On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, " wrote:

It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.

We are used to this problem by now, so there is no point
in complaining so late about Mr. Par's tactics; where were
you five, ten, or fifteen years ago? The party's nearly over,
and you missed it.


In the beginning of this particular issue,

The facts of the chronology are fairly stated in the
article by Taylor Kingston, so attempting to "write
out" Larry Evans' predecessors looks suspect; is the
motive to obscure his *dubious sources*? Perhaps,
but writing those characters out also makes LE
look good for raising the questions himself, as
opposed to being a mere repeater antenna (which
is much closer to the reality).


GM Larry Evans published
an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
games?

I wouldn't know. I sent three different guys to interrogate
Mr. Krylenko, but each time their IDs were returned to me
with a note attached, reading "now sleeps with the fishes".
What can it mean?


Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
matter drop.

In truth, just prior to the article by LE there were
articles published by others, and these were in fact
his (dubious) sources. The idea fit well with a
general bashing-FIDE mindset, so the facts were
dealt with accordingly.


When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.

Friend, eh? This is starting to sound completely
dishonest. Perhaps it is a ritual of some sort, which
must be completed before gaining full membership
status in the Evans ratpack.


Later, for reasons of his own

I note a deliberate omission of TK's research efforts,
which prompted the new article. Hmm -- complete
dishonesty, omission of pertinent facts along with a
"reasons of his own" lie... congratulations, my boy,
I think you've made the cut!


Mr. Kingston published a counter
article; but unable to refute the analysis itself

Another lie. Mr. Kingston largely agreed with
the chess analysis, so there was no effort at
"refutation" at all. (One thing you can say for the
ratpackers: they are nothing if not consistent.)


he maligned GM
Evans' ability to analyze.

Another lie. It appears this guy wants to not
merely get in, but advance rapidly up the ladder
to the top of the pack!


His basis for this assault appears to have
been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky. (Mr.
Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
on pages 227-30.

That should be Ed Winter, singular. (They may clone
sheep or frogs, but no one in their right mind would ever
clone Edward Winter. In fact, there ought to be a law
against it.)


This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
ask if he could present his side of the issue.

Well, nobody's perfect. Had he known now what
he didn't know then, he'd likely have dismissed it as
just another hack, who can't get his facts straight.


He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
between GM Evans and Ed Winter. Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
behind people's backs.

This does not jibe with the story told here by Mr.
Parr. In LP's earlier version of this "story", the
request was not "ignored" until AFTER Taylor
Kingston contacted the magazine editor, thus
ticking Mr. Laurie off. (That's the trouble with all
liars: they can't remember every lie they've told,
and sooner or later, they contradict themselves
like this.)


Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him

"Editors" is plural; "him", singular. You do realize
that quite recently LP was singing your literacy praises,
right? Don't let your head honcho, chief rat, or whatever
it is you people call him, down like this.


I had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.

His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
"Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.

Ignorance is bliss! My suggestion would be to
get on the bad side of Larry Parr by disagreeing
with his opinions here, then kick back and watch
the carnage. If you take these Evans ratpackers
seriously, I can see how the term "battle fatigue"
might eventually set in. (Fortunately, their
overwhelming dishonesty precludes that from
ever happening.)


I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.

Where Mr. Parr promised evidence from saved
emails, all we ever seem to actually get is foggy
memories of days gone by. Each time I see yet
another reference from the ratpack to such emails,
I wonder if it is really even possible, given the
vast number of OS upgrades, new hardware, or
both that I've experienced over the years. Maybe
somewhere out there, is a person who still has
their first-ever emails, their first (still-working)
computer. Maybe.


These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.

Period. End of story.

It makes for a good story.


-- help bot