Chess One wrote:

To have any conversation at all, there needs to be a subject, clearly
identified, to which we can agree, disagree, or keep our council. It needs
to be a chess topic. This thread, so it seems to me, is the result of never
identifiying a clear topic, nor staying the course of addressing that
topic - and the logical result of that is someone must be called a liar.

ON TOPIC?

Some time ago if ceased being a conversation and became a competition - but
unless you are a closer reader than I, no light is shed on Keres/Botvinnik
from the original materials presented here.

Therefore we have a spat on who said what and when, instead of what
substantive material was addressed in these communications.

I have at least one bias here, perhaps two of them. I have seen both public
and private writers of a principle to the affair, and secondly, if I were
Evans or his editor, I too would have eliminated Taylor Kingston's response,
since it added nothing substantive about Keres/Botvinnik than his first
did - but instead inveigled on the fairness of making further public
presentations in CL.

If that is your idea of the topical material in this thread, then we could
continue to talk in this thread about that topic. Otherwise, not!

Phil Innes


I appreciate the change in tone and I am willing to meet you half way.

This thread has been all over the place. I am interested in the
Keres-Botvinnik controversy. I did note the message earlier by
'social_justice' with interest. He claims that KGB people had
information on the controversy, and that he interviewed them. The
message in not documented. I imagine almost every KGB agent of that era
is dead by now. But just the same it suggests an avenue of research
that could be revealing. Is it possible to access old KGB files and
look for related information?

I am not interested in the flame wars between the various authors. I
find it deadly boring. I suspect that Mr. Parr can keep on doing what
he is doing forever if need be. And his critics seem determined as
well. Apparently we agree that that is an unappealing future... :^)

Given the history of the thread, and the ongoing flame war, I do not
hold out a lot of hope for a civil discussion of the topic you prefer.
Just the same I offer this much in support of the idea.
--


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.