Jerzy wrote:


What sources can you exclude for sure ?

The books by Kasparov and Keene.

A suspicion has arisen that the article was written solely for purpose of
showing alleged cotradictions in Keene`s writings but not for purpose of
revealing the truth ;-)

If he shows contradictions this is at least a step into revealing the
truth, as on gets not distracted by false hints. And he shows evidence
that Keene was actively involved in proposing the termination. If this
proof stands, this all is not only about some minor contradictions about
details, this is about a really mean play by Keene.

Greetings,
Ralf

PI wrote:

"If the work of E. Winter is that of a fair minded critic, I should
like a
definition of an obsessive.
Kingston cannot admit that Winter is a bit too fixed on certain
things, no
matter how trivial, and that Winter cannot admit that he makes
mistakes."



I followed the link to what EW wrote about the termination, and it
seems to me that "determining the truth" was the last thing on his
agenda.

Winter goes on and on, almost endlessly, about Keene and Kasparov
contradicting themselves and each other; What has this to do with
finding the facts? If he wanted the facts regarding, say, Karpov's
condition at the time, who but an obsessive stalker
would begin his search by reading what Ray Keene had to say about it?
Was he Karpov's doctor? And Kasparov's writings? Good fiction, but
nothing in the realm of reality and truth.
Perhaps EW is willing to settle for embarassing those two for their
many self-contradictions but this is not much of an achievement, except
in the realm of parsing. The purported goal of finding the truth about
the termination leads one to expect far more than EW delivered -- and
that includes his bungling "summation."

It appears to me that EW simply used this issue to further his
attacks on Keene
& Co. (whose status was already in Chapter 13).

*I would contend that this is a case of fabrication...* (Kingston)

What is Parr fabricating?

Winter's account of the termination, so admired by Kingston,
is anything but fair and balanced. On the other hand GM Evans'
report on "The One That Got Away" contains most of the points
that Winter omitted and seems utterly convincing.

*A suspicion has arisen that the article was written solely for purpose
of
showing alleged cotradictions in Keene`s writings but not for purpose
of
revealing the truth ;-)* (Jerzy)

I agree with PI that LP was not simply "fabricating" and that EW's
article was biased against RK.

But I feel obliged to note the *ridiculous* position of endorsing
LE's One That Got Away with words like "utterly convincing." The
extreme bias in LE's writing regarding certain subjects leaves even
remotely objective readers unsatisfied. We want reason. We want a),
then b), therefore logically: c). Instead, we are invariably treated
to innuendo, guilt-by-accusation, and giant leaps of "logic" defying
all known laws of gravity. When challenged to do better, LP (here,
proxy for LE) invariably changes the subject. That is not exactly what
I would call "utterly convincing".

JJ wrote:
"This whole business of Parr-Winter, etc., smacks of nothing but child
like
gossip. Most folks here don't give a rat's butt."


Children don't gossip. Old women gossip. You're right about that
other thing, but then, why did you click on the thread name? Perhaps
you were hoping to read about the "termination" of one of those two
named -- now THAT would put a (rat's) end to it.

help bot wrote:


Winter goes on and on, almost endlessly, about Keene and Kasparov
contradicting themselves and each other; What has this to do with
finding the facts?

What other sources for the facts than testimonies of the witnesses do
you expect in this case?

Greetings,
Ralf

wrote:
WINTER'S ANTI-KASPAROV BIAS

I shall be reviewing Campomanes' outrageous
termination of the match shortly and examining all
the things that Edward Winter left out.

Feel free, Larry. I'm sure Winter left out various things, and may
well be wrong about some, even many perhaps. That ain't my point.
My point is that you claimed the article was aimed at "justifying
Campo's" actions. It is not. To be that, it would have to say something
like "I think the termination was a good thing, I applaud Campomanes
for it, and here's why." I wanted rgc readers to see for themselves
that it simply says no such thing.
So you can talk all you want about what Winter left out -- my point
is: what you say he put in, just ain't there. So it seems that either
you lied, or you have a rather creative memory.

We shall examine whether Mr.
Winter adduced the facts. More to come.

Larry, in this context I don't care if Winter is as wrong as "Wrong
Way" Corrigan and Roy Riegels put together. The point is, *_Larry
Parr_* invented a "fact." But go ahead, write one of your famous long
screeds justifying yourself.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
WINTER'S ANTI-KASPAROV BIAS

I shall be reviewing Campomanes' outrageous
termination of the match shortly and examining all
the things that Edward Winter left out.

Feel free, Larry. I'm sure Winter left out various things, and may
well be wrong about some, even many perhaps.

What do TK mean by, "I'm sure"? Does he mean that he doesn't know or he
does? Is the final word 'perhaps' an admission, or is it a supposition?

That ain't my point.
My point is that you claimed the article was aimed at "justifying
Campo's" actions. It is not.

From these sentences it seems as if he did read the material, therefore my
question above is answered by 'admission'. The logic of the piece of writing
in question is now that: if certain material is admitted not to be present
in the writing, how honest is the report?

To be that, it would have to say something
like "I think the termination was a good thing, I applaud Campomanes
for it, and here's why."

No it wouldn't have to directly say that as rhetoric. It would have to
behave to ignore inconvenient facts and contexts, and present too much on
one side of the issue, to create the impression...

I wanted rgc readers to see for themselves
that it simply says no such thing.

Then they could also assess if what Winter proposed about the affair was
fair, by the same measure of your logic. This need to be tested:

TESTING, TESTING

Parenthetically: If a chess player is not allowed to play chess because of
his ethnicity or religion, do you personally think that it is fair to report
that the player was 'away from chess'? Now, of course he /was/ away from
chess, but not by his own choosing.

Perhaps if you could answer that question, then your sense of fair reporting
elsewhere could be measured by the same standard?

So you can talk all you want about what Winter left out -- my point
is: what you say he put in, just ain't there. So it seems that either
you lied, or you have a rather creative memory.

By answering the above test, we would appreciate what Taylor Kingston
considers a lie, and what a truth.

We shall examine whether Mr.
Winter adduced the facts. More to come.

Larry, in this context I don't care if Winter is as wrong as "Wrong
Way" Corrigan and Roy Riegels put together. The point is, *_Larry
Parr_* invented a "fact." But go ahead, write one of your famous long
screeds justifying yourself.

Taylor Kingston sometimes reminds me of the Kevin Kline character in A Fish
called Wanda; any list at all confuses him, and on being presented with 2
possibilities, he says 'what was the middle one again?' Sometimes things
ain't so simple as choosing one thing from a list of one thing.

As a commentator he might admit this could be a limitation on the value of
his current opinion. But the challenge to L. Parr is a fair one - if a bit
insincere - if L. Parr is going to have to explain and the explanation is a
bit long, will T. Kingston get bored with the sheer tedium of any complexity
of context and foreground? Is this in fact a reason to like simpler writers,
who just say it like it is, or at least how they imagine it is, as in
Kasparov's Introduction to BCO.

Phil Innes

KINGSTON DOESN'T CARE IF WINTER IS WRONG

Larry, in this context I don't care if Winter is as wrong as "Wrong
Way" Corrigan and Roy Riegels put together. The point is, *_Larry
Parr_* invented a "fact." But go ahead, write one of your famous long
screeds justifying yourself. -- Taylor Kingston

First the man who lied about his Elo rating by adding 500
points
to it accused me of fabrication. Now he says his chum Edward Winter
may be wrong but it doesn't really matter.

Mr. Kingston's bone of contention is that he doesn't see how
attacking Kasparov and Keene (who were Campo's mortal enemies at the
time) supports Campo! In point of fact, Campo used FIDE funds to send
Winter's screed about
the Termination to all FIDE member nations! Why do it if he didn't
think it would
help him politically?

My point is that NM Kingston will simply ignore blatant untruths
and evident lies in Edward Winter's work (including a wonderfully
crafty use of an anachronism to attack Larry Evans that I nailed in
a long essay). For he knows that the moment he breaks ranks with
Mr. Winter, he will be out in the cold winter.

In truth, I attacked Ray Keene's conclusion in Warriors of the
Mind, though
in a friendly way. He and Divinsky ranked Kasparov the strongest player
of all
time. I argued they were equating greatness with strength; the two are
not totally congruent. In the case of Kasparov, I refer readers to a
very long examination of Garry's behavior before his match with Kramnik
(www.worldchessnetwork.com).
It's a lengthy, comprehensive and merciless denunciation of Kasparov's
behavior.

The memoir TAN CHIN NAM, NEVER SAY I ASSUME
should be available at Amazon next week. Those
interested can also access www.mph.com.my

TAN CHIN NAM: NEVER SAY I ASSUME!
by Tan Chin Nam; Larry Parr

The story of a Malaysian life. The author, Dato' Tan
Chin Nam
businessman, sportsman, raconteur, and writer --
hopes that if
he "does nothing else" it is to help readers "enjoy
the same
successes rather than make the same errors that I
did."

I'm afraid that I am very busy at the moment promoting
the book
in newspapers and magazines. It will be appearing also in Australia,
London,
Hong Kong, China, Singapore, etc. I will try to post something soon,
but I may
again be disappearing from these precincts.

* Mr. Kingston's bone of contention is that he doesn't see how
attacking Kasparov and Keene (who were Campo's mortal enemies at the
time) supports Campo! In point of fact, Campo used FIDE funds to send
Winter's screed about the Termination to all FIDE member nations! Why
do it if he didn't think it would help him politically?* (Parr)

Winter's article is neither right nor neutral. He was too
clever to come out and support Campomanes openly.
Instead, by relentlessly attacking Kasparov and Keene, he resorted to
the time-tested principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Kingston's behavior is, as usual, despicable.