On Nov 7, 4:28 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
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? :^)


Don't expect to find very much gold left.

The USA stopped backing the dollar with gold a long
time ago, replacing the precious metal with fluffery --
much like Mr. Parr. Since there need be nothing
whatsoever to back it, the printing presses are red-hot;
and like other fabrications, paper dollars will ultimately
be seen for what they really are.

Now for the good news: because there is no need to
back it up, both Uncle Sam and Larry Parr can produce
all the fluffery they want, at practically zero cost! As for
integrity -- who needs it? And as for inflation numbers,
they can be (and already have been) quite easily doctored.


-- help bot

SBD wrote:
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.

Ah well, things are quiet in here at the moment and curiosity once again
got the best of me. I went looking for Shakespearean insults. I found
an Internet insult generator based on the Great Bard's works:

http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/

Perhaps some of these will inspire us to greater literary heights when
we feel the irrepressible need to pour a chamber pot of vitriol on an
agitated opponent...

1) Thou clay-brained guts, thou knotty-pated fool, thou whoreson obscene
greasy tallow-catch!

2) What trick, what device, what starting-hole canst thou now find out,
to hide thee from this open and apparent shame? (Taken from: Henry IV,
part I)

3) [Thou] leathern-jerkin, crystal-button, knot-pated, agatering,
puke-stocking, caddis-garter, smooth-tongue, Spanish pouch! (Taken from:
Henry IV, part I)

4) Methink'st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.
(Taken from: All's Well That Ends Well)

5) [Thou] poisonous bunch-back'd toad! (Taken from: Richard III)

6) Thou warped fly-bitten nut-hook!

7) Canst thou believe thy living is a life, so stinkingly depending? Go
mend, go mend. (Taken from: Measure for Measure)

8) Thou caluminous milk-livered haggard!

9) There's no more faith in thee than in a stewed prune. (Taken from:
Henry V)
--


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, 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?

As we expected, Parr has failed to name a single one. As far as I
know, none exist. Meanwhile, here's a scholar who definitely does
*not* agee with Evans:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html

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

As we expected, Parr has failed to name a single one. As far as I
know, none exist. Meanwhile, here's a scholar who definitely does
*not* agee with Evans:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html

This is in fact true.

Though unfortunately for Mr. Kingston's favorite it is entirely inconclusive
since, like himself, he disagrees with GM Evans on every subject.

Phil Innes

On Nov 9, 11:00 am, "Chess One" 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?

As we expected, Parr has failed to name a single one. As far as I
know, none exist. Meanwhile, here's a scholar who definitely does
*not* agee with Evans:

Though unfortunately for Mr. Kingston's favorite it is entirely inconclusive
since, like himself, he disagrees with GM Evans on every subject.

That's not the real issue here. The real issue is another
fabricated claim, unsupported by facts, re-re-re-reconfirming
what we already knew: that LP is a bilious liar. One can
have no more faith in his rubbish than in a stewed prune
(unless one is a knotty-pated fool, of course).

----------

On another subject, it is not really the case that Edward
Winter /disagrees/ with Larry Evans. I think the man's beef
with LE pertains to his often grotesque methods of distorting
facts, and spellings, and dates.

For instance, if EW were to complain that LE got the date
wrong on some ancient game or tourney, he would not be
arguing about when it occurred, but pointing out what GM
Evans likes to call "a typo", which is in reality a careless
error on his own part, but which he can never manage to
admit having made, owning his own words, as you say.

If EW were to correct a spelling error, he would not be
disagreeing with LE (or LP) on the correct spelling of a
name, but instead he would be asking that writers take
greater care in their work, at least attempting to get
such things right without having to constantly be
corrected by their superiors.

In fact, were we in need of an example where the two
writers actually disagree /on an issue/, we need look no
further than EW's tough stance on publishing sloppy
work. And it is not only Larry Evans who has been
targeted; countless others have been skewered for the
exact same crimes, chief among them, Ray Keene.

On the one extreme we have scholars like EW, who
demand nothing short of perfection in published works;
and on the other hand, we have hacks who churn out
a plethora of sloppily-written rubbish, along with some
carelessly thrown-together work of some real value.
In the middle, or perhaps to the left a bit, we have a
happy medium, but no one writer can be all things to
all people, excepting Shakespeare and maybe Paul
Keres.


-- help bot

On Nov 9, 11:00 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

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?

As we expected, Parr has failed to name a single one. As far as I
know, none exist. Meanwhile, here's a scholar who definitely does
*not* agee with Evans:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html

This is in fact true.

Though unfortunately for Mr. Kingston's favorite it is entirely inconclusive
since, like himself, he disagrees with GM Evans on every subject.

It would be more accurate to say that Evans makes frequent
unsupported assertions, commits frequent factual errors, and is
disinclined to correct them, thus contrasting with Winter on all three
counts.

Actually, Phil, Winter has said complimentary things about Evans now
and then. A sample:

"In some ways Larry Evans' journalism is of a superior quality ...
The trouble is that although his best is very good, Evans is not very
often at it." -- Chess Notes #322, 1983

"... Larry Evans, normally one of the sanest and acutest of
commentators." -- CN #1143, 1986

Admittedly, positive references are few, and seem to have ceased
after 1986, but there was a time when Winter had at least a modicum of
respect for Evans. I suspect that vanished circa 1987, perhaps partly
as a result of Evans' meltdown over Quesada-Prins (see above link) and
other matters he wrote about to Winter in the middle of that year (see
CN #1457, 1987).

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 9, 11:00 am, "Chess One" 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?

As we expected, Parr has failed to name a single one. As far as I
know, none exist. Meanwhile, here's a scholar who definitely does
*not* agee with Evans:

Though unfortunately for Mr. Kingston's favorite it is entirely
inconclusive
since, like himself, he disagrees with GM Evans on every subject.

That's not the real issue here. The real issue is another
fabricated claim, unsupported by facts, re-re-re-reconfirming
what we already knew: that LP is a bilious liar. One can
have no more faith in his rubbish than in a stewed prune
(unless one is a knotty-pated fool, of course).

Let me just interupt this vague rant a moment, and inquire what the subject
is? I hope it isn't Soviet 'fixing' of top games, since at least 4 top
Russians are on the record to heavily side with Evans. Perhaps you had some
other subject in mind?

If it was a specific engagement or even a game, pray be so kind to mention
your own topic.

----------

On another subject, it is not really the case that Edward
Winter /disagrees/ with Larry Evans. I think the man's beef
with LE pertains to his often grotesque methods of distorting
facts, and spellings, and dates.

For instance, if EW were to complain that LE got the date
wrong on some ancient game or tourney,

Then he would be a vast hypocrite, since as Ray Keene pointed out the
previous issue of Kingpin, 3 years in the making, was so full of errors of
all types it had to be withdrawn, corrected and reprinted. 3 years! How
ironic [or intensely ironic, as Our Taylor likes it] that a reader pointed
them out to Keene, who then pointed them in public.

Now the point is that the slightest error from Evans and Keene is collected,
collated and stored for years, then all represented so as to diminish their
work from some hypothetical standard; a standard Winter himself does not
attain. The point sir, is that to err is human. Those who do not admit that
are rogues.

I even tried to throw Kingston a bone about kiting his rating a full 500
points by admitting that my own writing was sloppy on my own rating, and
wasn't his of the same loose usenet stripe? NO! He declaims, the error is
totally in other people, since to mention a rating is /not/ to reference
normal OTB activity. )

If you set up to be a pedant, better to have something to be pedantic about.
And Kingston, Winter are not even has-beens, and there is your motive for
The World According to Carp.

But let us not evaluate abstractions or these continuous hypotesies, if, if,
if - since all this emotion seems to have occuded any specific matter that
may have occured to you.

Phil Innes

he would not be
arguing about when it occurred, but pointing out what GM
Evans likes to call "a typo", which is in reality a careless
error on his own part, but which he can never manage to
admit having made, owning his own words, as you say.

If EW were to correct a spelling error, he would not be
disagreeing with LE (or LP) on the correct spelling of a
name, but instead he would be asking that writers take
greater care in their work, at least attempting to get
such things right without having to constantly be
corrected by their superiors.

In fact, were we in need of an example where the two
writers actually disagree /on an issue/, we need look no
further than EW's tough stance on publishing sloppy
work. And it is not only Larry Evans who has been
targeted; countless others have been skewered for the
exact same crimes, chief among them, Ray Keene.

On the one extreme we have scholars like EW, who
demand nothing short of perfection in published works;
and on the other hand, we have hacks who churn out
a plethora of sloppily-written rubbish, along with some
carelessly thrown-together work of some real value.
In the middle, or perhaps to the left a bit, we have a
happy medium, but no one writer can be all things to
all people, excepting Shakespeare and maybe Paul
Keres.


-- help bot

On Nov 7, 7:15 am, "Chess One" 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.

I have no objection to having opinions. Just don't try
and pass them off as established facts, utilizing bogus
methods such as ad hominem, broiled red herring, etc.,
etc. We've all we can eat here!


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!

Indeed. But that has no relevance here. If LE wanted
to argue than /in his opinion/ this could very well have
happened, he is perfectly welcome to do that.


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

Baked, broiled or fried herring? Fish contains omega-fatty
acids, you know. Just beware of mercury.


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.

I see. So you are obsessed with the issue of TK
vs. LP, who wins, and in what round?

---------

I was objecting to the logical error wherein some
poor fool claimed that Larry Evans' chess ability was
chopped and grated by merely pointing out facts. In
reality, the playing strength of LE is irrelevant, since
the flaw in his article lay elsewhere. But for the
record, at the time LE published his article, he was
no longer in the same class as Dr. Nunn, so it also
falls flat from that approach, though that is really
irrelevant and immaterial.

--------


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.

TK should never have expected a "fair trial" treatment
in the pages of Chess Lies. That would have been an
anomaly, much like you or me winning the World Open.


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.

As Larry Evans himself noted, there is little point in
participating in censored (or otherwise manipulated)
mediums such as the USCF forum -- or here, Chess
Lies magazine.

Every editor or column writer will skew things his
own way, so the best advice is like that for dealing
with lobes-be-three weeds: leave it be.


-- help bot

On Nov 9, 9:42 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced?

As we expected, Parr has failed to name a single one. As far as I
know, none exist. Meanwhile, here's a scholar who definitely does
*not* agee with Evans:

I suppose if LP had fabricated several names to match
his fabricated claim, the critics would find something
else to complain about. As for me, I commend him for
*not* fabricating the requested names -- that's quite an
achievement, considering his character.


-- help bot

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

Though unfortunately for Mr. Kingston's favorite it is entirely
inconclusive
since, like himself, he disagrees with GM Evans on every subject.

It would be more accurate to say that Evans makes frequent
unsupported assertions, commits frequent factual errors, and is
disinclined to correct them, thus contrasting with Winter on all three
counts.

See my previous post to corn-fed.

Actually, Phil, Winter has said complimentary things about Evans now
and then. A sample:

"In some ways Larry Evans' journalism is of a superior quality ...
The trouble is that although his best is very good, Evans is not very
often at it." -- Chess Notes #322, 1983

ROFL!

That is rather like my own people, who say: "There is good, even in a Saxon,
though it is not much said."

You have to understand Taylor, that indiscriminate fault-finding is the same
value as indiscriminate praise. That is to say, of little value. And people
attach themselves to Greats who provide them their source material. It is
usually a form of living vicariously, through others, though sometimes its
possible to break through and attain your own worth by actually creating
something yourself from an appreciation of what connection with Greats
provides you. Otherwise it is not a healthy psychological condition.


"... Larry Evans, normally one of the sanest and acutest of
commentators." -- CN #1143, 1986

ROFL -- "Normally" -- damning with very abbreviated and conditional praise!

What a crock-artist!

Phil Innes

Admittedly, positive references are few, and seem to have ceased
after 1986, but there was a time when Winter had at least a modicum of
respect for Evans. I suspect that vanished circa 1987, perhaps partly
as a result of Evans' meltdown over Quesada-Prins (see above link) and
other matters he wrote about to Winter in the middle of that year (see
CN #1457, 1987).