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,
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.

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.


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, 4:18 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
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.

A new one for me. Thanks Ken.

On Nov 14, 12:35 am, Louis Blair wrote:

"... of secrecy ..." - Larry Parr
(Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:44:47 -0800)


I stand corrected.


-- help bot


(You may need to start a new file, as this is a first for me.)

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

And who has prosecuted what? Why maintain your own e-mails as private on a
public matter? Lary Parr is asking for you to say in public what you have
supposed in private - is that fair in the United States of America?

But you don't have any evidence, do you?

I do!

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 mean, you did not use those words, or you did not write to that effect?

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.

ROFL!

Our Californian brother,Taylor, can't help but do these Age of Dictator
references, supremely blithe to the fact that he is writing to people who
actually dealt with real dictators and the consequences of their
oppressions.

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.

Isn't that the third newbie abuse line on usenet, after being on drugs, a
random second....

Has Taylor Kingston addressed even one issue to do with the //topic///?

What is the topic? Is it Keres/Botvinnik? Is it Kingston/Evans?

For nine years now, we do not know which it is. And Larry Parr 'laughably'
asks the same question as I do, which is it Mr. K?

I mean, for someone who can hike their rating 500 points, and 'expect' this
to be understood as OTB, you do not start with any general credence. That
you should write under false names to substantiate your own points, is
infamous.

What is Taylor Kingston's point, anyone? What does it seem to be? Is he
contesting Soviet fixing generally, specifically, or not at all, but
congesting how Larry Evans would know?

Phil Innes

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO GET SOME THERAPY (Kingston to Parr)

I join Phil Innes and, no doubt, many others
whom NMnot Taylor Kingston, the man who added 500
points to his chess rating in a famous fit of generosity
to self, would counsel to seek psychiatric therapy.

For the record, these effusions are typical of
NMnot. We are discussing his "confidential"
correspondence with Richard Laurie, a man of
accomplishment as a dramatist, who avers that NMnot
sneakily snuck. NMnot does not counsel Mr. Laurie to
seek counselling and therapy. He simply calls him a liar
without offering any proof.
..
Our NMnot, the man of proud contumely, posted on
these forums using false names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
He assured us that he has "standards."

We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
under false names in praise of oneself, which some
people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
the act that defines his "standards."

He won't answer. Can't answer.

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.

Will NMnot Kingston post his correspondence with
Mr. Laurie in its entirety instead of the portions that he
deems "relevant."? It will help us to discern further what
he means by the word "standards," which he claims to
possess. We wish to enlarge our knowledge of his "standards."

Meanwhile, NMnot has nothing to say about Edward
Winter's notable lies and, still worse, actual fabrication
of "evidence" to attack GM Larry Evans.

Our NMnot falls back upon the ratpacker pat
answer: in our tiny family, one cannot address all
points, not even those involving their exemplar, Fast
Eddie. Indeed, one can never address any issue
involving Eddie, except to praise him.

KINGSTON TAKES THE FIFTH

NMnot 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.
..
On the subject of ChessCafe and the Evans-Winter debate, several
defenses of Evans were quashed by the Cafe, which had financial
dealings with Winter. I
will be posting a long series of essays on that episode, including how
a defense of GM Raymond Keene was also quashed by moderator Hanon
Russell.

Yours, Larry Parr

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

And who has prosecuted what? Why maintain your own e-mails as private on a
public matter? Lary Parr is asking for you to say in public what you have
supposed in private - is that fair in the United States of America?

But you don't have any evidence, do you?

I do!

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 mean, you did not use those words, or you did not write to that effect?

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.

ROFL!

Our Californian brother,Taylor, can't help but do these Age of Dictator
references, supremely blithe to the fact that he is writing to people who
actually dealt with real dictators and the consequences of their
oppressions.

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.

Isn't that the third newbie abuse line on usenet, after being on drugs, a
random second....

Has Taylor Kingston addressed even one issue to do with the //topic///?

What is the topic? Is it Keres/Botvinnik? Is it Kingston/Evans?

For nine years now, we do not know which it is. And Larry Parr 'laughably'
asks the same question as I do, which is it Mr. K?

I mean, for someone who can hike their rating 500 points, and 'expect' this
to be understood as OTB, you do not start with any general credence. That
you should write under false names to substantiate your own points, is
infamous.

What is Taylor Kingston's point, anyone? What does it seem to be? Is he
contesting Soviet fixing generally, specifically, or not at all, but
congesting how Larry Evans would know?

Phil Innes

wrote:
I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO GET SOME THERAPY (Kingston to Parr)

I join Phil Innes and, no doubt, many others
whom NMnot Taylor Kingston, the man who added 500
points to his chess rating in a famous fit of generosity
to self, would counsel to seek psychiatric therapy.

For the record, these effusions are typical of
NMnot. We are discussing his "confidential"
correspondence with Richard Laurie, a man of
accomplishment as a dramatist, who avers that NMnot
sneakily snuck. NMnot does not counsel Mr. Laurie to
seek counselling and therapy. He simply calls him a liar
without offering any proof.
.
Our NMnot, the man of proud contumely, posted on
these forums using false names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
He assured us that he has "standards."

We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
under false names in praise of oneself, which some
people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
the act that defines his "standards."

He won't answer. Can't answer.

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

--


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 14, 9:46 pm, " wrote:


**CONFIDENTIAL**:

TO LARRY PARR & RATPACK


Please keep this communique confidential!

I see you are following my advice, Mr. Parr.
Rather than discuss the many slips or careless
errors -- a few of which were pinpointed by the
sinister Edward Winter -- made by your mentor,
five-time U.S. Champion Larry Evans, you have
finally recognized that doing so only leads to
further embarrassment for him, and more work
for you. Hence, it only makes sense to save
yourself all that trouble and focus on your main
job: ad hominizing critics like Taylor Kingston.

It's a big job, both time consuming and in this
case, requiring that you work, work, work to get
the thing done on schedule; there really is no
time for dilly dallying here. You of course will
understand that I was only kidding about GM
Evans "firing" you -- he would never even think
of doing that! Keep up the good (ad hom.) work.



For the record, these effusions are typical of
NMnot. We are discussing his "confidential"
correspondence with Richard Laurie, a man of
accomplishment as a dramatist, who avers that NMnot
sneakily snuck. NMnot does not counsel Mr. Laurie to
seek counselling and therapy. He simply calls him a liar
without offering any proof.
.
Our NMnot, the man of proud contumely, posted on
these forums using false names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
He assured us that he has "standards."


Oh, BTW: this is a rather low-brow group, so you
might want to tone it down a bit with the freaky
vocabulary. Try using big words most readers are
familiar with, like say, fianchetto or zugzwang.

Here's another pointer: when confronted with a
difficult analytical task, evil Ed Winter just handed
the work off to a little-known chess player rather
than try and tackle the job himself; why do you
suppose he would do that? That's right! Because
he wasn't up to the task. Now, heavily-armed with
Fritz, I don't think you (or your dull-witted henchman,
IM Innes) would have too much trouble skewering
EW's agent's analysis, published on his Web site
in his own articles. I just finished one where every
single analyst -- including a long list of world
champs -- mucked up their analysis of a famous
game from 1925. And that included EW's agent.

If Fritz were a boxer, his motto might be: "I'm a
baaaaaaaaaaaad program!"


-- help bot

On Nov 14, 10:17 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
under false names in praise of oneself, which some
people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
the act that defines his "standards."

He won't answer. Can't answer.

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


You joke about this now, but imagine what might
happen when (not if) Mr. Parr's idol eventually kicks
the bucket (he's around seventy-five years old already).

If you think the ranting and raving is bad now... just
wait!

---------

Now, as far as therapy goes... there's this guy -- a
computer cheat -- named Zebediah, who has passed
me on GetClub. I am no longer the top-rated player
(on GetClub) in the world... sob... what can I do? It's
not like I can compete with Fritz. Computers have
destroyed... sob... have destroyed chess... Jewish
computers... or maybe Nazi computers... what does
it matter -- they're all out to get me. Oh well... I still
have all my belongings, in a storage room back in
Pasadena. They can't take that away from me... .


-- insane bot


-- help bot

On Nov 15, 9:59 am, help bot wrote:
On Nov 14, 10:17 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
under false names in praise of oneself, which some
people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
the act that defines his "standards."

He won't answer. Can't answer.

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

You joke about this now, but imagine what might
happen when (not if) Mr. Parr's idol eventually kicks
the bucket (he's around seventy-five years old already).

If you think the ranting and raving is bad now... just
wait!

---------

Now, as far as therapy goes... there's this guy -- a
computer cheat -- named Zebediah, who has passed
me onGetClub. I am no longer the top-rated player
(onGetClub) in the world... sob... what can I do? It's
not like I can compete with Fritz. Computers have
destroyed... sob... have destroyedchess... Jewish
computers... or maybe Nazi computers... what does
it matter -- they're all out to get me. Oh well... I still
have all my belongings, in a storage room back in
Pasadena. They can't take that away from me... .

-- insane bot

-- help bot

Yes, It looks like Zebediah uses computer as On analysing the moves I
found he sees 10-12 moves advance That is only possible through Fritz

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html