On Nov 16, 9:19 am, The Historian wrote:

I see that Mr. Innes has chosen to compound his bad behavior with
misrepresentations of my posts in another thread. I have dealt with
that in the proper place.

Good. Then /finally/, Mr. Innes will be receiving the
professional help he so desperately needs.



I must say, Mr. Innes, that if this incident is typical of your
behavior in the past, I begin to understand how you acquired the
unsavory reputation that I frequently see referenced in this news group.

Not just in this newsgroup. He's considered a chucklehead in the
Shakespeare group as well.

I have posted several times that I agreed with IM
Innes regarding his point about the impossibility
of determining what is happening on the board
where the actual position cannot be made out, as
in a famous painting discussed on that newsgroup

But since then I have stumbled across something
which gives me pause; it appears that a few
obsessive-compulsives (possibly chess players) have
made a study of that painting, carefully comparing
the style of chess pieces and other details such
that they believe they can make out which piece
is which, and apart from the single man held in the
air, what the exact position in question was.

Now this is not an exact science, since it will be
noted that the position as claimed is not legal, or
rather it cannot be obtained in normal play by any
legal sequence of moves, but that detail aside, it
would appear that the nearly-an-IM 2450 Innes
was wrong: these nutters /can/ distinguish the
King from the Queen, the Rooks from the Knights,
and so forth. What they cannot do is forensically
determine the exact square the man-in-the-air
came from or is going to, so that much is left to
speculation.

But the claim that it is impossible to have any
mate-in-X appears to have been wrongheaded.
So both IM Innes and I were apparently mistaken,
in view of this new (to me) evidence. That would
make Neil Brennen correct, after all.


-- help bot


P.S.: Even so, given the position on the board,
I would have beaten either of those patzers in a
set match.

On Nov 16, 9:54 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Our Larry is fond of finding these special "implications."


I find that I am still in the dark as to the exact "implications"
of a quote posted here by Mr. Parr, perhaps a thousand times
or more.

It had to do with Mr. Campomanes and a press conference in
which Larry Parr's watch held that his favorite show, TASS News
Today, was /already in progress/ and annoucing that the FIDE
honcho was going to stop the match, annul GM Karpov's lead,
and declare the result a tie.

Since that time, not one person other than Larry Evans-Parr
has held that, by their watch, the TASS report preceded the
actual speech *AND* contained the details such as the FIDE
honcho's "undecided" solution of nixing GM Karpov's edge
and declaring the match drawn.

Now, as I understand it, if, for example, the evil President of
FIDE were undecided as to /any/ of the details, his comment
would be truthful in that he would not have "known" exactly
what he was going to "do" next. But in the strange world of
Larry Evans-Parr, it is "proof" of a lie. In this bizarre realm,
the (unsupported as far as I have seen) idea of TASS going on
the air to announce the match being stopped, automatically
provides verification of a Campomanes' "lie", on account of
that being the /desired and hoped-for/ result.

It makes no difference if GM Karpov was upset; it makes no
difference if Mr. Campomanes felt obliged to explain himself
to GM Karpov for having vaporized his hard-earned lead; those
are merely annoying facts, and as such can be dismissed as
irrelevancies since they do not support to preconceived
conclusion. Only those "facts" which do support the desired
result are to be considered or addressed, and any fact which
for whatever reason contradicts the "good story" must be
thrown out. This is the credo of Larry Evans and his ratpack:
never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

And we have to admit, it does make for a good story.



-- help bot

On Nov 16, 12:03 am, " wrote:
LAURIE'S '''CONFUSED MIND"
I agree with Mr.
Laurie that the implication can be found in what NM
Kingston wrote,

There you have it, one and all, in black and white, Larry
Parr claims that Kingston is an NM!

By the standards of evidence usual in these groups, that is as rock
solid as proof gets. No evidence to the contrary will ever, ever,
ever, be allowed to contradict this. He admitted it, after all!

Congratulations, NM Kingston!

And congratulations, Larry. It takes a big man to do that.

Now, if we can just get Neil Brennan to assert that Phil was rated
2400+, we can dump this absurd credentialism forever.

Or more likely, not.

William Hyde

"William Hyde" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 12:03 am, " wrote:
LAURIE'S '''CONFUSED MIND"
I agree with Mr.
Laurie that the implication can be found in what NM
Kingston wrote,

There you have it, one and all, in black and white, Larry
Parr claims that Kingston is an NM!

By the standards of evidence usual in these groups, that is as rock
solid as proof gets. No evidence to the contrary will ever, ever,
ever, be allowed to contradict this. He admitted it, after all!

Congratulations, NM Kingston!

The Master is dead, long live Le Maistre!

And congratulations, Larry. It takes a big man to do that.

Now, if we can just get Neil Brennan to assert that Phil was rated
2400+, we can dump this absurd credentialism forever.

Sadly, I am currently in a slump and can only manage 2286 [non-Elo], and
that is going West too!

Or more likely, not.

It definitely is. The big 2800 boogers are thumping me pretty hard. So are
the 2500 boogers.

& a foot on snow on the border!

OTOH, the electricians are out of the house at last, I can cleansed the
garage so you can get a car in it before the parking ban takes place
[yesterday], changed both cat litters, and am joking around with Sam's
obsessional friend - a Sam who has just woken up to women's point of view of
things, [they have them!] and has noticed a similarity in their opinions,
whether they be his obsessional friend or the next President of the USA -
that sexists dudes get up their nose! And I finished the column early. And I
wrote to Mickey Adams to inquire if he wants his questions yet - cool
questions including a bunch of GM ones to him, but also one from a 'Cornish
Grandmother to a Grandmaster' on the topic of nsaty scorpion curries as
encountered in Libya, rather than a right proper pasty as soul-food. The
English chess fed want to publish the interview to their own scholastic
community, so I encouraged him to, as a scorpio himself...

It was a good day in chess. That is, in the big wide world, hardly reflected
in this frequently glum place, which has nardly [!] any compass thereof.

Cordially, Phil Innes

William Hyde

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:52:54 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Do /you/ play, by the way? Do you like it?

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." How do you like it?

But a fair question. Here's a game I played a few minutes ago on
Playchess (I'm Jerry Attrich, get it?), just before reading your
incisive reply:

[Event "Rated game, 5m + 0s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2007.11.16"]
[White "Arraza"]
[Black "Jerry Attrich"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B00"]
[WhiteElo "1985"]
[BlackElo "1958"]

1. d4 Nc6 2. e4 e5 3. d5 Nce7 4. Bd3 Ng6 5. Ne2 Bc5 6. O-O Nf6 7. Nd2
d6 8. Nc4 Ng4 9. h3 h5 10. hxg4 hxg4 11. g3 Nh4 12. Re1 Nf3+ 13. Kf1
Rh1+ 14. Ng1 Rxg1+ 15. Ke2 Rxe1+ 0-1

pretty good for 5 mins!

You see, admonishing others to do things you don't do yourself is
hypocritical, whether you wear a dog-collar or a ten-gallon hat.

Let's keep your sexual proclivities out of this, Phil.

You have to take the hat off, during, unknown for collar

Phil

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:04:47 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


You see, admonishing others to do things you don't do yourself is
hypocritical, whether you wear a dog-collar or a ten-gallon hat.

Let's keep your sexual proclivities out of this, Phil.

You have to take the hat off, during, unknown for collar

I guess you ain't from Texas.

Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:04:47 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


You see, admonishing others to do things you don't do yourself is
hypocritical, whether you wear a dog-collar or a ten-gallon hat.

Let's keep your sexual proclivities out of this, Phil.

You have to take the hat off, during, unknown for collar

I guess you ain't from Texas.


Texans keep their boots on - but hats have been known to fall off.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

On Nov 16, 3:39 pm, William Hyde wrote:

I agree with Mr.
Laurie that the implication can be found in what NM
Kingston wrote,

There you have it, one and all, in black and white, Larry
Parr claims that Kingston is an NM!

Mr. Parr would not know the difference between
an NM and a BM, or even an RN, so who cares?

The entire result of his "attack", after years of work,
only managed to drop TK from 2300+ down to 2250
or thereabouts -- still well into NM territory; LP is an
embarrassment to self-respecting ad hominsts
everywhere.


And congratulations, Larry. It takes a big man to do that.

I take it you saw the photo of Mr. Parr obstructing
pedestrians on the Great Wall. Not to worry: it's
solid stone, so it easily could hold up ten Larry Parrs.


Now, if we can just get Neil Brennan to assert that Phil was rated
2400+, we can dump this absurd credentialism forever.

Ah-- you appear to have fallen for the Nearly's
ploy of edging his boast downward over time! The
number was 2450 -- not a farthing less. He also
laid claim to the nearly-an-IM title, which of course
means he was either a very weak GM or else a
very strong FM (I give him the benefit of the doubt,
going with the super-FM impersonation).

The only thing the Evans ratpackers have going
for them is their chess champion, Sam Sloan.
What they lack in honesty and intellect, SS
makes up for in swash, buckle and style. Who
else would dare pay hundreds of dollars to enter
a tournament like the World Open, then play
2. ...f6 as if throwing his games on purpose?
Who else could soundly(?) defeat Bill Brock in
a grudge match? Who else knows every
illegitimate descendant of Thomas Jefferson?
Or can defeat the Supreme Court sans any
help from a real lawyer? Only one man can:
Sam Sloan!


-- help bot

On Nov 10, 1:02 am, " wrote:
KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN

"I didn't want to spend three months of my life watching Soviets throw
games to each other." -- GM Reuben Fine explaining to Larry Evans why
he declined his invitation to the 1948 World Championship held in
Holland and the USSR.

It's well known by anyone who followed these threads that Edward
Winter and his disciple Taylor Kingston are sworn enemies of GM Larry
Evans. To ignore questions about whether he ever used bogus screen
names to praise his own arguments or his offer to shovel dirt about
political opponents to Rev. Walker, NMnot Kingston has seized upon
the phrase that "most scholars" agree with GM Evans' theory that Keres
was forced to throw games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World
Championship.

If Mr. Kingston wishes to dredge up this topic again and play the
numbers game, let him cite the scholars who disagree with GM Evans.
Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.

First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history, as
opposed to an antiquarian (for the distinction, consult Herbert
Butterfield's "Man on His Past") if by scholar one means a person who
has written histories or memoirs about the game. Winter has done
neither. He has produced a book of annotated documents on Capablanca
and compendia of Q&A plus some essays that were not very good. The man
writes in turgid, mannered Victorianese -- an easy style to emulate.

Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess, who have
supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene, whose Illustrated
History of Chess is more ambitious on the subject than anything done
by Winter. My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
position, and his work in terms of understanding and style is in the
major leagues when compared with a Winter.

The book on the 1948 World Championship by arbiter Harry Golombek also
strongly implies that Keres threw games. This writer, who has
attempted history and won several awards such as the 1996 Book of the
Year with Arnold Denker, has no doubt that GM Evans is correct.
Charges about the fix have been around ever since 1948 but 5-time U.S.
Champion Evans was the first to deconstruct all Keres-Botvinnik games
(without help from computers in 1996) documenting suspicious moves.

Indeed, NMnot Taylor Kingston, were he a scholar of chess history,
could be included as one who ended up agreeing with GM Evans ("the
Commies did it") though it took the slowish lad a mite long to come
around.

I have not clicked as yet the Winter reference provided by NMnot
Kingston, but if it is the scurrilous and dishonest article attacking
GM Evans in 2001, then perhaps it's time to repost several of my long
essays refuting that article where I noted how Winter doctored
"evidence." The technique was interesting, and I exposed it.

WE NOTE THAT NMNOT KINGSTON still has not answered whether he posted
under other names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF. He claimed that practice, by
the way, as an example of his having "standards." Yes, really he did.

NAILING ANOTHER KINGSTON LIE

In a reply to Kingston's "confidential" letter, playwright Richard
Laurie noted: "Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you
are not aware of the battle between Evans and Winter. 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 Chess
Life, 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." -- Richard Laurie

This topic was rehashed here long ago, as demonstrated by my posting
of 2/18/02.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Parrthenon)
Date: 18 Feb 2002 16:40:20 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 8:40 am
Subject: Keres-Botvinnik 1948

KERES-BOTVINNIK

TWO SMOKING GUNS

By Larry Parr

Evans concludes: "The truth about Botvinnik and Keres may never be
known, but until a smoking gun is found in KGB files, I firmly believe
the games
themselves contain the best evidence of a fix." -- Quoted by Larry
Tapper

Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on
Keres
seems willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor
Kingston

CASE CLOSED!?

While in London for the Kasparov-Kramnik title match in 2000, GM Evans
told
me that he asked GM Yuri Averbach, who lived through the Soviet era,
if he was
going to shed any new light on the Keres-Botvinnik controversy in his
memoirs.
Averbach said he had nothing new to offer.

In his Further Review of the Evidence at ChessCafe, Mr. Kingston
mentioned
two smoking guns (also cited by GM Evans in Chess Life) that erased
his
lingering doubts about whether Keres was coerced. Here are a few
pertinent
excerpts:

1. Briton Ken Whyld, co-author of The Oxford Companion to Chess, is
another
highly respected chess historian. His contribution to this discussion
is best
expressed in his own words: "Keres told me in private, when he was my
guest in
Nottingham, that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik,
and was
not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that
if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault
of Keres."

This constitutes, I believe, an important corroboration of Cafferty's
thesis,
perhaps even a long-sought "smoking gun." The Krabbé Diary was its
first
publication. That Whyld would keep it secret for nearly 38 years
puzzled me. In
another e-mail dated 11 August 2001 he clarified, and hedged
somewhat:

"I never regarded it as something to repeat in his lifetime, although
he was
probably secure enough in his later years. Later I thought it not
worth
repeating. Firstly there is only my word for it, and secondly he might
not have
been telling the truth."

Mr. Whyld is becomingly modest, and a skeptic might focus on the doubt
of that
last sentence, but I am inclined to take the story at face value.

2. A few months before Whyld's revelation, another relevant item
appeared on
Krabbé's site. Item #42, posted 10 December 1999, describes an
interview
with Botvinnik, by Dutch journalist Max Pam with émigré GM Genna
Sosonko
translating. Pam apparently did not realize the significance of what
he had,
for he did not publicize it widely to the chess world. Instead, the
interview
appeared only in the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland (20 August 1991),
a
general-interest weekly not devoted to chess. It attracted little
attention
until Krabbé translated a portion into English and put it on his site
over 8
years later.

In the key passage, Botvinnik was asked if he had ever known of
collusion
between Soviet players. His reply:

"I have experienced myself that orders were given. In 1948 I played
with Keres,
Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the world title. After the first half
of the
tournament, which took place in the Netherlands, it was clear that I
was going
to be world champion." (Note: strictly speaking, Holland was venue for
the
first 2/5 of the tournament, not "the first half."

After two laps, eight rounds, when the contestants had played each
other twice, the score stood Botvinnik 6, Reshevsky 4 1/2, Keres and
Smyslov 4, Euwe 1 1/2.)

"During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. At a
very high
level, it was proposed that the other Soviet players [i.e. Keres and
Smyslov]
would lose to me on purpose, in order to make sure there was going to
be a
Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally who proposed
this." (emphasis
added)

Amazing! For the first time, Botvinnik publicly states the existence
of a
conspiracy, with orders from the very top, none other than Stalin
himself.
Obviously, we have here the long-sought smoking gun.

Or do we? The rest of Botvinnik's statement clouds the pictu "But
of
course I refused! It was an intrigue against me, to belittle me. A
ridiculous
proposal, only made to put down the future World Champion. In some
circles,
people preferred Keres to be World Champion. It was disgraceful,
because I had
already proven by and large that I was stronger at that time than
Keres and
Smyslov."

Bizarre. The fix proposal was intended to insult him, and perhaps to
help
Keres? Nonsensical, as Krabbé notes. Botvinnik had something of a
persecution
complex, and it seems to be badly skewing his interpretation of events
here.
And what of the claim that he refused? Not his only such; see for
example
Achieving the Aim, p. 43, where he rejects Krylenko's suggestion that
Rabinovitch throw him a game in 1935. But the two incidents are not
entirely
comparable. Rejecting a suggestion by Krylenko is perhaps conceivable,
but
refusing orders from Stalin himself? Hard to believe. In most areas of
policy
Stalin was no more flexible than Hitler, and at least as brutal. Was
chess so
different, or Botvinnik so privileged?

So do we accept Botvinnik 100%? Do we dismiss it all as the grousings
of a
grumpy paranoid octogenarian, or pick and choose what to believe? I
prefer to
avoid speculation on each detail. Clearly it is at very least another
confirmation of the basic thesis of official pro-Botvinnik pressure.
Coupled
with Whyld's testimony, it shows, at a minimum, that there was an
officially
desired outcome, and both Keres and Botvinnik knew what it was.

There is another argument for at least partial acceptance. Botvinnik
's admission of a fix order is so different, so at odds with
everything he and Soviet officialdom have said before, that it is very
hard to explain unless it were a fact.

TAYLOR KINGSTON'S REPLY WHERE HE POSED AS XYLOTHIST (among a host of
other pseudonyms):

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Date: 18 Feb 2002 19:48:03 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 11:48 am
Subject: Politicising History in Chess Life and ChessCafe

"Such are the standards of those holding forth on the censored
ChessCafe
bulletin board." - Larry Parr.

Larry Parr talking of "standards" is ...

read more

Gee, what all the chess-nuts do is argue back and forth over the chess
evidence proving whether or not Keres purposefully lost the World
Chess Championship to Botvinnik:

Why don't they ask the old KGB and CIA agents (like I did) what
happened?

After a bit of loosening up, they all agree that Stalin was an
egomaniac that 3enjoyed toying with the fates of supposedly learned
people, and none more than so-called genius chessplayers. Stalin
personally issued the order tat Keres would never win; and what's more
he made sure that Keres knew that KGB agents would track him down and
make an example out of him if he fled the USSR.

chew on that for awhile
-Stalin loved

On Nov 16, 10:06 pm, help bot wrote:
On Nov 16, 3:39 pm, William Hyde wrote:

I agree with Mr.
Laurie that the implication can be found in what NM
Kingston wrote,

There you have it, one and all, in black and white, Larry
Parr claims that Kingston is an NM!

Mr. Parr would not know the difference between
an NM and a BM, or even an RN, so who cares?

The entire result of his "attack", after years of work,
only managed to drop TK from 2300+ down to 2250
or thereabouts -- still well into NM territory; LP is an
embarrassment to self-respecting ad hominsts
everywhere.

And congratulations, Larry. It takes a big man to do that.

I take it you saw the photo of Mr. Parr obstructing
pedestrians on the Great Wall. Not to worry: it's
solid stone, so it easily could hold up ten Larry Parrs.

Now, if we can just get Neil Brennan to assert that Phil was rated
2400+, we can dump this absurd credentialism forever.

Ah-- you appear to have fallen for the Nearly's
ploy of edging his boast downward over time! The
number was 2450 -- not a farthing less. He also
laid claim to the nearly-an-IM title, which of course
means he was either a very weak GM or else a
very strong FM (I give him the benefit of the doubt,
going with the super-FM impersonation).

The only thing the Evans ratpackers have going
for them is their chess champion, Sam Sloan.
What they lack in honesty and intellect, SS
makes up for in swash, buckle and style. Who
else would dare pay hundreds of dollars to enter
a tournament like the World Open, then play
2. ...f6 as if throwing his games on purpose?
Who else could soundly(?) defeat Bill Brock in
a grudge match? Who else knows every
illegitimate descendant of Thomas Jefferson?
Or can defeat the Supreme Court sans any
help from a real lawyer? Only one man can:
Sam Sloan!

-- help bot

I will have you know that I won all three of my games with black at
the World Open that started with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 !

Sam Sloan