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

Chess One wrote:
That issue was the 'away from chess' comment in the Oxford, when a candid
statement would have stated that Gulko was being pasted by the KGB and
his
chess activities forcibly repressed. 'Away from chess' doesn't indicate
that
he had more than a bad cold.

Ah, Phil, you continue to emulate Dr. Goebbels -- for you no lie is
so false that it can't be repeated endlessly.

Who are you then, Ezra Pound?

As pointed out here last
year by Bill Hyde, the actual passage from the OC reads:

"At the age of 20 [Gulko] entered the only USSR championship to be
played on the swiss system, Kharkov 1967. There were 136 competitors
and he shared 89th place. For a time his chess activities were
reduced. He came back in 1974 to win the Moscow championship and to
follow with several good tournament achievements ..."

Are you really saying that Gulko "was being pasted by the KGB" and
"forcibly repressed" circa 1968-73? Isn't that jumping the gun by at
least 5 years?

And you have read Gulkos MSS? I thought someone posted it to you.

I do not recall ever receiving any manuscript by Gulko. However, if
you have evidence that Gulko was "pasted by the KGB" before he applied
for emigration circa 1978, feel free to present it.

And how
come Taylor Kingston doesn't quote the item in question, about being 'away
from chess'?

Ahem, Fill, what I quoted *_is_* the item in question, the relevant
passage from the 1st edition of the Oxford Companion, unless Bill Hyde
has misrepresented it. The "away from chess" passage seems to be a
product of your imagination, or a misremembered paraphrase of the OC.
I think you may be having a relapse into whatever condition caused
you to confuse Frank Brady with Al Lawrence.

You would think he was raising a similar subject wouldn't you? To excuse
himself as usual.

"Excuse" me? You mean it's somewhow improper to present a quote
accurately, when discussing that quote? You really are round the bend,
Phil.

What is encountered is a lack of depth or range of understanding of the
field of inquiry.

What is encountered with Innes is utter disregard for factual
accuracy, in hopes of scoring cheapo rhetorical points.

How come you snipped my post as usual? How come you make the usual negative
commentary on those who point out your 'California-lite' commentary. Give us
a break!

And it is to no one's shame!

Oh no, Phil, it is very much to your shame.

Except of course if it is not admitted, and persisted in.

A description that fits you almost every day here.

If you are brave don't snip - otherwise your own scissors relegate you to
insignificance.

If you don't want junk snipped, don't write junk.

Then it becomes perversity and distortion.

Quite.

snip remaining Innes twaddle

Yeah - So long Mr. Snips!

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:10:28 GMT):

... we get instead some comment on marital status
of the player.

_
It was GM Soltis who decided to comment on marital status.
Taylor Kingston was simply pointing out that GM Soltis
presented this sort of information instead of such information
as the round in which the game was played and the relative
positions of the contestants.

as less trivial information? and all without comparison to the chess the
people played. how interesting

zzzzzz phil

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wrote (23 May 2006 19:20:20 -0700):
All Chessville has to do is announce:
_
On 4-8-2006, Chessville asserted that a David
Kane quote was 'on the firing of GM Larry Evans'.
This was false.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 24 May 2006 12:20:34 GMT):

GRAND FINALIST: Chessville asserted that a David Kane
quote was 'on the firing of GM Larry Evans'. This was not
Kane's intended context.

_
Has anything like this appeared at Chessville?

No, but I am considering writing a post hoc ergo propter hoc piece on
triviliasm in chess affairs, care to reassert what you would have meant in
advance? Phil

*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.* (Parr)

Neither Parr nor Kingston are wrong by their own lights.

If Kingston knew White's combination was refuted, he
surely would have mentioned it in his review of Soltis'
book. But Soltis didn't know it either. Nobody is to blame
for not knowing something in a subject as vast as chess.

Duras-Teichmann is well-known but certainly not as
famous, for example, as Fischer's "game of the century"
against Donald Byrne or Evans' "swindle of the century"
against Sammy Reshevsky.

Isn't it time to bury this thread? Surely there are more
important issues to discuss, such as $50,000 of our dues
money going to a consultant without any open bidding, or
Greg Shahade resigning from the board after procuring
a plum for his sister as website editor without any open
bidding, or Beatriz Marinello sucking up to Killer Kirsan
even though she and the board had endorsed Kok.

Give it a rest, guys!

jr wrote:
*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.* (Parr)

Neither Parr nor Kingston are wrong by their own lights.

If Kingston knew White's combination was refuted, he
surely would have mentioned it in his review of Soltis'
book.

My God, Jr, you surprise me! That's one of the very few reasonable
things I've ever seen you post here. Now acknowledge that Parr
blatantly lied when he claimed my review "highlighted" the combination,
and you'll be making definite progress toward rehabiliation.

But Soltis didn't know it either. Nobody is to blame
for not knowing something in a subject as vast as chess.

Duras-Teichmann is well-known but certainly not as
famous, for example, as Fischer's "game of the century"
against Donald Byrne or Evans' "swindle of the century"
against Sammy Reshevsky.

Isn't it time to bury this thread? Surely there are more
important issues to discuss, such as $50,000 of our dues
money going to a consultant without any open bidding, or
Greg Shahade resigning from the board after procuring
a plum for his sister as website editor without any open
bidding, or Beatriz Marinello sucking up to Killer Kirsan
even though she and the board had endorsed Kok.

Give it a rest, guys!

Fine by me. Now if you can just get Parr and Innes to stop recycling
their lies ...

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


If you are not confused you might ask Taylor Kingston what this means:-

"yes, Larry, I have seen the errors with my own eyes."
- Taylor Kingston (22 May 2006 09:25:20 -0700)

Since it refers to an event some time in the past, viz: 'have seen', and
if
you wnated to ask Taylor Kingston why he never mentioned it in his
review,
it does not require me to give you permission to do so, any more than to
suggest to you that Kennedy's paraphrase of Keene is unclean.

Jeez Louise, Phil, you are in even worse form than usual today (and
that's saying something!). The "errors seen with my own eyes" referred
to the misprinted copies of Kingpin -- they have absolutely nothing to
do with Soltis' book. That's why I "never mentioned them in my review."

I should hope that you point this out to the people concerned, help-not and
the nutty professor. It is kind of you to refer to the errors in Kingpin,
though in another age simple honesty would go unremarked.

I should also hope that you note that I ask your fellow ratpackers to sort
their own paradoxical utterarances, instead of the Balir routine where I
would be obliged to ask you why you think Kennedy-not deliberately distorted
Keene.... zzzzz


Phil Innes

PS: why snip pertinent material put to you, yet maintain an extra thousand
words of Blair's repetition of other people [a random selection of comments,
which I snipped]

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


If you are not confused you might ask Taylor Kingston what this means:-

"yes, Larry, I have seen the errors with my own eyes."
- Taylor Kingston (22 May 2006 09:25:20 -0700)

Since it refers to an event some time in the past, viz: 'have seen', and
if
you wnated to ask Taylor Kingston why he never mentioned it in his
review,
it does not require me to give you permission to do so, any more than to
suggest to you that Kennedy's paraphrase of Keene is unclean.

Jeez Louise, Phil, you are in even worse form than usual today (and
that's saying something!). The "errors seen with my own eyes" referred
to the misprinted copies of Kingpin -- they have absolutely nothing to
do with Soltis' book. That's why I "never mentioned them in my review."

I should hope that you point this out to the people concerned, help-not and
the nutty professor.

I am not aware that they ever misconstrued my remark. I have only
seen you do that.

It is kind of you to refer to the errors in Kingpin,
though in another age simple honesty would go unremarked.

???

I should also hope that you note that I ask your fellow ratpackers to sort
their own paradoxical utterarances, instead of the Balir routine where I
would be obliged to ask you why you think Kennedy-not deliberately distorted
Keene.... zzzzz

Phil, the Talking Heads once produced an excellent film of a live
performance, that was titled "Stop Making Sense." You long ago
demonstrated your mastery of that which the title urges; now it's time
for you to do the opposite.

Larry Parr wrote (2 Jun 2006 18:30:49 -0700):
Phil Innes is a model intellect, knowledgeable in the
classics and in literature.
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 05:25:07 -0700):
Does Larry Parr have anything to say about the behavior of
Phil Innes in the Chessville/David Kane incident?
_
Here is one incident where Larry Parr did comment on what
Phil Innes wrote, although, at the time, Larry Parr was not
aware that Phil Innes was the writer of the words that LP
was attacking:
_
"... Gilbert and Sullivan! (two English twits,
no longer celebrated in any actual
performance) ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:21:28 -0500)
_
_
"Astonishing. Their light operas are the most
performed musical pieces in the world today.
They are easily the most performed of all time
-- by an enormous margin.
_
Decent schools routinely put on G & S musicals.
My favorites are H. M. S. Pinafore and The Mikado
and maybe The Gondoliers.
_
The sheer malevolent stupidity of The Historian's
claim, which one prays that he knows to be
untrue, can only mean that Phil Innes has once
again incommoded the man's intellectual amour
propre. There is simply no other explanation
unless we posit a lack of reading by the man
beyond what we had hitherto imagined." - Larry
Parr (10 Oct 2002 03:08:46 GMT)
_
_
"What can one make of Larry Parr's inept
reading of a newsgroup post, one in which
he attributes to me remarks posted and
written by the Cornish Hen?" - Neil Brennen
(10 Oct 2002 04:19:05 -0700)
_
_
"I have finally seen the original posting in
which Phil Innes made the claim about
Gilbert and Sullivan that I mistakenly
attributed to Neil Brennen, a.k.a. The
Historian.
_
I was 100 percent wrong.
_
I apologize to Mr. Brennen.
_
Mr. Innes and I will have to agree to
disagree of G &S. Which should be
easy to do, given that we agree on so
many other cultural questions."
- Larry Parr (15 Oct 2002 08:05:24 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:59:52 GMT):

Louis, if you want to satirise someone, ...

_
I was not making an attempt to satirize Phil Innes. My
main point was to indicate how the attitude of Larry
Parr can change, when he has a changed perception
of the identity of the person he is addressing.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:59:52 GMT):

... leaving in the elipsis is a mistake, since it admits you
only quote a partiality and full sentences develop the
context in the way that the acutal writer intended.

_
Phil Innes, of course, identifies nothing specific about the
context that, in his opinion, needed to be mentioned.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:59:52 GMT):

... I note when I have asked you about specific words
in your constructions then you do not feel compelled to
reply, even though your entire point relies on saying
what you mean.

_
"If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words
in English he should consult a dictionary."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2006 12:25:52 -0800)

helpbot )
wrote (3 Jun 2006 00:40:32 -0700):
Ray Keene claimed Taylor Kingston was not a strong
enough chess player to properly review chess books;
he backed this claim up primarily by noting that TK
had failed to spot a particular combination in just one
particular review of a book written by GM Soltis.
Problem is, Keene's "logic" falls flat on its face, as
Soltis himself failed to spot the combination when
pasting together his book, and Soltis is a GM!
_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 04 Jun 2006 01:46:05 GMT):
Such a pity that this is not an actual quote from Keene,
who, after all, wrote much here. Instead we have to suffer
a 'paraphrase' from Kennedy,
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 05:31:39 -0700):
How many times have we had to "suffer" with a "paraphrase"
from Phil Innes instead of an actual quote? Does Phil
Innes think it is a "pity" that GM Keene did not quote the
supposed focus to which he referred? Does Phil Innes think
it is a "pity" that Larry Parr did not quote the supposed
highlighting of a position to which he referred?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

I don't know Louis. I do not feel compelled to tell you how
many times you must suffer [with a paraphrase from me
instead of an actual quote].

_
I suppose it is understandable that Phil Innes does not
want to count.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

But to quote yourself would take 1,000 words, no?

_
Nonsense. Phil Innes himself has quoted me many times
without using 1,000 words.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

And you resist any paraphrase at all!

_
"Assertions are not true simply because
Phil Innes makes them." - Louis Blair
(30 May 2006 16:16:39 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

What Kennedy has done is suggest an indecent paraphrase
of Keene - Is this what concerns Louis Blair? Should Kennedy
distort what Keene said directly under the Blairian nose, and
all Blair does is complain about who notices it?

_
How much concern does Phil Innes have? Where does he
write anything specific about what was "indecent"? I, at least,
reproduced some of GM Keene's actual original words.
_
I am, of course, also concerned about the Phil Innes
paraphrase habit, and it seems appropriate to me to remind
Phil Innes about his own behavior.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

[GM Keene did not quote the supposed focus] To which
whom referred?

_
GM Keene did not quote the supposed focus to which
GM Keene referred.
_
"... one of the games from the soltis book
taylor kingston focussed on was duras v
teichmann ostend 1906 ..." - GM Keene
quote reported by Phil Innes (Sat,
22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

The position [mentioned by Larry Parr] is IN the game
Louis. To talk of the game we refer to a succession of
positions, and one of them is most significant!

_
Larry Parr told us:
_
"... Kingston highlighted the best-known position
in this famous game. ...
_
... the position [Kingston] singled out" - Larry
Parr (26 Apr 2006 19:05:22 -0700)
_
Of course, had Larry Parr quoted Taylor Kingston, it might
have been apparent in the above note that Taylor Kingston
had not even mentioned the position, and that his review
only mentioned a sentence from the introduction to the
game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis to provide
such information as the round in which the game was played
and the relative positions of the contestants.
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

[The position] is also known to some chess players as
a relatively famous position, ...

_
Larry Parr did not write that Taylor Kingston highlighted
the position "to some chess players".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

... but to those who prefer to talk of player's wives and
not player's play, I suppose there is room for confusion.

_
From Larry Parr's note, how would ANYONE know that
Taylor Kingston had not mentioned the position, and that
his review only mentioned a sentence from the introduction
to the game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis to
provide appropriate background information?
_
Also, it was GM Soltis who decided to comment on a
player's wife. Taylor Kingston was simply pointing out that
GM Soltis presented this sort of information instead of such
information as the round in which the game was played and
the relative positions of the contestants.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 04 Jun 2006 01:46:05 GMT):
I saw Keene attempt to contact Kingston - even sending him
faxes of original materials - to bridge some gap. What
acknowledgement there is forthcoming from Kingston is not
yet seen.
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 05:31:39 -0700):
"Yes, I have read the materials GM Keene faxed
to me. They are from the British magazine CHESS
of 1984. The August issue carried a 4-page editorial
by Winter ..." - Taylor Kingston (7 May 2006
07:14:13 -0700)
_
"At the request of GM Raymond Keene, I present
below some data and prose that appeared originally
on page 9 of his book 'The Moscow Challenge'
(Batsford, 1985). ..." - Taylor Kingston (9 May 2006
11:18:55 -0700)
_
"yes, Larry, I have seen the errors with my own eyes."
- Taylor Kingston (22 May 2006 09:25:20 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

you might ask Taylor Kingston what this means:-
_
"yes, Larry, I have seen the errors with my own eyes."
- Taylor Kingston (22 May 2006 09:25:20 -0700)

_
No need. It is the third of three quotes that I produced
for Phil Innes to show him the acknowledgements that
Taylor Kingston posted for faxes that had been sent to
TK by GM Keene. The third acknowledgement was
for the Kingpin material.
_
_
_
Here again is the Larry Parr "highlighted" attack:
_
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e56g2000cwe .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: standards of book reviewing - on taylor kingston
Date: 26 Apr 2006 19:05:22 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 38
Message-ID: .com
References: QLo2g.1048$5z3.259@trndny01
. com
.com
.com
mj53g.2371$Cc.1365@trndny07
.com
Gho3g.2560$Qe.1704@trndny09
.com
GvJ3g.1280$Ne.714@trndny02
. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.66
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1146103542 30906 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2006
02:05:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: . com
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:0.9.4.2) Gecko/20021112 CS 2000 7.0/7.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 Turboweb [ntc-tb071 8.4.0], HTTP/1.0
cache-ntc-ab02.proxy.aol.com[CFC87442] (Traffic-Server/5.4.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=207.200.116.66;
posting-account=JyII_g0AAABtP4-7cfx1cpjxnORwILAG

THE REAL ISSUE

The issue is not whether NM Taylor Kingston, the
self-promoted 2300+ ELO whippersnapper whose
actual rating is 1800, could have been expected to
refute Duras' combination. And the issue is certainly
not whether he is held responsible for finding every
analytical error in a book of ambitious and difficult
chess games.

Those are the issues that NM Kingston would
pretend others are talking about. hey are his strawmen.

The issue is a compound of ill luck (the poor
dufus picked the most famous gaffe in the entire book
and failed to recognize the position!) and our
accustomed Kingstonian ego.

Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous game,
and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known position in
this famous game. Whereupon, he failed to tell the
reader the most interesting thing about the best-known
position in the famous game.

Someone with a normal ego would write
as follows: "I am not an analyst, and the truth is
that I could not deal with the chess points in the
position. I was writing a review, and I had not done
the reading necessary when highlighting a specific
position. I understand that Duras' combination had
been hitherto exploded, and the fact was, in chess
terms, relatively well-known. I ought to have known.
I did not. Hence my embarrassing lapsus. For purely
illustrative purposes, I obviously ought to have
chosen another position if I were not up to the mark
of pointing out the most important point in the
position I singled out."

helpbot )
wrote (3 Jun 2006 00:40:32 -0700):
Ray Keene claimed Taylor Kingston was not a strong
enough chess player to properly review chess books;
he backed this claim up primarily by noting that TK
had failed to spot a particular combination in just one
particular review of a book written by GM Soltis.
Problem is, Keene's "logic" falls flat on its face, as
Soltis himself failed to spot the combination when
pasting together his book, and Soltis is a GM!
_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 04 Jun 2006 01:46:05 GMT):
Such a pity that this is not an actual quote from Keene,
who, after all, wrote much here. Instead we have to suffer
a 'paraphrase' from Kennedy,
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 05:31:39 -0700):
How many times have we had to "suffer" with a "paraphrase"
from Phil Innes instead of an actual quote? Does Phil
Innes think it is a "pity" that GM Keene did not quote the
supposed focus to which he referred? Does Phil Innes think
it is a "pity" that Larry Parr did not quote the supposed
highlighting of a position to which he referred?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

I don't know Louis. I do not feel compelled to tell you how
many times you must suffer [with a paraphrase from me
instead of an actual quote].

_
I suppose it is understandable that Phil Innes does not
want to count.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

But to quote yourself would take 1,000 words, no?

_
Nonsense. Phil Innes himself has quoted me many times
without using 1,000 words.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

And you resist any paraphrase at all!

_
"Assertions are not true simply because
Phil Innes makes them." - Louis Blair
(30 May 2006 16:16:39 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

What Kennedy has done is suggest an indecent paraphrase
of Keene - Is this what concerns Louis Blair? Should Kennedy
distort what Keene said directly under the Blairian nose, and
all Blair does is complain about who notices it?

_
How much concern does Phil Innes have? Where does he
write anything specific about what was "indecent"? I, at least,
reproduced some of GM Keene's actual original words.
_
I am, of course, also concerned about the Phil Innes
paraphrase habit, and it seems appropriate to me to remind
Phil Innes about his own behavior.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

[GM Keene did not quote the supposed focus] To which
whom referred?

_
GM Keene did not quote the supposed focus to which
GM Keene referred.
_
"... one of the games from the soltis book
taylor kingston focussed on was duras v
teichmann ostend 1906 ..." - GM Keene
quote reported by Phil Innes (Sat,
22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

The position [mentioned by Larry Parr] is IN the game
Louis. To talk of the game we refer to a succession of
positions, and one of them is most significant!

_
Larry Parr told us:
_
"... Kingston highlighted the best-known position
in this famous game. ...
_
... the position [Kingston] singled out" - Larry
Parr (26 Apr 2006 19:05:22 -0700)
_
Of course, had Larry Parr quoted Taylor Kingston, it might
have been apparent in the above note that Taylor Kingston
had not even mentioned the position, and that his review
only mentioned a sentence from the introduction to the
game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis to provide
such information as the round in which the game was played
and the relative positions of the contestants.
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

[The position] is also known to some chess players as
a relatively famous position, ...

_
Larry Parr did not write that Taylor Kingston highlighted
the position "to some chess players".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

... but to those who prefer to talk of player's wives and
not player's play, I suppose there is room for confusion.

_
After relying on Larry Parr's note, how would ANYONE
know that Taylor Kingston had not mentioned the position,
and that his review only mentioned a sentence from the
introduction to the game as an example of the failure of
GM Soltis to provide appropriate background information?
_
Also, it was GM Soltis who decided to comment on a
player's wife. Taylor Kingston was simply pointing out that
GM Soltis presented this sort of information instead of such
information as the round in which the game was played and
the relative positions of the contestants.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 04 Jun 2006 01:46:05 GMT):
I saw Keene attempt to contact Kingston - even sending him
faxes of original materials - to bridge some gap. What
acknowledgement there is forthcoming from Kingston is not
yet seen.
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 05:31:39 -0700):
"Yes, I have read the materials GM Keene faxed
to me. They are from the British magazine CHESS
of 1984. The August issue carried a 4-page editorial
by Winter ..." - Taylor Kingston (7 May 2006
07:14:13 -0700)
_
"At the request of GM Raymond Keene, I present
below some data and prose that appeared originally
on page 9 of his book 'The Moscow Challenge'
(Batsford, 1985). ..." - Taylor Kingston (9 May 2006
11:18:55 -0700)
_
"yes, Larry, I have seen the errors with my own eyes."
- Taylor Kingston (22 May 2006 09:25:20 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

you might ask Taylor Kingston what this means:-
_
"yes, Larry, I have seen the errors with my own eyes."
- Taylor Kingston (22 May 2006 09:25:20 -0700)

_
No need. It is the third of three quotes that I produced
for Phil Innes to show him the acknowledgements that
Taylor Kingston posted for faxes that had been sent to
TK by GM Keene. The third acknowledgement was
for the Kingpin material.
_
_
_
Here again is the Larry Parr "highlighted" attack:
_
Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e56g2000cwe .googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: standards of book reviewing - on taylor kingston
Date: 26 Apr 2006 19:05:22 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 38
Message-ID: .com
References: QLo2g.1048$5z3.259@trndny01
. com
.com
.com
mj53g.2371$Cc.1365@trndny07
.com
Gho3g.2560$Qe.1704@trndny09
.com
GvJ3g.1280$Ne.714@trndny02
. com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.66
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1146103542 30906 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2006
02:05:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: . com
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:0.9.4.2) Gecko/20021112 CS 2000 7.0/7.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 Turboweb [ntc-tb071 8.4.0], HTTP/1.0
cache-ntc-ab02.proxy.aol.com[CFC87442] (Traffic-Server/5.4.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=207.200.116.66;
posting-account=JyII_g0AAABtP4-7cfx1cpjxnORwILAG

THE REAL ISSUE

The issue is not whether NM Taylor Kingston, the
self-promoted 2300+ ELO whippersnapper whose
actual rating is 1800, could have been expected to
refute Duras' combination. And the issue is certainly
not whether he is held responsible for finding every
analytical error in a book of ambitious and difficult
chess games.

Those are the issues that NM Kingston would
pretend others are talking about. hey are his strawmen.

The issue is a compound of ill luck (the poor
dufus picked the most famous gaffe in the entire book
and failed to recognize the position!) and our
accustomed Kingstonian ego.

Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous game,
and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known position in
this famous game. Whereupon, he failed to tell the
reader the most interesting thing about the best-known
position in the famous game.

Someone with a normal ego would write
as follows: "I am not an analyst, and the truth is
that I could not deal with the chess points in the
position. I was writing a review, and I had not done
the reading necessary when highlighting a specific
position. I understand that Duras' combination had
been hitherto exploded, and the fact was, in chess
terms, relatively well-known. I ought to have known.
I did not. Hence my embarrassing lapsus. For purely
illustrative purposes, I obviously ought to have
chosen another position if I were not up to the mark
of pointing out the most important point in the
position I singled out."