On Nov 17, 10:10 pm, Louis Blair wrote:

7 That's all we have. Judgment, for we will all make a
7 judgment, even if not to judge at all, comes down to
7 probability. ...
_
_
It strikes me as noteworthy that something is not mentioned
in Larry Parr's discussion of "all we have":


Anyone who wants to get to the truth of this matter
(not the Richard Laurie red herring) can easily locate
the article in which Taylor Kingston used reason and
logic to skewer the hearsay-based speculations of
Larry Evans and others.

In a nutshell, somebody got the idea /secondhand/
and wrote an article, then that was picked up by a
host of other hack writers whose agendas included
attacking FIDE, so this item fit the bill. Each of
these hacks has in turn "enhanced" the story to
their own liking, and referenced previous articles by
other hacks as their supposed "evidence".

All this was laid out neatly in the article by Taylor
Kingston. However, after the first third or perhaps
half, he then delved into the "what so-and-so-said"
as if himself having been corrupted to a certain
extent by all these hacks. In any case, although
probably relying far to much on what somebody
*said* happened (as opposed to focusing on a
determination of what really did happen), Mr.
Kingston nonetheless did not fall into a pit of
irrational thinking, the way most of his predecessors
have done.

------

Personally, I don't put any trust in what the many
talking heads /say/ happened, on account of very
annoying facts like:

a) After accusing players they don't like of cheating,
admitting somewhere else their own misdeeds in the
very same vein; this is titanic hypocrisy.

b) Many of these chronic complainers share a similar
background, as haters of the status-quo who moved
abroad; we never hear the other side of the story from
the FIDE-bashing hack writers, because they don't
/want/ it heard.

c) Every Mickey Mouse conspiracy theory I have yet
seen fails miserably to account for the strength of
GM Botvinnik's moves! Even if all of his opponents
were throwing every game, this still requires a logical
explanation, since there was not yet any Fritz.

d) Western players, supposedly immune to threats
from the evil KGB, also had poor results against GM
Botvinnik, while doing considerably better against the
other Soviet players. (Again, conspiracy theorists
have nothing but embarrassed silence.)

e) GM Botvinnik drew Bobby Fischer. Once again,
the room falls silent (and angry). Blind luck?

f) Every story is based on what somebody thinks or
on what somebody says they were told; obviously,
no self-respecting hack writer would resort to that if
he could dredge up substantive evidence; it is only
when the hacks are incapable of finding anything
substantive that they report "sightings" of Kong,
interview people who /say/ they saw footprints, etc.,
instead of capturing the creature and bringing him
back to New York alive, so we can go and see him
in person (an excellent idea, if I do say so myself).


-- help bot