Larry Parr wrote (6 Jun 2006 18:52:37 -0700):

... Our NM Kingston obviously considers such writing
to epitomize his understanding of how history ex omissio
should be written. ...

_
What about the opinions of Larry Parr and GM Evans
on how history should be written:
_
On 18 Apr 2003 13:30:13 GMT, Larry Parr called
our attention to a November 2002 contribution to
Chess Life by GM Evans:
_
_
"WHY FISCHER QUIT
_
Scott Sensiba
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
_
Q. Can you tell me again why Bobby Fischer didn't
defend his title against Anatoly Karpov in 1975? I think Bobby
could have won.
_
A. This question has been covered here at length over the
years, but I'll try again because so many people keep asking.
_
I believed then as now that Fischer's obstinacy killed the
deal. 'Finally America produces its greatest chess genius, and
he turns out to be just a stubborn boy,' lamented Hans Kmoch.
_
Bobby resigned his title after FIDE rejected a key demand
-- that the match consist of an unlimited number of games, draws
not counting, until one player won 10 games (with the champion
retaining his title on a 9-9 tie). Instead FIDE restricted it to 36
games, counting draws, which they knew he would reject.
_
Whether he would have defended his title even if FIDE
capitulated to all of his demands is debatable, but the political
nature of the close vote was obvious. The Soviets and their allies
voted as a bloc against Fischer's key demand. Western nations
split. In general they supported his position but a notable
exception was England.
_
Lev Alburt said that Soviet grandmasters privately scoffed
at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would
lose -- and badly. By quitting, Fischer not only turned down a
multi-million dollar purse -- he set back the cause of chess
in America and tragically destroyed his own career.
_
After seizing the title by default, Karpov became the most
active champion in history to try and prove it was no fluke. In
1977 a Soviet-dominated FIDE routinely granted him a rematch
clause, a bigger mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever
sought. This incident soured me and many others on FIDE."
_
_
Some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"the GM Evans quote is seriously flawed. He fails to
mention that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the
unlimited number of games and that what finally
terminated the Fischer-FIDE negotiations was
Fischer's demand that he keep his title unless the
challenger finished two or more points ahead of the
champion." - Louis Blair (Fri, 18 Apr 2003
14:40:42 -0500)
_
_
"Notice the weasel word 'eventually.' FIDE did
not agree to give an unlimited number of games
to Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975 -- they restricted
it to 36 games" - Larry Parr (19 Apr 2003
14:51:14 GMT)
_
_
"what reason is there to call ['eventually'] a 'weasel
word'? Why does Larry Parr tell us that 'FIDE did
not agree to give an unlimited number of games to
Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975'? According to
Golombek:
_
'Another attempt was made to bring the
FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess
Federation) asked for the summoning of
an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient
number of countries in agreement, it
duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in
the Netherlands from 18 to 20 March,
1975. It was an extraordinary congress
in every sense of the word, and eventually,
after much heated discussion, one of
Fischer's demands was conceded: the
match was to have a limitless number of
games. But Fischer's other demand -
that a draw be declared when the situation
reached nine to nine - was rejected by a
majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, "It's all over then." No
match took place. Fischer ignored the
request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the
new world champion ...'"
- Louis Blair (Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:51:01 -0500)
_
_
"Also, does Larry Parr have an explanation for how
GM Evans could authoritatively write that FIDE 'knew'
Fischer would reject the 36 game limit? Was
GM Evans trying to suggest that FIDE, as a group,
deliberately sought to avoid a match in 1975?"
- Louis Blair (17 Apr 2006 00:00:38 -0700)

Larry Parr wrote (6 Jun 2006 18:52:37 -0700):

... Our NM Kingston obviously considers such writing
to epitomize his understanding of how history ex omissio
should be written. ...

_
What about the opinions of Larry Parr and GM Evans
on how history should be written?
_
On 18 Apr 2003 13:30:13 GMT, Larry Parr called
our attention to a November 2002 contribution to
Chess Life by GM Evans:
_
_
"WHY FISCHER QUIT
_
Scott Sensiba
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
_
Q. Can you tell me again why Bobby Fischer didn't
defend his title against Anatoly Karpov in 1975? I think Bobby
could have won.
_
A. This question has been covered here at length over the
years, but I'll try again because so many people keep asking.
_
I believed then as now that Fischer's obstinacy killed the
deal. 'Finally America produces its greatest chess genius, and
he turns out to be just a stubborn boy,' lamented Hans Kmoch.
_
Bobby resigned his title after FIDE rejected a key demand
-- that the match consist of an unlimited number of games, draws
not counting, until one player won 10 games (with the champion
retaining his title on a 9-9 tie). Instead FIDE restricted it to 36
games, counting draws, which they knew he would reject.
_
Whether he would have defended his title even if FIDE
capitulated to all of his demands is debatable, but the political
nature of the close vote was obvious. The Soviets and their allies
voted as a bloc against Fischer's key demand. Western nations
split. In general they supported his position but a notable
exception was England.
_
Lev Alburt said that Soviet grandmasters privately scoffed
at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would
lose -- and badly. By quitting, Fischer not only turned down a
multi-million dollar purse -- he set back the cause of chess
in America and tragically destroyed his own career.
_
After seizing the title by default, Karpov became the most
active champion in history to try and prove it was no fluke. In
1977 a Soviet-dominated FIDE routinely granted him a rematch
clause, a bigger mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever
sought. This incident soured me and many others on FIDE."
_
_
Some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"the GM Evans quote is seriously flawed. He fails to
mention that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the
unlimited number of games and that what finally
terminated the Fischer-FIDE negotiations was
Fischer's demand that he keep his title unless the
challenger finished two or more points ahead of the
champion." - Louis Blair (Fri, 18 Apr 2003
14:40:42 -0500)
_
_
"Notice the weasel word 'eventually.' FIDE did
not agree to give an unlimited number of games
to Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975 -- they restricted
it to 36 games" - Larry Parr (19 Apr 2003
14:51:14 GMT)
_
_
"what reason is there to call ['eventually'] a 'weasel
word'? Why does Larry Parr tell us that 'FIDE did
not agree to give an unlimited number of games to
Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975'? According to
Golombek:
_
'Another attempt was made to bring the
FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess
Federation) asked for the summoning of
an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient
number of countries in agreement, it
duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in
the Netherlands from 18 to 20 March,
1975. It was an extraordinary congress
in every sense of the word, and eventually,
after much heated discussion, one of
Fischer's demands was conceded: the
match was to have a limitless number of
games. But Fischer's other demand -
that a draw be declared when the situation
reached nine to nine - was rejected by a
majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, "It's all over then." No
match took place. Fischer ignored the
request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the
new world champion ...'"
- Louis Blair (Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:51:01 -0500)
_
_
"Also, does Larry Parr have an explanation for how
GM Evans could authoritatively write that FIDE 'knew'
Fischer would reject the 36 game limit? Was
GM Evans trying to suggest that FIDE, as a group,
deliberately sought to avoid a match in 1975?"
- Louis Blair (17 Apr 2006 00:00:38 -0700)

Larry Parr wrote (2 Jun 2006 18:30:49 -0700):

BACK TO HACK ...

_
What about the last "hack" attack?
_
_
"Neil Brennen went so far as to suggest that
Mr. Hoffman ignore legitimate questions from
'hacks' like Larry Evans and yours truly. Yes,
'hack' was the word he used to describe the
5-time U.S. Champion and Hall of Famer."
- Larry Parr (20 May 2006 02:04:29 -0700)
_
_
"I have [checked my] own emails. I'll even post
it he
_
**************
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
_
Again, I'd suggest ignoring all email
from chesstours AKA Larry Evans.
And please be prepared for all of your
correspondence to appear on message
boards and newsgroups, courtesy
Evans and his pet hack Larry Parr.
_
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
********************"
- Neil Brennen (24 May 2006 02:45:27 -0700)
_
_
Does Larry Parr have any more to say on this matter
of GM Evans supposedly being called a "hack" by Neil
Brennen?

Larry Parr wrote:

"One is not surprised that NM Taylor Kingston --
the man who lied about his chess rating by advancing
himself by 500 points -- would defend such writing even
after confessing that he did not possess the first edition."


The repetition thing again. Larry Parr believes that a lie,
repeated enough times, will become accepted as the truth.
I expect he learned this technique at the School of Lies and
Propaganda, from which he graduated with honors many
years ago.

The facts seem to indicate that Mr. Kingston may have
exaggerated his rating by around fifty points, and this is
probably due to the problems with forfeited games which
cost him rating points even though he was neither outplayed,
nor checkmated.

Obviously, if someone refers to an official rating, he must
accept the unfairness of the rating system and quote his actual
-- not deserved -- rating. But when someone refers to their
"playing strength", there arises many differences of opinion,
the player almost always believing he is under-rated.

We saw an example of this phenomenon when Larry Parr
tried to estimate how strong he thought Sam Sloan was; LP
discounted Sloan's actual results, and beefed up his rating
by quite a margin. Of course, Larry Parr did not attempt to lie
about Sloan's *official* rating because it can easily be checked.

This brings up an interesting question: if Larry Parr believes
his own lies, he would think that Taylor Kingston's true playing
strength is around 1800 USCF. That puts him rather close to
Larry Parr's own strength, if I am not mistaken. Grudge match?


-- help bot

michael adams wrote:
help bot wrote:

.

You can't trust that guy; he claimed he beat back a five-pound
cockroach with nothing more than a swat with a rolled-up Chess Life
magazine! Now everyone knows that a five-pounder doesn't go down for
the count *that* easily. Not unless he's throwing the bout for some
payoff from the USCF or FIDE, that is; I bet he was working for
Campomanes or Kirsan. In a *fair* match, I give the cockroach one out
of five to win or draw; do you have any idea how people tend to react
when they first see a five-pound cockroach?
First comes screaming, then the face goes white, many will freeze up,
not even defending themselves properly (grab a stick, a chair, or
anything sturdy; fend off the beast while trying to get in a few good
kicks to the legs, the head, or the lower abdomen; finish with a high
leap into the air, coming down with all one's weight dead-center on the
creature's back, crushing the exoskeleton. For a good demonstration,
see Bruce Lee's superb technique in Enter the Dragon).

(bot)(bot) - Lee's technique was (is) superlative. Crushing a juicy
roach has the disagreeable effect of releasing noxious, sewer,
drain-smelling, odours into extant atmosphere. Phooee..


True. Yet the ideal solution, a clean cut severing the head from
the body, is not entirely effective; here the roach will not die
immediately, but stumble around for days, until it eventually dies of
thirst or hunger (without the head, it can't eat or drink).

"War is hell." -- Sherman


Some people seem to like the new Chess Life format. they talk about
quality pictures and such. I always thought the main difference
between Chess Life and an outdated chess book was the many color
pictures and the upcoming tournament announcements. If it weren't for
CL, I wouldn't have a clue what many contemporary GMs look like. I
mean, some total stranger could walk up and challenge me to play blitz
chess for five dollars a game, and I might say, "okay, sucker". After
cleaning me out, he offers to give me some chess lessons some time for
"only $80./hour -- my special discount rate for Class C players and
below. In your case, way below."


-- help bot

Referring to a helpbot note,
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 04 Jun 2006 01:46:05 GMT):
Such a pity that this is not an actual quote from Keene,
who, after all, wrote much here. Instead we have to suffer
a 'paraphrase' from Kennedy,
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 05:31:39 -0700):
How many times have we had to "suffer" with a "paraphrase"
from Phil Innes instead of an actual quote? Does Phil
Innes think it is a "pity" that GM Keene did not quote the
supposed focus to which he referred? Does Phil Innes think
it is a "pity" that Larry Parr did not quote the supposed
highlighting of a position to which he referred?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):
What Kennedy has done is suggest an indecent paraphrase
of Keene - Is this what concerns Louis Blair? Should Kennedy
distort what Keene said directly under the Blairian nose, and
all Blair does is complain about who notices it?
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 18:05:11 -0700):
How much concern does Phil Innes have? Where does he
write anything specific about what was "indecent"? I, at least,
reproduced some of GM Keene's actual original words.
_
I am, of course, also concerned about the Phil Innes
paraphrase habit, and it seems appropriate to me to remind
Phil Innes about his own behavior.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:36:10 GMT):
Casually passing over any aspect of essential truthfullness
or fair representation in people's writing, Louis returns to his
massive listing of things, and ...
_
I wrote (6 Jun 2006 11:30:53 -0700):
What specifics has Phil Innes provided about the "essential
truthfullness or fair representation" in helpbot's writing? Here
is one example of something specific (about the writing of Phil
Innes) that I have provided:
_
"Since when is the selfare of children 'meaningless?'"
- Phil Innes (Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:05:11 GMT)
_
"... dismissing others' as 'meaningless,' ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:40:22 GMT)
_
"You dismissed Pehme's site and his commissioned
article as 'meaningless'." - Phil Innes (Sat, 01 Apr 2006
00:12:42 GMT)
_
"when I wrote to that subjct [of general standards
Vinny] dismissed it as 'meaningless'" - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:52:20 GMT)
_
On 3 Apr 2006 14:55:29 -0700, I provided the actual original
quote:
_
"... The fact that you approve of your own
motives and disapprove of others' motives
is meaningless ..." - Vince Hart
(28 Mar 2006 09:47:07 -0800)
_
Vince Hart himself wrote:
_
"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800

_
Snipping all but the Vince Hart quote,
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:27:11 GMT):

I hope you note that Kane ...

_
Is "Kane" a nickname for Vince Hart?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:27:11 GMT):

... is not quoting me that I claim to be the only one who
cares about certain issues - but consider if he were to be
specific and quoting me with actual content!

_
I would think that most interpreted Vince Hart as meaning:
the only one in this discussion. In his response to Vince
Hart, Phil Innes wrote:
_
"I was the only person [at the time of writing] to
be concerned with 'the issue'" - Phil Innes
(Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:48:24 GMT)
_
In any event, whether or not Vince Hart misrepresented
what Phil Innes wrote, that does not does not excuse
the misrepresentation of Phil Innes.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:27:11 GMT):

Especially if I wrote about USCF standards of behavior
of its board members and employees and contractors. If
I had written that I cared about standards, he is indicating
that I am the only one who does, ...

_
No, Vince Hart was indicating that Phil Innes CLAIMS that
he is the only one (in the discussion, I presume) who cared
about standards.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:27:11 GMT):

... and that it is meaningless ...

_
"It" should, of course, refer to the Phil Innnes CLAIM about
beint the only one ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:27:11 GMT):

... [to whom?], but implicitly that such standards are
meaningless to him, either because he does not care for
the issues of USCF standards, or that he doesn't care
because I am the only one to write about them. shrug

_
The real Vince Hart "meaningless" comment was, in fact,
an objection to the Phil Innes conclusions about what others
care about. If Phil Innes had reproduced that comment, it
would have been easily apparent that Phil Innes was lifting
that word out of the Vince Hart sentence and attaching it
to PI's own theories about what goes on in Vince Hart's
mind. Phil Innes repeatedly chose to not reproduce anything
more than the one word, "meaningless".

SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE PARR

Louie Blair proved uninterested in my reporting
on the cost of the new, small building in
Cross-to-Bear in which I told readers of this
group that it was set to cost $650,000 for a wooden
structure about 40 percent the size of the building in
New Windsor, which was sold for $515,000. You learned
this fact two months before the Board itself confirmed
the number of $650,000.

Louie also proved uninterested in my reporting
about a cash crunch coming up for the Federation. It
hit, and the counterattack was that, in any case, it
was not the end of the Federation. Nor did I ever
claim it would be. But no matter. Louie was
uninterested. As we knew he would be.

Louie also appeared uninterested in my reporting
about a $60,000 contract privately given to Crossville
architect, famished Phil Elmore. After the usual
counterattacks, the number was confirmed, and the
political class announced it would renegotiate the
document.

Our Louie has also thus far seemed less than
fascinated by my reporting that Joel Benjamin would be
taking over the Q &A format which GM Evans conducted
so luminously over the decades, even though the new
editor told GM Evans that the format itself was tired.
When GM Benjamin's column eventually appears in CL
proper, which it will, our Louie won't be noting that
I explained these developments to rgcp readers. For
he will be uninterested.

Another subject that never seemed to interest
Louie was my reporting that Campomanes placed FIDE
funds in his personal name in a Sheffield building
account and, later on, simply appropriated 60 percent
of the FIDE treasury as a retirement benefit for him.

So, then, what did interest our Louie?

He quotes me as follows:

"In about 48 hours a major new candidate for FIDE
president will become known. This individual may be
able to defeat Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.
You read it here first."

The purpose of Louie's quoting me is to suggest
that I got something wrong because the person who was
considering running -- a major Asian chess personality
-- decided not to make the run.

My impression was that Larry Parr was referring to
his own mind. As for whether or not Larry Parr caused
any doubts three months ago, I can only guess. My
guess would be that there actually are people who
believed Larry Parr." -- Louis Blair

So, then, I will shortly be offering up a fairly
detailed account of the dirty stuff at the recent FIDE
Congress. There will the usual counterattacks that
will attempt to bury the details of how our "team" and
others performed, but as with most of my reporting,
the details that I present,will stand up.

However, I can predict with almost complete
accuracy what will prove of interest to the parser.
..

SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE PARR

Louie Blair proved uninterested in my reporting
on the cost of the new, small building in
Cross-to-Bear in which I told readers of this
group that it was set to cost $650,000 for a wooden
structure about 40 percent the size of the building in
New Windsor, which was sold for $515,000. You learned
this fact two months before the Board itself confirmed
the number of $650,000.

Louie also proved uninterested in my reporting
about a cash crunch coming up for the Federation. It
hit, and the counterattack was that, in any case, it
was not the end of the Federation. Nor did I ever
claim it would be. But no matter. Louie was
uninterested. As we knew he would be.

Louie also appeared uninterested in my reporting
about a $60,000 contract privately given to Crossville
architect, famished Phil Elmore. After the usual
counterattacks, the number was confirmed, and the
political class announced it would renegotiate the
document.

Our Louie has also thus far seemed less than
fascinated by my reporting that Joel Benjamin would be
taking over the Q &A format which GM Evans conducted
so luminously over the decades, even though the new
editor told GM Evans that the format itself was tired.
When GM Benjamin's column eventually appears in CL
proper, which it will, our Louie won't be noting that
I explained these developments to rgcp readers. For
he will be uninterested.

Another subject that never seemed to interest
Louie was my reporting that Campomanes placed FIDE
funds in his personal name in a Sheffield building
account and, later on, simply appropriated 60 percent
of the FIDE treasury as a retirement benefit for him.

So, then, what did interest our Louie?

He quotes me as follows:

"In about 48 hours a major new candidate for FIDE
president will become known. This individual may be
able to defeat Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.
You read it here first."

The purpose of Louie's quoting me is to suggest
that I got something wrong because the person who was
considering running -- a major Asian chess personality
-- decided not to make the run.

My impression was that Larry Parr was referring to
his own mind. As for whether or not Larry Parr caused
any doubts three months ago, I can only guess. My
guess would be that there actually are people who
believed Larry Parr." -- Louis Blair

So, then, I will shortly be offering up a fairly
detailed account of the dirty stuff at the recent FIDE
Congress. There will the usual counterattacks that
will attempt to bury the details of how our "team" and
others performed, but as with most of my reporting,
the details that I present,will stand up.

However, I can predict with almost complete
accuracy what will prove of interest to the parser.
..

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...

... [to whom?], but implicitly that such standards are
meaningless to him, either because he does not care for
the issues of USCF standards, or that he doesn't care
because I am the only one to write about them. shrug

_
The real Vince Hart "meaningless" comment was, in fact,
an objection to the Phil Innes conclusions about what others
care about.

This is your paraphrase Louis. But it is a distorted one - the parser caught
out yet again!

I was making an /observation/ about what others wrote about, which had not
to do with standards, but about their personal likes and dislikes of other
people.

In response to any more objective stance, Hart wrote that it was
'meaningless' - and my questions above stand.

If Phil Innes had reproduced that comment, it
would have been easily apparent that Phil Innes was lifting
that word out of the Vince Hart sentence and attaching it
to PI's own theories. Phil Innes repeatedly chose to not
reproduce anything more than the one word, "meaningless".

What is apparent [that means, what can be seen to be true - rather than
claimed] is that no one else engaging in those conversations wrote about
chess standards. Once more Blair confuses observation with citation - and
fatuously wants me to quote people who did not say... in order for me to
make any point of my own

What a lulu!

Phil Innes

wrote in message
oups.com...
KINGSTON'S SELECTIVE REPORTING

Dear Phil,

NM Taylor Kingston? You know the bloke. He
claimed without irony, without jocosity, and quite
straightforwardly that his chess strength is 2300+
ELO. When he was outed as an 1800 player by Sam
Sloan, among others, he tried to offer an excuse.

Its tricky if you get caught in one of those. At least Kingston was somewhat
better than 1800 in 2002, when joining the under 2100 section of a Mass.
tournament he returned a momentary but respectable performance rating for
that tournament of 2054! to attain a class A level.

The man's performance when discussing the Oxford
Companion is, if possible, yet more dishonest.

The entry on Gulko in the first edition of the
Companion simply ignored the best-known fact about the
man: he was a persecuted refusenik. Frankly, I read
a cryptic comment in the entry -- "For a time his
chess activities were reduced" -- as a hint that Gulko
was experiencing difficulties with the Soviet
authorities without actually saying so.

Inter alia, I was involuntarily copied [I did not request it] material from
a group of people 4 years ago who particularly protested who should write on
these chess histories. There were certain tarkets - yourself L. Parr, L.
Evans, R. Laurie, R. Keene, and a few others - and the point of the group
which circulated around chesscafe, was to refute a view of history as it was
then being contested there, and as it referred to chess. It is interesting
to note the circulation.

;
;
; ;
;
;

That is: addressed to: Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley,
Tapper, and Winter,

I received a specific note, March 2, 2006.

I will not print the note not so much because it is some private thing, but
more because it is boring historically and not containing IMO any
pedagogically useful approach that I find decent or of much worth, and
instead as mentioned above, overconcentrates on the failing of those with
other views than themselves, which the writer does not hold.

Intellectually, I am sure you recognise that it is frequently prudent to
assess any personal filters a writer may have, and any blind-spots, since
these things may skew a fair view of the subject in question by either
reducing the significance of singular factors, or the opposite, to literally
'glamourise' it, and amplify its worth but distort the overall result by
falsely proportioning it among all other facts.

Alas, I was unable to think that such corrections to the record by assessing
the character of the writer consituted the goal of this group.

I probably failed to qualify as a 'groupie'. ;(

But enough of that - since it makes no difference to me in particular as
viable historical contribution, but IS significant in assessing what is
written and how reviewed.

I should only wish a general reader here to understand that there is often
strong feeling on these issues, and private opinion and groups often
underlie public policy. It is noteworthy that the very same ChessCafe now
holds the offical role of retailing books to the American public on behalf
of the USCF - which as we all know - is established to promote chess into
the mainstream.

Some of these issues have concerned peoples freedom - and while that might
not strike the reviewer as any matter to him, is not a subject that needs be
hidden away, covered with euphemistically phrased vagueness, 'cleaned up',
neglected by absense of notice, nor is it a shameful subject that must be
written about in secret.

Yet it is. And that is the significance of not stating the truth plainly and
in public. Otherwise you lose perspective entirely on what is vital in any
story, and wind up commenting on players' wives, instead of their chess,
and feel nothing amiss about doing so!

I let the remaining text stand in full - though here is a significant phrase
from it; "The treatment of subjects Soviet in the Companion reeks."

Unless the issue of speaking the truth is openly challenged we will see all
the same patterns here - repressions and intimidations and censorship.

Phil Innes

In his DEFENSE of the Companion, NM Kingston is
arguing that even the short, totally inadequate
reference to a difficulty did not appertain to the
man's status as a refusenik.

Okay, fine. That makes the Companion still
scuzzier than I alleged in my original review.

Notice these sentences on Korchnoi from the
Companion, which are notable for containing an untruth
and for not containing the actual truth.

First, this sentence: "In 1976 Korchnoi left the Soviet Union."
What a way to express the fact that Korchnoi DEFECTED
from the USSR while in the West! The sentence as written
is false and suggests a player simply leaving a normal country
to live elsewhere.

The next sentence is a masterpiece of ex omissio
history, the kind that NM Kingston evidently adores:
"He suffered both personal sorrow because his wife and
son were not permitted to emigrate and professional
disadvantage because he could no longer gain the hard
practice he needed by competing with other Soviet players."

Notice the phrase "other Soviet players." That
suggests Korchnoi was still a Soviet player, which you
will recollect was one of the ploys that the Soviets
attempted to use during their boycott of him.

Oh, yes, please notice that there is no mention of this
boycott. Korchnoi is to blame for not playing Soviet players!

Of course, the authors make no mention of
Korchnoi's son being arrested and beaten on the eve of
his second match with Karpov -- either in the Korchnoi
entry or in the Karpov entry. After all, what relevance
could THAT possibly have on the outcome of the match
in Merano? How low the authors were when covering up
for the Soviets.

The treatment of subjects Soviet in the
Companion reeks. Our NM Kingston obviously
considers such writing to epitomize his understanding
of how history ex omissio should be written.

We confidently expect NM Kingston to offer more
generalized praise for the Companion without
discussing in detail the volume's treatment of
subjects Soviet.