irrelevant to the question and that question remains, "Did the Soviets
try to fix World Championship Chess and in doing so force Keres to go
in the tank?"s

Now, this question will never be more than a footnote to a footnote in
History, but in the History of Chess it is important. One question
that is always asked but never really answered is, "Why would they do
this?"

The answer is because Krylenko was a lover of chess and he convinced
Stalin that success in chess would show the world how efficient the
Soviet system was when compared to the rest of the world. This
argument was later used when the Soviet Union decided to enter the
Olympics and to allow the countries of the Soviet Bloc to enter as
well.

The other matter is that you have called GM Evans dishonest. You
seemed to imply it in the May 1998 article because you cited Schroeder
and you say Evans "...disturbingly misrepresented Hooper and Whyld." I
have not been able to see this and without direct counter quotes and
arguments, I cannot see where you find it. In your first note to me
you flat out said it. It is too bad you have not had as happy an
acquaintance as I have had with him, but that is life.

This is getting rather long and there may be several points I have not
answered. I will be happy to continue our debate if you would like to
do so, but there are a couple of things in your notes to me that do
trouble me.

First, you asked me to keep this correspondence a secret. I cannot see
the point of this. It is reminiscent of closed door deal making. I
have been involved in too many situations to engage in such. I will
not, however, forward your notes to any third party without your
permission. Nor will I quote directly from you; but I can see no
reason not to notify people of the fact and substance of our
discussions. As you can see a copy of this is going on to Evans.

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 CL, 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.

Sincerely,

Richard Laurie

cc: Larry Evans



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:46 pm, " wrote:

Back to the point of the "confidential" correspondence with
dramatist Laurie. NMnot now tells us that we have entered the
courtroom of evidentiary admissions and their proper ordering.
Nonsense. We are having a debate on a public forum.

No, Larry, I would hardly call this thread a "debate." It has been
merely a series of accusations by you against me, accusations made, to
use your idol's phrase, "without a scintilla of evidence." I have been
patiently rebutting and refuting them, but my patience is done. You
just keep fabricating more, or repeating the same ones, as if the
facts made no difference. It's quite tedious.

Taylor Kingston is evidently taking the 5th Amendment these
days by refusing to post his e-mails to playwright Richard Laurie in
its entirety. It is his constitutional right to do so, but we hope
to obtain them soon from Mr. Laurie, a man with no axe to grind, who
is still searching his records.

Complete bull, Larry. You claim I said X. I know I did not. It is
not up to me to prove I never said X. You know very well that is the
logical fallacy of proving a negative. And if I were to post
everything I've ever written, you'd still say I was holding back.
You're not interested in the facts, only in the smear.
It's entirely up to *_you_* to produce evidence that I did say X,
e.g that Laurie and Evans were "evil," or whatever droppings you're
spreading around today.

Accusations can be fabricated endlessly. For example, one could
claim that a certain Fred Smith, a man with no axe to grind, has
stated that you and Larry Evans were involved in the 9/11 attacks. By
your logic, Larry, I would be within my rights to insist that you must
post all your corresponce with Evans here, and if you did not, we
would be entitled to assume you were guilty.
And then one could start all over again with another accusation. And
another. And another. Et cetera ad infinitum.

By all means have Mr. Laurie go through his records. And when he
comes up empty, and you have nothing to back your worthless smears,
you'll apologize here, won't you, Larry?
Sure you will.