Dear Taylor Kingston,

One other thought, Taylor. Should the gent agree, will you work with me on
an interview? I think I can guarantee a half dozen GM questions to be
included, maybe 10. I think this does sufficient honor to him, and without
it, it may be passable on his part. And the nature of interviews is really
to ask questions which can be answered, rather than 'posed to' a person as
clever rhetoric or something.

There seem to be many questions that are yet not answered, but which are in
a broad sense, strong in our appreciation of chess to date.

You have an issue with him, and that is good. I do not think you and I
cannot agree on the basis of questions; and maybe include a third person [or
a forth] to sharpen our points, to get something out there which it always
seemed to me to be as much about the times as the participants in them.

I do understand you like writers who have substantial experience on
interrogating Russian materials on chess [such as Cafferty]. I have
exchanged several thousand messages on this subject with Russians. And with
some of them they say - "can we get this person to interview before too
late?"

I don't wish to make only some morbid comment here - but in the history of
American Greats, are we Americans not as negligent historically as the
Russians of their own to inquire of real witness to how it was?

Consider this very open-ended and public proposal if you will, and even unto
your correspondent, Mr. Caffery, and decide if you should like to proceed
withall.

Cordially, Phil Innes