| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-04-26, 12:41 am |
| WHO IS TAYLOR KINGSTON?
You are really an amazing piece of work as they say....For the past
four years since 2001 you have been claiming that the "ethics
complaint" submitted by Edward Winter to FIDE was only two pages long,
yet you have never produced the document, which would prove your case,
if true.> Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston wrote to a reader of Chess Life named Richard Laurie,
author of a play about Alekhine called KNIGHT OF THE ID, after Mr.
Laurie won the Best Question in Evans On Chess (see KERES-BOTVINNIK
SCANDAL September 2001, page 14). Behind GM Evans' back (see below) Mr.
Kingston tried to convince Mr. Laurie to retract his letter.
Mr. Laurie replied after Mr. Kingston wrote a letter to the editor
where he attacked not only this writer but also "Larry Evans'
competence and honesty as a journalist" (November 2001, page 7). Our
replies to Mr. Kingston's diatribe appeared in December 2001, page 7.
On March 2, 2002, Richard Laurie replied to Taylor Kingston:
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 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 encylopedia. 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....
Now, for the issue at hand. I am not wriiting 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. You cite the words of Nunn (on
page 50 of CL May 1998) and state that Nunn is "generally considered a
stronger player than Evans" but present no counter analysis. It seems
to me that a better way to dispute Evans would be to show such an error
as "21 Re1" was typical of the type of error Keres was prone to make...
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?"
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 he cited Schroeder and you
say he "...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. In your first note to me you flat out
said it....
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 SECRET [emphasis mine].
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 discussion. 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. 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.
Sincerely,
Richard Laurie
|