On Nov 7, 8:43 am, SBD wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:03 am, " wrote:



That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now agree
with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article
THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996).

Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced?

A good question, Dr. D. After reading Evans' article in late 1996,
and writing my own on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998 and 2001, I've
tried to keep tabs on this subject. A few articles dealing with it
have come to my attention, some of which might be called scholarly. I
was gratified to see my work cited a couple of times, but I have yet
to see any scholarly reference to Evans at all, let alone enough
positive comments to conclude that he is supported by the majority of
scholars. This prompts several questions:

1. How is Parr defining "most scholars"? Or "scholar" period, in
this context?
2. Who are all the "scholars" who have expressed any opinion on the
Evans article?
3. Of those, whose opinion is positive, and whose negative?

All this requires naming names and citing specific references,
something Parr is not in the habit of doing. Fabrication is far
easier.

On Nov 7, 1:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

All this requires naming names and citing specific references,
something Parr is not in the habit of doing. Fabrication is far
easier.

I agree, although he has dragged Evans' name through the mud more than
once with such fabrication, evidently not caring one whit. I actually
hope this time he has the names of this supposedly large ("most")
group of scholars, as the argument is quite interesting, but I suspect
he will come up with nothing, or something in his usual lame style of
"proof," playground insult disguised in flowery prose.

SBD wrote:
On Nov 7, 1:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

All this requires naming names and citing specific references,
something Parr is not in the habit of doing. Fabrication is far
easier.

I agree, although he has dragged Evans' name through the mud more than
once with such fabrication, evidently not caring one whit. I actually
hope this time he has the names of this supposedly large ("most")
group of scholars, as the argument is quite interesting, but I suspect
he will come up with nothing, or something in his usual lame style of
"proof," playground insult disguised in flowery prose.


In defense of Mr. Parr's style (not his facts as I have no opinion
there), I submit that disguising a playground insult in flowery prose is
an age-old tradition in literature. I think a scholar with a background
in literature would have to comment on whether Mr. Parr has done this
skillfully or not. That scholar is not me. However, I'd venture a
guess that a search through Shakespeare's works would yield a large
number of choice insults dressed in flowery prose.
--


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

On Nov 7, 2:12 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
However, I'd venture a
guess that a search through Shakespeare's works would yield a large
number of choice insults dressed in flowery prose.

Shakespeare was a scholar?

Nice point, though Rev. Please continue to post here.

On Nov 7, 3:12 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
SBD wrote:
On Nov 7, 1:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

All this requires naming names and citing specific references,
something Parr is not in the habit of doing. Fabrication is far
easier.

I agree, although he has dragged Evans' name through the mud more than
once with such fabrication, evidently not caring one whit. I actually
hope this time he has the names of this supposedly large ("most")
group of scholars, as the argument is quite interesting, but I suspect
he will come up with nothing, or something in his usual lame style of
"proof," playground insult disguised in flowery prose.

In defense of Mr. Parr's style (not his facts as I have no opinion
there), I submit that disguising a playground insult in flowery prose is
an age-old tradition in literature. I think a scholar with a background
in literature would have to comment on whether Mr. Parr has done this
skillfully or not. That scholar is not me. However, I'd venture a
guess that a search through Shakespeare's works would yield a large
number of choice insults dressed in flowery prose.

Yes, and a search through Fort Knox would yield many gold ingots,
while a search through a cow pasture would yield much manure. Parr's
procilivity for insult, flowery or otherwise, is well established.
However, an insult, whether skillful or crude, does nothing to
establish a proposition.
The question at hand is Parr's claim that "most scholars" have a
positive opinion of Larry Evans article "The Tragedy of Paul Keres,"
which appeared in the October 1996 issue of Chess Life. None of us
here can recall Parr ever naming a single one of these scholars, or
providing a relevant reference, let alone establishing that "most" of
them endorse the Evans article.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

... I'd venture a
guess that a search through Shakespeare's works would yield a large
number of choice insults dressed in flowery prose.

Yes, and a search through Fort Knox would yield many gold ingots,
while a search through a cow pasture would yield much manure.
snip

I volunteer for the search of Fort Knox! Perhaps along the way I can
locate all the missing funds from the USCF. But who will undertake the
search in the cow pasture? :^)
--


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

SBD wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:03 am, " wrote:
That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now
agree with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his ground-
breaking article THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October
1996).

Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced?

No, because `most scholars agree that X' means `I say that X'.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Miniature Radio (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ radio but you can hold in it your
hand!

J.D. Walker wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
Yes, and a search through Fort Knox would yield many gold ingots,
while a search through a cow pasture would yield much manure.
snip

I volunteer for the search of Fort Knox! Perhaps along the way I
can locate all the missing funds from the USCF. But who will
undertake the search in the cow pasture? :^)

You're wading through it, right now.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Metal Gerbil (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet that's made of steel!

On Nov 7, 8:43 am, SBD wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:03 am, " wrote:

That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now agree
with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article
THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996).

Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced?

I've wondered about that too, Dr. D. Since the time of Evan's
article (10/1996) and mine (1998 and 2001), I've seen a few others
that touched on the K-B case and which might be considered scholarly.
I was gratified to see my work mentioned in a couple, but I have yet
to see any mentioning Evans at all.

So this raises two questions:

1) Who are all the "scholars" that Parr considers to have expressed
any opinion on Evans' 10/1996 article?
2) Of those, which ones agree with Evans, and do they actually
constitute a majority?

Both questions require citing specific names and verifiable
statements. Parr is generally not very good at this; he finds
fabrication easier.

On Nov 7, 2:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

1. How is Parr defining "most scholars"? Or "scholar" period, in
this context?
2. Who are all the "scholars" who have expressed any opinion on the
Evans article?
3. Of those, whose opinion is positive, and whose negative?

All this requires naming names and citing specific references,
something Parr is not in the habit of doing. Fabrication is far
easier.

Larry Parr is indubitably *the King* of fabrication.

He has attempted every dishonest trick in the book
when it comes to "supporting" Larry Evans' speculations.

The argument that LE is an authority who, alone, was
able to detect hidden clues because of his great chess
skill has been refuted outright by citing higher authorities,
if you will, who rejected the clues, the detective work, as
nonsense. But this is irrelevant, since no authority can
decide matters of logic and reason. LE has taken the
wrong approach, the wrong path; if there is a path to
showing that GM Bronstein was made to throw games,
it likely starts on the farthest ends of the planet from
where GM Evans stands, in La-la land.


-- help bot