wrote:

Mr. Hart would add a literal cast to NM
Kingston's words about learning. So, then, I would add
a literal twist to NM Kingston's claim: can he learn
that which he already knew to be false? If NM
Kingston did not know such to be false, then what does
that say about our NM Kingston?


I believe, if I am not mistaken, that Kingston was using a little
rhetorical device known as sarcasm when he listed a number of false
assertions that he had learned from Schiller.

On the other hand, I don't think that Schiller was being sarcastic when
he identified Euwe as a former "legitimate contender" for the World
Championship rather than a former World Champion. I think that
Schiller truly meant to convey to his readers the real significance
that beating Euwe would have had to Fischer.

Vince Hart

Chess One wrote:
Schiller's writing is not a mistake - it is simply poorly phrased in this
instance - no strong player will be unaware of Euwe's status in defeating
Alekhine, we have probably all played over the games. In Schiller's case I
can't see that he was misrepresenting Euwe deliberately.

Phil, you know very well that I never said it was deliberate -- I
said it was another example of Schiller's habitual carelessness. Let's
face it, as a writer the man is a klutz. He pays little more attention
to the quality of his work than does a distracted teenage cook at a
fast-food restaurant. You look ridiculous trying to defend him.
As for strong players, they are not the intended readership of the
book in question. The introduction of the offending volume, "Learn from
Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," clearly says the book is intended for
"those just starting out in chess," to provide "a pleasant and
enjoyable experience of sort previously unavailable to beginnners."
Instead they get both bad chess instruction and bad chess history.

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The truth: NM Kingston transmogrified an
incomplete thought by Eric Schiller into an absurd
error with the object of visiting derision on Mr.
Schiller. That was his dirty purpose.

"incomplete thought" What a lovely euphemism for ignorance and/or
carelessness.

Incomplete thought akin to sentence fragment

KINGSTON'S ILLICIT MOVES

Did anyone in the Politburo or Central Committee say "Well, now
that Spassky's
lost, we'd better not invade Afghanistan, and stop funding those
African rebels"?
Did Brezhnev say to himself "Shoot, now I'll have to make some major
concessions at the next summit with Nixon"? Did any pro-Soviet or
non-aligned nations change to pro-American as a result of the match?
-- Taylor Kingston

The Soviets had no intention of invading Afghanistan in 1972,
though they were plotting to rid the country of King Zahir and replace
him first with Mohammed Daoud, then Taraki, Amin and finally, if memory
serves, Najibullah.

Eric's description of Spassky's defeat as a major psychological
blow is a tad overblown in my estimation. But, as I noted, it pales in
terms of misapprehension when compared, say, with the claim in the
Oxford Companion that Krylenko was widely regarded as being
responsible for Stalin's purges.

Eric's view is overstated and not in fashion; the Oxford Companion's
judgment is nearly the equivalent of maintaining that the Germans
attacked Pearl Harbor.

NM Taylor Kingston calls me a self-proclaimed Soviet expert. He
lies once again. I never proclaimed myself anything, unlike this
poseur who claimed he was 2300+ ELO when he is, in truth, an A-player
at 1800 or so.

I happened to edit a magazine on the late Soviet Union for several
years, which
had as its contributors Nobel Peace laureate Andrei Sakharov, his wife
Elena Bonner, Boris Yeltsin (when he was mayor of Moscow), Jeanne
Kirkpatrick, Father Gleb Yakunin, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and others of
that sort. We also had roughly 400 members of Congress as ubscribers
and sold about 12,000 copies per issue. We were noticed, though not
major players, and the magazine had on its advisory board then Senator
Robert Dole as well as Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer and California
congressman Tom Lantos.

Now, then, NM Kingston lied about Eric Schiller claiming that
Max Euwe was never world champion. In a game introduction, Eric wrote
that Euwe was a contender for the world championship without adding
more.

NM Kingston evidently did not regard that true claim, as far as
it went, as meaty enough to occasion mirth and derision. Therefore, he
lied -- knowingly,
straight out -- that Eric claimed that Euwe never won the world title.
NM Kingston's ploy was low even by his standard. He lied to occasion
injury.

As I noted, give me an excitable Sam Sloan or a flesh and blood
man such as Eric Schiller any day to the cold fish that plays such
games with illicit moves.

CARELESS

Look, the point here is very simple: just about any one of us would be
acutely embarrassed to see in print that he had actually written the
words "Euwe ... once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship". -- Larry Tapper

I have no problem using the word "careless" to
describe Eric Schiller's description of Max Euwe as a
contender for the world title. I also have no problem
in stating that NM Taylor Kingston, who at 1800 was
never a contender for his claimed 2300+ ELO
status, a low character indeed for being dissatisfied
with Eric's level of error and falsely raising it by
inventing a claim that Eric did NOT make.

Eric Schiller did not write that Max Euwe was
never world champion. He wrote that Euwe was once a
contender, probably thinking about the early years of
the Dutchman without completing what he had to say.

NM Kingston did not think that such an incomplete
thought or, yes, carelessness would occasion the level
of mirth necessary among those reading his message.
Hence he added to it. Inside that soul of his, NM
Kingston just could not stop himself from turning the
knife by writing a lie.

That's what happened. Now Vince Hart has launched
The Sarcasm Defense to justify the lie.

Larry Tapper does not exactly deny the above, but
he steps in -- as we knew he would -- by ignoring NM
Kingston's lie and attacking NM Schiller for writing a
sentence that would acutely embarrass many of us if we
had written it. Having thereby absolved NM Kingston
of the lie, he then balances his comments by noting
that John Watson had good things to say about a couple
of Eric's books, which we note is information not
hitherto advanced by Eric's attackers. Or, at least, not recently.

As for acute embarrassment, NM Kingston wrote
that Korchnoi was still a Soviet citizen when playing
Karpov in 1978, a real laugher. We failed to catch
Mr. Tapper's he-he-heing over that one in any of his
earlier posts, though we did not read all of them.

wrote:
CARELESS



Eric Schiller did not write that Max Euwe was
never world champion. He wrote that Euwe was once a
contender, probably thinking about the early years of
the Dutchman without completing what he had to say.


I am fascinated by the "incomplete thought" defense. I wonder if Larry
could tell us what the rest of the thought was after "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship" and how
it could have logically included the fact that Euwe actually won the
World Championship.

Vince Hart

THE SARCASM DEFENSE

I believe, if I am not mistaken, that Kingston was using a little rhetorical device known as sarcasm when he listed a number of false assertions that he had learned from Schiller. -- Vince Hart

Thanks go to Vinnie Hart -- and I make the
statement without irony -- for making the same point
as I did, though of course he refrains from drawing a conclusion.

Vinnie is exactly right: NM Taylor Kingston did
indeed list a number of Schiller errors in the spirit
of sarcasm. He told us what he learned from books
written by Eric, and one of the things he learned was
that Max Euwe was never world chess champion.

The purpose of NM Kingston's rehearsal was to
occasion mirth, to provoke laughter, at what Eric had
written. Hence the sarcasm.

But Eric's statement, as far as it went, was
correct. Max Euwe was indeed a contender, and the
fact is that his contendah-dom, as Arnold Denker and I
noted, was possibly the most interesting part of his
career. Few learned more from their defeats than Euwe.

NM Kingston wanted to injure, so he INVENTED a
claim that Eric never made. Mr. Tapper, our Vinnie and
the like will ignore the point, to be sure.

Frankly, I would like to know what Eric ACTUALLY
wrote in some of the other instances where error is
alleged. Eric is supposed to have written that
Petrosian held the title only three years, but I
suspect that what he actually wrote is that Petrosian
won the title match in 1966 (the first titleholder to
win a match as the defender since Alekhine in 1934)
and held the title for three years, possibly leaving
out the word "more" as in "three more years."
Something like that.

In short, perhaps someone could research Eric's
statements and match them against what NM Kingston
claims to have learned from them.

I suspect that the Euwe falsehood is not the only
instance of our NM Kingston gilding the lily of error
in order to increase the amount of humiliation he
wishes to visit upon another.

And so it goes.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:56:21 -0700, "Ian Burton"
wrote:


"jr" wrote in message
oups.com...
*I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller: Max Euwe was never chess
world champion.* Taylor Kingston

*On page 74 of "Learn From Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games," after the
game Fischer-Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad 1960, we are told "Bobby must have
taken great pleasure from this first win over the veteran Grandmaster
who was once a legitimate contender for the World Championship."*
Taylor Kingston

What Schiller wrote is misleading, but I don't see evidence for
Kingston's initial claim about Schiller saying that Euwe "was never
chess world champion." That's quite a stretch.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Fischer lost once and drew
twice against Euwe in a short match at New York in 1957.

Correction: I was present for this match, played at the Manhattan Chess
Club. Euwe and Fischer played two games. Euwe won the first. In the
second, he offered a draw to Fischer in either a winning or close to winning
position. It was Fischer's birthday!
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

You are mistaken. This posting does not refer to the two game match
between Fischer and Euwe when Fischer was a child. It rtefers to a
famous game where Fischer crushed Euwe in a Panov-Botvinnik Attack.
Here is that noteworthy game:

[Event "Leipzig Olympiad Final"]
[Site "-"]
[Date "1960.11.03"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "-"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "R Fischer"]
[Black "M Euwe"]
[ECO "B13"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "72"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bg4
7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Qb3 Bxf3 9. gxf3 e6 10. Qxb7 Nxd4
11. Bb5+ Nxb5 12. Qc6+ Ke7 13. Qxb5 Nxc3 14. bxc3 Qd7
15. Rb1 Rd8 16. Be3 Qxb5 17. Rxb5 Rd7 18. Ke2 f6 19. Rd1
Rxd1 20. Kxd1 Kd7 21. Rb8 Kc6 22. Bxa7 g5 23. a4 Bg7
24. Rb6+ Kd5 25. Rb7 Bf8 26. Rb8 Bg7 27. Rb5+ Kc6
28. Rb6+ Kd5 29. a5 f5 30. Bb8 Rc8 31. a6 Rxc3
32. Rb5+ Kc4 33. Rb7 Bd4 34. Rc7+ Kd3 35. Rxc3+ Kxc3 36. Be5 1-0


This particular game inspired me to play a similar combination in a
vastly different position.

[Event "U. C. Game Room Invitational"]
[Site "Berkeley (USA)"]
[Date "1964.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bogas,Ed"]
[Black "Sloan,Sam"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A54"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 e4 5.Ng5 Bf5 6.h4 c6 7.g3 d5
8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Nh3 Nc6 10.Bg5 Qb6 11.Bxf6 Qxb2 12.Nxd5 Bb4+
13.Nxb4 Qc3+ 14.Qd2 Qxa1+ 15.Qd1 Qxd1+ 16.Kxd1 gxf6 0-1

Ed Bogas quit chess for 30 years because of this game, apparently due
to the embarassment of losing to a player vastly inferior to himself.

Sam Sloan

wrote:
THE SARCASM DEFENSE

I believe, if I am not mistaken, that Kingston was using a little rhetorical device known as sarcasm when he listed a number of false assertions that he had learned from Schiller. -- Vince Hart

Thanks go to Vinnie Hart -- and I make the
statement without irony -- for making the same point
as I did, though of course he refrains from drawing a conclusion.

Vinnie is exactly right: NM Taylor Kingston did
indeed list a number of Schiller errors in the spirit
of sarcasm. He told us what he learned from books
written by Eric, and one of the things he learned was
that Max Euwe was never world chess champion.

The purpose of NM Kingston's rehearsal was to
occasion mirth, to provoke laughter, at what Eric had
written. Hence the sarcasm.

But Eric's statement, as far as it went, was
correct. Max Euwe was indeed a contender, and the
fact is that his contendah-dom, as Arnold Denker and I
noted, was possibly the most interesting part of his
career. Few learned more from their defeats than Euwe.

NM Kingston wanted to injure, so he INVENTED a
claim that Eric never made. Mr. Tapper, our Vinnie and
the like will ignore the point, to be sure.

I am not ignoring anything because Kingston did not invent any claim.
He described sarcastically what he "learned" which is not the same as
saying that someone made a literal claim. For example, I have learned
from reading Parr's posts that he is a liar who knows nothing about the
law, movies, child abuse, or Sloan's website. Of course Parr never
explicitly claimed that he is a liar who knows nothing about the law,
movies, child abuse, or Sloan's website. It is just the logical
conclusion that any rational person would draw from reading Parr's
posts.

Vince Hart

On 19 Oct 2005 14:13:30 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


Louis Blair wrote:
Can "jr" give us some specifics about what he learned
and from which Schiller books he learned "a lot"?

I don't know what books or lessons "jr" had in mind, but here are a
few things I have "learned" from Schiller:

Max Euwe was never chess world champion.

Certainly a false statement by Kingston. While Schiller did write that
Euwe had been a world championship contender, he did not write that
Euwe was never world champion.

In short, Taylor Kingston lies is an effort to prove that Schiller is
a liar.

Sam Sloan