On Nov 6, 12:12 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:



On Nov 6, 7:27 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Alas, if only it were that simple. People have widely varying
definitions of "that which is right," often including provisos to the
effect that it is right to kill those who have slightly different
definitions. In life, as in chess, general principles apply only so
far. Eventually one must get down to concrete specifics.

I admit there are obstacles. Since we have a chess playing audience
here why not consider this in a chess context for the sake of
discussion.

If you try to develop good judgment in chess you must learn and think
more about "chessic" cause and effect. When you make mistakes and
lose, you must try to learn why you went wrong and how you will
improve in the future. This refines your good judgment. As you
proceed through the cycle of learning, playing, digesting results, and
reassessing your game, it gives you feedback via your results at the
board.

I believe that if you do not try to improve your good judgment that
you are headed for worse results. If some one set out with the intent
to always look for the 2nd best move, they would be following bad
judgment on the whole. I would expect their rating to plummet.

Back to the generalization...

Although various people may have directly opposite views as to what is
right, that is a different matter than trying to figure out what is
best for an individual making choices for his/her own life. Even so,
on the macro scale, if everyone decided to always pursue the 2nd best
idea, I believe the collective results would likely be a very sorry
mess making our current troubled world look like a relative paradise.

On the whole I agree with you, with a couple of caveats:

1) An important difference between chess and life is that in chess,
paranoia is an entirely valid world-view. Your opponent IS out to get
you (unless you're composing helpmates). In life, some people are out
to get other people, but it's not a good idea to assume that of every
one.
2) I respectfully disagree about your "2nd-best move" concept. In
chess, probably 99.9% of all players come nowhere near playing even
the 2nd-best move as a general rule. They are more likely to choose a
less good move, even a rather bad one. Allowing for obvious exceptions
like forced recaptures, I dare say someone who could unfailingly play
what is objectively the 2nd-best move on the board would almost
certainly be a high-ranking GM, probably even a world champion.
Likewise, in life, I'd say people on the whole often fail to make
choices anywhere near as good as 2nd-best. Just as with chess moves,
most choices in life are not either/or; one usually has multiple, even
myriad alternatives. People often make disastrous choices, which is a
major reason we have wars, crime, hatreds, and all the other self-
inflicted ills man is prone to. Rather than 2nd-best giving us "a very
sorry mess," I think most people woudl be very happy with the world
that 2nd-best would provide.

Then again, this disagreement may be purely semantic, depending on
how one defines "second best." I'm using it in the sense of, say, the
2nd-best choice among 10 or 15 alternatives. If your'e thinking of it
as a choice between only two alternatives, that's a horse of a
different color.

Well there is a difference in the way we are looking at this. I am
talking about the choices that an individual is able to come up with
and evaluate. You appear to be talking about the objective best
choices which I admit could be different often. The objective best
choice may not be apparent to one and thus cannot be selected.

So given a set of choices that one is able to come up, I submit it
will generally be better to chose the one perceived as best rather
than the one perceived as second best....

Consider that and let me know if it makes your conclusion different.
Meanwhile, I am fighting a flu bug and need some hot soup.

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

On Nov 6, 4:18 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:12 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:





On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:

On Nov 6, 7:27 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Alas, if only it were that simple. People have widely varying
definitions of "that which is right," often including provisos to the
effect that it is right to kill those who have slightly different
definitions. In life, as in chess, general principles apply only so
far. Eventually one must get down to concrete specifics.

I admit there are obstacles. Since we have a chess playing audience
here why not consider this in a chess context for the sake of
discussion.

If you try to develop good judgment in chess you must learn and think
more about "chessic" cause and effect. When you make mistakes and
lose, you must try to learn why you went wrong and how you will
improve in the future. This refines your good judgment. As you
proceed through the cycle of learning, playing, digesting results, and
reassessing your game, it gives you feedback via your results at the
board.

I believe that if you do not try to improve your good judgment that
you are headed for worse results. If some one set out with the intent
to always look for the 2nd best move, they would be following bad
judgment on the whole. I would expect their rating to plummet.

Back to the generalization...

Although various people may have directly opposite views as to what is
right, that is a different matter than trying to figure out what is
best for an individual making choices for his/her own life. Even so,
on the macro scale, if everyone decided to always pursue the 2nd best
idea, I believe the collective results would likely be a very sorry
mess making our current troubled world look like a relative paradise.

On the whole I agree with you, with a couple of caveats:

1) An important difference between chess and life is that in chess,
paranoia is an entirely valid world-view. Your opponent IS out to get
you (unless you're composing helpmates). In life, some people are out
to get other people, but it's not a good idea to assume that of every
one.
2) I respectfully disagree about your "2nd-best move" concept. In
chess, probably 99.9% of all players come nowhere near playing even
the 2nd-best move as a general rule. They are more likely to choose a
less good move, even a rather bad one. Allowing for obvious exceptions
like forced recaptures, I dare say someone who could unfailingly play
what is objectively the 2nd-best move on the board would almost
certainly be a high-ranking GM, probably even a world champion.
Likewise, in life, I'd say people on the whole often fail to make
choices anywhere near as good as 2nd-best. Just as with chess moves,
most choices in life are not either/or; one usually has multiple, even
myriad alternatives. People often make disastrous choices, which is a
major reason we have wars, crime, hatreds, and all the other self-
inflicted ills man is prone to. Rather than 2nd-best giving us "a very
sorry mess," I think most people woudl be very happy with the world
that 2nd-best would provide.

Then again, this disagreement may be purely semantic, depending on
how one defines "second best." I'm using it in the sense of, say, the
2nd-best choice among 10 or 15 alternatives. If your'e thinking of it
as a choice between only two alternatives, that's a horse of a
different color.

Well there is a difference in the way we are looking at this. I am
talking about the choices that an individual is able to come up with
and evaluate. You appear to be talking about the objective best
choices which I admit could be different often. The objective best
choice may not be apparent to one and thus cannot be selected.

Indeed. On the chess board, I can't tell you how many times post-
mortem analysis has shown that the objectively best move did not even
occur to me, let alone get rejected for various faulty reasons. No
doubt in life as well.

So given a set of choices that one is able to come up, I submit it
will generally be better to chose the one perceived as best rather
than the one perceived as second best....

Dangerously close to tautology, perhaps. But essentially I must
agree.

Consider that and let me know if it makes your conclusion different.
Meanwhile, I am fighting a flu bug and need some hot soup.

Then I would say that "That which is right" requires that I leave
you in peace to rest and recuperate.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

snip

Well there is a difference in the way we are looking at this. I am
talking about the choices that an individual is able to come up with
and evaluate. You appear to be talking about the objective best
choices which I admit could be different often. The objective best
choice may not be apparent to one and thus cannot be selected.

Indeed. On the chess board, I can't tell you how many times post-
mortem analysis has shown that the objectively best move did not even
occur to me, let alone get rejected for various faulty reasons. No
doubt in life as well.

So given a set of choices that one is able to come up, I submit it
will generally be better to chose the one perceived as best rather
than the one perceived as second best....

Dangerously close to tautology, perhaps. But essentially I must
agree.


snip

Dear Mr. Kingston,

It appears that we have arrived at some level of agreement on what we
are discussing. Let me take a few steps beyond that and say that the
continual process of trying to do the right thing as we have described
it, can help a person refine their good judgment with the effect of
allowing them to perceive a greater number of possible good choices in
future encounters with similar circumstances. Perhaps they have a
better chance of identifying that illusive "best choice" of the
objective view. I think of this as developing intuition to aid in
decision making. That may not be precise, but it works for me.

I also suggest that someone who makes of habit of doubting their good
judgment and casting about in a more random fashion in selecting choices
loses confidence in their abilities and suffers from a diminished
perception of possible good choices.

An unscrupulous chess hustler recognizing this can demonstrably enfeeble
weaker opposition by ridiculing their moves and berating them. Of
course the wise hustler will compliment them on their great improvement
as they pay off and go out the door so that the patzer will return to be
milked again... shrugs

--


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

Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:56:14 -0000, "j.d.walker"
wrote:


No, I am not a Unitarian. To be completely honest, examine this site
and form your own opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church
My credentials are in the mail...

Did you opt for the holographic ID card? It adds a level of
authenticity and prestige which, at times, may come in handy. For
example, at the reception after the one wedding I conducted, a
clergyman guest of the more traditional seminary background attempted
polite conversation and asked where I'd done my training. I merely
flashed my holographic ID and had to say nothing. He too remained
silent, so I assume he was properly impressed.

Hi Mike,

When I was investigating I noticed at least a half dozen organizations
claiming various kinds of association with ULC. The Seattle Monastery
group in particular had apparently broken off relations with another
"headquarters" group that sprang from the original founder. A number of
these groups seem to be in it for the money they can get by
merchandising. I chose the "Headquarters" group.

I do not know what sort of credentials they will send me. It will be
the default set. I may put the bucks out to get the ULC press pass. It
could be fun to have press privileges at some events.

I do not plan to do weddings or funerals. The concept of exorcisms does
intrigue me. Maybe we could team up and exorcise this news group some
day. :^) Or, maybe we could simply exorcise Mr. Parr. He seems to
have a fixation on shocking dead toads. :^)

I added the "U.C." suffix so that people would have a shot at learning
that it stood for "Under Construction." Then they would be less likely
to confuse me with a traditional religious ordained minister.

The main thing though is that I do agree with the statement: "Do that
which is right." and I don't mind talking about it. (See other messages
in this thread.)

Thanks for the nudge that your messages gave me, leading me to
investigate ULC.
--


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

LET ME HAZARD A GUESS

By the way, one of the participants sent me a private email offering
to send me scads of dirt on an opponent proving that the man was a
complete scoundrel. No, thanks. Not interested. Rev. J.D. Walker,
U.C.

For the record, our NMnot Kingston is a private
email type who wants to send dirt on this or that
opponent. See, for example, his "confidential"
attempts with Richard Laurie, author of an interesting
play on Alekhine that has been produced. He tried to
persuade Laurie to retract an item he submitted to Chess Life.

BLAST FROM THE PAST

OPEN LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE (April 2 2006):

"Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty. He contacted me on the
Net,
then wanted to send me materials to try and win me over to his side
of
the argument -- that Evans was wrong. After that he said HE WOULD
LIKE
TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE QUIET [emphasis mine] just between us. It
sounded a little shaky, but so far I saw nothing wrong.

"Then he said he contacted the editor and asked if it would be okay
for
him to say I had changed my mind.. That's when I jumped on him in my
last letter, that I had not changed my mind and agreed to look at his
materials only to see what he had to offer.. I found nothing
substantial there and I told him that as far as secrecy went, he
already violated that by jumping the gun and contacting the editor.

"Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly
free
to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
Kingston's
article in Chess Life (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the
1948
World Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to
analyze by
saying Nunn was the better player.

"Kingston wanted me to retract my printed view of the situation as it
appeared in Evans On Chess. He wanted me to say that I was wrong and.
therefore, Evans was wrong ..I even wrote the editor saying I had not
changed my mind, and that ended the matter."

And now NMnot Kingston crawls a bit to the Rev.
Walker. Please note the implicit admission of having
lied: in his previous posting, he told the Rev. that he
did not understand the twitching frog story. Now he
understands it all quite perfectly. He's oleaginous all right.


j.d.walker wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:21 am, " wrote:
THE REV. STEERS CLEAR

I will adroitly hop aside and let you all proceed as you will. --
Rev. J.D. Walker

The Rev. Walker has decided not to inhale these
forums mists and exhalations. He will be missing a
great deal. One had hoped he could have tried his
hand at one monster thread -- just to learn the joys.
Perhaps the significance of "The" in "The Historian,"
an exchange I had with one Neil Brennen, would have
significance eventually for the Rev. Walker.

But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get
him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered
unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck.

Yes, I understood the twitching frog story, and I
am fairly sure that the Rev. Walker understands that
our NMnot Kingston understood it all too well. Hence
the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev.

Larry Parr

j.d.walker wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, " wrote:
HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any

argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of
importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too
seriously. -- Taylor Kingston

Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that
he does not take the debates here too seriously even
as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog.
He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of
this and other writers who disagree with him as well as
people he respects.

To be sure, the claim that he does not take the
debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply
please reread the man's evidently anguished
posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for
yourself. He lies even when he says that he
reprehends lying.

My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing
of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under
other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise
YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS?

A yes or no will suffice.

Yours, Larry Parr
And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it!

j.d.walker wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:

On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:

I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is
this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several
debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice
like myself is missing?

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

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware
that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name
"Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that
into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is
convincing.

Dear Mr. Kingston,

I am going to stay out of this quarrel.

I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself
in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me
convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those
who know the facts he is just another dirty politician.
In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I
can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never
resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are
free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope
to persuade the reasonable minority.

It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real
purpose for it.

Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from
Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that
mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when
it stares us in the face?

It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and
nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it.

Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why
it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides.

Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar?

My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his
mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect.
He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam
Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE
governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and
inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically.
However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I
don't take our debates too seriously.

begin sermon
To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order
that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to
participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or
berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a
captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did.
end sermon

The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my
disagreements with Parr eludes me.

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

Mr. Kingston,

I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I
believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe
his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it
several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when
you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as
wrong. However, consider the following story.

Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named,
let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just
a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He
nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he
would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the
impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o'
shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it
gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted.
He was in control.

If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this
question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage?

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

No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly,
Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the
crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let
you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose
arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of
twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen.

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

Mr. Parr,

I am not leaving the forum just yet. I have other windmills to tilt
at in other threads. I believe I have learned a lesson from my
engagement in this thread. Some of the participants are likely to
have saved years of this drivel so that at the appropriate time they
can dredge it up and throw it over the fence at a pack of baying dogs
as they conceive their opponents to be. Then this goes back and
forth. As an incident involving hundreds of posts finally dies down,
the seasons pass, Someone innocently and unknowingly writes a
"trigger text" and then the whole thing comes to life once again. I
salute your ability to make the frog twitch Larry, but it is not for
me. :^)

By the way, one of the participants sent me a private email offering
to send me scads of dirt on an opponent proving that the man was a
complete scoundrel. No, thanks. Not interested.

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

On Nov 6, 10:24 pm, " wrote:

All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life
(about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World
Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to
analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.


That statement grossly misrepresents the facts.

What GM Evans tried to do was argue that he, and he
alone was a good enough analyst to "detect" certain
"clues" embedded in the moves of some chess game.

That argument was easily skewered by pointing out
that even after seeing these alleged "clues", much
stronger players than GM Evans disagreed with his
"analysis".

The fact remains that this is and was not chess
analysis per se, so the question of relative strength
is merely an aside to the real question; but even so,
there can be no doubt that at his advanced age, GM
Evans was no longer any match for a host of younger
players, including GM Nunn. Personally, I find this
ego-stroking business appalling -- all the more since
chess is only a game.

The real issue can be settled in the realms of logic
and reason -- even by the weakest of chess players;
even by the likes of Sanny or Rob Mitchell. It merely
requires an ability to think /rationally/.

In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been
shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet
cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must
have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the
case, but we may never see it, thanks to these
hacks.


-- help bot

MORE DRIVEL FROM KENNEDY

"Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on
Keres seems
willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor Kingston
on Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 Championship.

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).

But the Botster conveniently omits the attempt by NMnot Kingston to
secretly contact Richard Laurie to try and persuade him to retract an
item he submitted to Chess Life.

"I didn't want to spend three months of my life watching Soviets throw
games to each other," Reuben Fine explained to GM Evans when asked why
he declined to participate in the 1948 World Championship.

Needless to add, the Botster is again short on research and long on
opinions.


help bot wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:24 pm, " wrote:

All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life
(about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World
Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to
analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.


That statement grossly misrepresents the facts.

What GM Evans tried to do was argue that he, and he
alone was a good enough analyst to "detect" certain
"clues" embedded in the moves of some chess game.

That argument was easily skewered by pointing out
that even after seeing these alleged "clues", much
stronger players than GM Evans disagreed with his
"analysis".

The fact remains that this is and was not chess
analysis per se, so the question of relative strength
is merely an aside to the real question; but even so,
there can be no doubt that at his advanced age, GM
Evans was no longer any match for a host of younger
players, including GM Nunn. Personally, I find this
ego-stroking business appalling -- all the more since
chess is only a game.

The real issue can be settled in the realms of logic
and reason -- even by the weakest of chess players;
even by the likes of Sanny or Rob Mitchell. It merely
requires an ability to think /rationally/.

In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been
shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet
cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must
have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the
case, but we may never see it, thanks to these
hacks.


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 6, 10:24 pm, " wrote:

All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life
(about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World
Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to
analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.


That statement grossly misrepresents the facts.

What GM Evans tried to do was argue that he, and he
alone was a good enough analyst to "detect" certain
"clues" embedded in the moves of some chess game.

That argument was easily skewered by pointing out
that even after seeing these alleged "clues", much
stronger players than GM Evans disagreed with his
"analysis".

The fact remains that this is and was not chess
analysis per se, so the question of relative strength
is merely an aside to the real question; but even so,
there can be no doubt that at his advanced age, GM
Evans was no longer any match for a host of younger
players, including GM Nunn. Personally, I find this
ego-stroking business appalling -- all the more since
chess is only a game.

The real issue can be settled in the realms of logic
and reason -- even by the weakest of chess players;
even by the likes of Sanny or Rob Mitchell. It merely
requires an ability to think /rationally/.

In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been
shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet
cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must
have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the
case, but we may never see it, thanks to these
hacks.

Pardon me!

What a farce of an argument.

If you don't like American opinion, I can, and have done, offered Russian
ones which make any Evans statement seem quite mild in contrast.

And this is merely to answer in the rather narrow vein proposed by those who
contest what Evans has said. To mention but a couple of factors, the
//experience// of engaging Russian chess at this level during the cold war
is rather different than having 'opinions' about it by latter-day saints and
GM Nunn!

Larry Parr is correct to repeat here a little e-mail campaign to revoke or
reverse Laurie on this subject.

Though such campaigning is a 'shy subject' for Taylor Kingston is quite
beside the point of whether he is right or not. What is at point is
Kingston's resentment of Evans because he declined to give even more space
to his protestations.

This is interpreted by Kingston as avoiding an unpleasant truth - whereas,
and I have somewhere, the declined letter - any continuation of the subject
in Chess Life cannot have seemed fruitful to Evans because Kingston never
improved upon or developed his first contested point.

I might add that it also sought to lionise the issue between two poles - and
if extensive correspondance on those lines were to be developed, published
and so on, it would be, IMO, insufficient to compass the issue.

Phil Innes


-- help bot

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?

On Nov 7, 7:03 am, " wrote:

"Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on
Keres seems
willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor Kingston
on Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 Championship.

That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars

More lies from Larry Parr. There are no "scholars"
when it comes to this sort of thing; it is a matter of
logic and reason, not the interpretation of historical
documents.


now agree
with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article
THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996).

That article broke wind, not ground.


But the Botster conveniently omits the attempt by NMnot Kingston to
secretly contact Richard Laurie to try and persuade him to retract an
item he submitted to Chess Life.

That is /irrelevant/, not "convenient". Nothing TK has
done or can do has any impact whatsoever on the fact
that GM Evans' article was worthless. Only in the very
strange mind of Larry Parr are these two things tightly
interwoven; for LP, there is some sort of war going on
in which victory over the enemy equates to verification
of irrational thinking. Rational thinkers can see clearly
that no war can ever decide such matters.


"I didn't want to spend three months of my life watching Soviets throw
games to each other," Reuben Fine explained to GM Evans when asked why
he declined to participate in the 1948 World Championship.

More fluff. I like a house to be built upon a
foundation of concrete, cement. Granted it is
cold and hard, but it still beats a foundation of
fluffery.

So long as the case for GM Bronstein continues
to be plagued by "support" from hacks, it is going
to be tough going. Anyone who would like to
make a serious case would be well advised to
wait until these ratpackers go away, lest their
rational arguments be dismissed as lunacy out of
sheer force of habit.


-- help bot