"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 4:42 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in message

ups.com...

It is somewhat misleading to transform the assertion to the present
tense
and give the impression that it was a comment on evidence that has
been presented in the years after GM Evans claims that were criticized
by Taylor Kingston in 1998.

Taylor Kingston has stated directly to my inquiry that he did not dispute
Evans conclusions, but 2 days latter he can write to Larry Tapper

' All very good points, Larry T. In the same vein, one point I'd like
to add here is that "forensic analysis" a la Evans is obviously
worthless without certain assumptions derived from context"

Quite so, Phil.

The questions regarding Kingston is which it is? Some "forensic analysis"
as
he would put it, or if his missif was dismissed by Evan's editor, since
it
lacked anything worth publishing in CL.

It's impossible to make sense of that absurd dichotomy of yours,

Yes it is possible. But you have to want to make a clear answer

1) Are you arguing Soviet coercian, specifically Botvinnik & Keres

OR

2) Are you arguing about your spat with CL?

What i see you doing is saying you were abused by (2) and then arguing about
(1)

I read the rufused letter because you sent it to me. It had nothing about
(1) in it, and if (1) was the Evans article in the first place, your letter
was rejected because it did not address the subject - it addressed the
writers of the subject.


Phil, but the distinction between straightforward chess analysis and
"forensic analysis a la Evans" is quite simple. Let's see if we can
make it clearer to you:

See if you can choose (1) or (2) above.

Chess analysis: "13...exd4 is an inferior move because it opens the
long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop." -- This is the kind of
conclusion one can draw from the position itself. I have no
disagreement with Evans in this regard.

"Forensic" analysis: "A move like 13...exd4 makes it obvious Keres
was ordered to throw the game." -- This is the kind of thing on which
Evans and I disagree. For this sort of conclusion, the mere chess
position is nowhere near sufficient basis, in my opinion. Further
evidence is required.

My very first reply was to put this subject before you - that is, if it is
all about your opinion, and those who agree or don't agree with you, then
you, and all others, need to get off 'owning' the subject, and instead
address the all instances within the entire context. Having done so there is
a possibility we then discuss it.

To my own knowledge, it would be exceptional within the Soviet system if
there /was not/ coercion. How players individually reacted to that coercion
is a subsequent subject of discussion - but you can't go there unless you
understand the initial premise - of widespread pressuring in that country. I
don't mean just accept what someone says, but from much reading or
experience of the place.

Anyway - tell us please if this issue is about (1) or (2) as above - since
like all correspondents you have on this subject, I too am confused when you
start to rubbish other people - since you are not a strong chess player,
neither do you know much Russian context - but /boom/ there you go with your
insensible writing!

Laurie & drugs - other people trashed and compared with dictators, and even
"Let's see if we can make it clearer to you:" when you first wrote to me
because you didn't know any context!

So its (1) or (2). If your answer is (2) or both, I agree with the CL editor
that your letter contained no content about (1). And I am not interested in
the issue.

If you want to discuss some general or specific about (1) Soviet fixing -
make that a clear topic and stick to it.

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 5:38 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:


It's impossible to make sense of that absurd dichotomy of yours,
Phil, but the distinction between straightforward chess analysis and
"forensic analysis a la Evans" is quite simple. Let's see if we can
make it clearer to you:

Chess analysis: "13...exd4 is an inferior move because it opens the
long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop." -- This is the kind of
conclusion one can draw from the position itself. I have no
disagreement with Evans in this regard.

"Forensic" analysis: "A move like 13...exd4 makes it obvious Keres
was ordered to throw the game." -- This is the kind of thing on which
Evans and I disagree. For this sort of conclusion, the mere chess
position is nowhere near sufficient basis, in my opinion. Further
evidence is required.

we are talking about real oppression and coercion in a country where they
were normal - and you are talking like this!

that's all! but even in england people didn't want to look at the SU as it
was - and instead glamorized it, and wanted to adopt it! in the US you have
nothing even resembling a left-wing party, but in europe the idea of a
people's paradise in their own country was a constant post-war threat

when people start to whittle away at that with uninformed comments - then
that too is dangerous, and needs challenging - since after all, if you can't
make sincere observations about the chess scene, how can you make them about
more important ones?

so when writers 'challenge' the issue, you have to ask why? what i wrote
above is much looser than what orwell did in 1940, but the same thing about
the extraordinary laxity of attention that people had in the age of
dictators, an age, IMO, not quite closed! and one measured by body-bags

phil innes


Now you've done it. After seventy-two years of "clocked"
secrecy, IM Innes is now left with no choice but to print
the secret, innermost thoughts of Taylor Kingston, as
revealed in emails sent him by the latter in 1935.

I for one am anxious to learn whether or not TK even
realized there was a depression going on, and more
critically here, what he may have said regarding the
fluke performance of Dr. von Alekhine at San Remo,
which forensic studies since then have determined to
have been "mathematically impossible, except perhaps
for Bobby Fischer, armed with Fritz".

As we await the inevitable posting from IM Innes, it
may be wise to notify Larry Parr so he can begin
writing the usual ad hom. barrage to go along with
and "enhance" it. Don't try to stop him -- no one
can; when IM Innes says he will post the emails, it
is an undeniable fact -- like the Sun rising in the East.
Like the tides, or like gravity, or like fish being able to
swim. When the great IM Innes makes up his mind
to do something, it is as good as done. If he says
he will print the emails, you can bank on it getting
done. Nothing short of Death can stop him -- such
is his level of determination, his dedication, his...


(I have to go now. The library closes in five minutes.)


-- help bot


P.S. ...to be continued...

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO GET SOME THERAPY (Kingston to Parr)

He won't answer. Can't answer.

I see. Lie down on the couch and relax. Tell me more... Go on...

You ever watch Good Will Hunting? You gotta watch out for these shrinks,
since quite a lot of it is all about them

its one of those 'living vicariously' occupations

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

i went to brockwood once, to the big tent, where sitting alone and the focus
of all attention, he led the conversation about there being no gurus...

that of course is not all he spoke of - and it was, i agree jakob needleman,
stimulating to pay attention to that moment before thought, as if it too was
of some import, the insight there even obviating the need for thought

he was probably the most beautiful man i ever saw - physically beautiful,
not handsome, and while i did enjoy my visit one sunny afternoon in sussex,
i wondered about the people who went there rather a lot, since in effect he
made the same statement over and over - and if indeed it was not to simply
to stare at him

phil innes

KINGSTON'S SMEAR CAMPAIGN CONTINUES

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." --
Larry Parr 11/6/07

"I must say, it's rather satisfying to see one liar deceived by
another." -- Taylor Kingston referring tog Larry Parr and Richard
Laurie 11/13/07

NMnot Kingston now refuses to release his "confidential" letters to
playwright Laurie spreading in order to back up his claim that Laurie
lied about the contents. I have no reason not to believe Mr. Laurie,
a man with no axe to grind, and we will soon get to the bottom of this
case to see who is really lying and who peddled dirt.





Chess One wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 5:38 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:


It's impossible to make sense of that absurd dichotomy of yours,
Phil, but the distinction between straightforward chess analysis and
"forensic analysis a la Evans" is quite simple. Let's see if we can
make it clearer to you:

Chess analysis: "13...exd4 is an inferior move because it opens the
long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop." -- This is the kind of
conclusion one can draw from the position itself. I have no
disagreement with Evans in this regard.

"Forensic" analysis: "A move like 13...exd4 makes it obvious Keres
was ordered to throw the game." -- This is the kind of thing on which
Evans and I disagree. For this sort of conclusion, the mere chess
position is nowhere near sufficient basis, in my opinion. Further
evidence is required.

we are talking about real oppression and coercion in a country where they
were normal - and you are talking like this!

that's all! but even in england people didn't want to look at the SU as it
was - and instead glamorized it, and wanted to adopt it! in the US you have
nothing even resembling a left-wing party, but in europe the idea of a
people's paradise in their own country was a constant post-war threat

when people start to whittle away at that with uninformed comments - then
that too is dangerous, and needs challenging - since after all, if you can't
make sincere observations about the chess scene, how can you make them about
more important ones?

so when writers 'challenge' the issue, you have to ask why? what i wrote
above is much looser than what orwell did in 1940, but the same thing about
the extraordinary laxity of attention that people had in the age of
dictators, an age, IMO, not quite closed! and one measured by body-bags

phil innes


Now you've done it. After seventy-two years of "clocked"
secrecy, IM Innes is now left with no choice but to print
the secret, innermost thoughts of Taylor Kingston, as
revealed in emails sent him by the latter in 1935.

I for one am anxious to learn whether or not TK even
realized there was a depression going on, and more
critically here, what he may have said regarding the
fluke performance of Dr. von Alekhine at San Remo,
which forensic studies since then have determined to
have been "mathematically impossible, except perhaps
for Bobby Fischer, armed with Fritz".

As we await the inevitable posting from IM Innes, it
may be wise to notify Larry Parr so he can begin
writing the usual ad hom. barrage to go along with
and "enhance" it. Don't try to stop him -- no one
can; when IM Innes says he will post the emails, it
is an undeniable fact -- like the Sun rising in the East.
Like the tides, or like gravity, or like fish being able to
swim. When the great IM Innes makes up his mind
to do something, it is as good as done. If he says
he will print the emails, you can bank on it getting
done. Nothing short of Death can stop him -- such
is his level of determination, his dedication, his...


(I have to go now. The library closes in five minutes.)


-- help bot


P.S. ...to be continued...

On Nov 14, 9:46 pm, " wrote:

Back to the point of the "confidential" correspondence with
dramatist Laurie. NMnot now tells us that we have entered the
courtroom of evidentiary admissions and their proper ordering.
Nonsense. We are having a debate on a public forum.

No, Larry, I would hardly call this thread a "debate." It has been
merely a series of accusations by you against me, accusations made, to
use your idol's phrase, "without a scintilla of evidence." I have been
patiently rebutting and refuting them, but my patience is done. You
just keep fabricating more, or repeating the same ones, as if the
facts made no difference. It's quite tedious.

Taylor Kingston is evidently taking the 5th Amendment these
days by refusing to post his e-mails to playwright Richard Laurie in
its entirety. It is his constitutional right to do so, but we hope
to obtain them soon from Mr. Laurie, a man with no axe to grind, who
is still searching his records.

Complete bull, Larry. You claim I said X. I know I did not. It is
not up to me to prove I never said X. You know very well that is the
logical fallacy of proving a negative. And if I were to post
everything I've ever written, you'd still say I was holding back.
You're not interested in the facts, only in the smear.
It's entirely up to *_you_* to produce evidence that I did say X,
e.g that Laurie and Evans were "evil," or whatever droppings you're
spreading around today.

Accusations can be fabricated endlessly. For example, one could
claim that a certain Fred Smith, a man with no axe to grind, has
stated that you and Larry Evans were involved in the 9/11 attacks. By
your logic, Larry, I would be within my rights to insist that you must
post all your corresponce with Evans here, and if you did not, we
would be entitled to assume you were guilty.
And then one could start all over again with another accusation. And
another. And another. Et cetera ad infinitum.

By all means have Mr. Laurie go through his records. And when he
comes up empty, and you have nothing to back your worthless smears,
you'll apologize here, won't you, Larry?
Sure you will.

LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

March 2, 2002

Taylor Kingston
16 Wild Ginger Lane
Shelburne, Vt 05482

Dear Mr. Kingston

I am finally able to sit down and write this overdue response. I wish
I could have gotten to it sooner, but the business of everyday living
just keeps getting in the way.

First a little about myself. When I got out of the army in 1971 (No, I
was nowhere near Viet Nam), I began to write. Along the way I have
worked at a number of different jobs in manufacturing, construction,
bookstores, and bars. I have also picked up a degree in anthropology
concentrating on archeology and have been on two digs.

My interest in chess began when my older brother and I first learned
the moves from the encyclopedia. It has waxed and waned over the years
and it would be nice to say I became a world-beater, but, alas, I am
stuck in the "C" class and will probably remain there.

I have had a couple of poems published and have two plays produced.
KNIGHT OF THE ID was the latter. It is getting some consideration and
serious read-throughs, but in the end, it remains in the eyes of those
in "the Biz," a p\ay about a dead Russian chess player and they are
basically looking for what they saw make money last year.

When ID was being readied for production, I wrote to a number of chess
journalists around the country to offer a script for their opinion.
Never mind who did not respond because two did. They were Gms Larry
Evans and Andy Soltis. I gave a copy to [Chess Life editor] Peter
Kurzdorfer when I met him at a tournament here in Erie (which I
believe he won, by the way) and he was nice enough to post it on his
website.

Since then copies of the tape of the show have made it to Ed Winter,
Ken Whyld, the late GM Edmar Mednis, and Fox & James of Addicts'
Corner in the British magazine CHESS. A number of suggestions have
been made and if I can ever gain another production, they will be
taken into consideration for the rewrite.

Now, for the issue at hand. I am not writing in defense of GM Evans,
nor for Larry Parr. Both are big boys and can take care of that
themselves. Furthermore, as everyone seems to agree that the "Commies
did it" this whole dispute recalls the big dust-up between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky when I was considering post-graduate work. Both said
basically the same thing but came from slightly different angles and
when they were brought together for a debate, it became painfully
obvious that they just did not like each other. This was one reason I
opted out of academia.

I am writing to further explain my impressions of what you wrote. The
only place I have read anything under your name is in Chess Life. I
have reviewed all of the relevant articles and letters. As a general
rule I stay off the electronic media. No matter what the interest:
politics, philosophy, or sports, Bulletin Boards and Chat Rooms are
often filled with pseudonymous catcalls and insults of such a puerile
nature it would make a sophomore blush. Often articles are of a much
lesser discipline than print journalism. I just avoid it.

Now, I said I did not know who you were. As I have explained, this
might seem harsh; but sarcasm was not intended. I did not and truth to
tell, I still don't. I only have those few letters and that one
article to go by. From that article, I drew several conclusions.

First, it did strike me and still seems to me that you did impugn
Evans' ability to analyze chess games. You cite the words of Nunn (on
page fifty of CL May 1998) and state that Nunn is "generally
considered a stronger player than Evans" but present no counter
analysis. It seems to be that a better way to dispute Evans would be
to show such an error "21 Re1" was typical of the type of error Keres
was prone to make.

True, I have only seen this type of analysis done twice, on Fischer
(Elie Agur's FISCHER: HIS APPROACH TO CHESS) and Morphy (Macon
Shibut's PAUL MORPHY AND THE EVOLUTION TO CHESS THEORY); but it can be
done.

As for who was the stronger player, Nunn or Evans...This is totally
irrelevant to the question and that question remains, "Did the Soviets
try to fix World Championship Chess and in doing so force Keres to go
in the tank?"s

Now, this question will never be more than a footnote to a footnote in
History, but in the History of Chess it is important. One question
that is always asked but never really answered is, "Why would they do
this?"

The answer is because Krylenko was a lover of chess and he convinced
Stalin that success in chess would show the world how efficient the
Soviet system was when compared to the rest of the world. This
argument was later used when the Soviet Union decided to enter the
Olympics and to allow the countries of the Soviet Bloc to enter as
well.

The other matter is that you have called GM Evans dishonest. You
seemed to imply it in the May 1998 article because you cited Schroeder
and you say Evans "...disturbingly misrepresented Hooper and Whyld." I
have not been able to see this and without direct counter quotes and
arguments, I cannot see where you find it. In your first note to me
you flat out said it. It is too bad you have not had as happy an
acquaintance as I have had with him, but that is life.

This is getting rather long and there may be several points I have not
answered. I will be happy to continue our debate if you would like to
do so, but there are a couple of things in your notes to me that do
trouble me.

First, you asked me to keep this correspondence a secret. I cannot see
the point of this. It is reminiscent of closed door deal making. I
have been involved in too many situations to engage in such. I will
not, however, forward your notes to any third party without your
permission. Nor will I quote directly from you; but I can see no
reason not to notify people of the fact and substance of our
discussions. As you can see a copy of this is going on to Evans.

Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you are not aware
of the battle between Evans and Winter. I am troubled because I have
known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in preparing his
rebuttal to Mr. Winter's remarks as printed in CL, October 2001.
Further, it is my understanding and has been for months, that you told
Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please clear up this seeming
contradiction.

Sincerely,

Richard Laurie

cc: Larry Evans



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:46 pm, " wrote:

Back to the point of the "confidential" correspondence with
dramatist Laurie. NMnot now tells us that we have entered the
courtroom of evidentiary admissions and their proper ordering.
Nonsense. We are having a debate on a public forum.

No, Larry, I would hardly call this thread a "debate." It has been
merely a series of accusations by you against me, accusations made, to
use your idol's phrase, "without a scintilla of evidence." I have been
patiently rebutting and refuting them, but my patience is done. You
just keep fabricating more, or repeating the same ones, as if the
facts made no difference. It's quite tedious.

Taylor Kingston is evidently taking the 5th Amendment these
days by refusing to post his e-mails to playwright Richard Laurie in
its entirety. It is his constitutional right to do so, but we hope
to obtain them soon from Mr. Laurie, a man with no axe to grind, who
is still searching his records.

Complete bull, Larry. You claim I said X. I know I did not. It is
not up to me to prove I never said X. You know very well that is the
logical fallacy of proving a negative. And if I were to post
everything I've ever written, you'd still say I was holding back.
You're not interested in the facts, only in the smear.
It's entirely up to *_you_* to produce evidence that I did say X,
e.g that Laurie and Evans were "evil," or whatever droppings you're
spreading around today.

Accusations can be fabricated endlessly. For example, one could
claim that a certain Fred Smith, a man with no axe to grind, has
stated that you and Larry Evans were involved in the 9/11 attacks. By
your logic, Larry, I would be within my rights to insist that you must
post all your corresponce with Evans here, and if you did not, we
would be entitled to assume you were guilty.
And then one could start all over again with another accusation. And
another. And another. Et cetera ad infinitum.

By all means have Mr. Laurie go through his records. And when he
comes up empty, and you have nothing to back your worthless smears,
you'll apologize here, won't you, Larry?
Sure you will.

wrote in message
...

LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

---snipped---

By all means have Mr. Laurie go through his records. And when he
comes up empty, and you have nothing to back your worthless smears,
you'll apologize here, won't you, Larry?
Sure you will.

I think Larry just 'apologised.'

Will you do the same, Taylor, then we can all discuss the issues again
freely, without aforesaid entanglements - and all continue to muddle through
together, pro bono Caissa.

Cordially, Phil Innes

On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:

LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

March 2, 2002

Taylor Kingston
16 Wild Ginger Lane
Shelburne, Vt 05482

Gee, Larry, I do not recall giving you permission to post any
personal information of mine, nor did I give Mr. Laurie permission to
share it with you. How about we post your phone and bank account
numbers here for every crook and crackpot to read?

As for the rest of this, what is it supposed to prove? A few
comments here and there below:


Dear Mr. Kingston

I am finally able to sit down and write this overdue response. I wish
I could have gotten to it sooner, but the business of everyday living
just keeps getting in the way.

First a little about myself. When I got out of the army in 1971 (No, I
was nowhere near Viet Nam), I began to write. Along the way I have
worked at a number of different jobs in manufacturing, construction,
bookstores, and bars. I have also picked up a degree in anthropology
concentrating on archeology and have been on two digs.

My interest in chess began when my older brother and I first learned
the moves from the encyclopedia. It has waxed and waned over the years
and it would be nice to say I became a world-beater, but, alas, I am
stuck in the "C" class and will probably remain there.

I have had a couple of poems published and have two plays produced.
KNIGHT OF THE ID was the latter. It is getting some consideration and
serious read-throughs, but in the end, it remains in the eyes of those
in "the Biz," a p\ay about a dead Russian chess player and they are
basically looking for what they saw make money last year.

When ID was being readied for production, I wrote to a number of chess
journalists around the country to offer a script for their opinion.
Never mind who did not respond because two did. They were Gms Larry
Evans and Andy Soltis. I gave a copy to [Chess Life editor] Peter
Kurzdorfer when I met him at a tournament here in Erie (which I
believe he won, by the way) and he was nice enough to post it on his
website.

Since then copies of the tape of the show have made it to Ed Winter,
Ken Whyld, the late GM Edmar Mednis, and Fox & James of Addicts'
Corner in the British magazine CHESS. A number of suggestions have
been made and if I can ever gain another production, they will be
taken into consideration for the rewrite.

Now, for the issue at hand. I am not writing in defense of GM Evans,
nor for Larry Parr. Both are big boys and can take care of that
themselves. Furthermore, as everyone seems to agree that the "Commies
did it" this whole dispute recalls the big dust-up between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky when I was considering post-graduate work. Both said
basically the same thing but came from slightly different angles and
when they were brought together for a debate, it became painfully
obvious that they just did not like each other. This was one reason I
opted out of academia.

I am writing to further explain my impressions of what you wrote. The
only place I have read anything under your name is in Chess Life. I
have reviewed all of the relevant articles and letters. As a general
rule I stay off the electronic media. No matter what the interest:
politics, philosophy, or sports, Bulletin Boards and Chat Rooms are
often filled with pseudonymous catcalls and insults of such a puerile
nature it would make a sophomore blush. Often articles are of a much
lesser discipline than print journalism. I just avoid it.

Now, I said I did not know who you were. As I have explained, this
might seem harsh; but sarcasm was not intended. I did not and truth to
tell, I still don't. I only have those few letters and that one
article to go by. From that article, I drew several conclusions.

First, it did strike me and still seems to me that you did impugn
Evans' ability to analyze chess games.

As I have said many times before, this is a bizarre hallucination of
Mr. Laurie's. I have never "impugned Evans' ability to analyze chess
games." We have yet to see either Parr, Laurie or anyone present any
statement of mine to that effect, whereas I have repeatedly pointed
out positive statements of mine about Evans' analysis, for example
this, from the 5/1998 Chess Life:

"The bulk of Evans' article is devoted to analysis of points in
those games which strike him as suspicious. It appears valid, insofar
as he finds inferior moves by Keres."

Checking my dictionary and thesaurus, I see no way that "valid" can
be construed as derogatory, except in the confused mind of Mr. Laurie.
It was this flatly wrong claim of his, published in Evans' column,
that prompted me to contact Mr. Laurie in the first place.

You cite the words of Nunn (on
page fifty of CL May 1998) and state that Nunn is "generally
considered a stronger player than Evans" but present no counter
analysis.

Why would I want to present "counter analysis" when I agree that
Evans' analysis is correct?

It seems to be that a better way to dispute Evans would be
to show such an error "21 Re1" was typical of the type of error Keres
was prone to make.

True, I have only seen this type of analysis done twice, on Fischer
(Elie Agur's FISCHER: HIS APPROACH TO CHESS) and Morphy (Macon
Shibut's PAUL MORPHY AND THE EVOLUTION TO CHESS THEORY); but it can be
done.

As for who was the stronger player, Nunn or Evans...This is totally
irrelevant to the question and that question remains, "Did the Soviets
try to fix World Championship Chess and in doing so force Keres to go
in the tank?"s

Now, this question will never be more than a footnote to a footnote in
History, but in the History of Chess it is important. One question
that is always asked but never really answered is, "Why would they do
this?"

The answer is because Krylenko was a lover of chess and he convinced
Stalin that success in chess would show the world how efficient the
Soviet system was when compared to the rest of the world. This
argument was later used when the Soviet Union decided to enter the
Olympics and to allow the countries of the Soviet Bloc to enter as
well.

The other matter is that you have called GM Evans dishonest. You
seemed to imply it in the May 1998 article because you cited Schroeder
and you say Evans "...disturbingly misrepresented Hooper and Whyld." I
have not been able to see this and without direct counter quotes and
arguments, I cannot see where you find it.

None are so blind as those who will not see. To quote the relevant
passage from my 5/1998 article (which I sent to Laurie in its
entirety):

"I asked Evans if he had a 'smoking gun,' stating clearly the KGB
told Keres 'lose or we kill you.' He admitted (CL, 4/97, p. 28) 'I
doubt such a document will ever surface.' He then cited the
aforementioned 'Oxford Companion' entry: 'In return [for official
forgiveness] Keres promised not to interfere with Botvinnik's
challenge to Alekhine.' That, printed in 1984, is nothing new. Its
meaning is also clearly narrower than Evans' blanket statement 'the
price of [Keres'] reprieve was to abandon his quest for the crown.'
Evans is claiming more than it appears he can document."

In your first note to me
you flat out said it. It is too bad you have not had as happy an
acquaintance as I have had with him, but that is life.

This is getting rather long and there may be several points I have not
answered. I will be happy to continue our debate if you would like to
do so, but there are a couple of things in your notes to me that do
trouble me.

First, you asked me to keep this correspondence a secret. I cannot see
the point of this. It is reminiscent of closed door deal making. I
have been involved in too many situations to engage in such. I will
not, however, forward your notes to any third party without your
permission. Nor will I quote directly from you; but I can see no
reason not to notify people of the fact and substance of our
discussions. As you can see a copy of this is going on to Evans.

Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you are not aware
of the battle between Evans and Winter.

This is another of Mr. Laurie's hallucinations. I never wrote any
such thing, "baldly" or otherwise. At the time of this letter, March
2002, I had been aware of the antipathy between Winter and Evans for
several years, and have never said otherwise.

I am troubled because I have
known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in preparing his
rebuttal to Mr. Winter's remarks as printed in CL, October 2001.
Further, it is my understanding and has been for months, that you told
Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please clear up this seeming
contradiction.

There is no contradiction to clear up, except in the confused mind
of Mr. Laurie.

Sincerely,

Richard Laurie

cc: Larry Evans

That's it, Larry? This is your "proof"? This is your Zimmerman
Telegram? Where does it show me denigrating Evans's ability to
analyze? Where was anyone called "evil"? All you have proven is that
Mr. Laurie has definite deficiencies in reading comprehension and
factual reporting.

On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:
LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

This is the best Parr has? After all that posturing?

Very sad.

On Nov 14, 3:25 pm, samsloan wrote:
It does not matter who was better, Nunn or Evans, because you do not
have to be a 2500 player or even a 1900 player to see that Keres made
a series of unbelievably weak moves, so weak that no strong player
would have ever played them.

The position is on my website athttp://www.ishipress.com/keres-bo.htm

Sam,

You have posted this opinion several times before, and you do not seem
to realize that you''ve been stepping all over Evans' original
argument.

Evans had suggested that if a top GM wanted to throw a game, he'd want
to make errors subtle enough so that the average player couldn't
easily detect them. So your allegation that Keres' play was
"unbelievably weak" actually contradicts Evans' theory of how to throw
a game.

If we took horrible moves to be good indicators of a likely fix, then
we wouldn't need Evans' analytic expertise to lead us toward a
conclusion. If what you say about Keres' play is right, any B player
could have written Evans' original article and would have been fully
qualified to do so.

Larry T.