On Nov 14, 10:34 am, " wrote:
A SIMPLE SOLUTION

All Taylor Kingston has to do is release all his e-mails to Richard
Laurie to prove his case so that we can see who is lying.

Larry, I have no "case" to "prove." You're the one making all the
crazy accusations. If I were to post everything I've ever written in
my entire life, you would still be throwing out the same lies.

I don't know how it works over in Malaysia, but I live in the United
States of America. Over here, the burden of proof lies on the
prosecution. It's entirely up to you to produce supporting evidence.

But you don't have any evidence, do you? There is no quote of me
"denigrating Evans' analysis." There is no quote of me telling Peter
Kurzdorfer that Laurie had changed his mind. There is no quote of me
calling Laurie and Evans "evil." And why are there no such quotes?
Very simple -- I never wrote nor said any such thing.

You are just a worthless mud-slinger, Larry. You don't give a damn
what you say, whether there's the least truth to it. If you hate
someone, you'll say anything, and the facts be damned. It's just Josef
Goebbels all over again -- one Big Lie after another.

I might be tempted to call you evil, but you're just too laughably
incompetent to be taken anywhere near that seriously. But I will say
it's pretty clear you are not quite right in the head. I strongly urge
you to get some therapy.

Richard Laurie:

"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 to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.

help bot:

hb Like I said, a dolt. GM Nunn *was* in fact the better
player, since LE was an old man and well past his prime
in chess when he penned that article.

hb Saying this denigrates LE is like observing that a
bird can fly faster than a fish can swim, and this is an
insult to the fish.

This issue was also raised by Louis Blair.

It's tricky to compare across eras, but it seems to me that Nunn in
his prime was maybe a tad better than Evans in his. So help bot's
allusion to Evans' being long in the tooth wasn't really necessary.

More to the point, Evans' favorite example was a rook and pawn
endgame, and Nunn has unquestioned expertise in that area in addition
to being a strong GM.

Also, another critic of Evans' original analysis was Seirawan, who I'd
say was definitely a stronger player than Evans.

LT

wrote in message
ups.com...
WHAT DID KINGSTON WANT LAURIE TO RETRACT?
(confidentially, of course!)

Playwright Richard Laurie is a chess fan with no axe to grind. Here is
the item in Chess Life from Evans On Chess that Kingston tried to
persuade Laurie to retract in a series of emails Kingston marked
CONFIDENTIAL. Why the need for this topic, of public interest, to
remain confidential?

KERES & BOTVINNIK

Richard Laurie
Eric, Pennsylvania

Q. Finally, I don't know who Taylor Kingston is and I don't recall
much about his Chess Life article (in May 1998) except he denigrated
your ability to analyze five Keres-Botvinnik games to show that Keres
was coerced.

I am confused Larry. Just a few days ago Kingston himself said he did not
question Evans' judgment.

For a spat, I thought 9 years a long time to remember, but maybe it was a
big deal to him?

ON THE RECORD, Kingston also wrote me initially, as 'not for publication'
and 'private' which was hard to understand if the subject was ever Keres
Botvinnik, and only less so if it was Kingston contra mundam, at least
contra Laurie, Evans, and all else.

I am always appalled by those who meet a solid argument
with a personal attack -- like Edward Winter (who called you
"shameless") and Kingston (who called you "dishonest"). Either Keres
threw the games or he did not. Nothing else matters. The 1919 Black
Sox
Scandal in baseball was uncovered because experts like Christy
Mathewson circled suspicious plays. This is basically what you did in
"The Tragedy of Paul Keres" (October 1996) to reopen an old scandal.

LAURIE ANSWERS KINGSTON'S REQUEST TO RETRACT THIS ITEM

[Mr. Laurie authorized me to issue this statement on his behalf.]

"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.

Neither did I. I wrote that of course you [Larry Parr] were a shameless
hussy, and such mediating phrases as a forced intermediatory can sensibly
come up with, but continued to inquire as if after some topical matter,
until Kingston could no longer catch my drift.

"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.

And such forced secrecy on any correspondent on a public and historic
circumstance, such as Soviet era chess, is itself rather weird - does it
oblige those who are acknowledged to know things not to mention the fact
that those who ask them, require their secrecy?

Enter the rat!

"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 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.

"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 Chess Life, 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." -- Richard Laurie

THIS LETTER FROM ONE LAWRENCE ZIMMERMAN WAS BANNED FROM CHESSCAFE IN
2001 AT THE HEIGHT OT THE EVANS-WINTER DISPUTE

And at the very time I asked Kingston [I still do not share his private
responses publicly - but be damned if this requires /my/ silence on the
issue! How come Chesscafe is practicing this ban on this subject?

Of course, I am not a liberty - or at least do have Taylor Kingston's
permission - to quote his own reply, since he /did/ offer one!

Mr. Kingston's six-page review of the evidence for Chess Life in May
1998 added nothing new to the debate and cited several Russian experts
who backed GM Evans.

Yes. And we have all said all this before, at very great length, and at
extroardianry length in private communications - mine alone must be 1,000
with Russians.

Since then a mountain of evidence has surfaced.
Botvinnik, for example, finally admitted that Stalin personally
intervened; and Keres told friends he was ordered to finish behind
Botvinnik. Can anyone who is intellectually honest still entertain
serious doubts?

Can any candid mind who assesses the situation even think this is unusual?

Yet, predictably, Mr. Winter endorses the claim that
there "isn't even a shred of actual evidence." And this is the guy --
I kid you not! -- that Mr. Kingston has anointed "to clean up the
mess and put chess history on a sound basis." I could go on and on.
Why bother? Nobody needs me to see through the slime.

As I understand Kingston's points, it rather depends on which message is
cited or quoted to determine if this is some matter of editorial policy at
both Chess Life and Chesscafe, or if it has to do with Soviet coercian.

While Kingston remains silent on linking his various communications and
achieving a [public] concinnity, whose point of view is he representing
other than his own and that of Edward Winter? Even Nunn will not say there
was no Soviet coercian, no general Soviet coercian, or that he understood
something more than Fritz could, the atmosphere of actually engaging that
system in direct experience - since he is of no age to have done so.

Phil Innes


KINGSTON TOOK NOT ONE BUT TWO MOVES BACK

Needless to add, Mr. Kingston retracted TWO letters that he wrote to
the editor of Chess Life praising GM Evans' article "The Tragedy of
Paul Keres."

Then Mr. Kingston changed his mind.

Then Mr. Kingston changed his mind again.

Finally, Mr. Kingston in a Further Review of the Evidence arrived at
the same conclusion as GM Evans about the Soviet fix in 1948: the
Commies did it.

On Nov 14, 1:28 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:
Richard Laurie:

"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 to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.

help bot:

hb Like I said, a dolt. GM Nunn *was* in fact the better
player, since LE was an old man and well past his prime
in chess when he penned that article.

hb Saying this denigrates LE is like observing that a
bird can fly faster than a fish can swim, and this is an
insult to the fish.

This issue was also raised by Louis Blair.

It's tricky to compare across eras, but it seems to me that Nunn in
his prime was maybe a tad better than Evans in his. So help bot's
allusion to Evans' being long in the tooth wasn't really necessary.

More to the point, Evans' favorite example was a rook and pawn
endgame, and Nunn has unquestioned expertise in that area in addition
to being a strong GM.

Also, another critic of Evans' original analysis was Seirawan, who I'd
say was definitely a stronger player than Evans.

An interesting pairing, Larry T. Checking Divinsky's rankings of all-
time best 10-year strengths, Nunn comes in at #42, just behind Larsen,
while Seirawan is #43, just ahead of Szabo. Evans is not mentioned in
the book at all.

On Nov 14, 1:28 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:
Richard Laurie:

"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 to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.

help bot:

hb Like I said, a dolt. GM Nunn *was* in fact the better
player, since LE was an old man and well past his prime
in chess when he penned that article.

hb Saying this denigrates LE is like observing that a
bird can fly faster than a fish can swim, and this is an
insult to the fish.

This issue was also raised by Louis Blair.

It's tricky to compare across eras, but it seems to me that Nunn in
his prime was maybe a tad better than Evans in his. So help bot's
allusion to Evans' being long in the tooth wasn't really necessary.

More to the point, Evans' favorite example was a rook and pawn
endgame, and Nunn has unquestioned expertise in that area in addition
to being a strong GM.

Also, another critic of Evans' original analysis was Seirawan, who I'd
say was definitely a stronger player than Evans.

LT

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 at
http://www.ishipress.com/keres-bo.htm

Also, you need to know that during World War II Estonia was allied
with Nazi Germany and Keres, an Estonian, lived in Nazi Germany during
World War II and played in tournaments there. When Stalin took over
Estonia after the end of World War II, many Estonians were killed or
disappeared never to be seen again. Keres was foolish to return to
Estonia after the conclusion of the war. Somehow, he survived. Even
without subtle hints from the KGB the pressure on him to lose to
Botvinnik must have been enormous.

I never met Keres but those who met him have told me that his
appearance was the epitome of the ideal of the Master Race, blond
hair, blue eyes, fair complexion, just exactly what superior beings
were supposed to look like according to the Nazis.

Sam Sloan

On Nov 14, 1:28 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:

hb Like I said, a dolt. GM Nunn *was* in fact the better
player, since LE was an old man and well past his prime
in chess when he penned that article.

hb Saying this denigrates LE is like observing that a
bird can fly faster than a fish can swim, and this is an
insult to the fish.

This issue was also raised by Louis Blair.

It's tricky to compare across eras, but it seems to me that Nunn in
his prime was maybe a tad better than Evans in his. So help bot's
allusion to Evans' being long in the tooth wasn't really necessary.


DON'T IGNORE THE FACTS


The whole key to this issue is not to determine
whether Larry Evans or John Nunn was the stronger
career player, or which one may have peaked the highest,
or who might have won a match between them, had their
careers aligned in time; instead, the issue of analytical
skill *must* not ignore the facts. One crucial fact is that
Larry Evans did his so-called analysis when he was far,
far beyond his peak years. Thus, it is vital when making
any assessment of whose skills were "denigrated", to
recognize that it was simply impossible for such a
comparison to have "denigrated" LE by merely pointing
out that JN was the stronger player at that particular
time.

But above this lies the still more crucial fact that LE
erred in his whole approach. As Taylor Kingston has
already pointed out, entire books have been written
(by GMs) based upon such errors as the ones LE
tried to portray as absurd anomalies, indicative of
cheating. Even in the pages of Chess Lies -- right
alongside the articles written by GM Evans -- there
have appeared countless articles in which strong
GMs, just like Paul Keres, have "inexplicably"
blundered in like manner. On top of this, there is
the "inconvenient truth" that Sammy Reshevsky
lost head-to-head to GM Botvinnik, and nobody is
going to suggest that he "threw" those games.


More to the point, Evans' favorite example was a rook and pawn
endgame, and Nunn has unquestioned expertise in that area in addition
to being a strong GM.

Well, it seems to me that Hans Ree quoted some
other experts on that ending, and their quoted
lines of play (perhaps incomplete or misrepresented)
were simply awful. The plan followed by GM
Botvinnik in the actual game was exceedingly
obvious, yet HR gave some berserk ones in its
stead, to demonstrate an "easy draw". It would
hardly surprise me if GM Nunn followed their
example, or if he just accepted the reality -- it's
more a matter of /objectivity/, than of strength.


Also, another critic of Evans' original analysis was Seirawan, who I'd
say was definitely a stronger player than Evans.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that Yasser
Seirawan actually rejected LE's chess analysis.
My impression has been that it was LE's absurd
"reasoning" and rabid anti-everything attitude that
YS has rejected. But it is important to recognize
that LE's claim was that he, and he alone, was
clever enough, and strong enough, to decipher
hidden clues contained in the moves themselves;
yet even after allegedly obtuse GMs with even
greater chess skills were shown these "clues"
by detective Evans, they rejected his method
as bogus.

My point is that not only was the method itself
horribly flawed, but even if we were to accept that
method, Larry Evans *still* falls flat on his face on
the basis of his authority argument.


-- help bot

Well, if Sam chimes on in on Evans' side, then it certainly can't be a
crackpot theory anymore.

"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"

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.

Phil Innes

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 14, 3:08 am, " wrote:
LAURIE REBUTS KINGSTON'S VERSION OF EVENTS

[Playwright Richard Laurie just authorized me to post this message.]

"When I refused to retract my letter to Chess Life, Taylor Kingston
told me, in effect, that I was even more evil than Larry Evans.

Oh, man, this is getting rich. Jeez, I was drinking coffe when I
read this, and I laughed so hard it darn near came out my nose!

Is Mr. Laurie dabbling in hallucinogenics now?

****ing hell Kingston!

what sort of cheapist verbalism can you do next? having abandoned the
dicatatorial comparisons usual to your posts, Stalim, Mussolini and Hitler,
as 'nearest' references to your mind, you now re-present the cheapest
possible net-**** as if Lauire is on drugs?

if anyone should seriously employ you again in chess, let me assure you that
they will read this very message! is that fair? you shouldn't mind, eh?
since you cannot take a hint from the entire chess pantheon that you are
profoundly wrong, and besides, continue despite having opportunity after
long rehersal before, to contine the damn subject - always at someone else's
cost

would you like me to publish your private thoughts? you deny me and laurie &
evans that you even had them - not deny! that is too definitive for you -
instead you equivocate

you pretend forever that you didn't oblige, as privileledge of writing to
you, this secrecy stuff about what you said?

and what you said was insensibly mixed with being miffed with refusal by
Evans' editor and content issues aboutwhat evans said

it is 9 years later, man! get over yourself! you had nothing to add to Keres
Botvinnik then, nor now - if you continue to contrast what you actually did
with these opionions, i release myself from your condition on our
correspondence, and will simply publish the kingston files for all to see -
i do not see what obligation now exists for me to respect such confidence
while you posture away here like some vaudeville queen, and to the damage of
other people you name

okay with you, brave mouth?


Phil Innes

SBD wrote:
Well, if Sam chimes on in on Evans' side, then it certainly can't be a
crackpot theory anymore.

It's now been elevated to psychoceramics.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/