Larry Parr wrote: "Taylor Kingston … should simply have written,
‘Sloan's right in the main. John Hilbert, who is normally pretty
careful, let down on this one.'"

Again I must respectfully disagree. IMO, Sloan may be right, but not
"in the main." If his identification of the photo is correct, well and
good. A small but definite service to chess history. However, he does
a greater disservice to factual accuracy by saying "The author
incorrectly identifies it as being from the 1957 Western Open." That
statement is misleading and false, since Hilbert plainly labeled it as
an unidentified photo, POSSIBLY from the 1957 Western. "Unidentified."
"Possibly." Very tentative words.
A more accurate and tactful Sloan might have written, say, "The
author is unable to identify the photo positively, but hazards a
guess, which turns out to be incorrect. Having been at the event in
question, I can positively identify it as …" etc.

Parr again: "I think the distinction here is that John Hilbert does
history or, perhaps, more accurately, compendium-izing, and Sam Sloan
has lived part of the history that Mr. Hilbert writes."

No, the distinction I am making is that Hilbert may have failed in
fully researching an obscure 44-year-old photo, but Sloan reported
inaccurately a sentence which, presumably, is on a printed page right
in front of him. I consider the latter the greater error.

Taylor Kingston