On this newsgroup, a recent issue between Phil Innes and myself,
Taylor Kingston, has been Innes' claim that GM Yuri Averbakh (born
1922, Kaluga, USSR) was a member of the Soviet state security organ
known as the KGB. I have asked Innes, several times, for evidence
supporting this claim.
Innes has at times hinted that such evidence exists but he was not
ready to present it. On at least one other occasion Innes said he had
*already* presented evidence.
In an effort to resolve this seeming paradox, I examine here some
Innes posts, and exchanges between Innes and myself, looking at their
chronology and the presence or absence of relevant evidence. All of the
following quotes are from actual posts made here on
rec.games.chess.misc and/or rec.games.chess.politics.
As near as I can determine, Innes first made his claim in March
2005. Here are two examples, both referring to an interview Averbakh
gave me, published at ChessCafe.com in June 2002:

"For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian
players." -- Innes, 25 March 2005.
"You know that I think your single-sourcing of Averbakh to be of
little worth ..." -- Innes, 27 March 2005.

Later in that same March 27th thread, I asked Innes for evidence:

Innes: "For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian
players."
Kingston: "An emphatic, specific, hostile accusation. It requires
specific factual proof, or it is nothing but a cheap smear. So far you
have produced not one single fact to support it. Not one."
Innes: "That's right! I have not produced one for you in the
newsgroup."

So clearly, by his own admission, Innes had shown no evidence to this
group as of 27 March 2005.
Then there is this exchange of 17 May 2005:

Kingston: "I know of no credible evidence for Averbakh being a KGB
agent."
Innes: "Neither do I in terms of evidence - but he certainly was
some sort of agent of government."

So now, with absolute clarity, we have Innes admitting as late as 17
May that he had no evidence.
Then, on 1 June 2005, Phil and I had the following exchange:

Kingston: "I have repeatedly invited, even insisted, that you tell
me whatever you like about Averbakh, in particular evidence supporting
your claim that he was in the KGB."
Innes: "You snipped it Taylor -- don't deny it. You snipped the
context of my remark as if it makes no difference. Now you pretend that
you still want information. Laughable behavior!"

So, on 1 June, Innes plainly claims that he had ALREADY presented
evidence on Averbakh, evidence which he alleges I ignored or perhaps
even tried to suppress ("YOU SNIPPED IT, TAYLOR - DON'T DENY
IT.").
To see if I had missed anything, I used Google to search all Innes
posts with a reference by him to "Averbakh" since his "Neither do
I in terms of evidence" remark of 17 May, through 1 June 2005. I
present below all their sentences in which Innes refers to Averbakh.
Try as I might, I can detect nothing in them that remotely qualifies as
evidence for the KGB claim. Readers may judge for themselves:

"There are a few things which can be said in public - but I think
that has nothing to do with this particular issue of Averbakh or third
parties [reporters], but will address Keres/Botvinnik directly." --
Innes, 18 May 2005
"I undertook to write to you no more on this subject if you
contined [sic] this dread practice of switch and bait - you do not seem
genuinely interested in investigating this subject, only in
vociferously defending your own actions in respect of the Averbakh
article, rather than simply stating its process ... You have now said
that you sole-sourced Averbakh, but you equivocated on my second
question about knowing other and contrary opinion." -- Innes, 18 May
2005
"So far, after, is it another 20 more questions, you have managed
to answer the first one, that you sole-sourced Averbakh, but to the
second, nothing." -- Innes, 18 May 2005
"If we only want to evaluate Taylor Kingston's Averbakh article
this issue revolves only around chesscafe's editorial policy then,
which as below, is now a moot issue." -- Innes, 20 May 2005.
"You admit, sort of, that you just wrote what Averbakh said, without
much [any?] research, and can't be bothered to answer why you did that,
and keep snipping my context of why this is notworthy [sic]." -- Innes,
18 May 2005
"I already critiqued your Averbakh article, restore snips." --
Innes, 19 May 2005
"Earlier today I wrote Larry Parr that I encourage someone who was
an insider to many of these affairs [including Averbakh's] to make a
public contribution." -- Innes, 23 May 2005.
"I have indicated to one other person here a Russian source who is
not yet on the public record but who has spoken privately on these
issues. It would be interesting to interview him even as a collective
interview of concerned [rather than interested] parties, indeed,
interesting to base a chess history on this man's witness to the
Soviet-era chess scene. I am given to understand that the gentleman
would be considerable able to be more forthright than either Taimanov
or Averbakh." -- Innes, 26 May 2005
"But its [sic] interesting that you raise the subject right now -
didn't you cite Averbakh verbatim, without knowing if he was, or was
not a member of the KGB, or a proxy agent, or to whom he was requitred
[sic] to report?" -- Innes, 30 May 2005

At best, the above posts offer only hints of possible future
evidence. Nor was anything relevant and substantive offered in other
parts of these posts. Therefore, as far as I can determine, Innes'
June 1st claim, that he had *already* presented evidence about Averbakh
and the KGB, is untrue.
Despite the fact that the search took considerable time I would have
preferred to spend in other pursuits, I did it out of a sense of
fairness, just in case I had missed something. While I doubt it,
perhaps a treasure trove of evidence still lies hidden in the Innes
labyrinth, overlooked by me. Readers are invited to point it out, if it
exists.

Well, I've been looking for it, and I haven't found it yet... I've
asked Phil to point me in its general direction, I await a response....

"What is the shame in being a KGB agent?" --Yuri Averbakh

http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-misc...ri_159527.html

Liam Too wrote:
"What is the shame in being a KGB agent?" --Yuri Averbakh

http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-misc...ri_159527.html

Thanks, Liam. I was aware of that article. However, it is by
Khariton, not Innes, and the quote is a comment by Averbakh *about* the
KGB, not evidence that he was a *member* thereof. Therefore it is not
relevant to the question of what *evidence* *Innes* has presented.
Nevertheless, I would be interested in the provenance of the quote.
Lev, can you tell us?

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On this newsgroup, a recent issue between Phil Innes and myself,
Taylor Kingston, has been Innes' claim that GM Yuri Averbakh (born
1922, Kaluga, USSR) was a member of the Soviet state security organ
known as the KGB. I have asked Innes, several times, for evidence
supporting this claim.

Poor Taylor Kingston can't understand anything!

I asked Taylor Kingston whether he was aware of Averbakh's background. After
50 posts on the subject, he still hasn't answered except to say about the
man who came to him telling stories about his fellow countryman was
'under-researched.'

Mr. Kingston's own natural curiosity to anyone approaching him with tales of
exculpatory blaming, seems to be similarly sleepy.

Now Taylor Kingston has snipped my posts which exactly indicated the context
of my inquiry with him, and he continues to snip them, while making
accusations about me by virtue of paraphrasing my writing - to his own
advantage!

The most astounding thing he has admitted so far, is to review his cohort's
"investigative method" from a humanities group, and admit not being able to
make sense of it - while a child could figure it out.

What business he thinks he ever had reviewing more complex material on
Soviet Shenanigans is best known to himself. Mr. Kingston doesn't even know
the Russian word for 'Mister'.

Innes has at times hinted that such evidence exists but he was not
ready to present it.

This is not true as Taylor Kingston knows. I have stated publicaly and
privately that there are other points of view which are more extensive than
Averbakh's [and Taimanov's], by virtue of someone better able to express a
full context of Soviet-era individuals and State actions. I have hinted
nothing.

I have written one other poster here identifying this person, and we have
had a perfunctory, yet intelligent conversation on the difficulties of
getting such material published. Taylor Kingston intimates that I am being
inventive of my source, or lying. Is that the reader's sense of his own
words?

I wrote here publicly stating that I thought this newsnet intereaction
seemed no more to me than a spat between Taylor Kingston and Larry Evans. I
said that no new material concerning Keres/Botvinnik was revealed by it.

Taylor Kingston actually agreed!

What is he now demanding? Why should this person who can't figure out a
modestly simple record of interactions by his cohort, Neil Brennen, think
himself capable of any discernment of moderately difficult Soviet era
subject matter?

I laugh used one, and only one, Russian word in my correspondance with
him, in the natural sense of using a person's name, and he didn't understand
it. The Russian word was 'Mister'.

Otherwise Kingston would have everyone believe that because he cannot
understand my objections to his sort of journalism, that it constitutes
something like historical research, rather than a clerical spat with the 4
times US champion, since Taylor Kingston's point of view must be heard!
Taylor Kingston hates this refutation of his sort of journalism, event
taunting me with, "if Averbakh contacted you, you would publish him", which
is more than a little revealing about his own standards.

Absurdly, Taylor Kingston also wants to be heard in full, courtesy of the
columns of the person he attacks, Larry Evans - yet Taylor Kingston SNIPS my
posts, as if space was some sort of issue here on usent. In this respect he
is no different than the reprobate Brennen, who brays that it is all
nonsense, while snipping the 'nonsense' )

On at least one other occasion Innes said he had
*already* presented evidence.
In an effort to resolve this seeming paradox, I examine here some
Innes posts, and exchanges between Innes and myself, looking at their
chronology and the presence or absence of relevant evidence. All of the
following quotes are from actual posts made here on
rec.games.chess.misc and/or rec.games.chess.politics.

I leave the reader to determine which subject we are dealing with here, and
rather than snip Taylor Kingston's post, I simply pass on the rest of it,
since for him, this all seems to have started when /he/ became involved in
it.

For any student of history, not just chess history, I could not recommend
such an oleaginous approach to any subject, even comedy.

Phil Innes
Vermont
6/2/2005

As near as I can determine, Innes first made his claim in March
2005. Here are two examples, both referring to an interview Averbakh
gave me, published at ChessCafe.com in June 2002:

"For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian
players." -- Innes, 25 March 2005.
"You know that I think your single-sourcing of Averbakh to be of
little worth ..." -- Innes, 27 March 2005.

Later in that same March 27th thread, I asked Innes for evidence:

Innes: "For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian
players."
Kingston: "An emphatic, specific, hostile accusation. It requires
specific factual proof, or it is nothing but a cheap smear. So far you
have produced not one single fact to support it. Not one."
Innes: "That's right! I have not produced one for you in the
newsgroup."

So clearly, by his own admission, Innes had shown no evidence to this
group as of 27 March 2005.
Then there is this exchange of 17 May 2005:

Kingston: "I know of no credible evidence for Averbakh being a KGB
agent."
Innes: "Neither do I in terms of evidence - but he certainly was
some sort of agent of government."

So now, with absolute clarity, we have Innes admitting as late as 17
May that he had no evidence.
Then, on 1 June 2005, Phil and I had the following exchange:

Kingston: "I have repeatedly invited, even insisted, that you tell
me whatever you like about Averbakh, in particular evidence supporting
your claim that he was in the KGB."
Innes: "You snipped it Taylor -- don't deny it. You snipped the
context of my remark as if it makes no difference. Now you pretend that
you still want information. Laughable behavior!"

So, on 1 June, Innes plainly claims that he had ALREADY presented
evidence on Averbakh, evidence which he alleges I ignored or perhaps
even tried to suppress ("YOU SNIPPED IT, TAYLOR - DON'T DENY
IT.").
To see if I had missed anything, I used Google to search all Innes
posts with a reference by him to "Averbakh" since his "Neither do
I in terms of evidence" remark of 17 May, through 1 June 2005. I
present below all their sentences in which Innes refers to Averbakh.
Try as I might, I can detect nothing in them that remotely qualifies as
evidence for the KGB claim. Readers may judge for themselves:

"There are a few things which can be said in public - but I think
that has nothing to do with this particular issue of Averbakh or third
parties [reporters], but will address Keres/Botvinnik directly." --
Innes, 18 May 2005
"I undertook to write to you no more on this subject if you
contined [sic] this dread practice of switch and bait - you do not seem
genuinely interested in investigating this subject, only in
vociferously defending your own actions in respect of the Averbakh
article, rather than simply stating its process ... You have now said
that you sole-sourced Averbakh, but you equivocated on my second
question about knowing other and contrary opinion." -- Innes, 18 May
2005
"So far, after, is it another 20 more questions, you have managed
to answer the first one, that you sole-sourced Averbakh, but to the
second, nothing." -- Innes, 18 May 2005
"If we only want to evaluate Taylor Kingston's Averbakh article
this issue revolves only around chesscafe's editorial policy then,
which as below, is now a moot issue." -- Innes, 20 May 2005.
"You admit, sort of, that you just wrote what Averbakh said, without
much [any?] research, and can't be bothered to answer why you did that,
and keep snipping my context of why this is notworthy [sic]." -- Innes,
18 May 2005
"I already critiqued your Averbakh article, restore snips." --
Innes, 19 May 2005
"Earlier today I wrote Larry Parr that I encourage someone who was
an insider to many of these affairs [including Averbakh's] to make a
public contribution." -- Innes, 23 May 2005.
"I have indicated to one other person here a Russian source who is
not yet on the public record but who has spoken privately on these
issues. It would be interesting to interview him even as a collective
interview of concerned [rather than interested] parties, indeed,
interesting to base a chess history on this man's witness to the
Soviet-era chess scene. I am given to understand that the gentleman
would be considerable able to be more forthright than either Taimanov
or Averbakh." -- Innes, 26 May 2005
"But its [sic] interesting that you raise the subject right now -
didn't you cite Averbakh verbatim, without knowing if he was, or was
not a member of the KGB, or a proxy agent, or to whom he was requitred
[sic] to report?" -- Innes, 30 May 2005

At best, the above posts offer only hints of possible future
evidence. Nor was anything relevant and substantive offered in other
parts of these posts. Therefore, as far as I can determine, Innes'
June 1st claim, that he had *already* presented evidence about Averbakh
and the KGB, is untrue.
Despite the fact that the search took considerable time I would have
preferred to spend in other pursuits, I did it out of a sense of
fairness, just in case I had missed something. While I doubt it,
perhaps a treasure trove of evidence still lies hidden in the Innes
labyrinth, overlooked by me. Readers are invited to point it out, if it
exists.

Still waiting for your evidence, Phil. If you don't know where it is,
don't expect me to.

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On this newsgroup, a recent issue between Phil Innes and myself,
Taylor Kingston, has been Innes' claim that GM Yuri Averbakh (born
1922, Kaluga, USSR) was a member of the Soviet state security organ
known as the KGB. I have asked Innes, several times, for evidence
supporting this claim.

Poor Taylor Kingston can't understand anything!

I asked Taylor Kingston whether he was aware of Averbakh's background. After
50 posts on the subject, he still hasn't answered except to say about the
man who came to him telling stories about his fellow countryman was
'under-researched.'

Mr. Kingston's own natural curiosity to anyone approaching him with tales of
exculpatory blaming, seems to be similarly sleepy.

Now Taylor Kingston has snipped my posts which exactly indicated the context
of my inquiry with him, and he continues to snip them, while making
accusations about me by virtue of paraphrasing my writing - to his own
advantage!

The most astounding thing he has admitted so far, is to review his cohort's
"investigative method" from a humanities group, and admit not being able to
make sense of it - while a child could figure it out.

What business he thinks he ever had reviewing more complex material on
Soviet Shenanigans is best known to himself. Mr. Kingston doesn't even know
the Russian word for 'Mister'.

Innes has at times hinted that such evidence exists but he was not
ready to present it.

This is not true as Taylor Kingston knows. I have stated publicaly and
privately that there are other points of view which are more extensive than
Averbakh's [and Taimanov's], by virtue of someone better able to express a
full context of Soviet-era individuals and State actions. I have hinted
nothing.

I have written one other poster here identifying this person, and we have
had a perfunctory, yet intelligent conversation on the difficulties of
getting such material published. Taylor Kingston intimates that I am being
inventive of my source, or lying. Is that the reader's sense of his own
words?

I wrote here publicly stating that I thought this newsnet intereaction
seemed no more to me than a spat between Taylor Kingston and Larry Evans. I
said that no new material concerning Keres/Botvinnik was revealed by it.

Taylor Kingston actually agreed!

What is he now demanding? Why should this person who can't figure out a
modestly simple record of interactions by his cohort, Neil Brennen, think
himself capable of any discernment of moderately difficult Soviet era
subject matter?

I laugh used one, and only one, Russian word in my correspondance with
him, in the natural sense of using a person's name, and he didn't understand
it. The Russian word was 'Mister'.

Otherwise Kingston would have everyone believe that because he cannot
understand my objections to his sort of journalism, that it constitutes
something like historical research, rather than a clerical spat with the 4
times US champion, since Taylor Kingston's point of view must be heard!
Taylor Kingston hates this refutation of his sort of journalism, event
taunting me with, "if Averbakh contacted you, you would publish him", which
is more than a little revealing about his own standards.

Absurdly, Taylor Kingston also wants to be heard in full, courtesy of the
columns of the person he attacks, Larry Evans - yet Taylor Kingston SNIPS my
posts, as if space was some sort of issue here on usent. In this respect he
is no different than the reprobate Brennen, who brays that it is all
nonsense, while snipping the 'nonsense' )

On at least one other occasion Innes said he had
*already* presented evidence.
In an effort to resolve this seeming paradox, I examine here some
Innes posts, and exchanges between Innes and myself, looking at their
chronology and the presence or absence of relevant evidence. All of the
following quotes are from actual posts made here on
rec.games.chess.misc and/or rec.games.chess.politics.

I leave the reader to determine which subject we are dealing with here, and
rather than snip Taylor Kingston's post, I simply pass on the rest of it,
since for him, this all seems to have started when /he/ became involved in
it.

For any student of history, not just chess history, I could not recommend
such an oleaginous approach to any subject, even comedy.

Phil Innes
Vermont
6/2/2005

As near as I can determine, Innes first made his claim in March
2005. Here are two examples, both referring to an interview Averbakh
gave me, published at ChessCafe.com in June 2002:

"For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian
players." -- Innes, 25 March 2005.
"You know that I think your single-sourcing of Averbakh to be of
little worth ..." -- Innes, 27 March 2005.

Later in that same March 27th thread, I asked Innes for evidence:

Innes: "For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian
players."
Kingston: "An emphatic, specific, hostile accusation. It requires
specific factual proof, or it is nothing but a cheap smear. So far you
have produced not one single fact to support it. Not one."
Innes: "That's right! I have not produced one for you in the
newsgroup."

So clearly, by his own admission, Innes had shown no evidence to this
group as of 27 March 2005.
Then there is this exchange of 17 May 2005:

Kingston: "I know of no credible evidence for Averbakh being a KGB
agent."
Innes: "Neither do I in terms of evidence - but he certainly was
some sort of agent of government."

So now, with absolute clarity, we have Innes admitting as late as 17
May that he had no evidence.
Then, on 1 June 2005, Phil and I had the following exchange:

Kingston: "I have repeatedly invited, even insisted, that you tell
me whatever you like about Averbakh, in particular evidence supporting
your claim that he was in the KGB."
Innes: "You snipped it Taylor -- don't deny it. You snipped the
context of my remark as if it makes no difference. Now you pretend that
you still want information. Laughable behavior!"

So, on 1 June, Innes plainly claims that he had ALREADY presented
evidence on Averbakh, evidence which he alleges I ignored or perhaps
even tried to suppress ("YOU SNIPPED IT, TAYLOR - DON'T DENY
IT.").
To see if I had missed anything, I used Google to search all Innes
posts with a reference by him to "Averbakh" since his "Neither do
I in terms of evidence" remark of 17 May, through 1 June 2005. I
present below all their sentences in which Innes refers to Averbakh.
Try as I might, I can detect nothing in them that remotely qualifies as
evidence for the KGB claim. Readers may judge for themselves:

"There are a few things which can be said in public - but I think
that has nothing to do with this particular issue of Averbakh or third
parties [reporters], but will address Keres/Botvinnik directly." --
Innes, 18 May 2005
"I undertook to write to you no more on this subject if you
contined [sic] this dread practice of switch and bait - you do not seem
genuinely interested in investigating this subject, only in
vociferously defending your own actions in respect of the Averbakh
article, rather than simply stating its process ... You have now said
that you sole-sourced Averbakh, but you equivocated on my second
question about knowing other and contrary opinion." -- Innes, 18 May
2005
"So far, after, is it another 20 more questions, you have managed
to answer the first one, that you sole-sourced Averbakh, but to the
second, nothing." -- Innes, 18 May 2005
"If we only want to evaluate Taylor Kingston's Averbakh article
this issue revolves only around chesscafe's editorial policy then,
which as below, is now a moot issue." -- Innes, 20 May 2005.
"You admit, sort of, that you just wrote what Averbakh said, without
much [any?] research, and can't be bothered to answer why you did that,
and keep snipping my context of why this is notworthy [sic]." -- Innes,
18 May 2005
"I already critiqued your Averbakh article, restore snips." --
Innes, 19 May 2005
"Earlier today I wrote Larry Parr that I encourage someone who was
an insider to many of these affairs [including Averbakh's] to make a
public contribution." -- Innes, 23 May 2005.
"I have indicated to one other person here a Russian source who is
not yet on the public record but who has spoken privately on these
issues. It would be interesting to interview him even as a collective
interview of concerned [rather than interested] parties, indeed,
interesting to base a chess history on this man's witness to the
Soviet-era chess scene. I am given to understand that the gentleman
would be considerable able to be more forthright than either Taimanov
or Averbakh." -- Innes, 26 May 2005
"But its [sic] interesting that you raise the subject right now -
didn't you cite Averbakh verbatim, without knowing if he was, or was
not a member of the KGB, or a proxy agent, or to whom he was requitred
[sic] to report?" -- Innes, 30 May 2005

At best, the above posts offer only hints of possible future
evidence. Nor was anything relevant and substantive offered in other
parts of these posts. Therefore, as far as I can determine, Innes'
June 1st claim, that he had *already* presented evidence about Averbakh
and the KGB, is untrue.
Despite the fact that the search took considerable time I would have
preferred to spend in other pursuits, I did it out of a sense of
fairness, just in case I had missed something. While I doubt it,
perhaps a treasure trove of evidence still lies hidden in the Innes
labyrinth, overlooked by me. Readers are invited to point it out, if it
exists.

Dear Taylor,
your great interest for KGB agents (revealed or still hidden) generated
suspicious about your intention. What's the real reason?
You know really reasons but we could make some hypothesis. Did you tell us
all truth about your contact with that man?
And, here is another question: Why didn't your chief call Mr. Winter to talk
about chess history with that man? Could you answer sincerely have you ever
seen Mr. Winter and how he looks like? Has he ages like you or Mr. Brennen?
Or we can conclude that Sam Sloan's subject-question shows your behavior?

Regards,
Goran Tomic

"Liam Too" wrote in message
oups.com...
"What is the shame in being a KGB agent?" --Yuri Averbakh

http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-misc...ri_159527.html

Yes Liam, but we are writing with babies who pretend too much, and do not
/choose/ to understand too broadly. And who can't bring themselves to
consider what the simple statement could mean:

"His friend Yuri Averbakh some years ago pronounced now notoriously
proverbial and cynical words:"What is the
shame in being a KGB agent?"

Nor understand the context of the times. To which I would refer you to my
own interview with Mark Taimanov at Chessville. MT is human about this - and
from a man who likes to write about the spiritual dimensions of things - is
not a blamer, even though we might expect bitterness after his own
experience, we do not get it, and instead receive an humanitarian
perspective instead.

Cordially, Phil Innes

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

Still waiting for your evidence, Phil. If you don't know where it is,
don't expect me to.

I don't owe you any Taylor. Your spat is with Evans by your own admission.
If you think yourself even capable of assessing 'evidence' consider what you
could not respond to below.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On this newsgroup, a recent issue between Phil Innes and myself,
Taylor Kingston, has been Innes' claim that GM Yuri Averbakh (born
1922, Kaluga, USSR) was a member of the Soviet state security organ
known as the KGB. I have asked Innes, several times, for evidence
supporting this claim.

Poor Taylor Kingston can't understand anything!

I asked Taylor Kingston whether he was aware of Averbakh's background.
After
50 posts on the subject, he still hasn't answered except to say about the
man who came to him telling stories about his fellow countryman was
'under-researched.'

Mr. Kingston's own natural curiosity to anyone approaching him with tales
of
exculpatory blaming, seems to be similarly sleepy.

Now Taylor Kingston has snipped my posts which exactly indicated the
context
of my inquiry with him, and he continues to snip them, while making
accusations about me by virtue of paraphrasing my writing - to his own
advantage!

The most astounding thing he has admitted so far, is to review his
cohort's
"investigative method" from a humanities group, and admit not being able
to
make sense of it - while a child could figure it out.

What business he thinks he ever had reviewing more complex material on
Soviet Shenanigans is best known to himself. Mr. Kingston doesn't even
know
the Russian word for 'Mister'.

Innes has at times hinted that such evidence exists but he was not
ready to present it.

This is not true as Taylor Kingston knows. I have stated publicaly and
privately that there are other points of view which are more extensive
than
Averbakh's [and Taimanov's], by virtue of someone better able to express
a
full context of Soviet-era individuals and State actions. I have hinted
nothing.

I have written one other poster here identifying this person, and we have
had a perfunctory, yet intelligent conversation on the difficulties of
getting such material published. Taylor Kingston intimates that I am
being
inventive of my source, or lying. Is that the reader's sense of his own
words?

I wrote here publicly stating that I thought this newsnet intereaction
seemed no more to me than a spat between Taylor Kingston and Larry Evans.
I
said that no new material concerning Keres/Botvinnik was revealed by it.

Taylor Kingston actually agreed!

What is he now demanding? Why should this person who can't figure out a
modestly simple record of interactions by his cohort, Neil Brennen, think
himself capable of any discernment of moderately difficult Soviet era
subject matter?

I laugh used one, and only one, Russian word in my correspondance with
him, in the natural sense of using a person's name, and he didn't
understand
it. The Russian word was 'Mister'.

Otherwise Kingston would have everyone believe that because he cannot
understand my objections to his sort of journalism, that it constitutes
something like historical research, rather than a clerical spat with the
4
times US champion, since Taylor Kingston's point of view must be heard!
Taylor Kingston hates this refutation of his sort of journalism, event
taunting me with, "if Averbakh contacted you, you would publish him",
which
is more than a little revealing about his own standards.

Absurdly, Taylor Kingston also wants to be heard in full, courtesy of the
columns of the person he attacks, Larry Evans - yet Taylor Kingston SNIPS
my
posts, as if space was some sort of issue here on usent. In this respect
he
is no different than the reprobate Brennen, who brays that it is all
nonsense, while snipping the 'nonsense' )

On at least one other occasion Innes said he had
*already* presented evidence.
In an effort to resolve this seeming paradox, I examine here some
Innes posts, and exchanges between Innes and myself, looking at their
chronology and the presence or absence of relevant evidence. All of the
following quotes are from actual posts made here on
rec.games.chess.misc and/or rec.games.chess.politics.

I leave the reader to determine which subject we are dealing with here,
and
rather than snip Taylor Kingston's post, I simply pass on the rest of it,
since for him, this all seems to have started when /he/ became involved
in
it.

For any student of history, not just chess history, I could not recommend
such an oleaginous approach to any subject, even comedy.

Phil Innes
Vermont
6/2/2005

As near as I can determine, Innes first made his claim in March
2005. Here are two examples, both referring to an interview Averbakh
gave me, published at ChessCafe.com in June 2002:

"For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian
players." -- Innes, 25 March 2005.
"You know that I think your single-sourcing of Averbakh to be of
little worth ..." -- Innes, 27 March 2005.

Later in that same March 27th thread, I asked Innes for evidence:

Innes: "For god's sake! This site sole-sourced the KGB on Russian
players."
Kingston: "An emphatic, specific, hostile accusation. It requires
specific factual proof, or it is nothing but a cheap smear. So far you
have produced not one single fact to support it. Not one."
Innes: "That's right! I have not produced one for you in the
newsgroup."

So clearly, by his own admission, Innes had shown no evidence to this
group as of 27 March 2005.
Then there is this exchange of 17 May 2005:

Kingston: "I know of no credible evidence for Averbakh being a KGB
agent."
Innes: "Neither do I in terms of evidence - but he certainly was
some sort of agent of government."

So now, with absolute clarity, we have Innes admitting as late as 17
May that he had no evidence.
Then, on 1 June 2005, Phil and I had the following exchange:

Kingston: "I have repeatedly invited, even insisted, that you tell
me whatever you like about Averbakh, in particular evidence supporting
your claim that he was in the KGB."
Innes: "You snipped it Taylor -- don't deny it. You snipped the
context of my remark as if it makes no difference. Now you pretend that
you still want information. Laughable behavior!"

So, on 1 June, Innes plainly claims that he had ALREADY presented
evidence on Averbakh, evidence which he alleges I ignored or perhaps
even tried to suppress ("YOU SNIPPED IT, TAYLOR - DON'T DENY
IT.").
To see if I had missed anything, I used Google to search all Innes
posts with a reference by him to "Averbakh" since his "Neither do
I in terms of evidence" remark of 17 May, through 1 June 2005. I
present below all their sentences in which Innes refers to Averbakh.
Try as I might, I can detect nothing in them that remotely qualifies as
evidence for the KGB claim. Readers may judge for themselves:

"There are a few things which can be said in public - but I think
that has nothing to do with this particular issue of Averbakh or third
parties [reporters], but will address Keres/Botvinnik directly." --
Innes, 18 May 2005
"I undertook to write to you no more on this subject if you
contined [sic] this dread practice of switch and bait - you do not seem
genuinely interested in investigating this subject, only in
vociferously defending your own actions in respect of the Averbakh
article, rather than simply stating its process ... You have now said
that you sole-sourced Averbakh, but you equivocated on my second
question about knowing other and contrary opinion." -- Innes, 18 May
2005
"So far, after, is it another 20 more questions, you have managed
to answer the first one, that you sole-sourced Averbakh, but to the
second, nothing." -- Innes, 18 May 2005
"If we only want to evaluate Taylor Kingston's Averbakh article
this issue revolves only around chesscafe's editorial policy then,
which as below, is now a moot issue." -- Innes, 20 May 2005.
"You admit, sort of, that you just wrote what Averbakh said, without
much [any?] research, and can't be bothered to answer why you did that,
and keep snipping my context of why this is notworthy [sic]." -- Innes,
18 May 2005
"I already critiqued your Averbakh article, restore snips." --
Innes, 19 May 2005
"Earlier today I wrote Larry Parr that I encourage someone who was
an insider to many of these affairs [including Averbakh's] to make a
public contribution." -- Innes, 23 May 2005.
"I have indicated to one other person here a Russian source who is
not yet on the public record but who has spoken privately on these
issues. It would be interesting to interview him even as a collective
interview of concerned [rather than interested] parties, indeed,
interesting to base a chess history on this man's witness to the
Soviet-era chess scene. I am given to understand that the gentleman
would be considerable able to be more forthright than either Taimanov
or Averbakh." -- Innes, 26 May 2005
"But its [sic] interesting that you raise the subject right now -
didn't you cite Averbakh verbatim, without knowing if he was, or was
not a member of the KGB, or a proxy agent, or to whom he was requitred
[sic] to report?" -- Innes, 30 May 2005

At best, the above posts offer only hints of possible future
evidence. Nor was anything relevant and substantive offered in other
parts of these posts. Therefore, as far as I can determine, Innes'
June 1st claim, that he had *already* presented evidence about Averbakh
and the KGB, is untrue.
Despite the fact that the search took considerable time I would have
preferred to spend in other pursuits, I did it out of a sense of
fairness, just in case I had missed something. While I doubt it,
perhaps a treasure trove of evidence still lies hidden in the Innes
labyrinth, overlooked by me. Readers are invited to point it out, if it
exists.

Chess One wrote:
Poor Taylor Kingston can't understand anything!

True of some things, but not "anything." My greatest difficulties lie
with higher mathematics, sometimes with my wife's brand of logic, and
very frequently with posts by Phil Innes.

I asked Taylor Kingston whether he was aware of Averbakh's background. After
50 posts on the subject, he still hasn't answered except to say about the
man who came to him telling stories about his fellow countryman was
'under-researched.'

Phil, I am well aware of your critique of the Averbakh interview, and
your opinion of Averbakh himself. Believe it or not, I have read in
full all your posts on that topic. You raise some good points, but IMO
they apply to historical writing and research in general, and do not
pertain to the interview format.
In any event, that group of issues is not the topic of this thread.
The topic is your evidence, or lack of evidence, for Averbakh's
membership in the KGB. And one thing I clearly CAN understand, after
your repeated failures to produce any, is that you have NONE.

The most astounding thing he has admitted so far, is to review his cohort's
"investigative method" from a humanities group, and admit not being able to
make sense of it - while a child could figure it out.

But Phil, to take that post of yours at face value, I would be
"sole-sourcing" (your term), the sole source being you. Surely that
would be imprudent on my part. However incomplete my chess knowledge,
it is encyclopedic compared to my almost complete ignorance of
Shakespeare newsgroup disputes. The disparity in my interest level is
equally great.

Now, last chance: got any evidence on Averbakh, or not?