Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 19, 10:47 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Chess friends,

I've seen the term ratpacker used frequently. I wondered what was meant

As far as I know, Rev, the term was introduced here on the rgc
groups by Larry Parr. In particular, he used the phrase "Winter
ratpackers" as a derisive way to designate anyone who tended to prefer
the work of the meticulous chess historian Edward Winter to the work
of GM Larry Evans. This group would probably include, say, Louis
Blair, Neil Brennen, Steven Dowd, myself and several others. Though we
actually post here quite independently, Parr somehow imagined us to
be, or wished to portray us, as a sinister cabal acting on orders from
Winter, like minions of Professor Moriarty or mafia hit-men, the goal
being to destroy the good name of Parr's idol Evans.
In fact, I would say that most of the alleged "ratpackers" have
never had any contact with Winter, who lives in Switzerland. I have
exchanged e-mails and letters with him, but have had no contact at all
for several years.
More recently, some posters, mainly Help-bot (aka NoMoreChess),
turned the term around, and applied it to Parr and some of his
supporters, mainly Sam Sloan and Phil Innes. So the phrase has become
practically meaningless.

I wanted to answer some questions you asked in another thread; this
one seemed a more appopriate place:

On Nov 20, 7:58 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Mr. Bot,

Okay, I read the article. I am impressed with the amount of work that
Taylor put into it. As for the topic covered, my conclusion was that
there was a lot of evidence to consider, and it appeared that there was
nothing definitely conclusive. However, for the most part it was
persuasive -- the dark forces of Stalin worked against Keres' interests.

What ever became of Averbakh's memoirs?

A good question. In an interview he gave me in July 2002, Averbakh
said he was working on them, and that they would be published in
Russian, probably under a name such as "Chess and the System." meaning
the Soviet political system. I don't know if that has happened yet,
much less if plans are afoot for an English version.
In any event, and contrary to what I was told by Emanuel Sztein in
March 1998, it appears that any Averbakh memoirs will not contain any
evidence supporting any anti-Keres conspiracy theory. Averbakh himself
is on record against that hypothesis, as you can read he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles181.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles183.pdf


Thanks for pointing me to these articles. A very interesting read.
Good job.

Sztein, a Russian, was a press attaché for GM Viktor Korchnoi, and
claimed to "know with certainty" that Keres had been coerced, and so I
thought him a source worth mentioning in my 1998 article. However, it
would appear that as far as Averbakh supporting the coercion thesis,
Mr. Sztein was mistaken. Further questioning of Sztein is not
possible, as he died several years ago. Averbakh, now 85, is still
going strong. If he does produce any memoirs, I'm sure they will be
interesting, but I'm not expecting much about a Keres-Botvinnik fix
from him.
BTW, Rev, watch for a knee-jerk reaction flame-post from Phil Innes.
He does this every time I mention Averbakh.

I see some disagreements with Evans are mentioned. I suppose these are
the seeds (at least in part) of the present controversy.

Yes, as I have explained, to Larry Parr, any disagreement with Evans
is a capital offense with no statute of limitations. The offender must
be utterly discredited and vilified, by fair means or foul (usually
the latter).

I was promised crystal clarity. I feel that that promise has not been
met.

About the Keres-Botvinnik case? I never promised that. I've done my
best with it, for what that's worth, but much remains unknown.


Indeed, you did not. I believe it was Mr. Bot that made the promise.

What remains very unclear to me: How can mature, intelligent
human beings keep a feud going for 7+ years on something like this?

A very good question, Rev. I would be quite happy to leave the whole
matter alone, but Larry Parr won't. As I said, to him, disagreement
with Evans is a capital offense with no statute of limitations. The
offender is to be discredited and vilified, by fair means or foul
(usually the latter). You've seen some of the foul means here on the
newsgroup; some others Parr and Evans employed some years ago are
described he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

Over the past several months, maybe year, I had pretty much
disengaged from the rgc newsgroups altogether (you can verify this
with functions under the "more options" link on Google). Neither had
Parr been saying much about me.
What prompted the latest outbreak of Parrorrhea was the fact that I
made a few posts critical of Sam Sloan, a convicted felon, lifelong
ne'er-do-well, shameless attention-seeker, delusional solipsist and
long-time running joke here on rgc, whom Parr, for reasons of his own,
keeps pushing as the savior of the USCF. Parr wants Sloan on the USCF
Executive Board, I think that's a bad idea.
Parr, having no way to counter my criticisms of Sloan, launched yet
again into full-scale smear-Kingston mode, recycling mud he's been
throwing here for years. I might have ignored him, but it's rather fun
rebutting him, especially when, as we've seen here recently, it leads
Larry into all sorts of patently false and ridiculous statements.

Hasn't anyone had the thought, "This is enough, I am putting it behind
me and moving on...?"

I'd be quite happy to, but Parr seems to relish mud-slinging. Much
of the time I ignore him, but sometimes, as recently, he serves up
such fat pitches that I can't resist whacking them now and then. It's
the same sort of pleasure one gets from beating Sanny's inept chess
program.

Mr. Parr does relish the conflict he is engaged in. He has admitted it.
He even admitted a small amount of shame when he launches his
attacks. Moreover, it is in character with what I recall of him from
the past.

Why does he enjoy this? There was a time that he was an award winning
orator and debater at the scholastic level. I know because I tried my
hand at it at an opposing school. I believe that this controversy is,
in large part, a sport to him.

The apparent chemistry reminds me of a particular
type of bad marriage where the weaknesses of each mate act as incendiary
catalysts on the other leading to wild arguments and fights. Get a divorce!

If you can persuade Larry to shut up, fine by me.

I doubt that I can persuade anybody of anything. :^) I believe I do
have more tolerance for human variation of character than many.

After what I have read, I can still admire Larry Evans as one of the
"Grand Old Lions" of chess. I can admire Fischer for the depth of his
commitment to seeking chess truth over the board while at the same time
thinking the poor fellow had serious mental problems. I can admire Sam
Sloan for an evident deep concern about US chess, while not agreeing
with many of the other positions, strategies, or tactics he has or may
adopt. I can admire Larry Parr for bringing a certain flair to chess
journalism and for engaging many lively topics, without agreeing with
him about particular issues or his activity of prolonging this
controversy. I can admire you for being an excellent writer and
interviewer as evidenced by the articles you have pointed me to, and for
the sense of fairness I have felt in conversing with you -- even though
I think you focus too much on the disparagement of others in the present
context.

Life is not a binary enterprise. There are many shades of gray betwixt
black & white.

In any case, I have no intention of joining anybody's ratpack.
--

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