wrote:
WELLMUTH'S GOLDEN TREASURY OF CHESS

In fact, exactly what Parr claimed I did, yet I did
not do, Wellmuth in fact did: highlight the position,
and completely miss the refutation. Editor Parr
decided not to share this with you. Probably because
it shoots a rather large hole in his claim that anyone
really knowledgeable about chess history knew about
the refutation. -- Taylor Kingston

So, then, NM Taylor Kingston -- our self-proclaimed
2300+ ELO franking machine who is actually rated about
1800 -- imagines that Francis Wellmuth tossing around
exclamation marks constitutes what one calls normally
annotated games.

Larry, even in full retreat, shifting ground with every backward
step, you are still unable to stop fabricating. Did I say anything to
the effect that Wellmuth's book contains "annotated" games? No. I said
that he obviously approved of Duras' unsound combination.
BTW, here are another couple of reviews of Soltis' "100" that fail to
mention the refutation:

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...hess_game.html

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...es_ranked.html

I guess, if we apply Parr's standards to IM John Donaldson and IM
John Watson, we must add a second "I" to their titles -- for Ignoramus.
But seriously, let's put the "i" where it really belongs -- in Liarry
Parr.

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
WELLMUTH'S GOLDEN TREASURY OF CHESS

In fact, exactly what Parr claimed I did, yet I did
not do, Wellmuth in fact did: highlight the position,
and completely miss the refutation. Editor Parr
decided not to share this with you. Probably because
it shoots a rather large hole in his claim that anyone
really knowledgeable about chess history knew about
the refutation. -- Taylor Kingston

So, then, NM Taylor Kingston -- our self-proclaimed
2300+ ELO franking machine who is actually rated about
1800 -- imagines that Francis Wellmuth tossing around
exclamation marks constitutes what one calls normally
annotated games.

Larry, even in full retreat, shifting ground with every backward
step, you are still unable to stop fabricating. Did I say anything to
the effect that Wellmuth's book contains "annotated" games? No. I said
that he obviously approved of Duras' unsound combination.
BTW, here are another couple of reviews of Soltis' "100" that fail to
mention the refutation:

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...hess_game.html

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...es_ranked.html

I guess, if we apply Parr's standards to IM John Donaldson and IM
John Watson, we must add a second "I" to their titles -- for Ignoramus.
But seriously, let's put the "i" where it really belongs -- in Liarry
Parr.

An interesting post. Seemingly Taylor Kingston exults in his ignorance, and
claims IMs to be his equal. Parr is a Liar because he knows otherwise and
points it out.

Ah, Fill, you remind me of a scene in "Time Bandits." Replying to a
particularly foolish comment by one of his servants, The Devil (David
Warner) says something like "Oh my dear Benson, you are so blessedly
free of the ravages of intelligence." But Benson at least was honest,
which puts him one up on you and Parr.
Parr is a liar because he wrote that I "highlighted a position" from
the Duras-Teichmann game, and "picked the most famous gaffe in the
entire book and failed to recognize the position!" The plain fact is I
picked and highlighted no position from the game in question, never
even looked at a single move. Nor did any other reviewer, as far as
I've seen.

This is a reductio ad absurdam, but I didn't propose it!

Almost everything you propose is absurd, Phil. Also tedious. The
various ways you and Parr have tried to spin-doctor your way out of
this blatant lie could power a turbine.

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
\

And if Larry Parr is truly convinced that Taylor Kingston has a split
internet identity, why can't he simply accept the "fact" that TK
perhaps has one computer at home, another one at work, and a third one
which is portable/wireless --

Psshaaawwwww!

Why not just accept the fact that you wrote anonymously to praise yourself,
instead of all these suppositions and daft analogies only someone who can't
write their own name can suppose to be 'evident'?

each of which has a different ISP and
thus, screen name? It should only bother Larry Parr if he feels
outnumbered, that is, if he fears these multiple identities are
"ganging up" on him; and how exactly can one man gang up on another?
Come on! If a TK feels it is necessary to multiply into a small army
of posters in order to take on the great Larry Parr, that should be
considered a compliment; it would show that he feels overmatched.

Our slighting-bot forgot the topic! Which was to slander a person whose
books are still banned by his publishing outfit - BTW, whatever became of
that letter to HR about copyright? I myself asked CJA about it, but they
seem to be in no-mind.

Is what follows the remarks of a bitter and dissapointed person who can't
write his own name but exults in slamming others? Too much emotion over too
much undigested material, leading to too much excusing of mediocrity, and
even celebrating one's dumbth.

Phil Innes



Speaking of overmatched, I think the grudge match should be between
"your" highest titled player (no, not GM Evans, who only rarely posts
here) and a player from the critics who approximates the same claims to
greatness: near-IM Innes vs. "2300" TK. The point is, both of these
guys actually post here regularly. I know you want to drag Evans or
Keene into it so you can get a free win, but that's only because
critics like Seirawan and Watson are too busy to play for "our" side or
to post here.

BTW, ...f6 and ...Bg6 was pretty obvious; Keene really stooped low in
slamming TK for "missing" this defense, while letting *GM* Soltis slide
home free. We learned a lot about Keene's moral character from that;
he may not have spent much time "visiting", yet somehow we feel we know
him quite well now.

-- help bot

Another contentless post on the topic of Keene and Kingpin by Mr. Tapper.
One thing you could say about him escapes you.

Is this some sort of particularly American thing to do so much bum-sniffing?

ONCE MORE, THE BREACH

I remind readers that Kingpin came out with an issue subscription rate $47
after 2 years of preparation which was so full of 'printers errors' [lol]
that the issue had to be withdrawn and reprinted.

Most of the errors were pointed out by Ray Keene, who recieved a subscribed
copy forwarded by someone else.

There is nothing very personal in this, except that this magazine of
criticism of other people's errors is itself excused from the exact things
it entertains its subscribers about. Keene's criticism is essentially
impersonal - he says this is what happens sometimes, and the pretense that
it does not take place is absurd and unrealistic - whether in Kingpin or
another other chess publication.

Is that sort of commentary ad hominem? Or is it the world viewed square, and
equitable to people's best sense about errors? Is it a reasonable coment
about errors?

There is an implicit, rather than explicit, criticism in his review of
Kingpin, in that its standard is hypocritical, and it does not behave as it
itself recommends others should. It is a comment for grown-ups, and the rest
is [or rather could best be] silence.

Phil Innes

"Larry Tapper" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
BACK TO HACK

"Different", and yet instantly recognizable? Gee, however did you
figure it out, Liarry? I suppose even a hack writer like yourself is
capable of looking at the email address. -- Neil Brennen (Spamscone)

Phil Innes is a model intellect, knowledgeable in
the classics and in literature. Rynd-Dowd are
forgers (I can document it again if he so desires)
and Neil Brennen is worrying about his X-factor
as an "historian."

To the extent that Phil may be criticized, I
counsel that he stop picking on a couple of his
correspondents. Rynd-Dowd are divided personalities,
and I believe they require ministrations of soothing
unguents rather than intellectual lashes from
the Innes strap.

One thing you can say about Parr, he dances with the one that brung
him. He needs better and saner allies --- composing posts like this one
must get wearisome even for LP.

Larry T.

Chess One wrote:
Another contentless post on the topic of Keene and Kingpin by Mr. Tapper.
One thing you could say about him escapes you.

Is this some sort of particularly American thing to do so much bum-sniffing?

Another example of Innes' obession with the male posterior.

Chess One wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
\

And if Larry Parr is truly convinced that Taylor Kingston has a split
internet identity, why can't he simply accept the "fact" that TK
perhaps has one computer at home, another one at work, and a third one
which is portable/wireless --

Psshaaawwwww!

Why not just accept the fact that you wrote anonymously to praise yourself,
instead of all these suppositions and daft analogies only someone who can't
write their own name can suppose to be 'evident'?

Would Mr. Innes care to provide an example of "help bot" writing
"anonymously to praise himself"? Or has he confused "help bot" with
another poster?

each of which has a different ISP and
thus, screen name? It should only bother Larry Parr if he feels
outnumbered, that is, if he fears these multiple identities are
"ganging up" on him; and how exactly can one man gang up on another?
Come on! If a TK feels it is necessary to multiply into a small army
of posters in order to take on the great Larry Parr, that should be
considered a compliment; it would show that he feels overmatched.

Our slighting-bot forgot the topic! Which was to slander a person whose
books are still banned by his publishing outfit

Yes, Innes has now confused "help bot" with Taylor Kingston.

- BTW, whatever became of
that letter to HR about copyright? I myself asked CJA about it, but they
seem to be in no-mind.

Yet another instance of Innes "writing with" someone who disregards his
emails. With Philsy, the comic hits keep on coming!

KINGSTON-SPEAK

Seemingly Taylor Kingston exults in his ignorance, and
claims IMs to be his equal. Parr is a Liar because he knows
otherwise and points it out. -- Phil Innes

Dear Phil,

The brouhaha over Duras-Teichmann is strange
indeed. The game is famous for a single position, and
it has been anthologized in countless volumes. Yet we
are told it really isn't really well known or that when
mentioning the game, one is not highlighting the
single reason why the game is famous.

That's Kingston-speak.

The man's latest argument is that some other
writers did not know about the refutation either,
which you may recollect is how he tried to defend
his inability to discuss the contents of the Oxford
Companion on subjects Soviet. He offered generic
compliments from other writers while flatly proving
unable to defend his position on specifics.

Now, he is offering the ignorance of other writers as
an excuse for his own ignorance on the same subject.
His mentor Edward Winter, however, has tried to crucify
GM Evans and GM Keene as well as other writers for not
knowing things that he wrote about in Chess Notes.

His latest ploy is to suggest we are attacking
writers who may or may not have ever referenced
Duras-Teichmann.

NM Taylor Kingston, who told us straightforwardly
that he was 2300+ Elo while having a rating of about
1800, is accusing Phil Innes and this writer of lying.

My point is that when one mentions Duras-Teichmann
(a game anthologized in many, many volumes), one mentions
it because the game has a famous position. To mention the
game is perforce to highlight the position following move 42.
That may or may not be a correct apprehension on my part,
but it is not a lie even if incorrect.

On the other hand, NM Kingston simply lied
through his teeth about having a chess rating about
500 points above his actual rating. No irony, no
jocose asides, just a straightforward avowal on his
part. He was outed, among others by Sam Sloan, and he
then tried to explain away the lie, which we will
reprint once again, if he feels the need to repeat his
exculpatory fib.

NM Kingston also appeared here under the names of
Xylothist and Paulie Graf, writing in praise of ...
himself. This kind of impersonation -- the invention
of non-existent personalities to bolster one's own
personality during a debate -- is profoundly
mendacious. It cuts right to the quick of his
moral identity.

Yet the man tells us he has "standards." He
approves of his owns acts.

And so it goes.

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...hess_game.html

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...es_ranked.html

I guess, if we apply Parr's standards to IM John Donaldson and IM
John Watson, we must add a second "I" to their titles -- for Ignoramus.
But seriously, let's put the "i" where it really belongs -- in Liarry
Parr.

IM John Watson's comments seem to support what I stated earlier: that
Soltis probably pasted together these games with no real attempt at
chess analysis; hence, the famous GM overlooking an obvious blunder
while perpetuating a poor game annotation, the probable cause being
laziness.

OTOH, the fact that IM Watson failed to point out the refutation to
Duras-Teichmann in no way supports Taylor Kingston in the way he
suggests; in fact, right at the beginning of the review, we learn that
Watson considered such effort not worthy of his time for this
particular book. He panned the book, observing that Soltis was both
inconsistent and sloppy, and so far as I could tell Watson didn't
attempt to refute *any* of Soltis' analytical errors. In essence,
Watson settled for making *generalised* observations, just as Taylor
Kingston did when he mentioned the intros to the games, but without the
specific examples. Watson did make generalised comments which tend to
support the idea that he found errors such as the one in question, but
since he was not specific, there is no way to know either way regarding
the particular game.

The real issue of course is Larry Parr and Ray Keene deliberately
misrepresenting the facts in order to further their silence-the-critics
agenda. This tendency has been duly noted, and will not quickly be
forgotten. But I don't go so far as to advocate use of the bomb, the
kill-file; no, it is sufficient to simply hold one's nose, and wear
hip-high rubber boots when they're around.


-- help bot

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...hess_game.html

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_rev...es_ranked.html

I guess, if we apply Parr's standards to IM John Donaldson and IM
John Watson, we must add a second "I" to their titles -- for Ignoramus.
But seriously, let's put the "i" where it really belongs -- in Liarry
Parr.

An interesting post. Seemingly Taylor Kingston exults in his ignorance, and
claims IMs to be his equal. Parr is a Liar because he knows otherwise and
points it out.


Mr. Chess Content, Phillip Innes, seems to take offense at the very
idea of a comparison between a Taylor Kingston review and a review by a
famous IM.

After reading IM Watson's review of the same book TK reviewed, I was
struck by the lack of effort on Watson's part; for one thing, he failed
to give any specific examples of analytical errors, just expecting
readers to take his work that he found errors aplenty; that's no
problem for me, as I have read other reviews by Watson and found them
to be veeeery thorough and well-researched. But still, this particular
review was just a bit on the lazy side, especially by Watson standards.
OTOH, it does sum things up rather well, and even suggests
alternatives for purchase and/or reading.

It seems to me that if near-IM Innes (who is obviously biased toward
his own kind) has a beef with TK's book eviews, he should just spit it
out. Sitting on one's high horse and spewing venom is hardly
convincing. Show us exactly *how* a TK review fails to measure up to a
typical review by a high-and-mighty IM.
And please don't forget to explain why we should waste our precious
time reading book reviews by measly IM's, when we can search out
reviews by their vast superiors, the GMs. Personally, I only read
reviews by still W.C. Bobby Fischer; he says the MSMG book by Nunn, et
al -- and I quote -- "$^&*# %&*#@$ and $%#^&* *^&$# ^%$*#(*! So
just stick with the old descriptive notation version.


-- help bot

Our slighting-bot forgot the topic! Which was to slander a person whose
books are still banned by his publishing outfit

If that is indeed where this thread started, I admit I missed it.


Yes, Innes has now confused "help bot" with Taylor Kingston.

An understandable error; both are near-IMs, both are handsome devils,
both drink dry martinis, on the rocks, ah -- shaken, not stirred! And
both are targets of the creepy crawlys, the types you find underneath
rocks.


- BTW, whatever became of
that letter to HR about copyright? I myself asked CJA about it, but they
seem to be in no-mind.

Yet another instance of Innes "writing with" someone who disregards his
emails. With Philsy, the comic hits keep on coming!


I wrote to HR and complained that IM Phil had the copyright, but they
said I was as luny as that Celtoid who kept harrassing them about
something, but they couldn't figure out what he was raving about. Said
they gave 'im an 8x10 of some pretty female chess player, and it calmed
him down.


-- help bot