Niemand wrote:

"As far as I know, Winter's comments on Evans make a definite
distinction between cases of simple error, as when Evans twice failed
to get the right year for a Steinitz match, and cases of dishonesty, as
when he misrepresented my own views. Laziness seems a plausible
explanation for the former, but not the latter."


I think Niemand (and Winter) have missed something here; you need to
look closely at Larry Evans -- very closely -- in order to ascertain
that he often has trouble thinking clearly, and remembering accurately.
There are many examples, but my point is that one need not conclude
that Evans was being deliberately dishonest when he misrepresented what
Niemand had written. It is possible, yes, and likely, perhaps, but not
a certainty.
Evans simply stumbles over the facts, like a drunken man. The most
telling example was the instance noted by Winter where Evans, after
himself making a silly blunder, laid the blame on Chernev, whose
"facts" Evans whispered, could not be trusted. My interpretation is
senility or Alzheimers disease. The alternative, that Evans puts
absolutely no effort whatsoever into writing his monthly column, is
perhaps even worse. Under these circumstances, is it wise to assume
that every such error is deliberate, dishonest?


-- help bot


PS: Niemand rejects the duel with Innes under the London conditions,
noting he had beaten an FM when only 13 years old, but is now "lacking
in ambition". So noted.
For the record, help bot has never beaten an FM, so the challenge
naturally passes to Louis Blair. It will be up to The Nutty Professor
to defend the honor of the Rational Critics Of Larry Evans (RCOLE)
against LP and the Revolving-Dittoheads (LPRD).


PSS: I certainly hope Phil Innes fails to show up.

Nick wrote:

"If Taylor Kingston had written something like:
"I had an old USCF correspondence rating that
would convert to something *approaching* a
USCF correspondence rating of 2300 today",
then that would have been a fair statement.
I regard Larry Parr's continuing criticisms of Taylor
Kingston's '2300+ Elo' rating claim as excessive,
and I regard Taylor Kingston's continuing defences
of his '2300+ Elo' rating claim as disingenuous."



Larry Parr's continuing "criticism" is far more than just
"excessive", in view of the fact that his staunchest
supporter, Phil Innes, is guilty of exactly the same sort
of exageration as Taylor Kingston.
Every time LP makes another ad hominem attack using
this for ammo, he reveals -- AGAIN -- his double standards,
his amazing hypocrisy.


It also reveals that some people add 50 points when
calculating their own rating, while others prefer to add a
title instead.


-- help bot

Taylor Kingston wrote:

"What I regret about the whole thing is that in retrospect, it was so
redundant and superfluous. Going to any special trouble to show that
Parr and Sloan are sloppy and mendacious is like applying for a federal
grant to research if water is wet."


They refused to give me any money, but I did the research anyway,
just to spite them!

It turns out that water, or H2O, is only technically "wet" when in
liquid form! As a solid (commonly called "ice"), it is slippery, but
not
wet. And when in its gaseous form (clouds, humidity), it is moist but
not quite "wet". My research continues with an examination of
"heavy" water, "acid" rain, and the interesting affects of water vapor
on permittivity, and the tails of comets.


-- help bot

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

Chess One wrote:
I was misled too. So it turns out you were once an 1800 OTB player. Okay.
That's got that over with. Phil Innes

You were "misled too," Phil? Have you forgotten our conversation at
Stratton Mountain? June 1999 I think it was, the Chesswise
International. We talked for an hour or two, had lunch together. Among
other things we discussed our OTB strength. I told you my USCF OTB
rating, and mentioned my postal activities of earlier years. You've
forgotten, I suppose?

Christ. Get it over with. 6 years ago. Was it 2000? Not that I really care,
but anything over 1700 meant that you stepped out of the book enough to play
on your own. Seems an odd thing to dsay but 95% of players never get that
far.

What an odd thing to say. It's probably about as accurate as Innes'
statement that W. S. Gilbert had a "penchant" for dressing men as women
in his plays.

I seem to recall your saying to Keith, the teenage kid who hung out
with us for a while, that you were "nearly of IM strength" or words to
that effect. At the time I attached no significance to the remark.

O good. I am glad you remember.

So 2004 wasn't the first time the "nearly an IM" line was trotted out.

I remember a little snow coming down
outside. Playing Keith who was an okay junior. And a pint and a sandwich.
On another occasion I met Tim Hanke on a nearby mountain, and Kenny from
Harvard. They were playing in a tourney - Ivanov was there, and your
Burlington player Alain who had the Fischer anecdotes.

phil

OUR EGO-MAN

Taylor Kingston now contradicts his earlier claim
that I did NOT rise to his claimed bait immediately. The
poor guy can't keep his story straight.

The man made the claim outright that he was 2300+
ELO WITHOUT ANY ELABORATION. He did not talk
about his postal rating. He was under pressure from
Sam Sloan, and he then flat out lied about his rating.

AFTER the man was exposed, he then came up with
this explanation: he figured people would know he was
talking about a postal rating --everyone, apparently,
except for this writer and Sam Sloan.

Utterly pitiful stuff. Utterly dishonest.

We all fully understand that among chess players
when someone talks about his strength the
understanding unless stated otherwise is that the
claim is made about OTB, not postal or Fantasy chess
or whatever. If a player tells another player, "I'm
2300+ ELO," the listener understands the claim to
be OTB unless otherwise stipulated in the vast
majority of cases.

The Horsefeathers' Defense, as the lie became
known, amounted to this junior-high level elaboration
by some kid coming up with a fantastic explanation for
a lie: Sam Sloan would jump at assuming that NM
Kingston was talking about OTB (as others also
assumed) whereas this writer would be more careful
and only write as I have above a bit later.

Now, the lie has transmogrified a bit. NM
Kingston, though earlier stating that he figured I
would not react immediately, has me reacting
immediately after he was caught out in his lie about
his rating.

Disgusting stuff.

Whaaaat an ego this man must have. Phew.

Meanwhile, we ask again: Mr. Kingston, did you
post in praise of YOURSELF and attack enemies under
the bogus names of Xylothist and Paulie Graf (among others)?
Did you post at all here under Xylothist and Paulie Graf?

Heh, heh, heh. Our ego-man ain't gonna perjure himself
by answering.

Instead he and his supporters allege that I am or that I know
who jr is. Once again, my answer is NO and NO. If Mr. Kingston
dares to put his money where his mouth is, my $10,000 polygraph
offer still stands.

wrote:
The man made the claim outright that he was 2300+
ELO WITHOUT ANY ELABORATION. He did not talk
about his postal rating. He was under pressure from
Sam Sloan, and he then flat out lied about his rating.

I felt I was "under pressure from Sam Sloan"? Hmmm ... what other
situations might be comparable? Let's see:

1. I am threatened with getting kicked by a one-legged man.
2. I worry about the danger of jellyfish while crossing the Sahara.
3. I am haunted by fear of a cheese shortage in Wisconsin.
4. President Bush is informed that Liechtenstein declares war on the
US.
5. Shaquille O'Neal is challenged to a game of "horse" by Billy
Barty.
6. Martin Scorcese fears his films will be panned by Helen Keller.
7. I am called a liar by Larry Parr.

Heh, heh, heh. Our ego-man ain't gonna perjure himself
by answering.

Yes, I've noticed that little jr, who has already perjured himself on
this forum, is failing to answer any questions about it.

Larry Parr wrote (9 Apr 2006 07:43:23 -0700):

... we ask again ...

_
Larry Parr likes to make a lot of fuss about questions that
certain individuals have not answered, but Larry Parr and
his supporter, jr, have, at times, also avoided answering a
question. It seems to me that, by Parr-logic, such
questions must be "sear"ing.
_
"Larry, please tell us more about playwright
Richard Laurie. IT'S ALL NEW TO ME and
sounds like another juicy scandal. Why did
truth-seeker Kingston ask Laurie to keep their
correspondence secret?" - jr (2 Apr 2006
09:20:05 -0700) (Emphasis added.)
_
_
"And yet, earlier this year, we saw:
_
'I have read Richard Laurie's
exchanges with Kingston who
secretly tried to get him to
retract an item Laurie submitted
to Chess Life.' - jr (8 Jan 2006
12:21:20 -0800)"
- Louis Blair (2 Apr 2006 14:36:03 -0700)
_
_
"Care to explain, jr?" - Taylor Kingston
(4 Apr 2006 09:54:13 -0700)
_
_
"[Has Larry Parr] yet made any comments
about jr's ... question about Laurie, where [jr]
contradicted what he had previously posted?"
- Tom Martinak (7 Apr 2006 09:27:57 -0700)
_
Another incident:
_
"Edward Winter combed through thousands of
pages of GM Evans' writing over half a century
and found about 25 mistakes, most of them
minor." - Larry Parr (26 Mar 2006 16:56:54 -0800)
_
"What is the source for this claim?" - Louis Blair
(8 Apr 2006 14:34:04 -0700)
_
Another incident:
_
"Here is one of the nine essays I wrote in my
examination of Edward Winter's attack against
GM Evans at the ChessCafe in 2001.
...
To my mind, Mr. Winter's lowest, in fact
subterranean, device is to argue that GM Evans
is loath to admit mistakes." - Larry Parr
(3 Apr 2006 02:29:07 -0700)
_
_
"Where is there a quote of Edward Winter saying
that GM Evans is loath to admit mistakes?" - Louis
Blair (4 Apr 2006 06:33:09 -0700)
_
_
"[Greg Kennedy (Help Bot) wrote:] 'Edward Winter
seems to have clearly argued this in his article
entitled "The Facts About Larry Evans", which can
be found on the Chess Notes website.'
...
Any normal person reading this article would reach
the same conclusion as the lad from Indiana."
- Larry Parr (5 Apr 2006 04:58:04 -0700)
_
_
"Do any of these 'normal' people have a quote to
back up Larry Parr's claim?
_
Larry Parr quotes helpbot, and, this time around,
chooses not to mention any of his previous
assessments.
_
'he has laid down a trail of typed refuse.'
- Larry Parr (2 Apr 2006 20:54:08 -0700)"
- Louis Blair (5 Apr 2006 06:46:50 -0700)
_
Another incident:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?
_
If they do, why doesn't either of them say so
explicitly? If they don't, why don't they admit
that they still have not produced a record of
such a claim?" - Louis Blair (28 Jan 2006
16:03:20 -0800)
_
Thirty days later:
_
"GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings
with Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I."
- Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800)
_
_
"Larry Parr fails to mention that he posted
this claim in a note with the heading
'EDWARD WINTER'S TRIPE (Continued)'.
Does Larry Parr claim that he had no
obligation to deal with the issue of
evidence? Did he make any attempt to
ask GM Keene for a quote of the supposed
Edward Winter claim? In the past, in
response to attacks by others, Larry Parr
has written things like:
_
'The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof' - Larry Parr (21 Sep 2005
20:39:02 -0700)
_
and:
_
'[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear.' - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think it was acceptable
for him to be a party to that sort of thing?"
- Louis Blair (27 Feb 2006 22:46:33 -0800)
_
Another incident:
_
"The latest Louie Blair variation is he did not
know about my repeated statement that Mike
Murray reproduced what I wrote without material
difference." - Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005
18:35:36 -0700)
_
"This is false. Larry Parr should apologize
promptly." - Louis Blair (19 Oct 2005
18:53:08 -0700)
_
Why hasn't Larry Parr produced a quote to back up
his claim or clearly admitted that he has no quote
to back up his claim?
_
Another incident:
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Larry Parr gave no evidence at all. On 14 Jun 2005
12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that I had not contributed
any quotes to the discussion that involved 'as' or 'like'
words. Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence" and still wrong.
I complained again on 15 Jun 2005 13:07:10 -0700,
and I saw nothing further from Larry Parr on the
subject. Again, why hasn't Larry Parr produced a
quote to back up his claim or clearly admitted that
he has no quote to back up his claim?
_
"[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear." - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)

Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:
The man made the claim outright that he was
2300+ ELO WITHOUT ANY ELABORATION.

It's true that Taylor Kingston's original claim of
a '2300+ Elo' rating did not specify that rating.

He did not talk about his postal rating.

It's true that Taylor Kingston did not initially write
that his claimed '2300+ Elo' rating referred to his
old correspondence rating of 1806 (which actually
would convert to a mid-2200s rating today).

He was under pressure from Sam Sloan,

I doubt that.

and he then flat out lied about his rating.

That's a matter of interpretation and dispute.
Lying refers to making a false statement with
a premeditated intent to deceive or to mislead.

Taylor Kingston's original claim of a '2300+ Elo'
rating is, strictly speaking, a false statement.
Taylor Kingston's old correspondence rating of
1806, which would convert to a mid-2200s rating
today, does not quite confirm his '2300+' claim.

If someone would like to criticise Taylor Kingston's
original claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating as factually
inaccurate and an exaggeration, then that would
be a fair criticism.

Did Taylor Kingston make his '2300+ Elo' rating
with the intention of deceiving Larry Parr or Sam
Sloan about his OTB USCF rating? I doubt that
because Taylor Kingston already knew that his
OTB USCF rating could be easily checked at
the USCF website.

As far as I can tell, Taylor Kingston has been
asserting that his original '2300+ Elo' rating claim
misled no reader except Larry Parr, Sam Sloan,
and perhaps Phil Innes. Of course, Taylor
Kingston cannot read every reader's mind.

I suspect that some readers (who have no bias
against Taylor Kingston) were *sincerely* misled
by Taylor Kingston's original '2300+ Elo' claim
because they assumed that it referred to an
OTB rating rather than a correspondence rating.
Not every reader here is a USCF member, and
some readers here may not have known that
USCF ratings can be looked up at the USCF
website. I do not believe that there's any more
reason to presume that an English player should
know how to look up USCF ratings than an
American player should know how to look up
BCF grades.

After I read Taylor Kingston's original claim of a
'2300+ Elo' rating, I checked the USCF website
and I found out that Taylor Kingston evidently
has a peak OTB USCF rating in the 1800s
and a current correspondence USCF rating
of 2037. (Taylor Kingston seems to act as
though it should have been obvious for an
'intelligent reader' to conclude immediately
that his correspondence rating of 2037 must
completely support his '2300+ Elo' rating claim.)
I could find no FIDE rating for Taylor Kingston.

At that point, I still did *not* conclude that
Taylor Kingston *must* be lying. But I had
found no evidence to confirm Taylor Kingston's
original claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating, so I had
no independent reason to believe that it's true.
I wondered whether Taylor Kingston might
be referring a '2300+ Elo' rating at one of the
internet chess servers.

When Taylor Kingston writes that there
should have been 'no confusion' among
his readers about his original '2300+ Elo'
rating claim, that's another example of
Taylor Kingston being disingenuous.

It's a false dichotomy that either Taylor
Kingston must be completely right or
that Larry Parr must be completely right.

I believe that Taylor Kingston's original claim
of a '2300+ Elo' rating was an exaggeration,
which may have sincerely misled some readers.
Taylor Kingston warrants more criticism than
his apologists would have it, but Taylor Kingston
warrants less criticism than Larry Parr and
Sam Sloan would have it.

--Nick

THE EGO-MAN'S "RESPONSE"

I felt I was "under pressure from Sam Sloan"? Hmmm
.... what other situations might be comparable? Let's see:
1. I am threatened with getting kicked by a one-legged man.
2. I worry about the danger of jellyfish while crossing the Sahara.
3. I am haunted by fear of a cheese shortage in Wisconsin.
4. President Bush is informed that Liechtenstein declares war on the
US.
5. Shaquille O'Neal is challenged to a game of "horse" by Billy Barty.
6. Martin Scorcese fears his films will be panned by Helen Keller.
7. I am called a liar by Larry Parr. -- Taylor Kingston


Our ego-man has responded.in a couple of senses of that phrase.

Taylor Kingston stated without elaboration that
he was 2300+ ELO (I will hunt down his lulu of a
posting and repost it here), and he retracted AFTER he
was exposed.

A couple of his supporters came up with an
excuse that had a lot of metaphysics in it: the
ego-man lives in a postalcentric chess world and did
not realize that others would understand him as
talking about postal chess as opposed to over-the-board.

That was laughable, and NM Kingston -- the man
who is actually a class A player -- offered his own
lie to defend his own initial lie.

NM Kingston argued that he stated he was
2300+ ELO not because he was under withering,
ironic attack from Sam Sloan but because he had
hatched this elaborate plan, don't you see.

The terms of this plan changed over time -- which
is to say, he recently contradicted himself after
memory of his initial lie had faded -- but it came to
this. He figured Sam would immediately leap to the
conclusion, as did most other readers, that NM
Kingston was talking about OTB ratings. He figured,
don't you see, that I would be more careful and only
later come to Sam's defense, etc.

Mind you, two days ago, the lie transmogrified,
and he had me immediately leaping to the conclusion as did Sam.

The justification for his lie is that of a junior high school
kid coming up with ever more fantastic elaborations for a
prevarication.

Instead, NM Kingston in a moment of weakness
induced by pressure to that ego, wrote straight out,
without any qualification, that he was 2300+ ELO.
In his ego-driven pique, our ego-man posted the lie
and then got nailed.

Ego-man?

Once again I ask: Mr. Kingston, did you post
on rgcp as Xylothist and Paulie Graf (among others)?
Did you write postings under these false names in praise
of your own arguments and to attack your enemies?

Heh, heh, heh. The ego-man ain't gonna answer.
He's got dem "standards," don't you know. Certain
subjects he will not discuss. He will ignore them or
give lists such as the one offered above.

Such are the ego-man's standards!

NICK WEIGHS IN

Nick Bourbaki takes the traditional Solmonic
route in evaluating whether Taylor Kingston lied when
stating -- without elaboration -- that he was rated
2300+ ELO. He splits the difference. Sam Sloan
and I are too hard on the man; the apologists too soft.

Nick Bourbaki doubts that NM Kingston was under
any particular pressure from Sam. I don't. The
exchanges just before his stupid lie -- and it was
just that, a stupid ego-driven act -- were hot and
heavy between both of them. NM Kingston declined to
play a match with Sam at the time because he said that he
couldn't stand to be in the same room with Sam and breathe
the same air.

Why? Because NM Kingston is by nature a low
liar? Which is one possibility that I do NOT accept.
Or because this ego-driven man came under pressure
and bottomed out? I think the latter explanation is the likelier.

Larry Parr, in yet another personal attack on Taylor Kingston,
rambles on and on about postal vs. OTB, never mentioning the
supposed 50 point difference he is making much ado over, or in
the words of Larry Evans, a mountain out of molehills.

Was Sam Sloan putting the pressure on TK, such that the man
cracked under all the pressure? Did the "2300+" postal player
flee for his life at the approach of an OTB Expert or Class "A"
player, who challenged him to the unthinkable -- an OTB match?
Is Taylor Kingston really just a patzer, who used mountains of
chess books and/or outside help to achieve his glorious results
in the Golden Knights? A patzer who runs in terror from any
real, OTB challenge, even from sub-2300+'s? Stay tuned, for
Larry Parr and his crack team of analysts are on the job. It is
just a matter of time before they crack this big case.



Why all the hullaballu? I'll tell you why. Because Taylor
Kingston has not mindlessly supported the opinions and
speculations of Larry Evans and Larry Parr, that's why! Such
a crime as this cannot go unpunished; TK must be hounded,
harried, and run up a tree, in order to silence his criticism.

In the old days, a Larry Evans or Larry Parr type could simply
hire someone to take Kingston out -- and I don't mean for
dinner. But things have changed. Today, if you want to kill a
messenger, a bothersome critic, you have to do it Larry Parr's
way; by invective, by "ad hominem ad nauseum". This is the
only (legal) method of silencing the critics, and thereby
alleviating some of the symptoms of the endemic disease.

This is why, my friends, we are treated -- time and again -- to
rehashes of Taylor Kingston's old comment about being 2300+,
over and over again. It's a method which is tried and true, and
Larry Parr has perfected it to almost an art form. For a limited
time, you too, can learn Larry Parr's secrets of "ad hominem
ad nauseum". Just send $195. U.S. dollars and a self-
adressed, stamped envelope to: Larry Parr, 1975 Burmese
Python Way, Kuala Lumpur, Malaya 012345-09876 Please
allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds. No exchanges.
Restrictions may apply. Residents of Malaya must include
applicable sales tax.




-- help bot