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 4½, Keres and
Smyslov 4, Euwe 1½.)


"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 like Bill Clinton lecturing on
marital
fidelity. He disparages others' education, yet he allows himself
double
standards a college freshman could see through, and repeatedly
violates
standards of civil discourse by resorting to personal insult. To
enumerate:


1. He complains that "Xylothist" is a pseudonym. This is rich coming
from
"Wmiketwo," under which alias Parr has made postings praising himself
while
insulting others on this forum. [This is a lie. I never posted under
any bogus screen names and offered a lie detector challenge for big
bucks declined by Mr. Kingston.]

2. Parr claims Taylor Kingston made the "silly" statement that "no one
dared to
defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp." I responded
by saying
Kingston had not said this, but showed that Parr himself had said
something
very like that. Parr complains that was taken out of context. Yet
when
challenged to present the Kingston quote he refers to, Parr presented
a passage
that, in context, clearly applies specifically to Botvinnik, and
cannot
reasonably be construed to include Kapitsa or others. It is Parr who
uses the
absolute terms "no one" and "any person," not Kingston.

Parr wants it both ways. He complains about "context," yet he ignores
the
context of the Kingston quote, fabricating a whole new meaning for it.
He
invokes Stalin's severity to support his own belief (documented on
this
newsgroup) that Botvinnik did not defy Stalin, yet he wants to label
Kingston
"silly" because Kingston wonders if Botvinnik had the wherewithal to
defy Stalin.

Kingston finds it "hard to believe" that Botvinnik might have defied
Stalin,
and Parr says "Botvinnik ... had everything to gain by complying and
everything
to lose by not complying" with Stalin. Yet according to Parr, Kingston
is being
"silly" while Parr is showing superior knowledge, education and
intellect. Wow.

3. Parr insults my educational level, about which he knows nothing,
and refers
to Kingston (and many others) by the charming term "ratpacker." Ad
hominem
attacks, unfounded gratuitous insults, and juvenile epithets - this is
rhetoric at its best!

The bizarre thing is that, as far as I can tell, Parr and Kingston
both hold
a very negative view of Stalin, yet Parr is not content - even where
someone
agrees with him, Parr must prove that Parr is superior, even if it
means
fabricating differences.

What drives Parr to these extremes of petty demagoguery I cannot
imagine. In
any event, they merit no further response.

IM TONY SAIDY ON TAYLOR KINGSTON'S HERO

"I valued Edward Winter's diligent work and subscribed to his Chess
Notes until it went out of business in 1989. I was grateful to him for
pointing out an embarrassing error in my book The World Of Chess
(where I missed the location of Cambridge
Springs only by the width of the Atlantic Ocean). We corresponded for
several years. However, when I had the audacity to correct one of his
errors in translating a Spanish phrase, his huffy reply indicated that
he was alien to the concept of receiving constructive criticism. I
stopped writing after this incident."

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 4½, Keres and
Smyslov 4, Euwe 1½.)


"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 like Bill Clinton lecturing on
marital
fidelity. He disparages others' education, yet he allows himself
double
standards a college freshman could see through, and repeatedly
violates
standards of civil discourse by resorting to personal insult. To
enumerate:


1. He complains that "Xylothist" is a pseudonym. This is rich coming
from
"Wmiketwo," under which alias Parr has made postings praising himself
while
insulting others on this forum. [This is a lie. I never posted under
any bogus screen names and offered a lie detector challenge for big
bucks declined by Mr. Kingston.]

2. Parr claims Taylor Kingston made the "silly" statement that "no one
dared to
defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp." I responded
by saying
Kingston had not said this, but showed that Parr himself had said
something
very like that. Parr complains that was taken out of context. Yet
when
challenged to present the Kingston quote he refers to, Parr presented
a passage
that, in context, clearly applies specifically to Botvinnik, and
cannot
reasonably be construed to include Kapitsa or others. It is Parr who
uses the
absolute terms "no one" and "any person," not Kingston.

Parr wants it both ways. He complains about "context," yet he ignores
the
context of the Kingston quote, fabricating a whole new meaning for it.
He
invokes Stalin's severity to support his own belief (documented on
this
newsgroup) that Botvinnik did not defy Stalin, yet he wants to label
Kingston
"silly" because Kingston wonders if Botvinnik had the wherewithal to
defy Stalin.

Kingston finds it "hard to believe" that Botvinnik might have defied
Stalin,
and Parr says "Botvinnik ... had everything to gain by complying and
everything
to lose by not complying" with Stalin. Yet according to Parr, Kingston
is being
"silly" while Parr is showing superior knowledge, education and
intellect. Wow.

3. Parr insults my educational level, about which he knows nothing,
and refers
to Kingston (and many others) by the charming term "ratpacker." Ad
hominem
attacks, unfounded gratuitous insults, and juvenile epithets - this is
rhetoric at its best!

The bizarre thing is that, as far as I can tell, Parr and Kingston
both hold
a very negative view of Stalin, yet Parr is not content - even where
someone
agrees with him, Parr must prove that Parr is superior, even if it
means
fabricating differences.

What drives Parr to these extremes of petty demagoguery I cannot
imagine. In
any event, they merit no further response.

It is very well known that "Edward Winter" is obsessed with Raymond
Keene and has been attacking him incessantly since the late 1970s.

In the last decade or so Winter has added other names to his list of
people he attacks all the time. These include especially Larry Evans,
Eric Schiller and most recently Sam Sloan.

(I am honored to have my name added to such a distinguished list.)

I have put quotation marks around the name "Edward Winter" because
nobody knows who he is. Nobody has ever seen him. Detectives have even
staked out around the house in Switzerland where he supposedly
receives his mail and nobody has been able to find him there.

Taylor Kingston shares some remarkable similarities with Edward
Winter. Both are English. Both have the same enemies list. This has
led me to wonder that they might even be the same person.

Sam Sloan

On Nov 10, 4:02 am, " wrote:

KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN

Nope, Larry, just stating facts. I must say, however, I do enjoy the
ironic spectacle of you complaining about an alleged "smear campaign."
Rather like Mike Tyson complaining about ear-biting. I will ignore
your usual assortment of slurs, red herrings and fabrications and
stick to the point.


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.

False dichotomy, Larry. The plain fact is that scholars have
virtually *_ignored_* Evans's article. It's not that some agree and
some disagree - it's that they are entirely indifferent to it. And
with good reason. The article is not the least bit scholarly - its
citing of James Schroeder is by itself enough to disqualify it - and
overall it just does a real lousy job of supporting Evans' thesis.
Therefore scholars won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
It is you who have made the claim that "most scholars" consider it
"seminal," "groundbreaking" etc. It's entirely up to *_you_* to
produce references to that effect

Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.

Straw man, Larry. The question is not agreement or disagreement with
Evans' *_conclusion_*. A blind idiot flipping a coin has a 50/50
chance of being right on the question of coercion at Hague-Moscow 1948
- it's basically a yes/no proposition. The question is whether Evans
did a good job of *_supporting_* his conclusion. He did not, and
scholars who have read the article know it.
Evans's main technique was closer to the reading of animal entrails.
To buttress this he skimmed through a small part of the relevant
literature and chose quotes that supported his foregone conclusion,
never dealing with sources that contradicted him.

First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history

Translation: Winter has nailed historical errors by Evans so many
times that Parr can only try to redefine him out of existence.

Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess,
who have supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene

Ray Keene is a scholar while Winter is not?? Riiiight ... and the
Monkees were a better band than the Beatles.

My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
position,

Please cite a reference in which Saidy praised the Evans
*_article_*. BTW, I contacted Saidy during my research circa 1997-98
and he refused to go on the record with any opinion on the Keres
matter.

Harry Golombek also strongly implies that Keres threw games.

In view of the fact that Golombek died on January 7, 1995, while the
Evans article appeared in October 1996, I rather doubt that he ever
expressed any opinion on the article.

Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article is
a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time.
Interested readers can find my critiques of the Evans article he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

On Nov 10, 9:55 am, samsloan wrote:
It is very well known that "Edward Winter" is obsessed with Raymond
Keene and has been attacking him incessantly since the late 1970s.

In the last decade or so Winter has added other names to his list of
people he attacks all the time. These include especially Larry Evans,
Eric Schiller and most recently Sam Sloan.

(I am honored to have my name added to such a distinguished list.)

I have put quotation marks around the name "Edward Winter" because
nobody knows who he is. Nobody has ever seen him. Detectives have even
staked out around the house in Switzerland where he supposedly
receives his mail and nobody has been able to find him there.

Taylor Kingston shares some remarkable similarities with Edward
Winter. Both are English. Both have the same enemies list. This has
led me to wonder that they might even be the same person.

Sam Sloan

My interpretation of the story about Stalin and Botvinnik is:

1. The first half (2/5) of the tournament was left alone, to see which
USSR player was strongest. Botvinnik won that race convincingly. At
the end, it was not entirely clear (absent Soviet collusion) that he
would win the tournament because the US player Reshevsky was not far
behind.

2. Then I find it entirely plausible that Stalin "selected" Botvinnik
as the Soviet "champion" and ordered all Soviet players to support his
victory, while striving to kneecap foreigners such as Reshevsky.

3. I also find it plausible that Botvinnik did not want to participate
in the scam and honorably declined. However I doubt this made any
difference to Stalin, who wanted a Soviet winner and clearly no other
one could be counted on to win; they were all behind Reshevsky. So
the orders to the other Soviets remained the same. It isn't Botvinnik
who threatened them, it was Stalin.

4. One cannot dismiss totally the possibility that Botvinnik invented
the story, knowing it was believable. Botvinnik's story can't be
proved with the given evidence. But all the chessplayers are little
pawns to a guy like Stalin, and I would expect him to orchestrate a
Soviet winner in exactly this way. So I believe the story as given
above.

5. So Botvinnik was ordered to win and the other Soviets were ordered
to lose to him, and they _all_ had to be afraid of Stalin.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 10, 4:02 am, " wrote:

KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN

Nope, Larry, just stating facts. I must say, however, I do enjoy the
ironic spectacle of you complaining about an alleged "smear campaign."

It is simply extraordinary that Taylor Kingston is going to contest this
issue - his source appears to be a cataloger of chess datum, who is a very
modest player, and in the face of some of the strongest players in the
world - who were around at the time!

Although I have a terrible feeling that I will not be able to identify from
Kingston's pen exactly what the issue is [lets see at the end of this post]
....

....by all means! Let the Facts begin!


Rather like Mike Tyson complaining about ear-biting. I will ignore
your usual assortment of slurs, red herrings and fabrications and
stick to the point.

Not a good start with that Mike Tyson analogy, but, at least it wasn't
Stalin. But back to the point... the facts...


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.

False dichotomy, Larry. The plain fact is that scholars have
virtually *_ignored_* Evans's article. It's not that some agree and
some disagree - it's that they are entirely indifferent to it.

Ah! These 'scholars' are people who are presumed expert, yet, we are to
understand, they are far from refuting any points made by Evans, since they
haven't even read him.

And
with good reason. The article is not the least bit scholarly - its
citing of James Schroeder is by itself enough to disqualify it - and
overall it just does a real lousy job of supporting Evans' thesis.

So these as yet unnamed scholars are not even reacting to what a character
called Schroeder said, but his name. And otherwise 'it' does support Evans,
not well enough for [shall we presume them real?] scholars.

Just a process point: at top I said I would be struggling to determine what
any context was - what is being argued here - and so far it is not Keres
Botvinnik, but a review of the cast of commentators including one Schroeder,
plus the 'scholars'.

Therefore scholars won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
It is you who have made the claim that "most scholars" consider it
"seminal," "groundbreaking" etc. It's entirely up to *_you_* to
produce references to that effect

Quite apart from the logical fallacy inherent in the formation of that
proposition, unfortunately itis not a sentence since it lacks a subject: to
wit: prove to /whom/?

To as yet unnamed scholars?

The logic implied in the process is that the scholars would agree on the
basis of any proof, and indeed, are capable of understanding a proof, and
thirdly, that the scholars to be presented, actually exist.

Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.

Straw man, Larry. The question is not agreement or disagreement with
Evans' *_conclusion_*.

Ah! The contention is not about the conclusion.

A blind idiot flipping a coin has a 50/50
chance of being right on the question of coercion at Hague-Moscow 1948

Oops! Another logical fallacy. Since it argues statistically that the result
of a sequenced conclusion is chance.

- it's basically a yes/no proposition. The question is whether Evans
did a good job of *_supporting_* his conclusion.

There is at least a direct statement, albeit, without qualifying what
supporting entails.

He did not, and
scholars who have read the article know it.

Though apparently they are as unable to say what they know about it? To wit:
what qualifies support, in their opionion?

Evans's main technique was closer to the reading of animal entrails.

I know that FIDE hires a chiropractor instead of a neuroscientist to
determine mind-drugs, but can Taylor Kingston's experts be voodoo dudes -
the Shamnistic lodge of Greater Burlington, proud members of the chamber of
commerce?

I suppose the writer means to address 'what proper techniqueis', in his
opinion, or in the Shamans' opinion.

To buttress this he skimmed through a small part of the relevant
literature and chose quotes that supported his foregone conclusion,

This criticism states that the Evans opinion was prescriptive to a result.
What evidence is there of this in his writing except for dealing with
'sources' of another view? i.e., who are the other sources and what do they
have to say for themselves?

never dealing with sources that contradicted him.

First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history

Translation: Winter has nailed historical errors by Evans so many
times that Parr can only try to redefine him out of existence.

Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess,
who have supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene

Ray Keene is a scholar while Winter is not?? Riiiight ... and the
Monkees were a better band than the Beatles.

How interesting! I really don't think Winter could sit down and actually
beat the player in question, do you? But Keene beat Botvinnik. The Monkey,
methinks, is on the other foot. I presume that Keene could also supplement
his opinion of what he reads by the very natural process of also
understanding it, from high level play.

If the issue is, which of Winter or Keene could better detect high level
weak moves, which is the expert and which in Taylor Kingston's term, is the
monkey?

My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
position,

Please cite a reference in which Saidy praised the Evans
*_article_*. BTW, I contacted Saidy during my research circa 1997-98
and he refused to go on the record with any opinion on the Keres
matter.

Harry Golombek also strongly implies that Keres threw games.

In view of the fact that Golombek died on January 7, 1995, while the
Evans article appeared in October 1996, I rather doubt that he ever
expressed any opinion on the article.

The senetnece responded to above says what real scholars do - that is,
people competent to comprehend what they are investigating, put thier
attention to the source, which is Keres Botvinnik. This is what Larry Parr
says Golombek did.

Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic - the Evans article is
a travesty of historiograhy.

O good.

That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time.
Interested readers can find my critiques of the Evans article he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

Okay - at the top I wrote that I feared the very subject matter would remain
unclear despite the initial declaration of facts, just the facts!~

At the end I see that this is not a scholarly refutation of Evans comments
on Keres Botvinnik, since it entirely ignores the subject matter, Keres
Botvinnik.

ROFL.

I feared Larry Parr would be so slaughtered by Taylor Kingston's reply that
he would crack a rib laughing, and have to swear off the newsgroup for a
month unless he cracked another one. Then I could come in with what Russians
themselves actually say about the issue, and begine to cite from Bronstein,
Taimanov, Roschal, Gulko, Khalifman, and so on, to the 'scholars' who ...

if they exist

.... who won't /care/ to look.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

I feared Larry Parr would be so slaughtered by Taylor Kingston's reply that
he would crack a rib laughing, and have to swear off the newsgroup for a
month unless he cracked another one. Then I could come in with what Russians
themselves actually say about the issue, and begine to cite from Bronstein,
Taimanov, Roschal, Gulko, Khalifman, and so on, to the 'scholars' who ...

if they exist

... who won't /care/ to look.

Phil Innes


Dear Mr. Innes,

I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
English.
--


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

On Nov 10, 12:13 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Dear Mr. Innes,

I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
English.
--

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

Rev. Walker, in this matter the two most relevant GMs are Keres and
Botvinnik themselves, and you can read what I consider to be their
most relevant comments he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

Look under the headings "Keres and Whyld" and "The Botvinnik
Interview."
Neither Evans nor I was aware of these statements when our
respective articles on the Keres case appeared (10/1996 for Evans,
5/1998 for mine). The Botvinnik interview took place in 1991, but was
published only in a Dutch weekly magazine not devoted to chess, and so
remained obscure until it was translated to English and posted on Tim
Krabbé's web-site in December 1999.
I had been alerted to the possibility by Bernard Cafferty in (as I
recall) 1999, that a friend of his, whom I suspected was Ken Whyld,
knew something important, but Cafferty did not go into specifics at
that time. The Whyld statement did not appear until June 2000, again
on Krabbé's web-site. Knowing my interest in Keres, Krabbé notified me
as soon as he had posted them. Whyld and I later discussed his
encounter with Keres at greater length by e-mail.
It was these statements by Botvinnik and Whyld, more than anything
else, and not any of Evans' arguments or "evidence," that inclined me
to believe that at least indirect pressure, in effect at least
tantamount to coercion, had been applied to Keres, and prompted me to
write the article in the above link. Various Russian and/or Soviet GMs
may know various things and have various opinions, and should by all
means be heard, but it seems unlikely that anything they might say
will carry more weight than the testimony of the two principals.

Since the events in question occurred nearly 60 years ago, very few
people are still around with anything like first-hand knowledge. Of
the Hague-Moscow contestants, Smyslov is the lone survivor. I am not
aware that he has ever made any statement supporting the coercion
thesis. I do know that when GM David Bronstein wrote an article
claiming tampering at the 1953 Candidates Tournament (which Smyslov
won), Smyslov took great umbrage. Another Soviet GM of the period,
Yuri Averbakh, is on record as saying coercion did not occur. So even
Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
conflicting views.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 10, 12:13 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Dear Mr. Innes,

I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
English.

snip


Rev. Walker, in this matter the two most relevant GMs are Keres and
Botvinnik themselves, and you can read what I consider to be their
most relevant comments he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

Thank you for the link. I gave it a quick read. I am not a scholar,
just a common everyday consumer of chess information. Part of the
audience that reads articles such as those by Mr. Parr and yourself. So
the disclaimer: my opinions on this matter have less weight than either
of yours. Even so, curiosity tends to lead me where angels fear to
tread... :^)

snip

Various Russian and/or Soviet GMs
may know various things and have various opinions, and should by all
means be heard, but it seems unlikely that anything they might say
will carry more weight than the testimony of the two principals.

My instincts suggest to me that in cases of heavily oppressive
environments that people closest to the coercion may be the last to
admit the truth due to ingrained fear. If this applies here, then I
would look for more information from people close to the events, but not
too close! And, the proximity should be measured in both time and space.

snip

So even
Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
conflicting views.

That is not surprising. I am curious though. Did Reshevsky ever
comment on it? He surely was an interested party. Other people I would
be curious about are Korchnoi, Karpov, and Kasparov.

Korchnoi because he has been around a long time and now has the freedom
of some temporal distance from the Soviet phenomena.

The other two may have insights simply because of their former proximity
to the Soviet chess bureaucracy.

It is an interesting incident. If anyone has information from other
Russian/Soviet GMs, I would like know.
--


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

On Nov 10, 2:03 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 10, 12:13 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Dear Mr. Innes,

I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
English.

snip



Rev. Walker, in this matter the two most relevant GMs are Keres and
Botvinnik themselves, and you can read what I consider to be their
most relevant comments he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

Thank you for the link. I gave it a quick read. I am not a scholar,
just a common everyday consumer of chess information. Part of the
audience that reads articles such as those by Mr. Parr and yourself. So
the disclaimer: my opinions on this matter have less weight than either
of yours. Even so, curiosity tends to lead me where angels fear to
tread... :^)

snip

Various Russian and/or Soviet GMs
may know various things and have various opinions, and should by all
means be heard, but it seems unlikely that anything they might say
will carry more weight than the testimony of the two principals.

My instincts suggest to me that in cases of heavily oppressive
environments that people closest to the coercion may be the last to
admit the truth due to ingrained fear.

A very good point, and in this case all the more reason to accept
Botvinnik's and Keres' statements, since they _were_ among the
closest. I suppose in Keres' case one might argue he was trying to
excuse his failure, but I find it very hard to imagine why Botvinnik
would have said what he did about "orders from Stalin" unless it
actually happened.

If this applies here, then I
would look for more information from people close to the events, but not
too close! And, the proximity should be measured in both time and space.

snip
So even
Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
conflicting views.

That is not surprising. I am curious though. Did Reshevsky ever
comment on it? He surely was an interested party.

I believe so, though I can't give you a relevant example off the top
of my head. If you read about Bronstein's allegations he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles171.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles173.pdf

you will see that Reshevsky was definitely targeted by the Soviets in
1953.

Other people I would
be curious about are Korchnoi, Karpov, and Kasparov.

Korchnoi because he has been around a long time and now has the freedom
of some temporal distance from the Soviet phenomena.

Korchnoi has definitely been the target of much Soviet machination,
especially in his matches with Karpov, but he is not always a good
source about other people, or even about his own situation. As Bernard
Hepton said in Smiley's People, "He thinks the butterflies are spying
on him." He sees almost everything in conspiratorial terms, with or
without evidence. Sometimes he's right, sometimes not.

The other two may have insights simply because of their former proximity
to the Soviet chess bureaucracy.

The second part of my first article (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/
kb2.txt) mentions something Karpov told a journalist, Bernd Nielsen-
Stokkeby, about Botvinnik trying to get Keres arrested. The journalist
could find no evidence for Karpov's claim.
Kasparov discusses the question of coercion on Keres in the second
volume of his "My Great Predecessors" series, but his handling of the
subject is surprisingly sketchy and unsatisfying, as I noted in my
review of the book, he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review413.pdf

So unless they have some secret information they have yet not
revealed, I don't look to Karpov or Kasparov to contribute much to
this historical issue.