On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:
LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

This is the best Parr has? After all that posturing?

Very sad.

On Nov 14, 3:25 pm, samsloan wrote:
It does not matter who was better, Nunn or Evans, because you do not
have to be a 2500 player or even a 1900 player to see that Keres made
a series of unbelievably weak moves, so weak that no strong player
would have ever played them.

The position is on my website athttp://www.ishipress.com/keres-bo.htm

Sam,

You have posted this opinion several times before, and you do not seem
to realize that you''ve been stepping all over Evans' original
argument.

Evans had suggested that if a top GM wanted to throw a game, he'd want
to make errors subtle enough so that the average player couldn't
easily detect them. So your allegation that Keres' play was
"unbelievably weak" actually contradicts Evans' theory of how to throw
a game.

If we took horrible moves to be good indicators of a likely fix, then
we wouldn't need Evans' analytic expertise to lead us toward a
conclusion. If what you say about Keres' play is right, any B player
could have written Evans' original article and would have been fully
qualified to do so.

Larry T.

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:
LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

This is the best Parr has? After all that posturing?

Very sad.

No Stephen, what he has is compelling. What I have is as much more so. You
see, the issue is what is on the public record, and when someone writes to
you under conditions of confidentiality here is as much as may /publicly/ be
demonstrated.

I hope you can appreciate this differentiation of perforce confidentiality,
and another form of open dialogue which we do not see from Kingston.

I wish him to consider this issue, and himself respond. That would be fair,
and as previously said, be entirely human - and some mere acknowledgement of
it sufficient.

Should you or he wish to argue a more specific issue - then we need to know
what that is. When there is blood on the tracks this is not any nothing
subject, and neither is it a cheap one that can be dealt with by vague
aspersions fleeing into generalities.

Should you not have known anyone who suffered such a system, then I excuse
your potential response.

Phil Innes

On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message

...

On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:
LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

This is the best Parr has? After all that posturing?

Very sad.

No Stephen, what he has is compelling.

I really don't see it as compelling, and I really doubt anyone without
a vested interest in "proving" this would disagree. I want proof, not
rhetoric.


Should you not have known anyone who suffered such a system, then I excuse
your potential response.


I know people who suffered through such systems... it doesn't make me
right or you wrong if either of us had or hadn't, it is simply a
diversion from the real debate - not that there appears to be much of
one. It really is sad on Parr's part and just adds more evidence that
he is Eddie Haskel to Evans as Wally Cleaver.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:

LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

March 2, 2002

Taylor Kingston
16 Wild Ginger Lane
Shelburne, Vt 05482

Gee, Larry, I do not recall giving you permission to post any
personal information of mine, nor did I give Mr. Laurie permission to
share it with you. How about we post your phone and bank account
numbers here for every crook and crackpot to read?

You challenged them both. When I did the same you responded that you would
either admit it, or deny you sent it. If you had not persisted in your
public rubbishing of others, then this would not have come about. But
obliging people to be secret about your communications is mighty strange!

As for the rest of this, what is it supposed to prove? A few
comments here and there below:

It proves your lie, Mr. Kingston! You are caught out - after your challenge,
and you are seen as stubborn and insensibly resistant to what is inevitable
exposure of your actions.

That is the degree, heretofore, of your wit, and what you think you can get
away with.

Let the chips lie where they may, since you cannot take a hint, nor having
been thrown an exit bone, accept it. What I have of your writing is
evidential of no interest in any topical matter, only of egoic perseverance.

You rather define youself now, but even so, the offer to speak more candidly
is ever open, as it is to anyone on any subject whatever.

Cordially, Phil Innes


Dear Mr. Kingston

I am finally able to sit down and write this overdue response. I wish
I could have gotten to it sooner, but the business of everyday living
just keeps getting in the way.

First a little about myself. When I got out of the army in 1971 (No, I
was nowhere near Viet Nam), I began to write. Along the way I have
worked at a number of different jobs in manufacturing, construction,
bookstores, and bars. I have also picked up a degree in anthropology
concentrating on archeology and have been on two digs.

My interest in chess began when my older brother and I first learned
the moves from the encyclopedia. It has waxed and waned over the years
and it would be nice to say I became a world-beater, but, alas, I am
stuck in the "C" class and will probably remain there.

I have had a couple of poems published and have two plays produced.
KNIGHT OF THE ID was the latter. It is getting some consideration and
serious read-throughs, but in the end, it remains in the eyes of those
in "the Biz," a p\ay about a dead Russian chess player and they are
basically looking for what they saw make money last year.

When ID was being readied for production, I wrote to a number of chess
journalists around the country to offer a script for their opinion.
Never mind who did not respond because two did. They were Gms Larry
Evans and Andy Soltis. I gave a copy to [Chess Life editor] Peter
Kurzdorfer when I met him at a tournament here in Erie (which I
believe he won, by the way) and he was nice enough to post it on his
website.

Since then copies of the tape of the show have made it to Ed Winter,
Ken Whyld, the late GM Edmar Mednis, and Fox & James of Addicts'
Corner in the British magazine CHESS. A number of suggestions have
been made and if I can ever gain another production, they will be
taken into consideration for the rewrite.

Now, for the issue at hand. I am not writing in defense of GM Evans,
nor for Larry Parr. Both are big boys and can take care of that
themselves. Furthermore, as everyone seems to agree that the "Commies
did it" this whole dispute recalls the big dust-up between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky when I was considering post-graduate work. Both said
basically the same thing but came from slightly different angles and
when they were brought together for a debate, it became painfully
obvious that they just did not like each other. This was one reason I
opted out of academia.

I am writing to further explain my impressions of what you wrote. The
only place I have read anything under your name is in Chess Life. I
have reviewed all of the relevant articles and letters. As a general
rule I stay off the electronic media. No matter what the interest:
politics, philosophy, or sports, Bulletin Boards and Chat Rooms are
often filled with pseudonymous catcalls and insults of such a puerile
nature it would make a sophomore blush. Often articles are of a much
lesser discipline than print journalism. I just avoid it.

Now, I said I did not know who you were. As I have explained, this
might seem harsh; but sarcasm was not intended. I did not and truth to
tell, I still don't. I only have those few letters and that one
article to go by. From that article, I drew several conclusions.

First, it did strike me and still seems to me that you did impugn
Evans' ability to analyze chess games.

As I have said many times before, this is a bizarre hallucination of
Mr. Laurie's. I have never "impugned Evans' ability to analyze chess
games." We have yet to see either Parr, Laurie or anyone present any
statement of mine to that effect, whereas I have repeatedly pointed
out positive statements of mine about Evans' analysis, for example
this, from the 5/1998 Chess Life:

"The bulk of Evans' article is devoted to analysis of points in
those games which strike him as suspicious. It appears valid, insofar
as he finds inferior moves by Keres."

Checking my dictionary and thesaurus, I see no way that "valid" can
be construed as derogatory, except in the confused mind of Mr. Laurie.
It was this flatly wrong claim of his, published in Evans' column,
that prompted me to contact Mr. Laurie in the first place.

You cite the words of Nunn (on
page fifty of CL May 1998) and state that Nunn is "generally
considered a stronger player than Evans" but present no counter
analysis.

Why would I want to present "counter analysis" when I agree that
Evans' analysis is correct?

It seems to be that a better way to dispute Evans would be
to show such an error "21 Re1" was typical of the type of error Keres
was prone to make.

True, I have only seen this type of analysis done twice, on Fischer
(Elie Agur's FISCHER: HIS APPROACH TO CHESS) and Morphy (Macon
Shibut's PAUL MORPHY AND THE EVOLUTION TO CHESS THEORY); but it can be
done.

As for who was the stronger player, Nunn or Evans...This is totally
irrelevant to the question and that question remains, "Did the Soviets
try to fix World Championship Chess and in doing so force Keres to go
in the tank?"s

Now, this question will never be more than a footnote to a footnote in
History, but in the History of Chess it is important. One question
that is always asked but never really answered is, "Why would they do
this?"

The answer is because Krylenko was a lover of chess and he convinced
Stalin that success in chess would show the world how efficient the
Soviet system was when compared to the rest of the world. This
argument was later used when the Soviet Union decided to enter the
Olympics and to allow the countries of the Soviet Bloc to enter as
well.

The other matter is that you have called GM Evans dishonest. You
seemed to imply it in the May 1998 article because you cited Schroeder
and you say Evans "...disturbingly misrepresented Hooper and Whyld." I
have not been able to see this and without direct counter quotes and
arguments, I cannot see where you find it.

None are so blind as those who will not see. To quote the relevant
passage from my 5/1998 article (which I sent to Laurie in its
entirety):

"I asked Evans if he had a 'smoking gun,' stating clearly the KGB
told Keres 'lose or we kill you.' He admitted (CL, 4/97, p. 28) 'I
doubt such a document will ever surface.' He then cited the
aforementioned 'Oxford Companion' entry: 'In return [for official
forgiveness] Keres promised not to interfere with Botvinnik's
challenge to Alekhine.' That, printed in 1984, is nothing new. Its
meaning is also clearly narrower than Evans' blanket statement 'the
price of [Keres'] reprieve was to abandon his quest for the crown.'
Evans is claiming more than it appears he can document."

In your first note to me
you flat out said it. It is too bad you have not had as happy an
acquaintance as I have had with him, but that is life.

This is getting rather long and there may be several points I have not
answered. I will be happy to continue our debate if you would like to
do so, but there are a couple of things in your notes to me that do
trouble me.

First, you asked me to keep this correspondence a secret. I cannot see
the point of this. It is reminiscent of closed door deal making. I
have been involved in too many situations to engage in such. I will
not, however, forward your notes to any third party without your
permission. Nor will I quote directly from you; but I can see no
reason not to notify people of the fact and substance of our
discussions. As you can see a copy of this is going on to Evans.

Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you are not aware
of the battle between Evans and Winter.

This is another of Mr. Laurie's hallucinations. I never wrote any
such thing, "baldly" or otherwise. At the time of this letter, March
2002, I had been aware of the antipathy between Winter and Evans for
several years, and have never said otherwise.

I am troubled because I have
known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in preparing his
rebuttal to Mr. Winter's remarks as printed in CL, October 2001.
Further, it is my understanding and has been for months, that you told
Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please clear up this seeming
contradiction.

There is no contradiction to clear up, except in the confused mind
of Mr. Laurie.

Sincerely,

Richard Laurie

cc: Larry Evans

That's it, Larry? This is your "proof"? This is your Zimmerman
Telegram? Where does it show me denigrating Evans's ability to
analyze? Where was anyone called "evil"? All you have proven is that
Mr. Laurie has definite deficiencies in reading comprehension and
factual reporting.

I find it interesting that the, um, "standards" of the Evans
ratpack do not exclude posting personal information on
the internet, such as for instance, the home address of
one of the annoying critics of Larry Evans.

Generally speaking, such groups might be expected to
uphold a much higher level of decency, if only to lend the
/appearance/ of having standards. I suppose it was not
intentional, but rather a lapse of judgment as befits their
constricted level of intelligence, their poor grasp of reality.

Certainly, one could not infer that it was a deliberate act,
an underhanded, low blow directed at Taylor Kingston in
retaliation for his remarks here. No, that would entail
giving the Evans ratpackers credit for a planned strategy,
which is absurd on it very face; the ratpack has shown
countless times that their attacks are made randomly,
and certainly without anything remotely resembling the
art of planning or reasoned thought.

No, one must conclude that this was but a careless
blunder, a mental slip, a brain fart typical of the ill-
equipped, the mentally incompetent. One cannot hold
an Evans ratpacker responsible for such an act any
more than one can blame a dog for peeing on a bush;
it is in their nature, their very flesh.


-- help bot

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message

...

On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:
LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

This is the best Parr has? After all that posturing?

Very sad.

No Stephen, what he has is compelling.

I really don't see it as compelling, and I really doubt anyone without
a vested interest in "proving" this would disagree. I want proof, not
rhetoric.

What? This is Laurie's own testament which was called for by Taylor
Kingston. He challenged Parr to produce it, which he did. So - what is
/your/ point here that can be illustrated by a proof that Kingston himself
denies, since it 'outs' his private opinion? If the proof is denied because
Kingston says it is unfair to quote what he say privately, compared to
public displays, is this not the very heart of the issue. to wit: what
should be made private here?


Should you not have known anyone who suffered such a system, then I
excuse
your potential response.


I know people who suffered through such systems... it doesn't make me
right or you wrong if either of us had or hadn't, it is simply a
diversion from the real debate

pardon, me, i lose the thread a bit, since my writing was interupted by a
phone call from the founder of a pioneering distance learning establishment
here in the us, professing great interest in a chess curriculum )

if i make no sense above or below, you are to understand my condition!

- not that there appears to be much of
one. It really is sad on Parr's part and just adds more evidence that
he is Eddie Haskel to Evans as Wally Cleaver.

i do not understand the cutural semiological context of that comment, so
excuse myself any response to it, other than a notice that metaphor is
sometimes apt, though as often not, and generally stands in place of actual
observation and comment thereof

that is my own orientation, and you will excuse the brevity of this address
to your subject since there is not so much I can speak to

cordially, phil innes

On Nov 15, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Again, Phil, it seems you simply wish to cloud this in rhetoric.

The question of whether Keres threw games now comes down to what some
C player playwright thinks? I don't see anything in his letter that
reveals a thing to me beyond what I already knew. Kingston's opinion
is already transparent, this throws no new light on anything. There is
no smoking gun here, just two disgruntled posters who want to smear
Kingston for one obvious reason and well, your reason, I suppose is
the same - he disagrees with you.

If you don't know who looks silly in this debate, well there is the
old poker analogy, " Look around the room for the sucker, if you can't
find him, its you."

You concluded aptly - there is little you can speak to as the facts
are clear - all that is left is posturing.

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Again, Phil, it seems you simply wish to cloud this in rhetoric.

I have absolute proof positive of what Larry Parr says from my own
correspondance [rather, his with me] with Taylor Kingston.

The question of whether Keres threw games now comes down to what some
C player playwright thinks?

Or B player Kingston?

What is it you contest Dr. S? The fact of Soviet era conivances in a
coerecedc environment, or some specific related to Keres Botvinnik? Say more
and so shall I.

I don't see anything in his letter that
reveals a thing to me beyond what I already knew. Kingston's opinion
is already transparent, this throws no new light on anything.

Nolens volens. What is the topic of these comments?

There is
no smoking gun here, just two disgruntled posters who want to smear
Kingston for one obvious reason

Too obvious to say?

and well, your reason, I suppose is
the same - he disagrees with you.

?

If you don't know who looks silly in this debate, well there is the
old poker analogy, " Look around the room for the sucker, if you can't
find him, its you."

there are always analogies possible, and there are those who can only resort
to them

You concluded aptly - there is little you can speak to as the facts
are clear - all that is left is posturing.

I know absolutely the facts of what I speak, and inquire of you, what is
your topic?

Is it Soviet fixing?

Come, come! If you wish to engage me on any topic, please to name it.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message


Come, come! If you wish to engage me on any topic, please to name it.

Phil Innes


Of course if Mr. Innes does not like the topic you name he may respond
to you as he did to me:

"So **** off, unless you get off on this subject..."
--


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti