On Nov 16, 8:33 am, The Historian wrote:

I disagree. Larry Parr was, in his prime, a better chess player than I
ever was.

Time travel seems to fall outside the scope of my
comments. I expect, judging from the evident
mental difficulties he experiences here, Mr. Parr
is /far/ past his prime.


He may still be a better chess player.

Theoretically, you might be correct. But who can
say when a man does not actually play chess, but
only talks about chess /as though he were/ an
actual player?


But Innes is pretty much a fish.

That was before he bought Rybka. Now he ranks
among the best in the world -- which is why you
must play him in person, not remotely, as he has
not-so-cleverly attempted to arrange in the past.


Also, I wouldn't consider Parr as lacking "real accomplishments." I
own a couple of his books.

Do you consider putting Larry Evans' rancid anti-
FIDE, anti-everything opinions in order to be a
real accomplishment in chess? From what I've
seen here, LP appears incapable of thinking for
himself; a mere repeater-antenna for the ideas of
Larry Evans, which is not much of an achievement,
IMO. He can spell better than his two associates,
LE and IM Innes, but that's no big deal.


-- help bot