Chess politics - Innes fires blanks

Author

Innes fires blanks

Taylor Kingston

2005-03-27, 3:52 am

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> Taylor Kingston still wants to persecute his case based on Batman and

Sinn

quote:

> Fein.

No, Phil, I'd like to see what real factual support you have for your
claims about Averbakh, the KGB, and ChessCafe's alleged "sole-sourcing"
thereof. If the facts prove your case, this should be a cinch -- just
present them, and blow me out of the water.
But you really don't have anything like that, do you? Just a gun full
of blanks, that makes a lot of noise and smoke, with no real effect.

Chess One

2005-03-27, 5:51 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1111899907.674769.248420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Chess One wrote:
> Sinn
>
> No, Phil, I'd like to see what real factual support you have for your
> claims about Averbakh, the KGB, and ChessCafe's alleged "sole-sourcing"
> thereof. If the facts prove your case, this should be a cinch -- just
> present them, and blow me out of the water.
> But you really don't have anything like that, do you? Just a gun full
> of blanks, that makes a lot of noise and smoke, with no real effect.

Go talk instead to your "philth" chess historian friend whose 'new thing' is
writing racist smears. Perhaps that is beyond your notice, but evil Russians
are not? ROFL!

Its your method which is objectionable Taylor - and your method not your
person is what I criticised.

It is not interesting to me to proceed further, since you still insist on
your own terms and methodology to determine things. I think I made it plain
I do not wish to proceed solely with your own terms of reference - you are
entirely defensive about your actions, rather than open to exploring how a
complexity of factors might be explored.

It seems for the moment that you can't bring yourself to look at this
situation objectively, or see what role Averbakh reporting has in it.

There are at least two other writers and historians of chess in this
newsgroup who are aware that a good range of Russian opinion is that
Averbakh has been [to be kind] a little inventive with his stories, suffers
from cupidity, and is not averse to blaming others without any particular
basis, in fact grandstands for the press, [and to be less kind], telling
little fibs about his own apparatchik involvements.

It is interesting to note who repeats his material without //also//
recording for the record that there is no small degree of other opinion, or
pyschologically question why Averbakh chooses to behave like this - and
again psychologically, why journalists wish to use this material, without
noting other opinion.

This is not an invitation to discuss this issue further, it is a basis why
Taylor Kingston's approach was inadequate.

I certainly do not want to extend that approach as the basis of an
exploration of factors which corrupt chess, since I find it rather simple.

I regret that Taylor Kingston has not noticed my reservations - a preference
for a different approach than his own, and despite some years of privately
writing together, has concluded with wormtongue, that in fact my
reservations are dishonourable and I am 'firing blanks'.

Phil Innes

StanB

2005-03-27, 5:51 pm

"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Lqx1e.22864$I16.12676@trndny03...

quote:

> I regret that Taylor Kingston has not noticed my reservations - a
> preference for a different approach than his own, and despite some years
> of privately writing together, has concluded with wormtongue, that in fact
> my reservations are dishonourable and I am 'firing blanks'.

Gambling on reservations IS dishonorable.

Taylor Kingston

2005-03-27, 5:51 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> Go talk instead to your "philth" chess historian friend whose 'new

thing' is

quote:

> writing racist smears.

Phil, the subject here is *your* smear tactics. Quit trying to
deflect attention from your own actions. Be a man. Take responsibility
for what you say. Surprise us all.

quote:

> It is not interesting to me to proceed further, since you still

insist on

quote:

> your own terms and methodology to determine things.

Yes, I still do insist on facts. I always will. I make no apologies
whatsoever for that.

quote:

> I do not wish to proceed solely with your own terms of reference

So then how do you wish to proceed in establishing the following
assertion? I quote it from your earlier post:
[vbcol=seagreen]

An emphatic, specific, hostile accusation. It requires specific
factual proof, or it is nothing but a cheap smear. So far you have
produced not one single fact to support it. Not one.
Phil, you are like a guy whose bluff gets called in a poker game, and
then claims he still gets the pot without showing his cards! I'm sure
you've seen enough Westerns to know how that goes over.

Taylor Kingston

Chess One

2005-03-27, 5:51 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1111941363.494145.195240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Chess One wrote:
> thing' is
>
> Phil, the subject here is *your* smear tactics.

The subject, or your subject? ROFL

I have told you several times I don't give a damn for your agenda, don't
respect it and don't want to pursue your methods on your terms since I
consider them inadequate.

quote:

> Quit trying to
> deflect attention from your own actions. Be a man. Take responsibility
> for what you say. Surprise us all.

How interesting. Which of us seems the more desperate to resolve something?
;)

quote:

> insist on
>
> Yes, I still do insist on facts. I always will. I make no apologies
> whatsoever for that.
>
>
> So then how do you wish to proceed in establishing the following
> assertion? I quote it from your earlier post:

Taylor - You already wrote your piece - if you were at all confident in it
why are you arguing with me? huh?

You know that I think your single-sourcing of Averbakh to be of little
worth - I already said I didn't want to pursue that with you on your terms -
but still you can accuse me 'not taking responsibility.' Why are you writing
if you are so confident about your report?

quote:

>
>
> An emphatic, specific, hostile accusation. It requires specific
> factual proof, or it is nothing but a cheap smear. So far you have
> produced not one single fact to support it. Not one.

That's right! I have not produced one for you in the newsgroup. Does this
mean they exist or not? Or does it mean that I think more careful
investigation of the views of GMs Korchnoi, Bronstein and Taimanov [plus
several others] are warranted than this treatment you offer to the subject?

I just happen to have half a dozen other Russian opinions available to me.
If you and Hanon don't care to cite other opinion then... what did you do
but smear everyone by printing your particular report without substantiating
its charges

Or even mention the highly dubious nature of its origin?

Or even cite that there were strongly opposed opinions?

quote:

> Phil, you are like a guy whose bluff gets called in a poker game, and
> then claims he still gets the pot without showing his cards! I'm sure
> you've seen enough Westerns to know how that goes over.

You seem to be the one who is desperate here. I don't give a damn for these
methods - and have said so - I thought it was cheap journalism. You have
consistently cut my responses without even noting them in passing, and have
shown no respect for broader opinion - all you seem to want is to validate
your own.

Phil Innes

quote:

> Taylor Kingston
>

Spam Scone

2005-03-27, 5:51 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
sure[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You seem to be the one who is desperate here. I don't give a damn for

these

quote:

> methods - and have said so - I thought it was cheap journalism.

For those who haven't gotten whiplash from observing Mr. Innes'
about-face on Taylor Kingston, here is the infamous interview. Would
someone point out where in the course of the interview Mr. Innes called
Mr. Kingston's journalism "cheap"? It's not appearing on my server.

http://www.chessville.com/Editorial...ns/Kingston.htm

Taylor Kingston

2005-03-27, 9:51 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> You know that I think your single-sourcing of Averbakh to be of

little

quote:

> worth ... <snip> Or does it mean that I think more careful
> investigation of the views of GMs Korchnoi, Bronstein and Taimanov

[plus

quote:

> several others] are warranted than this treatment you offer to the

subject?

So in what is very clearly identified as AN INTERVIEW WITH YURI
AVERBAKH, the interviewer must also present the views of Korchnoi,
Bronstein, Taimanov et al? Phil, you'd better get the word out to the
media:
1) Notify CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN etc.: the next time they interview
President Bush, they may not do so unless also present are, say, John
Kerry, Howard Dean, and Ralph Nader.
2) If VH1 or MTV interviews Jennifer Lopez, they must also have
present Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Peggy Lee
and Janis Joplin.
3) The views of Bugs Bunny may not be aired unless equal time is
given to Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, Huckleberry Hound, Pokemon and
Yu-gi-oh!

Chess One

2005-03-28, 5:56 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1111964231.638354.9280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Chess One wrote:
> little
> [plus
> subject?
>
> So in what is very clearly identified as AN INTERVIEW WITH YURI
> AVERBAKH, the interviewer must also present the views of Korchnoi,
> Bronstein, Taimanov et al? Phil, you'd better get the word out to the
> media:

Dear Taylor - has this become your standard?

I hope you have noted that the media you cite has recently 'got the
message', Dan Rather retired, and a senior BBC executive also resigned, for
publishing what turned out to be untruths which scandalised other people,
and were insufficiently researched.

You again cut the post to which you respond [why?]. Its your selectivity
which is in question in your interview with Averbakh, and here. Meanwhile
you ignore your friend who writes more shit than Fischer ever uttered. Get
it?

But if you don't I already wrote that you are too wrapped up in this issue
to conduct a conversation on decent standards - but you snipped that too. If
you would like to pursue that subject then I already invited you to
participate, but you snipped that too.

You have the final word on this one, Okay?

Phil Innes

quote:

> 1) Notify CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN etc.: the next time they interview
> President Bush, they may not do so unless also present are, say, John
> Kerry, Howard Dean, and Ralph Nader.
> 2) If VH1 or MTV interviews Jennifer Lopez, they must also have
> present Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Peggy Lee
> and Janis Joplin.
> 3) The views of Bugs Bunny may not be aired unless equal time is
> given to Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, Huckleberry Hound, Pokemon and
> Yu-gi-oh!
>

Taylor Kingston

2005-03-28, 5:56 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> You have the final word on this one, Okay?

Thanks, Phil. I will use the opportunity.
Look, Phil, this is a very simple matter, rather like asking "How
many beans make five?". I think that if you were asked that question,
you would huff and puff for many paragraphs, perhaps rejecting the
concept of "five," going off on tangents about number theory, or even
claiming that the question loses all legitimacy because it omits other
vegetables. You would claim that the questioner has a hidden Legumist
agenda, seeking to suppress dissenting Brassican and Cucurbist views.
You would insist that the beans denounce Neil Brennen. You would claim
to know more beans, and more about beans, than anyone else. You would
do anything, ANYTHING, but answer, simply: FIVE.
You made this claim:
[vbcol=seagreen]

"This site" being ChessCafe.com. Despite my repeated queries, you
have done absolutely nothing to validate this hostile accusation. I
doubt you ever will, in any meaningful way.
To make a chess simile, you are like someone who claims to have
refuted the Queen's Gambit, but when asked for your analysis, you say
"I refuse to discuss it on those terms!". Well, those are the terms the
issue requires. Anything else is just hot air.

Taylor Kingston

Chess One

2005-03-28, 5:56 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1112035803.297206.232450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Thanks, Phil. I will use the opportunity.
> Look, Phil, this is a very simple matter, rather like asking "How
> many beans make five?". I think that if you were asked that question,
> you would huff and puff for many paragraphs, perhaps rejecting the
> concept of "five," going off on tangents about number theory, or even
> claiming that the question loses all legitimacy because it omits other
> vegetables. You would claim that the questioner has a hidden Legumist
> agenda, seeking to suppress dissenting Brassican and Cucurbist views.
> You would insist that the beans denounce Neil Brennen. You would claim
> to know more beans, and more about beans, than anyone else. You would
> do anything, ANYTHING, but answer, simply: FIVE.
> You made this claim:
>
>
> "This site" being ChessCafe.com. Despite my repeated queries, you
> have done absolutely nothing to validate this hostile accusation. I
> doubt you ever will, in any meaningful way.
> To make a chess simile, you are like someone who claims to have
> refuted the Queen's Gambit, but when asked for your analysis, you say
> "I refuse to discuss it on those terms!". Well, those are the terms the
> issue requires. Anything else is just hot air.
>
> Taylor Kingston

Phil Innes

Spam Scone

2005-03-29, 6:20 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

>
> You know that I think your single-sourcing of Averbakh to be of

little

quote:

> worth

Gee Philth, when you interviewed Mr. Kingston, you had a chance to ask
him all sorts of questions about the Averbakh interview - and you
didn't.

Chessville: Now and again you have addressed international chess
issues in your writing, particularly concerning Botvinnik and
Soviet-era manipulations. What is it like researching this material,
and can you characterize your own level of confidence in the result?

http://www.chessville.com/Editorial...ns/Kingston.htm

Chess One

2005-03-30, 7:01 am

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1111964231.638354.9280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Chess One wrote:
> little
> [plus
> subject?
>
> So in what is very clearly identified as AN INTERVIEW WITH YURI
> AVERBAKH, the interviewer must also present the views of Korchnoi,
> Bronstein, Taimanov et al? Phil, you'd better get the word out to the
> media:

quote:

> 1) Notify CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN etc.: the next time they interview
> President Bush, they may not do so unless also present are, say, John
> Kerry, Howard Dean, and Ralph Nader.
> 2) If VH1 or MTV interviews Jennifer Lopez, they must also have
> present Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Peggy Lee
> and Janis Joplin.
> 3) The views of Bugs Bunny may not be aired unless equal time is
> given to Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, Huckleberry Hound, Pokemon and
> Yu-gi-oh!
>