Lord, Larry, but you have become a virtual self-parody, and a study
in absolute hypocrisy. If I had a dollar for every far-fetched or
clearly false inference you have made based on little or no evidence,
I'd have a down payment on a house, if not the full price. And yet when
I note the obvious implication of a statement by one of the hacks you
cherish, someone who doesn't know a world champion from whirled
champignons, it's a "malignant lie."
And of course all of Sam's pornography and racist obscenities get a
pass, but when I note Schiller's obvious implication, it's a "morally
corrupt act."
It is just disgusting, not to mention incredible, that you have
chosen to champion some of the worst elements in American chess, such
as Schiller, Sloan, and Schroeder, while making contrived, baseless
charges against truly excellent authors such as Hooper, Whyld, and
Winter. Your sleaze rating is off the scale, and I think most or all of
rgcp/rgcm's fair-minded readers know it.
I resolved a while ago to ignore you, then rejoined the fray when you
started spouting new nonsense. Obviously that resolution was correct:
you are beyond hope of redemption. Time to ignore you again.

On 20 Oct 2005 19:07:39 -0700, "
wrote:

KINGSTON'S MALIGNANT INTENT

NM Taylor Kingston, the man who promoted himself
from 1800 to 2300+ ELO, did indeed lie about what
Eric Schiller wrote.

Now, please notice. NM Kingston writes
something that IS true: Eric ought to have explained
more about Max Euwe's career. It is not enough to
note that the Dutch great was a contender, though the
statement is true as written.

Having said that, Eric did not write, as
viciously alleged by NM Kingston, that Euwe was
NEVER world champion. The point of that posting,
written with evident glee, was to humiliate.

NM Kingston took an INCOMPLETE statement by Eric and
transmogrified it into an absurdity, supposedly but
not actually written by Eric.

Please note: this lousy, low lie exceeds
anything in moral terms that has been alleged by NM
Kingston and his like against NM Schiller. Malignant
intent aforethought is worse than carelessness or, as
was argued, lying by Eric.

NM Kingston has revealed his canker. It is a
character weakness on our part that we are not unhappy
he has done so.

NM Kingston attempts to excuse his lying -- for
that is what he quite deliberately did, knowing full
well what Eric really wrote -- by arguing that I might
accuse the authors of the Oxford Companion To Chess of
truckling to the Soviets if Smyslov and Tal were cited
only as contenders.

I might indeed IF the context so warranted, such
as these same authors deliberately failing to mention
Boris Gulko's status as a refusenik in a reference
book entry! However, in the case of Smyslov and Tal,
I might conclude monumental incompetence instead, if
there were no evident political angle as in the cases
of Gulko, Alburt, Korchnoi, Petrov, Levenfish and
several other entries in the Companion that our NM
Kingston dares not discuss.

To be sure, Eric was not writing a reference
work entry when mentioning Euwe in passing in a
sentence. NM Kingston knows that, and his allusion to
the Companion is a dishonestly false analogy. Eric
was, it appears, writing a brief intro to a game, and
he did not make the egregious error NM Kingston claimed.

Moreover, NM Kingston knew the text of what Eric
wrote, and he deliberately misrepresented it. Our 2300+
Elo man is quite a bill of goods. Quite a leeetle man indeed.

Give me a bumptious, overly excited Sam Sloan any day compared
with a cold, ego-driven bit of cancer such as our NM Kingston, who
apparently has terminated his "indefinite" vacation from this forum.

Again ZE (Zero-Elo) Parr writes many words about little. Nobody gives
a **** about NM (Non-Master) Kingston and PP (Permanent Patzer)
Schiller's stupid books.

IGNORED AGAIN

Seriously, Larry, what a joke you have become... I resolved a while ago to ignore you, then rejoined the fray when you started spouting new nonsense. Obviously that resolution was correct: you are beyond hope of redemption. Time to ignore you again.. -- Taylor Kingston

NM Taylor Kingston writes that it's "time to ignore you again."
I am always being ignored "again." The process is ongoing. I love it.

One also enjoys being "a joke," in NM Kingston's phrase. The fact
that I am being ignored "again" -- and again and again -- might
indicate otherwise. But our self-proclaimed 2300+ thunderbolt
obviously disagrees.

NM Kingston would have you believe that I confound a major
psychological blow with a minor tremor. I do not. There is evidence
that the Soviet leadership took small things quite seriously because,
given their own perceived illegitimacy, a small thing could become
important. The issue becomes HOW seriously. I think Spassky's defeat
caused, at most, a couple of sleepless nights for this or that
Politburo member, if even that.

There is a distinction between this kind of argument and, say, the
authors of the Oxford Companion stating that Krylenko was "widely held
to be responsible for Stalin's purges." This claim is an utter joke in
a way that Eric's evaluation is not.

All kinds of people have imagined that Bobby had a big influence,
but Krylenko? His name hardly figures in Robert Conquest's
unsuperseded history of the purges, The Great Terror. There is an
enormous difference between Eric's hooha, which has too much steam in
it, and that ridiculous claim about Krylenko, grabbed from the supernal
ether.

The truth is that our NM Kingston attributed to Eric a statement
-- Max Euwe never became world champion -- that Eric never wrote. The
point was to deride Eric once again by telling a lie.

I don't consider our NM Kingston to be a joke. I think he is a
bad man.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan
Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to
winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday! -- Ian Burton

The Games of Robert J. Fischer by Wade & O'Connell (page 123) claims
that three games were played, but one of the draws is missing: "The
score of this game is not available, but Euwe remembers that the game
followed Botvinnik-Euwe, Leningrad 1934, for some way. Fischer got some
advantage, Euwe pulled off something of a swindle and stood rather
better when the draw was agreed."

More anon.

All very strange. Any third game that was played was not played at the
Manhattan CC. Hans Kmoch, director of the club, was the referee of the
match. No more punctilious a referee has ever existed. There would be no
way in which he would have allowed a score sheet to escape his attention.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

wrote in message
ups.com...
IGNORED AGAIN

NM Kingston would have you believe that I confound a major
psychological blow with a minor tremor. I do not. There is evidence
that the Soviet leadership took small things quite seriously because,
given their own perceived illegitimacy, a small thing could become
important. The issue becomes HOW seriously. I think Spassky's defeat
caused, at most, a couple of sleepless nights for this or that
Politburo member, if even that.

Of the 3 USSR supported cultural showpieces, ballet, circus and chess, you
can hardly have your ballerinas go overseas and directly /compete/ with
other ballerinas,

(maybe giving a foreign dancer a Jackie Chan style kick up the tutu in mid
leap? )

and getting elephants & clowns to have a barny is equally problematic and
insufficiently serious [which one is 'our' clown, 'our' hefalump?]

But in chess there can be a test of the trained model-citizen Hero against a
foreign Barbarian [not his own fault, he is just a pawn in their system].

And there was an enormous decades-long effort to support the model citizen
Hero [literally, one became a 'Hero of the Soviet Union'] with tight control
to any 'affront' to his status - replete with Western journalists in place
who would make the first complaint!

The degree of tremor apres-Spassky may had small surface effect, hardly
enough to ripple one's vodka, but as an indicator of a deep systemic fault
and of future earthquake, it was as ominous as the compositions of
Shostakovitch.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan wrote:
On 17 Oct 2005 06:03:35 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


wrote:
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

And apparently he must fabricate as well:

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
discussion we
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?

I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.

1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."

See how Taylor Kingston keeps repeating the same lies. Tim Harding is
not an IM, a fact that can easily be established by looking at
http://www.fide.com


Isn't Tim a Correspondence player?

Sam Sloan wrote:
On 17 Oct 2005 06:03:35 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


wrote:
The issue is not whether Eric Schiller commits
errors. He does. Indeed, he must.

And apparently he must fabricate as well:

Some weeks ago here, the thread "Misleading Book Titles"
discussed the fact that in his book "Unorthodox Openings" Eric
Schiller recommended a book by GM Heikki Westerinen as best on the
Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6). Some of the major issues of the
discussion we
(1) Did such a book exist?
(2) If it did not, was Schiller's recommendation merely an
inadvertent error?
(3) If inadvertent, how is it that Schiller repeated the error
several times?

I have done some research over the past month, contacting the
principal parties involved: Schiller, Westerinen, and American NM Hugh
Myers. For the information of newsgroup readers, here are my findings.

1. Batsford published "Unorthodox Openings" by Joel Benjamin and
Eric Schiller in 1987. In the section on Nimzovich's Defense (1.e4
Nc6) the authors wrote (page 50): "Myers, [IM Tim] Harding and
Westerinen have all written books on the subject. Westerinen's is the
best, but very hard to find."

See how Taylor Kingston keeps repeating the same lies. Tim Harding is
not an IM, a fact that can easily be established by looking at
http://www.fide.com

Yet, Taylor Kingston asks us to believe his version of a private
exchange that took place in 1988 about which none of us could ever
know the truth.


http://www.chessmail.com/timsite/
Tim Harding is a Senior IM in correspondence

Chess One wrote:
But in chess there can be a test of the trained model-citizen Hero against a
foreign Barbarian [not his own fault, he is just a pawn in their system].

And there was an enormous decades-long effort to support the model citizen
Hero [literally, one became a 'Hero of the Soviet Union'] with tight control
to any 'affront' to his status - replete with Western journalists in place
who would make the first complaint!

All very true, Phil. However, this does nothing to support Schiller's
claim that Fischer-Spassky 1972 was "a major psychological blow to the
Soviet government." Certainly it was an embarrassment, and it certainly
was a blow to the likes of Taimanov, Petrosian and Spassky, but for it
to qualify as a MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL BLOW TO THE GOVERNMENT, I think it
would have to be shown that it caused the Soviet government to lose its
resolve or change its mind in some important way. What domestic or
foreign policy decisions were affected by the match? Did anyone in the
Politburo or Central Committee say "Well, now that Spassky's lost, we'd
better not invade Afghanistan, and stop funding those African rebels"?
Did Brezhnev say to himself "Shoot, now I'll have to make some major
concessions at the next summit with Nixon"? Did any pro-Soviet or
non-aligned nations change to pro-American as a result of the match? of
course not. Were Gorbachev's later glasnost and perestroika in any way
byproducts of the match? One seriously doubts it.
It certainly did not cause the Soviets to lose their resolve on the
chess front -- they redoubled their efforts to get the title back by
whatever means, and Fischer only helped them by resigning it.

The degree of tremor apres-Spassky may had small surface effect, hardly
enough to ripple one's vodka, but as an indicator of a deep systemic fault
and of future earthquake, it was as ominous as the compositions of
Shostakovitch.

Flowery persiflage. It's hard to see Spassky's failure as an
indicator of any "deep systemic fault" in the Soviet system. The real
faults in that system of government were all too obvious, eventually
even to the Soviets themselves, and hardly require explanation in the
metaphorical terms of a chess player as ideological symbol (for which
Spassky is a poor fit anyway). The Soviet *chess* sytem had shown its
worth by dominating world chess for a quarter-century, and had it not
been for the country's terrible losses in WW II and the peculiar genius
of a uniquely obsessed and driven lone American, that domination would
likely have continued without the 1972 interruption.
To sum up, I don't consider Schiller's "major blow" remark to be a
major error, and certainly not a falsehood. However, it's the sort of
glib carelessness that so thoroughly permeates his work, and so in my
review I included it with other examples of carelessness, such as his
saying 1962 was 1958, and his ludicrous garbling of the Fischer notes
he was so liberally borrowing from.
Another glaring example was his description of Euwe as a title
contender, without mentioning that Euwe actually was World Champion
1935-1937. The double standard of those who so glibly excuse this,
while attacking lesser omissions by better authors, is glaringly
obvious, a clear case of "whose ox is gored." It inspired me to write a
list of comparable "true but false" statements:

For a time, Albert Einstein had an interest in mathematics.
In her youth, Marilyn Monroe contemplated a career as a movie
actress.
At one time, Mickey Mantle considered becoming a major league
baseball player.
Jesse Owens once tried out for the Olympics.
For a while, Viktor Korchnoi thought about defecting from the USSR.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Larry Evans was considered a contender for
the US Championship.
Larry Parr was once considered for the post of Chess Life editor.

"Larry Parr was once considered for the post of Chess Life editor."
Kingston (again ignoring his nemesis)

That's still a far cry from claiming that Parr was NEVER Chess Life
editor.

Can't this guy ever admit when he's wrong?

I'm not Bill Brock, moron.

C. George

wrote in message
ups.com...
COME HITHER

Dynamite? Get a life. -- Curious George to Larry Parr

A short note to Bill Brock. I know it is B for
bo-o-o-o-ring out in Nolanland, and I cannot promise
that like Hector, your body will not be dragged around
the Walls of Tinytown, though while you are still
alive. But I can promise that it only hurts for the
first two or three years.

Come hither.