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

**************
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?

What more did you want Louis? One infers the other, no?

What is Louis celebrating today? Phil Innes

Larry Parr wrote (2 Jun 2006 12:50:46 -0700):
OUTCOME [of the FIDE presidential election] NEVER IN
DOUBT ...
_
I reproduced (6 Jun 2006 00:05:52 -0700)
a Larry Parr note from about three months ago:
From: "
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: You read it here first
Date: 28 Feb 2006 19:53:42 -0800
_
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.
_
Kenneth Sloan wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:00:43 -0500):
Did Parr's post actually cause anyone to doubt the outcome?
_
I wrote (6 Jun 2006 18:46:08 -0700):
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.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Jun 2006 23:20:39 -0700):

Louie Blair proved uninterested in my reporting on the cost
of the new, small building ...
_
Louie also proved uninterested in my reporting about a cash
crunch ...

_
Larry Parr's notion of "prove" is defective.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Jun 2006 23:20:39 -0700):

... 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.

_
I was interested enough to keep track of what Larry Parr
actually did tell us. At the end of this note is a reproduction
of his 16 Dec 2004 05:48:40 GMT "KEEP THIS POSTING!"
note.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Jun 2006 23:20:39 -0700):

Louie also appeared uninterested in my reporting about a
$60,000 contract ...
_
Our Louie has also thus far seemed less than fascinated by
my reporting that Joel Benjamin would be ...
_
Another subject that never seemed to interest Louie was my
reporting that Campomanes placed FIDE funds in his ...
_
So, then, what did interest our Louie?
_
He quotes [my "48 hours ... major new candidate" note].
_
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.

_
"Suggest"? Larry Parr should not be evasive on this point. Was
Larry Parr wrong or not?
_
"When I am dead wrong, I say so." - Larry
Parr (24 Apr 2006 00:17:45 -0700)
_
It occurs to me now, that I do not remember Larry Parr indicating
how much time may go by before Larry Parr says so.
_
Part of my "purpose" was to give some indication of the extent to
which we can depend on Larry Parr to acknowledge his failures.

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Jun 2006 23:20:39 -0700):

So, then, I will shortly be offering up a fairly detailed account
of the dirty stuff at ... as with most of my reporting, the details
that I present,will stand up.

_
Can we depend on Larry Parr to acknowledge the details that do
not "stand up"?

_
Larry Parr wrote (6 Jun 2006 23:20:39 -0700):

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

_
There is no secret about that. I have been interested in the
subjects that Larry Parr once raised and no longer seems to
love. Nobody knows better than Larry Parr which subjects are
problems for him. Notice that Larry Parr prefers not to actually
name the subjects.
_
One of those subjects concerns what Larry Parr told us about
Taylor Kingston's 2000 review of the GM Soltis book, The 100
Best Chess Games of the 20th Century:
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and ... Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. He simply selected a sentence from the
introduction to the game as an example of the
failure of GM Soltis to provide such information as
the round in which the game was played" - Louis
Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting the single reason, the position
following move 42, for why this game has been
anthologized in so many books." - Larry Parr
(5 Jun 2006 20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen an answer from Larry Parr.
_
"Does Larry Parr also claim that, by merely referring
to a sentence in the introduction to the game,
Taylor Kingston 'singled out' the position?"
- Louis Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen an answer from Larry Parr.
_
"Larry Parr seems to fancy himself as an expert
on what 'a vast majority of chess readers would
assume' upon reading something. What does
Larry Parr imagine that they would think after
reading statements about Taylor Kingston
'highlight'ing a position and 'singl'ing it 'out'?"
- Louis Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen an answer from Larry Parr.
_
"Would Larry Parr want us to take his
26 Apr 2006 19:05:22 -0700 attack as
representative of the degree to which Larry Parr
can be trusted to fairly describe what happened?"
- Louis Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen an answer from Larry Parr.
_
"Duras-Teichmann is one of the listed favorites in
the famous Wellmuth-Horowitz 'Golden Treasury of
Chess' ... listed in Soltis as one of the 100 best ...
I believe it was in two Wenman collections and the
Coles collection ... Keene and Divinsky's 'Warriors
of the Mind.' I have seen the combination given in
old Chess Rreviews a number of times." - Larry
Parr (1 Jun 2006 18:14:21 -0700)
_
_
"the game is in the original 1943 Wellmuth-edited
version of [The Golden Treasury]. However, it is not
included in the 1969 edition supposedly edited by
Horowitz.
_
... Duras-Teichmann is #9 in [Wellmuth's] all-time
favorites, and the crucial rook sacrifice at move 43
is praised to the skies" - Taylor Kingston
(2 Jun 2006 13:37:30 -0700)
_
_
"Larry Parr has mentioned a 2000 GM Soltis book,
a 1989 GM Keene (and Divinsky) book, and a few
other books that were written three or more decades
ago. Of the lot, Warriors of the Mind is the only book
that is claimed by Larry Parr/GM Keene to mention
the problem with move 43." - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
06:53:55 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen Larry Parr identify any more books as
being ones that mention the problem with move 43.
_
"Taylor Kingston ... imagines that Francis Wellmuth
tossing around exclamation marks constitutes what
one calls normally annotated games." - Larry Parr
(4 Jun 2006 03:33:08 -0700)
_
_
"Did I say anything to the effect that Wellmuth's
book contains 'annotated' games? No. I said that he
obviously approved of Duras' unsound combination."
- Taylor Kingston (4 Jun 2006 06:38:34 -0700)
_
I have not seen any more from Larry Parr about Taylor Kingston
supposedly imagining normally annotated games in the
Wellmuth book.
_
"And, yes, the Wilson volume is yet another
collection which included the well-known or famous
Duras-Teichmann game." - Larry Parr (4 Jun 2006
03:33:08 -0700)
_
_
"Why is it Parr is afraid to give the title of 'the Wilson
volume?' Could it be because 'the Wilson volume' is
titled Lesser-Known Chess Masterpieces?" - Neil
Brennen (4 Jun 2006 04:41:43 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen an answer from Larry Parr.
_
"... an argument that one highlights perforce the
main point of a reference when making the reference
..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006 20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"As anyone can tell from simply reading what Taylor
Kingston wrote 'the position following move 42' was
not 'the main point of' the Taylor Kingston reference
to Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)" - Louis Blair
(5 Jun 2006 22:44:43 -0700)
_
So far, I have not seen more from Larry Parr about "the main
point of a reference when making the reference".
_
I still have not seen Larry Parr reproduce an actual quote of
the supposed "highlight"ing and "singl"ing out".
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf
_
_
Larry Parr's 16 Dec 2004 05:48:40 GMT "KEEP THIS
POSTING!" note:
_
_
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.e du!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com !ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.cs.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 63
X-Admin:
From: (Parrthenon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 16 Dec 2004 05:48:40 GMT
References:
Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/)
Subject: USAF EB to hold closed sessions in Florida
Message-ID:

KEEP THIS POSTING!

Here is what I believe is happening now and how events will
proceed
until this coming mid-year if the lawsuit to stop the move fails.

1. There is a significant shortfall of six figures in
Federation
revenues.

2. The most likely source of the shortfall is ChessCafe. The
most
likely cause is that monies sent by the Cafe have been advertising and
membership revenues without a sufficient mix of sales receipts.

3. There will be an effort to speed up the move while there is
still
cash in the kitty.

4. At the Board meeting this weekend, Beatriz's resignation
will be
accepted on a 6-0 vote, a kind of honorable discharge.

5. At the Board meeting this weekend, Beatriz's hire as, most
likely,
acting or assistant executive director, will be approved by a 5-1 vote.
Don
Schultz's silence speaks volumes, and the only "No" vote will come from
Frank
Brady.

6. Numbers four and five above will be accomplished within a
few
minutes. The issue is totally cut and dried contra Bauerian claims to
the
contrary.

7. There are provisions in the contracts between the USCF and
Crossville that do not bear the light of day, and deliberations over
the move
will be secret unless the meeting is unattended by outsiders. If
outsiders
arrive, the Board will vote to go into secret session.

8. The Board has no decent estimate of the cost of the move,
having
voted for it without costing it out beforehand. The costs of the move
as well
as the new building will exceed all expectations.

9. A cash crunch will appear as early as April, and the Board
will take
funds from the LMA, which were to go toward constructing headquarters
in
Crossville. We will be told there is nothing to worry about because
the
Federation has splendid quarters in a Crossville church and need not
construct
a building for a year or two.

10. The actual moving will occasion problems as yet unimagined.
Political
factions will draw lines, and the crackah barrow lads in Crossville
will add a
couple of their surprises. The loss of experienced employees will
prove
devastating.

11. Some person or group will step forward to purchase the
equipment and
databanks of the USCF, along with other rights, to bail out the
organization.

12. The last of the former New York employees will disappear.
Beatriz
Marinello or, depending on how the elections go, Bill Goichberg or his
nominee
will assume the post of Executive Director.

13. The Federation as we have known it will be
Manhattan-chess-clubized.

Look for something to come out of the Florida meeting or shortly
thereafter indicating income shortfall. If we hear of such, you may
take Nos.
2 to 13 for granted.

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will
not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical
Commission.

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
_
I wrote (6 Jun 2006 21:57:29 -0700):
The real Vince Hart "meaningless" comment was, in fact,
an objection to the Phil Innes conclusions about what others
care about.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:04:46 GMT):

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

_
Phil Innes snipped and chose not to mention the Vince Hart
quotes (with the word "meaningless") that I reproduced. They
are reproduced again, below.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:04:46 GMT):

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'

_
What is "it" supposed to be? Here are the quotes again:
_
"... 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)
_
"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

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:04:46 GMT):

- and my questions above stand.
...
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 repeatedly chose to reproduce the one word,
"meaningless", without including the rest of the sentence. 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 sentences and attaching it to PI's own theories
about Vince Hart's thinking.
_
"... 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)

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:49:50 GMT):

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. ... It is interesting to
note the circulation. ... addressed to: Dear Messrs. Blair,
Brennen, ...

_
I did not receive this material.

Larry Parr wrote (2 Jun 2006 18:30:49 -0700):
BACK TO HACK ...
_
I wrote (6 Jun 2006 20:05:22 -0700):
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?

_
Snipping the Larry Parr quote,
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:35:42 GMT):

One infers the other, no?

_
I see no reason to "infer" that GM Evans is considered
by Neil Brennen to be a "hack" from the NB note above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:35:42 GMT):

What more did you want Louis?

_
An admission from Larry Parr that, in the Neil Brennen note,
the word, "hack", was not used to describe GM Evans.
_
"'hack' was the word [Neil Brennen] used to
describe the 5-time U.S. Champion and Hall
of Famer." - Larry Parr (20 May 2006
02:04:29 -0700)

"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 suppose it is possible that Larry Parr believes he and Evans
are in essence, inseparable. For example, Mr. Parr will quite
often reminisce about Evans winning the U.S. Championship
five times, just as though it were his own accomplishment, or
as if Evans were his own father, perhaps.


In the movie The Three Musketeers, the motto was "All for
one, and one, for all!" If we cut out one Musketeer, leaving
just Larry Parr and Larry Evans, the motto still applies: if you
attack one, you (are understood to) attack the other. Quickly
drawing his sword, swashbuckler Parr rushes to "defend" his
loyal ally -- not realising he carelessly misread a simple
sentence. Wait! The third Musketeer has arrived -- Phil Innes!
With Jr as mascot, these three -- no, four -- Musketeers are
virtually invincible! Even the presence of an adjective (here
the word "pet", as in "pet hack") stands no chance against
these heros in their endless quest to muddle issues and
attack critics with sharpened blades of ad hom. metal.

Does the word "pet" seem to make things rather crystal
clear? Mr. Parr is described as both a hack, and a pet of
GM Evans. I should think after seeing this pointed out, the
only one still confused on the issue should be Phil Innes,
who of course came into this world in a state of utter
confusion, and will exit the same way. It goes without
saying that Larry Parr will never actually admit he was
mistaken, but we should understand that he is not so
dense as to be unable to eventually figure this out. Any
further attempts on his part will be understood as tries
at clouding the issue, in order to protect his fragile ego.

"I like to watch 'em squirm", Blair snickers, while typing
out yet another Bust to the Parr Gambit, insisting on a
public apology which will never come.


-- help bot

wrote:
wrote:

Phil Innes is a model intellect, knowledgeable in
the classics and in literature.

There are indeed many things that Mr. Innes can teach Mr. Parr. Here
are a few of them. They can all be traced to Mr. Innes' newsgroup
posts:

- The King James translators chose the texts that constitute
the Bible.

- A weak paraphrase of a statement by George Orwell is the same as a
well-known "quotation".

- Old English was spoken into the 18th century.

- Early Christians were "animists".

- The author of the Shakespeare canon believed in "non-Pauline
Christianity".

- Drug testing in sports violates the unlawful search and seizure
amendment to the US Constitution..

- Virginia Woolf had a grandchild, and Phil spoke to him, despite Woolf
dying childless.

- There is a "British Language", a tongue with a "negative case", and
strange words like "campel", "lingusit", "secuter", etc.

- The words "love" and "leave" are the same in Russian, so one could
translate "love it or leave it" without changing the verb.

- The chess term "pawn and two moves" means 'play with the Black
pieces'.

- Philip Keith Innes was "almost an IM", despite not getting over BCF
145 or USCF 2200.

- "In short: I have not found a single first-hand refererence nor
artifact which would verify that the event [1904 Cambridge Springs
International Chess Tournament] ever took place." - Phil Innes

- Only one of King Lear's three daughters was female.

- "Who was it again who developed the basis for the OED - some 50% of
it.
Wasn't it an American medical doctor?" - Phil Innes

- "It is unknown how the play was received since Shakespeare
dissapeared (sic) from
view for several hundred years after his death, along with his plays,
and reporting is unreliable. "

I forgot this one:

"... Gilbert and Sullivan! (two English twits,
no longer celebrated in any actual
performance) ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:21:28 -0500)

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

Phil Innes repeatedly chose to reproduce the one word,
"meaningless", without including the rest of the sentence. 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 sentences and attaching it to PI's own theories
about Vince Hart's thinking.

Which was zero. Hart invited me to make a contribution on the basis of a set
of standards, which he then termed 'meaningless' [see below]. Which
presumably means that the matter is dismissed as without sense, or that the
person cannot ascribe a meaning of their own to it. shrug

What is it that L. Blair doesn't understand?

If there is a meaning at all to a contribution to the basis of a discussion
I seem to be the only person making it, of those who had any quare or
interest in debating it.

PI

"... 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)

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ps.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:49:50 GMT):

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. ... It is interesting to
note the circulation. ... addressed to: Dear Messrs. Blair,
Brennen, ...

_
I did not receive this material.

and yet it is your e-mail address

pi

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

**************
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?

_
Snipping the Larry Parr quote,
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:35:42 GMT):

One infers the other, no?

_
I see no reason to "infer" that GM Evans is considered
by Neil Brennen to be a "hack" from the NB note above.

Louis Blair sees no reason to infer it and sees no reason not to infer it.
Welcome to Blair-City!

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:35:42 GMT):

What more did you want Louis?

_
An admission from Larry Parr that, in the Neil Brennen note,
the word, "hack", was not used to describe GM Evans.

Here we an interesting possibility, that one can need a 'hack', or a pet
hack, and yet not be one. Louis Blair is apparently of Brennen's opinion.

"'hack' was the word [Neil Brennen] used to
describe the 5-time U.S. Champion and Hall
of Famer." - Larry Parr (20 May 2006
02:04:29 -0700)

Brennens genius extends to recommending to an editor that the chessic worth
of a 5 times US champion is beyond any consideration, and that those who
would propose the contrary, especially Larry Parr are therefore hacks.

This is almost as amusing as reading Brennan's take on Chess Bitch, and
'woman's stuff' yikes, 2 subjects, GM chess knowledge and females, for
which it is arguable that he knows anything whatever, and who in any case,
writes in such a loose style as to make every suggestion of intent he
writes, with the same clarity as his ability to write to any chess subject.

Lovely Louis continues to worry over this equivocation, to the neglect of
missing entirely the fatuous suppositions of he who made it.

Phil Innes