I have just finished reading the junk below, which Taylor Kingston
insists should have been published in Chess Life magazine by Larry
Evans.

It should be obvious to almost everybody that few if any readers of
Chess Life whould have been interested in reading what Taylor Kingston
wriites below. I can barely get through it myself, even though I am
interested in the subject.

I can state that any Chess Life editor who agreed to publish the
material below would probably have been fired on the spot by Tim
Redman, an English Professor who was USCF President at the time.

Furthermore, I can state that if Larry Evans had submitted the
material below for publication, not only would the editor of Chess
Life have rejected it, but Larry Evans might have lost his column for
good. Larry Evans has already in the past been kicked out of Chess
Life several times for political reasons. This would have been the
last straw.

It is astounding that over and over again in dozens of postings to
this group Taylor Kingston has repeatedly contended that Larry Evans
was under some obligation to publish this material in Chess Life
magazine.

Sam Sloan

On 22 May 2005 08:38:41 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

wrote:
Ahem, Larry -- in the above statement I am referring to letters I
addressed directly to Evans himself, not to the CL editor. Taylor
Kingston

How many letters did he not publish? Post them right here!

One "Chungus Goro" made the same charge on this forum but lapsed
into
silence when challenged to submit his items that were not used in
Evans
On Chess..

Ask and ye shall receive, Larry. This correspondence with Evans is an
interesting case. It is not entirely an unpublished letter, rather
it's one that was severely trimmed and altered, so that my statements
unfavorable to Evans were omitted, and the one printed statement was
garbled. It bears careful reading.
The following correspondence took place in July 2001, when the
Evans-Winter feud was at its peak at both ChessCafe.com and in Chess
Life. A person, possibly Evans himself, but identifying himself only as
a representative from Evans' company Chesstours, contacted me by
e-mail. Below is our correspondence verbatim, from my reply, which I
saved as a Word doc at the time. For clarity, I have here added
"CT" to indicate Chesstours' statements (which are also in
[[double brackets]]), and "TK" to indicate mine.

In a message dated 7/22/01 6:28:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:

CT: [[ Chesstours syndicates the newspaper column Evans On Chess. ]]

TK: Yes, I am aware of that. How you doin', Larry?

CT: [[ Edward Winter, in a letter to the editor of Chess Life attacking
GM Evans, mentions your name as follows:

"The splenetic peak, at least so far, is his July 2001 column, where he
accused me of having been misleading, crude, sly and vile in a brief
Kingpin item (not quoted correctly) from over a year ago. Yet what I
wrote was 100% true. Indeed, the person who misled Kingpin readers was
Evans himself. That was on a different matter (the details are omitted
here for space reasons), but suffice it to say that Evans' conduct was
described by his victim, Taylor Kingston, as 'amazingly, grossly
dishonest'. Moreover, the Kingpin editor, Jonathan Manley, has
commented: 'There can be no doubt that Larry Evans misled Kingpin
readers. The evidence is incontrovertible, as shown by Taylor Kingston
in Kingpin 32 (Spring 2000), p. 64. Evans' claim that Edward Winter is
guilty of the same offence is simply ludicrous.'"

1. For the record, do you consider yourself a victim of GM Evans, as
Mr. Winter alleges? ]]

TK: I definitely feel Mr. Evans has acted improperly. My statement
that he misrepresented my views is already a matter of public record
(see Kingpin, Spring 2000, page 64, as stated by J. Manley). I stand by
that statement today. In the recent dispute between Evans and Winter, I
agree on the whole with Winter.
In addition to the documented misrepresentation my Evans, there have
been several further instances by his spokesman, Larry Parr, on
internet newsgroups.

CT: [[2. In light of all the evidence that has appeared since you wrote
A Review of the Evidence [sic] in Chess Life (admissions by both
Botvinnik and Keres that Stalin personally intervened) what is your
current position on this controversy? ]]

** end of first e-mail **

I did not answer Evans' second question, for several reasons. One
was that my second article on the subject, "The Keres-Botvinnik Case
Revisited: A Further Survey of the Evidence," was in preparation, and
I had no wish to divulge it to Evans in advance.
Another reason is that the K-B case is complex, not a simple yes/no
proposition, and my "position" on it cannot be turned into a simple
sound-byte. It's not like a political "for-or-against" position.

A very important reason I did not answer is that Evans' phrasing
contains a clear factual error: "admissions by Botvinnik and Keres
that Stalin personally intervened." To my knowledge, Keres never said
any such thing. To answer Evans directly would have given tacit
endorsement to this typical example of his carelessness or chicanery.

However, Evans persisted. A little over five hours later, I received
a follow-up message:

In a message dated 7/22/01 11:45:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:

CT: [[ However, it didn't address the second question about your
current position on the Botvinnik-Keres controversy. Care to comment?
]]

TK: I have tried to adopt a quasi-legal approach to this question;
mere opinions are not evidence. Whatever the ultimate resolution of the
Keres-Botvinnik controversy, it has nothing to do with the matter under
consideration, i.e. Mr. Evans' honesty and accuracy.
Furthermore, your question (quoted below) involved assumptions or
assertions I do not share. Any response by me might be taken as an
endorsement of those assumptions. Therefore I will not respond to the
question as it is presently phrased.

CT: [[2. In light of all the evidence that has appeared since you wrote
A Review of the Evidence in Chess Life (admissions by both Botvinnik
and Keres that Stalin personally intervened) what is your current
position on this controversy? ]]

** end of second e-mail **

Thus the e-mail exchange. Of my ten-sentence, four-paragraph reply,
by the time Evans was done with it, all that appeared in Chess Life
(December 2001, page 7) was a mangled stub. Evans wrote:

"[Kingston] forgot - if that is quite the word - that he
refused to answer when I sought his *current* view on whether Keres
threw games.
"He replied via e-mail on July 23, 2001 'Your involved
assumptions or assertions I do not share. Any response by me might be
taken as an endorsement of those assumptions. Therefore I will not
respond to the question as it is presently phrased.'
"Pompous gobbledygook."

Note that Evans REMOVED THREE WORDS from my answer so that the first
sentence makes no sense, then had the gall to call it gobbledygook.
And, Evans completely forgot - if that is quite the word - to give
the text of his question, so the Chess Life reader had no idea of what
I objected to. And note that Evans failed to present most of response,
the parts that are most directly critical of him.
Doing this in a printed magazine is qualitatively different from
newsgroups, where the full original post can easily be found, even if a
reply quotes it selectively.
It is not hard to see that Evans was fishing for something he might
use against Winter. Failing to get that from me, he distorted my
response, perhaps partly out of (convenient) carelessness, but also
clearly pruning by design.
I find it ironic that Parr generally complains so vociferously about
others' snipping, but not when his idol Evans does it to someone
else.
Evans' 12/2001 letter was accompanied by one from Parr which had
further distortions. I submitted a letter rebuttting these to the Chess
Life editor, but it was not published. We will see if Mr. Parr tries to
deny the existence of that letter also, as he has with my letter of
November 1998.

Sam Sloan wrote:
I have just finished reading the junk below, which Taylor Kingston
insists should have been published in Chess Life magazine by Larry
Evans.

Sam, your comprehension skills again fail you, as so often happens.
An important part of "the junk below" WAS published in Chess Life:
December 2001, page 7. However, it was ALTERED -- what appeared in
Chess Life WAS NOT what I wrote to Evans. Understand now?
Imagine, say, that you write: "Taylor Kingston is not a very nice
person." Later I purport to quote this as "Taylor Kingston is a very
nice person." Do you get the idea now?

I can state that any Chess Life editor who agreed to publish the
material below would probably have been fired on the spot by Tim
Redman, an English Professor who was USCF President at the time.

Then you'd better get Redman on the phone right now, and have him
fire Peter Kurzdorfer retroactively.

Furthermore, I can state that if Larry Evans had submitted the
material below for publication, not only would the editor of Chess
Life have rejected it, but Larry Evans might have lost his column for
good.

See my comment above.

It is astounding that over and over again in dozens of postings to
this group Taylor Kingston has repeatedly contended that Larry Evans
was under some obligation to publish this material in Chess Life
magazine.

Sam, these "dozens of postings" are figments of your imagination. You
have not bothered to produce a single one. You cannot, because they do
not exist. However, as I predicted a few days ago, that has not stopped
you from repeating your fantasy.
I do insist that Evans is under this obligation: that if he quotes
someone -- me or anyone -- he must do so accurately. Do you consider
that unreasonable?

On 22 May 2005 08:38:41 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

wrote:
Ahem, Larry -- in the above statement I am referring to letters I
addressed directly to Evans himself, not to the CL editor. Taylor
Kingston

How many letters did he not publish? Post them right here!

One "Chungus Goro" made the same charge on this forum but lapsed
into
silence when challenged to submit his items that were not used in
Evans
On Chess..

Ask and ye shall receive, Larry. This correspondence with Evans is an
interesting case. It is not entirely an unpublished letter, rather
it's one that was severely trimmed and altered, so that my statements
unfavorable to Evans were omitted, and the one printed statement was
garbled. It bears careful reading.
The following correspondence took place in July 2001, when the
Evans-Winter feud was at its peak at both ChessCafe.com and in Chess
Life. A person, possibly Evans himself, but identifying himself only as
a representative from Evans' company Chesstours, contacted me by
e-mail. Below is our correspondence verbatim, from my reply, which I
saved as a Word doc at the time. For clarity, I have here added
"CT" to indicate Chesstours' statements (which are also in
[[double brackets]]), and "TK" to indicate mine.

In a message dated 7/22/01 6:28:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:

CT: [[ Chesstours syndicates the newspaper column Evans On Chess. ]]

TK: Yes, I am aware of that. How you doin', Larry?

CT: [[ Edward Winter, in a letter to the editor of Chess Life attacking
GM Evans, mentions your name as follows:

"The splenetic peak, at least so far, is his July 2001 column, where he
accused me of having been misleading, crude, sly and vile in a brief
Kingpin item (not quoted correctly) from over a year ago. Yet what I
wrote was 100% true. Indeed, the person who misled Kingpin readers was
Evans himself. That was on a different matter (the details are omitted
here for space reasons), but suffice it to say that Evans' conduct was
described by his victim, Taylor Kingston, as 'amazingly, grossly
dishonest'. Moreover, the Kingpin editor, Jonathan Manley, has
commented: 'There can be no doubt that Larry Evans misled Kingpin
readers. The evidence is incontrovertible, as shown by Taylor Kingston
in Kingpin 32 (Spring 2000), p. 64. Evans' claim that Edward Winter is
guilty of the same offence is simply ludicrous.'"

1. For the record, do you consider yourself a victim of GM Evans, as
Mr. Winter alleges? ]]

TK: I definitely feel Mr. Evans has acted improperly. My statement
that he misrepresented my views is already a matter of public record
(see Kingpin, Spring 2000, page 64, as stated by J. Manley). I stand by
that statement today. In the recent dispute between Evans and Winter, I
agree on the whole with Winter.
In addition to the documented misrepresentation my Evans, there have
been several further instances by his spokesman, Larry Parr, on
internet newsgroups.

CT: [[2. In light of all the evidence that has appeared since you wrote
A Review of the Evidence [sic] in Chess Life (admissions by both
Botvinnik and Keres that Stalin personally intervened) what is your
current position on this controversy? ]]

** end of first e-mail **

I did not answer Evans' second question, for several reasons. One
was that my second article on the subject, "The Keres-Botvinnik Case
Revisited: A Further Survey of the Evidence," was in preparation, and
I had no wish to divulge it to Evans in advance.
Another reason is that the K-B case is complex, not a simple yes/no
proposition, and my "position" on it cannot be turned into a simple
sound-byte. It's not like a political "for-or-against" position.

A very important reason I did not answer is that Evans' phrasing
contains a clear factual error: "admissions by Botvinnik and Keres
that Stalin personally intervened." To my knowledge, Keres never said
any such thing. To answer Evans directly would have given tacit
endorsement to this typical example of his carelessness or chicanery.

However, Evans persisted. A little over five hours later, I received
a follow-up message:

In a message dated 7/22/01 11:45:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:

CT: [[ However, it didn't address the second question about your
current position on the Botvinnik-Keres controversy. Care to comment?
]]

TK: I have tried to adopt a quasi-legal approach to this question;
mere opinions are not evidence. Whatever the ultimate resolution of the
Keres-Botvinnik controversy, it has nothing to do with the matter under
consideration, i.e. Mr. Evans' honesty and accuracy.
Furthermore, your question (quoted below) involved assumptions or
assertions I do not share. Any response by me might be taken as an
endorsement of those assumptions. Therefore I will not respond to the
question as it is presently phrased.

CT: [[2. In light of all the evidence that has appeared since you wrote
A Review of the Evidence in Chess Life (admissions by both Botvinnik
and Keres that Stalin personally intervened) what is your current
position on this controversy? ]]

** end of second e-mail **

Thus the e-mail exchange. Of my ten-sentence, four-paragraph reply,
by the time Evans was done with it, all that appeared in Chess Life
(December 2001, page 7) was a mangled stub. Evans wrote:

"[Kingston] forgot - if that is quite the word - that he
refused to answer when I sought his *current* view on whether Keres
threw games.
"He replied via e-mail on July 23, 2001 'Your involved
assumptions or assertions I do not share. Any response by me might be
taken as an endorsement of those assumptions. Therefore I will not
respond to the question as it is presently phrased.'
"Pompous gobbledygook."

Note that Evans REMOVED THREE WORDS from my answer so that the first
sentence makes no sense, then had the gall to call it gobbledygook.
And, Evans completely forgot - if that is quite the word - to give
the text of his question, so the Chess Life reader had no idea of what
I objected to. And note that Evans failed to present most of response,
the parts that are most directly critical of him.
Doing this in a printed magazine is qualitatively different from
newsgroups, where the full original post can easily be found, even if a
reply quotes it selectively.
It is not hard to see that Evans was fishing for something he might
use against Winter. Failing to get that from me, he distorted my
response, perhaps partly out of (convenient) carelessness, but also
clearly pruning by design.
I find it ironic that Parr generally complains so vociferously about
others' snipping, but not when his idol Evans does it to someone
else.
Evans' 12/2001 letter was accompanied by one from Parr which had
further distortions. I submitted a letter rebuttting these to the Chess
Life editor, but it was not published. We will see if Mr. Parr tries to
deny the existence of that letter also, as he has with my letter of
November 1998.

On 27 May 2005 08:37:54 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

I do insist that Evans is under this obligation: that if he quotes
someone -- me or anyone -- he must do so accurately. Do you consider
that unreasonable?

Yes. It is unreasonable. Every newspaper or magazine in the world that
publishes a letters to the editor column reserves and utilizes the
right to alter or shorten the submissions. If you did not want any
changes to be made to your words, you should not have written a letter
to Chess Life.

Sam Sloan