Chess politics - Censorship at Chesscafe

Author

Censorship at Chesscafe

Chess One

2005-05-20, 8:33 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1116557186.908252.35980@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Phil Innes wrote:
>
> Neil Brennen wrote:
>
> Mr. Brennen's points above are entriely correct. There were also
> several other ChessCafe Bulletin Board threads involving my work. My
> review of Donner's "The King" provoked some controversy. The president
> of McFarland Publishing wrote regarding Gelo's "Chess World
> Championships" on the subject of whether Lasker-Janowski 1909 was a
> world title match or not. A heated exchange between him and Ken Whyld
> ensued. There was a fairly long thread concerning my review of Rowson's
> "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins." There were others I cannot readily
> recall specifically. Several non-review articles of mine were also
> discussed there. In each instance, by no means did the respondents all
> share my view.
> As far as other ChessCafe authors are concerned, the Bulletin Board
> reported more contrary opinion than I can possibly summarize here,
> involving not only Winter but Miles, Harding, Forster, Hochberg and
> other writers. Therefore if Mr. Innes' post refers to the past history
> of the Bulletin Board, he is patently wrong, as seems to be his habit
> here recently.

I think it is a matter of record that the subject of Winter on Evans, did
not allow responses from Evans, Parr or Innes - and I have no idea of how
many others. It is also a matter of record that my letter about Short on
Miles did not get published - since I challenged Hanon's publishing policy -
the thread did stop though!

There have been other cases too where letters were not published because
they tackled comments by columnists - my own on Guert is another example.
Thats about 50% rejection, and each rejected article was about a chesscafe
columnist

I am unclear why editorial policy is called censorship. If what we really
want to do is evaluate Keres Botvinnik, then an invited group of writers
could correspond and the result published, subject to editing, rather than
to censorship. If Taylor Kingston and other, wish to engage Larry Evans and
Larry Parr, I suggest that they agree to do so together, set the scope of
the debate and I will advocate with my publisher to print the result.

If we only want to evaluate Taylor Kingston's Averbakh article this issue
revolves only around chesscafe's editorial policy then, which as below, is
now a moot issue.

quote:

> If Mr. Innes refers only to current ChessCafe practice, then yes, the
> Bulletin Board no longer exists; interest in it seemed to be dwindling,
> and it was discontinued several months ago. I personally was sad to see
> it go. For about 8 or 9 years it was one of the better Internet forums
> for chess-related debate, vastly more civil, intelligent, focused and
> useful than most of the rubbish that passes for debate on this
> newsgroup.

It was indeed one of the better forums. In terms of editorial focus it lost
a certain quality and became rather anodyne and over-civil toward the end.
In terms of content it scandalised a bit much. I no longer read anything
there after the nonsense posted about the dead Tony Miles.

Phil Innes

The Historian

2005-05-21, 12:30 am

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1116557186.908252.35980@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
his[vbcol=seagreen]
Gerald[vbcol=seagreen]
My[vbcol=seagreen]
president[vbcol=seagreen]
Whyld[vbcol=seagreen]
Rowson's[vbcol=seagreen]
all[vbcol=seagreen]
Board[vbcol=seagreen]
history[vbcol=seagreen]
habit[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I think it is a matter of record that the subject of Winter on Evans,

did

quote:

> not allow responses from Evans, Parr or Innes - and I have no idea of

how

quote:

> many others.

I know this may come as a shock to some, but Mr. Innes is wrong. Larry
Evans did publish a response on Chesscafe. As for the Parr and Innes
letters, Parr's material was a complete mess, and if Innes' response
was like the "British Language" that pollutes his newsgroup posts and
Chessvile writing, who can blame Hanon for barring the door?

It is also a matter of record that my letter about Short on

quote:

> Miles did not get published - since I challenged Hanon's publishing

policy -

quote:

> the thread did stop though!

No doubt if you shouted "Set! Set!" at the noonday sun in Brattleboro
you would claim victory by 8:00PM.

quote:

> There have been other cases too where letters were not published

because

quote:

> they tackled comments by columnists - my own on Guert is another

example.

quote:

> Thats about 50% rejection, and each rejected article was about a

chesscafe

quote:

> columnist

If Innes' response was like the "British Language" that pollutes his
newsgroup posts and Chessvile writing, who can blame Hanon for barring
the door?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-21, 3:30 am

THE EVANS-WINTER DISPUTE

< As for the Parr and Innes letters, Parr's material was a complete
mess.> Neil Brennen

quote:

>The ChessCafe bulletin board was perhaps the most highly censored news

and views vehicle in all of post-Soviet chess,> Larry Parr

quote:

>I'm tempted to write in response that Larry Parr is the most shameless

exaggerator since Baron Munchausen, but we already have all the
hyperbole we need on rgcp.> Larry Tapper

The Evans-Winter dispute was likely the most charged of all debates at
chesscafe, excepting possibly the numerous letters attacking GM Ray
Keene, which he left unanswered following the Cafe spiking my defense
of him.

Mr. Tapper's commentary comes down to this: he knows of three or four
letters in support of Evans that were sqauashed immediately after
Winter published his screed against Evans. I heard of four. Larry Evans
had records at the time of a couple more, if memory serves.

Mr. Tapper tells us that under the circumstances, we might have heard
of more such letters. Nonsense. We simply don't know what Hanon Russell
failed to publish. Mr. Tapper's typically dishonest tacit premise is
that six of so such letters being quashed at a crucial moment are of
little importance when evaluating blatant censorship designed to shape
a debate by Hanon Russell at his Bulletin Board.

I published a long defense of Evans' accuracy (top-notch, in truth) and
a long attack on Winter's method, which is at Eric Schiller's web page.

Earlier, I eviscerated several critics of Ray Keene (another target of
Edward Winter) that I will place here again, if some of the ratpackers
deny its evident puissance. This essay quashed even though it was
submitted before the deadline.

It was clear there was no level playing field at the heavily censored
ChessCafe bulletin board. If there were a more censored vehicle in
post-Soviet chess, I would like to know what it was. I know of none.

Oh, perhaps in North Korea, if they still play chess there.

The Historian

2005-05-21, 6:31 am

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> THE EVANS-WINTER DISPUTE
>
> < As for the Parr and Innes letters, Parr's material was a complete
> mess.> Neil Brennen
>
news[vbcol=seagreen]
> and views vehicle in all of post-Soviet chess,> Larry Parr
>
shameless[vbcol=seagreen]
> exaggerator since Baron Munchausen, but we already have all the
> hyperbole we need on rgcp.> Larry Tapper
>
> The Evans-Winter dispute was likely the most charged of all debates

quote:

> chesscafe, excepting possibly the numerous letters attacking GM Ray
> Keene, which he left unanswered following the Cafe spiking my defense
> of him.

IIRC, Larry has left out that his sprawling screed defending Keene was
too long, which is probably a polite way of saying it was poorly
written. I've always maintained that much of this Evans-Winter "debate"
consists of Larry Parr's hurt feelings: "Th-th-they didn't publish me!
Boo-hoo!" Get over it, Larry.

quote:

> Mr. Tapper's commentary comes down to this: he knows of three or four
> letters in support of Evans that were sqauashed immediately after
> Winter published his screed against Evans. I heard of four. Larry

Evans

quote:

> had records at the time of a couple more, if memory serves.
>
> Mr. Tapper tells us that under the circumstances, we might have

heard

quote:

> of more such letters. Nonsense. We simply don't know what Hanon

Russell

quote:

> failed to publish. Mr. Tapper's typically dishonest tacit premise is
> that six of so such letters being quashed at a crucial moment are of
> little importance when evaluating blatant censorship designed to

shape

quote:

> a debate by Hanon Russell at his Bulletin Board.
>
> I published a long defense of Evans' accuracy (top-notch, in truth)

It's a long, shapeless, tedious screed which manages to be more about
Parr than about Evans or Winter.

and

quote:

> a long attack on Winter's method, which is at Eric Schiller's web

page.

See above.

quote:

> Earlier, I eviscerated several critics of Ray Keene (another target

quote:

> Edward Winter) that I will place here again, if some of the

ratpackers

quote:

> deny its evident puissance. This essay quashed even though it was
> submitted before the deadline.

When Larry Parr orders the sun to set, sooner or later it does so.

quote:

> It was clear there was no level playing field at the heavily censored
> ChessCafe bulletin board. If there were a more censored vehicle in
> post-Soviet chess, I would like to know what it was. I know of none.

Try the "Alekhine's Parrot" column at Chessvile. The semi-literate
columnist (the word "scandal" appears from time to time as "scandle" or
"scandel") recycles newsgroup posts and material from Sam Sloan's
mailing list as "news", but won't allow a letter criticizing the
behavior of one of their writers.

quote:

> Oh, perhaps in North Korea, if they still play chess there.

Chess One

2005-05-21, 8:31 pm

<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1116653213.877084.207330@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> THE EVANS-WINTER DISPUTE
>
> < As for the Parr and Innes letters, Parr's material was a complete
> mess.> Neil Brennen
>
> and views vehicle in all of post-Soviet chess,> Larry Parr

Dear Larry Parr, Larry Evans and Kingston Taylor,

May I assume that an offer to debate the issue of Keres/Botvinnik at
Chessville has been understood by all parties?

[Let me not even address the 100% noise of a Hysterial writer's call of
Chessville censorship!]

I would like to make the clear offer of a debating space at Chessville [now
with the support of chessville's publisher] to any format agreed to be
reasonable by the participants, should you all wish to proceed.

After looking at the content of these threads it seems to me that the debate
has more to do with Chesscafe's policies - rather than anything directly
addressing Keres/Botvinnik. In which case this debate is already occuring
here and no other venue is necessary.

Should the parties agree to a more formal debate at Chessville, I have also
asked a Russian Historian if he will now publish relevant material
on-the-record to further inform the discussion.

Cordially, Phil Innes

The Historian

2005-05-21, 8:31 pm

Chess One wrote:

quote:

> <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1116653213.877084.207330@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
news[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Dear Larry Parr, Larry Evans and Kingston Taylor,

That would be Taylor Kingston, I presume? Nothing like getting the
details correct, Philth.

quote:

> May I assume that an offer to debate the issue of Keres/Botvinnik at
> Chessville has been understood by all parties?
>
> [Let me not even address the 100% noise of a Hysterial writer's call

quote:

> Chessville censorship!]

The fact remains uncontested that you failed as a journalist in the
Kingston interview. Having seen the 'ethics' Chessville have practiced
since they started their career as a spammer years ago, I never
expected them to publish my letter.

quote:

> I would like to make the clear offer of a debating space at

Chessville [now

quote:

> with the support of chessville's publisher] to any format agreed to

quote:

> reasonable by the participants, should you all wish to proceed.
>
> After looking at the content of these threads it seems to me that the

debate

quote:

> has more to do with Chesscafe's policies - rather than anything

directly

quote:

> addressing Keres/Botvinnik. In which case this debate is already

occuring

quote:

> here and no other venue is necessary.

As a reminder, the debate was over your now-admittedly false claim
about "Kingston Taylor" and the KGB. Mr. Tayl-, err, Mr. Kingston won
that many posts ago.

quote:

> Should the parties agree to a more formal debate at Chessville, I

have also

quote:

> asked a Russian Historian if he will now publish relevant material
> on-the-record to further inform the discussion.

ESTRAGON:
What do we do now?
VLADIMIR:
I don't know.
ESTRAGON:
Let's go.
VLADIMIR:
We can't.
ESTRAGON:
Why not?
VLADIMIR:
We're waiting for Godot.
ESTRAGON:
(despairingly). Ah!

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-21, 8:31 pm

<Dear Larry Parr, Larry Evans and Kingston Taylor,

May I assume that an offer to debate the issue of Keres/Botvinnik at
Chessville has been understood by all parties?> Phil Innes

Dear Phil,

All three of us agree that Keres was forced to throw games to
Botvinnik in the 1948 world championship. In the absence of a smoking
gun or any new evidence, what is there to debate?

Since THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by Larry Evans appeared in Chess
Life (October 1996) the topic has been rather exhaustively covered in
Evans On Chess.

I know GM Evans doesn't waste his time reading these newsgroups and
considers the case closed. I doubt he will change his mind, but I will
forward your kind invitation.

As for me, I'm always willing to examine all arguments pro and con.

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-21, 8:31 pm

Great post, Mr. chasm!

IIRC GM Dr. John Nunn, author of "The Road To The Top" and "The Quest
For Perfection" (incidentally my favourite player biography) said that
in his (clearly informed) opinion, Keres never threw any games. Ever.

I know which version of events I'm more inclined to believe...

Mark

chasmad

2005-05-21, 8:31 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> All three of us agree that Keres was forced to throw games to
> Botvinnik in the 1948 world championship.

Lol! The meeting of the minds. Yalta has nothing on this trio!

quote:

> In the absence of a smoking gun or any new evidence, what is there to

quote:

> debate?

Duh!

Earth to Larry Parr: wishful thinking does not change history.

Keres also had a poor lifetime score against the Hungarian Lajos
Portisch, who, interestingly enough, was nicknamed "the little
Botvinnik." Ask your buddy Larry Evans if Keres threw those games, too.
Maybe Keres was forced to throw a chess game whenever he heard the word
"Botvinnik."

quote:

> Since THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by Larry Evans appeared in Chess
> Life (October 1996) the topic has been rather exhaustively covered
> in Evans On Chess.

Which must settle the issue, considering Evans' reputation (?) for
thorough, unbiased analysis. By the way, what does Edward Winter think
of Larry Evans when it comes to accuracy of historical research?
Hmmmmmm?

quote:

> I know GM Evans doesn't waste his time reading these newsgroups

I know! He wastes his time writing his chess column instead. Tough luck
for us!

quote:

> and considers the case closed. I doubt he will change his mind, but I

quote:

> will forward your kind invitation.
>
> As for me, I'm always willing to examine all arguments pro and con.

Absolutely hysterical!

Charles

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-22, 6:32 am

KERES-BOTVINNIK SCANDAL OF 1948

<GM Dr. John Nunn, author of "The Road To The Top" and "The Quest For
Perfection" (incidentally my favourite player biography) said that in
his (clearly informed) opinion, Keres never threw any games. Ever.>
Mark Houlsby

"I didn't want to waste three months of my life watching Russians throw
games to each other." -- GM Reuben Fine on why he declined his
invitation to the 1948 world championship.

Also see THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by Larry Evans in Chess Life
(October 1996) where all the suspicious moves in five Keres-Botvinnik
games are circled.

Once again I recommend Two Soviet Scandals (September 23, 2002) at
worldchessnetwork.com for an update.

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/En...vans/230902.php

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-22, 8:32 pm

Larry,

You misquoted me. I wrote "IIRC GM Dr. John Nunn...". The way you
quoted me makes me seem as if my memory is perfect, which, alas, it is
not. Please remember Clark and Doris. Concerning WCN, I wouldn't trust
them as far as I can shit. That's free advice. You seem not to have
refuted anything that Mr. chasm has written. All you're doing is
reposting things. Another name for this is: trolling.

Mark

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-22, 8:32 pm

READ IT AND WEEP

Dutch grandmaster Hans Ree recently reviewed the evidence from 1948
and agrees with my conclusion that the fix was in. He noted: "The
diagram presents the case that seems most convincing to me. Keres has
an easy draw with 50 Ra4 but found an idiotic plan to put his healthy
rook into the most passive position. You cannot call it a mistake." --
Evans On Chess

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/En...vans/230902.php

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-22, 8:32 pm

Sam Sloan

2005-05-23, 8:31 pm

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> That is because it was not an e-mail, Larry. I wrote the "purported"
> letter. It was printed with purported ink on purported paper by a
> puported printer. I put it in a purported envelope. I addressed it to
> purported GM Larry Evans, purportedly of Reno, Nevada. I affixed a
> purported stamp. I put the letter in a purported mail box, where
> purportedly purported letters are picked up by the purported Postal
> Service, purported to be an agency of the purported United States
> government.
> I would just bet the US Postal Service actually delivered that
> November 1998 letter to Evans, just like they did the one I sent
> exactly the same way, that appeared in his October 1997 column. And
> when I sent it, I saved a copy for future reference. That's how I've
> been able to refer to and quote from it for the past several years with
> complete confidence.
> If Mr. Parr thinks that the only proof of a letter's existence is
> e-mail, we are going to have to invalidate a great deal of recorded
> history. To give him something tangible, I will be happy to fax my copy
> of the letter to him, if he will oblige with a number. Or if he will
> supply an address, I will mail him a copy for his very own.
>
> Taylor Kingston

Taylor Kingston has to be the most amazingly arrogant person I have
ever encountered.

He claims that every time he writes a letter to Larry Evans, Larry
Evans is required to publish the letter in Chess Life magazine.

Why does not Taylor Kingston apply to have his own collumn in Chess
Life, if he believes this?

Sam Sloan

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-23, 8:31 pm

Sam Sloan wrote:

quote:

> Taylor Kingston has to be the most amazingly arrogant person I have
> ever encountered.
>
> He claims that every time he writes a letter to Larry Evans, Larry
> Evans is required to publish the letter in Chess Life magazine.

Would you be so kind as to supply the exact he text where I said
this, Sam? I recall saying no such thing.

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-23, 8:31 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> Once again Taylor Kingston's memory proves faulty.
> A cursory search indicates he had a letter printed in Evans On Chess

quote:

> October 1997 and again in November 1997. Whether more will turn up
> remains to be seen.

Thanks, Larry. Yes, I see there was also one in 11/1997.

quote:

> At any rate, this raises his batting average above 500%.

Such an average is impossible; it would require getting five hits
from every one at-bat. With my three unpublished letters to Evans, that
makes it 2 out of 5, or 40%.

quote:

> Where's the censorship?

I simply note a definite pattern: Evans published only my letters
complimentary to himself. Letters unfavorable to him were left
unpublished, or were published in altered form. I don't claim this
small sample proves "censorship," but it does raise suspicions.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:31 pm

WHAT CENSORSHIP?

quote:

>Taylor Kingston has to be the most amazingly arrogant person I have

ever encountered. He claims that every time he writes a letter to
Larry Evans, Larry Evans is required to publish the letter in Chess
Life magazine.> Sam Sloan

<Would you be so kind as to supply the exact he text where I said
this, Sam? I recall saying no such thing.> Taylor Kingston

It was clearly implied by Taylor Kingston's earlier claim: "One might
very well make rather more of a case for censorship by Evans than by
ChessCafe."

So far Mr. Kingston claims he had one letter printed in Evans On Chess
and one letter not printed. I suspect there was more than one, but
can't prove it yet.

At any rate, if we take his claim at face value, that's a batting
aveage of 500%. Where's the censorship?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:31 pm

WHAT CENSORSHIP?

quote:

>Taylor Kingston has to be the most amazingly arrogant person I have

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:31 pm

YUP, MORE THAN ONE

Once again Taylor Kingston's memory proves faulty.

A cursory search indicates he had a letter printed in Evans On Chess in
October 1997 and again in November 1997. Whether more will turn up
remains to be seen.

At any rate, this raises his batting average above 500%.

Where's the censorship?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

A DEFINITE PATTERN?

< That I and others now may think that Keres was probably coerced is
due not to Evans, whom serious historians do not take seriously...With
my three unpublished letters to Evans, that makes it 2 out of 5, or
40%.

I simply note a definite pattern: Evans published only my letters
complimentary to himself. Letters unfavorable to him were left
unpublished, or were published in altered form. I don't claim this
small sample proves "censorship," but it does raise suspicions.

Taylor Kingston claims that three of his letters weren't used or
that other letters were "in altered form." So far he only cited one of
his unpublished letters. Where are the other two and why should he
enjoy priority over other readers?

Oops! Another letter from Sir Kingston appeared in April 1997. That
now makes three, a figure that I originally estimated.

The guy is incapable of admitting error. Instead he continues to
spew venom by implying GM Larry Evans mostly printed letters agreeing
with him about the Keres-Botvinnik debate.

The fact of the matter is most readers did and do agree with him even
though, as Mr. Kingston alleges, "serious historians do not take him
seriously."

Evans On Chess gave space to opposing or skeptical views. THE TRAGEDY
OF PAUL KERES created a firestorm after its appearance in October 1996
and reactions keep pouring in.

A 1997 SAMPLER

1. "There are levels of manipulation. For example, no one told
Bronstein not to win his match with Botvinnik but he implicity
understood that it would be a good idea. I suspect that Keres found
himself in a similar situation in 1948." -- Bill Brock, March 1997.

EVANS: Despite a demand from Estonia, all the KGB files dealing with
Keres have still not been released. More investigative journalism is
taking place in the Baltic republics, but for some skeptics no evidence
will be enough. Even if a "smoking gun" is found, somebody is sure to
say: "The files could have been forged. Why should we believe that the
secret service of a totalitarian regime can be a source of reliable
information?"

Our only answer is that the evidence exists in the games themselves. As
noted last October, "Close analysis of these games leaves little doubt
that Keres was forced to take a dive." The sad fact is that we are
dealing here with a political decision that was made in the Kremlin far
from the 64 squares.

2. "I read with great sadness the comments in your March column about
the coercion used to fix the 1948 World Championship. It taints the
achievements of Mikhail Botvinnik, whom I had long admired. It strains
credulity to suggest he knew nothing of the pressure put on Paul Keres
to throw the match." -- Terence Shuman, August 1997

3. "As a beginner I can't second guess your analysis of the
Keres-Botvinnik games in 1948. But it seems strange to me that a
grandmaster who has been ordered to throw a tournament would not win
more than one of the first five games. In such a coercive situation
wouldn't Keres try to save face by winning as many games as possible,
to within a half-point, before throwing the decisive game? That would
make the claim of coercikon much more credible, wouldn't it?" -- A.N.
Grazhimirov, October 1997

4. "Forget the whole thing. You are hurting chess with your wild
charges." -- Louis Flum, October 1997

5. "We all know there's a fire sale on paranoia these days; every
conspiracy will have its 15 minutes of fame...I would have to see quite
a lot of such evidence -- from primary sources -- before swallowing
this...Well, it's still a free country and you have every right to hold
any crackpot theory you wish. What I find disturbibng is that this
farrago appeared in Chess Life with no response or disclaimer." -- John
Hillery, October 1997

quote:

>Several years ago I was the Chessco Chess Festival in Davenport. One

of the speakers was the late Ken Whyld, British Chess historian of some
repute. He told a story of how he had the privilege of hosting Keres in
his home for a tournament. One night they were sitting and talking, and
this subject came up. Whyld says that Keres told him he was never
overtly threatened over the games in the Match Tournament or in
particular with Botvinnik, but it was also very clear to him what would
happen if he won. He further stated that he did not intentionally lose
any games, but it was impossible to play one's best under the
circumstances.> Don Aldrich

For the record, Whyld's views were reported in Evans On Chess.

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> ever encountered. He claims that every time he writes a letter to
> Larry Evans, Larry Evans is required to publish the letter in Chess
> Life magazine.> Sam Sloan
>
> <Would you be so kind as to supply the exact he text where I said
> this, Sam? I recall saying no such thing.> Taylor Kingston
>
> It was clearly implied by Taylor Kingston's earlier claim: "One

might

quote:

> very well make rather more of a case for censorship by Evans than by
> ChessCafe."

Mr. Parr is, lamentably, prone to this sort of hallucination,
claiming to see "implications" where they do not exist. In one
particularly glaring and risible example, he once attributed to me an
"insufferably ignorant" claim which in fact I had never made. Guess who
had made such a claim? None other than Parr's idol Larry Evans.
I again challenge Sloan and/or Parr to produce any quote in which I
state what Sloan alleges above. I have never said any such thing, and
they know it. Their ploy is childish.

quote:

> Where's the censorship?

My logic in this regard is no different than Parr's. Parr, and people
he supports, have sent letters to the ChessCafe Bulletin Board. Some
were published, some were not -- the same as my experience with Evans
On Chess. Based on this, he has roundly condemned ChessCafe for
practicing "notorious" censorship.
If he justifies his flat condemnation of ChessCafe on this basis, he
cannot in fairness deny me at least a little suspicion of Evans.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

quote:

>Several years ago I was the Chessco Chess Festival in Davenport. One

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

<I RECOMMEND MEDICAL TREATMENT.> Kingston to Parr

<You really need better glasses, Larry. Do a google search of my recent
posts for a discussion of my letter of July 2001, the one Evans
(deliberately?) mangled.> Taylor Kingston

Now Mr. Kingston owns up to a FOURTH letter that was printed in
Evans On Chess, although he originally claimed only one was used.

Mr. Kingston is right that I probably need medical treatment.
Perusing Evans On Chess in July 2001 I can perceive no letter from
him. Perhaps I should adjust my glasses.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

WHAT DID EVANS SAY?

<Fair enough. What was GM Evans' take on Whyld's views? -- Dondo

EVANS ON CHESS, SEPTEMBER 2001, PAGE 14

KERES-BOTVINNIK SCANDAL (CASE CLOSED!)

Richard Laurie
Erie, Pennsylvania

Q. In THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (October 1996) you wrote: "Keres
was in trouble for having competed in Nazi-organized tournaments during
the war. The KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family
was also in peril. His case was examined at the highest level in the
Kremlin; they let him rejoin his family in Estonia, but the price of
his reprieve was to abandon his quest for the crown."

Euwe played a match against Bogolyubov at Carlsbad in 1941 under
the Nazis, so he was not "pure" either according to Pablo Moran in
AGONY OF A GENIUS. In researching this period, I also discovered that
Alekhine warned Keres not to return to Soviet-occupied Estonia.

Botvinnik became a true Soviet hero after he tied for first with
Capablanca at Nottingham 1936, and he was coddled by the Kremlin. The
British magazine CHESS (July-Aug-Sept 1949 with follow up letters by
Pachman, Wade, and others) reported that Bogartyrchuk, who won the USSR
Championship in 1927, later was warned "by a Communist Propaganda Dept.
official in Kiev that his failure to participate regularly in chess
events and his excellent record against Botvinnik might be held
against him and be interpreted in a way that could be dangerous for
him."

EVANS: Richard Laurie is author of KNIGHT OF THE ID, a fine play about
the last days of Alekhine in Lisbon 1946. His view is substantiated by
the OXFORD COMPANION TO CHESS:

"When the war in Europe ended Keres returned home, but not before
making a deal with Soviet authorities. He would be 'forgiven' for
playing in German tournaments i.e., collaborating with the enemy. In
return Keres promised not to interfere with Botvinnik's challenge to
Alekhine."

Kenneth Whyld, the book's co-author, said Keres confided to him that he
was not directly ordered to lose but "was given a broader instruction
that if Botvinnik failed to become world champion, it must not be the
fault of Keres."

Translation: Keres' life hung by a thread and he was forbidden to
finish ahead of Soviet hero Botvinnik. While I was in London last year
for the Kasparov-Kramnik match, Polish IM Andrei Filipowicz, the chief
arbiter, told me it wasn't necessary for Stalin to issue a direct order
because Keres knew what was expected of him in a nation where terror
reigned supreme.

In a letter to the editor of KINGPIN (Spring 2000) Taylor Kingston
claimed I misrepresented his views about the Keres-Botvinnik
controversy. But his "Survey Of The Evidence" (Chess Life, May 1998)
devotes six pages to the topic without reaching any conclusion despite
what Whyld told Keres and Botvinnik's startling admission in a 1991
interview that Stalin did intervene. Mr. Kingston, whose work I
generally admire, probably is unfamiliar with a syndicated newspaper
column I wrote in 1999 entitled "An Old Scandal." Here is an excerpt:

CASE CLOSED

I analyzed all five games, sadly concluding Keres was probably coerced.
Alas, his dilemma was how to lose and make it look real. "Who wouldn't
throw games to save his own life and his family?" I asked, reviving an
old scandal.

Taylor Kingston, an amateur, wrote a laudatory letter to the editor of
CHESS LIFE:

"Larry Evans' article THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES in October 1996 was one
of the best pieces of historical writing you've ever run. Evans'
analysis of games in the 1948 World Championship makes a case that
Keres' failure was the result of coercion by Soviet authorities. We
should investigate further and find out the facts. We could be on the
verge of uncovering a major scandal in chess history."

Kingston later wrote an article disputing my theory, mostly ignoring my
critique of Keres' strange moves. This was like dismissing the Zapruder
film in the Kennedy assassination.

Recently THE MITROKHIN ARCHIVES; THE KGB IN EUROPE AND THE WEST by
Chris Andrews and Vasili Mitrokhin was based on documents smuggled out
of Russia. It reveals that in 1978 no less than 18 secret service
agents helped Anatoly Karpov retain his title against defector Viktor
Korchnoi! "A book remains to be written about KGB involvement in Soviet
chess," noted the authors.

Clearly the Soviets used dirty tricks in chess for decades. 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.

Don C. Aldrich

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

Fair enough. What was GM Evans' take on Whyld's views?

==Dondo

On 23 May 2005 12:49:02 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:

quote:

>of the speakers was the late Ken Whyld, British Chess historian of some
>repute. He told a story of how he had the privilege of hosting Keres in
>his home for a tournament. One night they were sitting and talking, and
>this subject came up. Whyld says that Keres told him he was never
>overtly threatened over the games in the Match Tournament or in
>particular with Botvinnik, but it was also very clear to him what would
>happen if he won. He further stated that he did not intentionally lose
>any games, but it was impossible to play one's best under the
>circumstances.> Don Aldrich
>
> For the record, Whyld's views were reported in Evans On Chess.

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> Taylor Kingston claims that three of his letters weren't used or
> that other letters were "in altered form." So far he only cited one

quote:

> his unpublished letters. Where are the other two

You really need better glasses, Larry. Do a google search of my
recent posts for a discussion of my letter of July 2001, the one Evans
(deliberately?) mangled.

and why should he

quote:

> enjoy priority over other readers?

Stretch Armstrong and Plastic Man must envy your flexibility, Larry.
First you allege my unpublished letters never existed. When I prove
they do, you don't acknowledge your error or apologize for your insult.
You just switch tacks, claiming I demand priority. I don't.
Apparently you have such a severe case of logorrhea that you must not
only spew out your own words, you must put them in other peoples'
mouths as well. I recommend medical treatment.

Don C. Aldrich

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

Now this is interesting. Evans takes the comments by Whyld and jumps
to the conclusion that he lost on purpose. Don't you think it
possible he did not lose on purpose, but simply could not concentrate
to the best effect due to the 'invisible' pressure?

I realize this may be a subtle distinction, but a distinction
nonetheless. The real tragedy is that Keres did not live long enough
to tell us....

==Dondo

On 23 May 2005 13:40:21 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:

quote:

>WHAT DID EVANS SAY?

[snippage]

quote:

>Kenneth Whyld, the book's co-author, said Keres confided to him that he
>was not directly ordered to lose but "was given a broader instruction
>that if Botvinnik failed to become world champion, it must not be the
>fault of Keres."
>
>Translation: Keres' life hung by a thread and he was forbidden to
>finish ahead of Soviet hero Botvinnik. While I was in London last year
>for the Kasparov-Kramnik match, Polish IM Andrei Filipowicz, the chief
>arbiter, told me it wasn't necessary for Stalin to issue a direct order
>because Keres knew what was expected of him in a nation where terror
>reigned supreme.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

BUT KINGSTON CLAIMED ONLY ONE AT FIRST

<You really need better glasses, Larry. Do a google search of my recent
posts for a discussion of my letter of July 2001, the one Evans
(deliberately?) mangled.> Taylor Kingston

A perfectly logical inference from "my letter of July 2001" is that
he had a fourth letter printed in Evans On Chess. But this provoked
another burst of indignation from Sir Kingston.

AND BABY MAKES THREE

<One wonders how Mr. Parr explains his jump from two published letters,
as we agreed just a short time ago, to a "FOURTH"?> Taylor Kingston

We agreed on nothing. Mr. Kingston had at least three letters
printed in Evans On Chess, as I originally estimated. This doesn't
sound like he was censored to me.

1. April 1997

2 October 1997

3 November 1997

Despite Mr. Kingston's recommendation that I seek medical treatment,
three doesn't sound like two.

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> Now Mr. Kingston owns up to a FOURTH letter that was printed in
> Evans On Chess, although he originally claimed only one was used.

There goes Larry again, inventing things I never said. The letter in
question was cut and altered by Evans, then used in the "Letters to the
Editor" section of the 7/2001 CL, not in "Evans on Chess."
One wonders how Mr. Parr explains his jump from two published
letters, as we agreed just a short time ago, to a "FOURTH"?

quote:

> Mr. Kingston is right that I probably need medical treatment.
> Perusing Evans On Chess in July 2001 I can perceive no letter from
> him.

Indeed there was not, as my original post made clear.

Perhaps I should adjust my glasses.

Indeed Mr. Parr should. For his benefit, I repost my discussion of
the 7/2001 letter, which he earlier alleged did not exist. As I said
then, it bears careful reading, an approach to which Mr. Parr is
evidently disinclined:

This is not entirely an unpublished letter, rather it's one that
was severely trimmed and altered, so that my statements unfavorable to
Evans were omitted, and the one printed statement was garbled.
The following correspondence took place in July 2001, when the
Evans-Winter feud was at its peak at both ChessCafe.com and in Chess
Life. A person, possibly Evans himself, but identifying himself only as
a representative from Evans' company Chesstours, contacted me by
e-mail. Below is our correspondence verbatim, from my reply, which I
saved as a Word doc at the time. For clarity, I have here added
"CT" to indicate Chesstours' statements (which are also in
[[double brackets]]), and "TK" to indicate mine.

In a message dated 7/22/01 6:28:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Chesstours@cs.com writes:

CT: [[ Chesstours syndicates the newspaper column Evans On Chess. ]]

TK: Yes, I am aware of that. How you doin', Larry?

CT: [[ Edward Winter, in a letter to the editor of Chess Life attacking
GM Evans, mentions your name as follows:

"The splenetic peak, at least so far, is his July 2001 column, where he

accused me of having been misleading, crude, sly and vile in a brief
Kingpin item (not quoted correctly) from over a year ago. Yet what I
wrote was 100% true. Indeed, the person who misled Kingpin readers was
Evans himself. That was on a different matter (the details are omitted
here for space reasons), but suffice it to say that Evans' conduct was
described by his victim, Taylor Kingston, as 'amazingly, grossly
dishonest'. Moreover, the Kingpin editor, Jonathan Manley, has
commented: 'There can be no doubt that Larry Evans misled Kingpin
readers. The evidence is incontrovertible, as shown by Taylor Kingston
in Kingpin 32 (Spring 2000), p. 64. Evans' claim that Edward Winter is
guilty of the same offence is simply ludicrous.'"

1. For the record, do you consider yourself a victim of GM Evans, as
Mr.
Winter alleges? ]]

TK: I definitely feel Mr. Evans has acted improperly. My statement
that he misrepresented my views is already a matter of public record
(see Kingpin, Spring 2000, page 64, as stated by J. Manley). I stand by
that statement today. In the recent dispute between Evans and Winter, I
agree on the whole with Winter.
In addition to the documented misrepresentation my Evans, there have
been several further instances by his spokesman, Larry Parr, on
internet newsgroups.

CT: [[2. In light of all the evidence that has appeared since you wrote
A Review of the Evidence [sic] in Chess Life (admissions by both
Botvinnik and Keres that Stalin personally intervened) what is your
current position on this controversy? ]]

** end of first e-mail **

I did not answer Evans' second question, for several reasons. One
was that my second article on the subject, "The Keres-Botvinnik Case
Revisited: A Further Survey of the Evidence," was in preparation, and
I had no wish to divulge it to Evans in advance.
Another reason is that the K-B case is complex, not a simple yes/no
proposition, and my "position" on it cannot be turned into a simple
sound-byte. It's not like a political "for-or-against" position.

A very important reason I did not answer ist that Evans' phrasing
contains a clear factual error: "admissions by Botvinnik and Keres
that Stalin personally intervened." To my knowledge, Keres never said
any such thing. To answer Evans directly would have given tacit
endorsement to this typical example of his carelessness or chicanery.

However, Evans persisted. A little over five hours later, I received
a follow-up message:

In a message dated 7/22/01 11:45:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Chesstours@cs.com writes:

CT: [[ However, it didn't address the second question about your
current position on the Botvinnik-Keres controversy. Care to comment?
]]

TK: I have tried to adopt a quasi-legal approach to this question;
mere opinions are not evidence. Whatever the ultimate resolution of the
Keres-Botvinnik controversy, it has nothing to do with the matter under
consideration, i.e. Mr. Evans' honesty and accuracy.
Furthermore, your question (quoted below) involved assumptions or
assertions I do not share. Any response by me might be taken as an
endorsement of those assumptions. Therefore I will not respond to the
question as it is presently phrased.

CT: [[2. In light of all the evidence that has appeared since you wrote
A Review of the Evidence in Chess Life (admissions by both Botvinnik
and Keres that Stalin personally intervened) what is your current
position on this controversy? ]]

** end of second e-mail **

Thus the e-mail exchange. Yet of my ten-sentence, four-paragraph
reply, by the time Evans was done with it, all that appeared in Chess
Life (December 2001, page 7) was a mangled stub. Evans wrote:

"[Kingston] forgot - if that is quite the word - that he
refused to answer when I sought his *current* view on whether Keres
threw games.
"He replied via e-mail on July 23, 2001 'Your involved
assumptions or assertions I do not share. Any response by me might be
taken as an endorsement of those assumptions. Therefore I will not
respond to the question as it is presently phrased.'
"Pompous gobbledygook."

Note that Evans removed three words from my answer so that the first
sentence makes no sense, then has the gall to call it gobbledygook.
And, note that Evans completely forgot - if that is quite the word
- to give the text of his question, so the Chess Life reader had no
idea of what I objected to. And note that Evans failed to present most
of response, the parts that are most directly critical of him.
It is not hard to see that Evans was fishing for something he might
use against Winter. Failing to get that from me, he distorted my
response, perhaps partly out of (convenient) carelessness, but also
clearly pruning by design.
I find it ironic that Parr generally complains so vociferously about
others' snipping, but not when his idol Evans does it to someone
else.
Evans' 12/2001 letter was accompanied by one from Parr which had
further distortions. I submitted a letter rebuttting these to the Chess
Life editor, but it was not published. We will see if Mr. Parr tries to
deny the existence of that letter also, as he has with my letter of
November 1998.

Louis Blair

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

Larry Parr wrote (23 May 2005 15:02:04 -0700):

quote:

> In a 1991 interview he finally conceded that
> Stalin personally intervened in the 1948 world
> championship. The meaning of this is crystal
> clear to anyone familiar with Soviet history. A
> ruthless tyrant with the power of life or death
> over his subjects made sure that no outsider
> would become world champion in a tournament
> with Botvinnik, Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky
> and Euwe.

_
"In an interview before he died, Botvinnik
told Sosonko and Pam: 'In 1948 I played
with Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky and
Euwe for the world title. At a very high
level it was proposed that the other
Soviet players would lose against me
on purpose in order to make sure there
would be a Soviet World Champion. It
was Stalin personally who proposed
this. But of course I refused.'" - Larry
Parr (17 Jun 2001 02:11:29 GMT)

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

Don C. Aldrich wrote:

quote:

> Now this is interesting. Evans takes the comments by Whyld and jumps
> to the conclusion that he lost on purpose.

He jumps to more than that. Notice the sentence "But [Kingston's]
"Survey Of The Evidence" (Chess Life, May 1998) devotes six pages to
the topic without reaching any conclusion despite what Whyld told Keres
and Botvinnik's startling admission in a 1991
interview that Stalin did intervene."
I wonder if Mr. Aldrich can spot Larry Evans' lie in the above
sentence. It does not surprise me that Mr. Parr is still recycling it,
even though I refuted it four years ago.

Don't you think it

quote:

> possible he did not lose on purpose, but simply could not concentrate
> to the best effect due to the 'invisible' pressure?

That is the view to which I incline at this time. In my first article
(www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt, www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt)I felt
that the "invisible pressures" were perhaps more circumstantial than
intentional. By the time of my second article
(www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf) the testimony of Whyld and
Botvinnik had appeared, persuading me that at least some pressure was
intentional, and thus qualified as coercion, even if no one came to
Keres and said "Lose or we kill you."

quote:

> I realize this may be a subtle distinction, but a distinction
> nonetheless. The real tragedy is that Keres did not live long enough
> to tell us....

Agreed. He died at only age 59.

Taylor Kingston

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

<The real tragedy is that Keres did not live long enough to tell
us....> ==Dondo

But Botvinnik did.

In a 1991 interview he finally conceded that Stalin personally
intervened in the 1948 world championship. The meaning of this is
crystal clear to anyone familiar with Soviet history. A ruthless tyrant
with the power of life or death over his subjects made sure that no
outsider would become world champion in a tournament with Botvinnik,
Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky and Euwe.

Reuben Fine declined his invitation because, as he explained to
Larry Evans, he didn't want to waste three months of his life watching
Soviets throwing games to each other.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

NOBODY SAID NO TO STALIN!

"In an interview before he died, Botvinnik
told Sosonko and Pam: 'In 1948 I played
with Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky and
Euwe for the world title. At a very high
level it was proposed that the other
Soviet players would lose against me
on purpose in order to make sure there
would be a Soviet World Champion. It
was Stalin personally who proposed
this. But of course I refused.'" - Larry
Parr (17 Jun 2001 02:11:29 GMT)

Thank you for resurrecting this quote, Louis.

More anon.

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

NOBODY SAID NYET TO TRUMAN!

quote:

>More anon.

Please... no.... just pay attention to Don Aldrich's explanation. Think
*very hard* about it (harder than you've *ever* thought about
*anything* else in your whole life) and if that works, you'll know why
you should just shut up.

If it *doesn't* work, shut up anyway.

You're *still* posting duplicates.

Idiot.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-23, 8:32 pm

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-24, 12:31 am

<MORE PEARLS OF WISDOM FROM THAT RENOWNED SAGE, PARR. So Botvinnik
lied, did he? No shit!> Mark Houlsby

Mark Houlsby is starting to come around. I am happy that he is
now attacking those who imagined that Botvinnik's statement in 1991 was
to be taken at face value. One especially enjoyed the "Of course" in
Botvinnik's answer. It is vaguely conceivable Botvinnik might have
said no (very, veddy vaguely conceivable) but he would never have done
so as a matter "of course."

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-24, 12:31 am

:
NOBODY SAID NYET TO TRUMAN -- Mark Houlsby

To compare Harry Truman with Joseph Stalin in the
not-saying-nyet category is to compare Mark Houlsby or Stan Booz with
Georgy Zhukov in the soldierly-killing category.

Mr. Houlsby sounds as if he is having an electronic nervous
breakdown of the kind suffered many years ago by my old sparring
partner Yung Yu. Fever swamp stuff from our excitable Anglo
correspondent. He could use a little more of the Phlegm Britannique.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-24, 12:31 am

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-24, 12:31 am

>NOBODY SAID NYET TO TRUMAN -- Mark Houlsby

quote:

> To compare Harry Truman with Joseph Stalin in the

not-saying-nyet category is to compare Mark Houlsby or Stan Booz with
Georgy Zhukov in the soldierly-killing category.

Parr:

2 points:

1) I was comparing nobody with nobody else. I was commenting only upon
the unlikelihood that any of Stalin's cronies would use an *English*
word when they spoke to him (as your usual, and ridiculously
pretentious) fake-headline had it

2) How do you know how many people I have killed? If you've done your
research as carefully as you did with respect to your trolling of
Taylor Kingston....

Parr:

quote:

> Mr. Houlsby sounds as if he is having an electronic nervous

breakdown of the kind suffered many years ago by my old sparring
partner Yung Yu. Fever swamp stuff from our excitable Anglo
correspondent. He could use a little more of the Phlegm Britannique.

Actually, I couldn't. My catarrh's quite bad enough, thank you all the
same.

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-24, 3:31 am

END OF THE TRAIL?

quote:

> Mark Houlsby says that I have no idea how many people he has either

killed or, presumably, had killed. Hence my suggestion that he is not
in the same league with Georgy Zhukov could be flawed.

Indeed. Do you know how many people Zhukov *himself* actually killed?

quote:

> Granted. And my grandmother could also be a trolley car.

Really? Does she let you ride for free?

quote:

> In our Mr. Houlsby, we either have a very serious gent of world

historical significance to whom I am doing a grave injustice or we have

the village Tom o' Bedlam suffering from folie de grandeur who just
nickered his way out of Colney Hatch.

....or something else again. You see, certainly, I am not the former,
and, equally certainly, I am not the latter, either. Therefore, I must
be something else again. I fear that few things are as clear cut as you
appear to believe that they may be....

quote:

> WRAPPING IT UP ?

quote:

> I wrote: "One compares GM Evans printing half or more of all the

letters received by Mr. Kingston in a medium of highly restricted space

with ChessCafe being unable to publish at least six letters in defense
of GM Evans in a medium of unrestricted space at the height of a
malicious attack launched by Edward Winter whose publisher Hanon
Russell controlled the shape of the debate.

Yes. You did write that. Several times. You still haven't addressed my
having demolished your pathetic attempt to belittle Taylor Kingston.
Instead, just as you have behaved like Jason Repa in calling me a troll
for exposing your trolling (and there's *plenty* of *evidence* of your
trolling, which I'll be only too glad to point out--repeatedly, if you
choose--you also repeat the same nonsense here as you have posted
several times elsewhere. Anyone who was *not* deliberately trolling
would have devoted the same amount of time and energy which *you* have
devoted to the troll post to which *this* is a reply, to addressing my
having demolished your pathetic attempt to belittle Taylor Kingston.
Not you, though, as trolls go, you're more redoubtable than most.

Larry, I have a question for you... how many people have to point out
what an unmitigated loser you are, before you realise what an
unmitigated loser you are?

Taylor Kingston has shown you to be a fool.

Randy Bauer has shown you to be a fool.

James Rynd has indicated that you are a troll with as much panache as a
professional decorator who goes on vacation and sends a child to do
some finger painting on your walls instead.

In my case... I have time. How many people have to point out that
you're a jerk who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, before you
actually *accept it*?

AND HERE IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION ENDS ?

quote:

> Mr. Houlsby wishes me to prove that the two pages GM Evans has in

Chess Life is more limited than internet bulletin boards which have
unlimited space.

Unlimited space? HAHAHAHAHAHA

No, I didn't ask you to prove that two pages in CL < internet space

I asked you to confute my demolition of your pathetic attempt to
belittle Taylor Kingston.

Will you do that, or will you just keep trolling, like the fool which
more and more people, evidently, are noticing that you are?

quote:

>Readers will judge for themselves whether Mr. Houlsby

is serious or loony..

Indeed they shall. Let's hope they can read better than you do.

quote:

> Anyone not bored to tears by now is referred to my response posted

on rgcp to Taylor Kingston's earlier diatribe:

What's this? A glimmer of hope? Yes, Larry, we *are* bored to tears.
Your ceaseless idiocy ensures that. Do stop being an idiot.

Do the right thing.

Stop trolling, there's a good chap...

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-24, 3:31 am

END OF THE TRAIL

Mark Houlsby says that I have no idea how many people he has either
killed or, presumably, had killed. Hence my suggestion that he is not
in the same league with Georgy Zhukov could be flawed.

Granted. And my grandmother could also be a trolley car.

In our Mr. Houlsby, we either have a very serious gent of world
historical significance to whom I am doing a grave injustice or we have
the village Tom o' Bedlam suffering from folie de grandeur who just
nickered his way out of Colney Hatch.

WRAPPING IT UP

I wrote: "One compares GM Evans printing half or more of all the
letters received by Mr. Kingston in a medium of highly restricted space
with ChessCafe being unable to publish at least six letters in defense
of GM Evans in a medium of unrestricted space at the height of a
malicious attack launched by Edward Winter whose publisher Hanon
Russell controlled the shape of the debate.

"For the moment, to put the debate over censorship into context: GM
Larry Evans published at least three letters from one Taylor Kingston
out of six that Mr. Kingston claims to have sent to him (but so far he
provided only one that wasn't used).

" Considering that GM Evans' mailbag is enormous (during my
editorship, the secretary would put a thick wad of letters every few
days into a manila envelope and post them off to GM Evans), Mr.
Kingston obviously proved to be the Ted Williams of those getting
published by GM Evans. The vast majority of readers never have their
letters printed because the space is limited by the iron law of the
column inch, which does not pertain in the world of the Internet
bulletin boards."

To which Mr. Houlsby responds: "Again, no evidence in support of
this. Troll."

AND HERE IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION ENDS

Mr. Houlsby wishes me to prove that the two pages GM Evans has in
Chess Life is more limited than internet bulletin boards which have
unlimited space. Readers will judge for themselves whether Mr. Houlsby
is serious or loony..

Anyone not bored to tears by now is referred to my response posted
on rgcp to Taylor Kingston's earlier diatribe:

From: "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> -
Date: 22 May 2005 17:22:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Censorship at Chesscafe

THE GREAT SNIPPER, TAYLOR KINGSTON, COMPLAINS ABOUT SNIPPING

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

Larry... here's a suggestion:

Go to a mirror, and take a long, hard look at yourself.

What are you doing? What do you hope to achieve as a result of your
doing it? How much time and energy will it cost you to achieve...
whatever it is?

Think about what we're discussing, here:

On the one hand, we're discussing a game, played nearly sixty years
ago, between two protagonists, one of whom has been dead for about ten
years, the other for about thirty.

We're discussing whether or not the latter deliberately lost that game.

Here's a question: in the grand scheme of things... how important is
that, one way or the other?

On the other hand, we're discussing something which Taylor Kingston
wrote in these groups not long ago.

For reasons known probably only to you, you have decided to take it
upon yourself to make it your mission in life (for so it seems) to
expose the terrible wrongdoing which Taylor Kingston's having written
what he wrote represents (at least in your mind, evidently).

Now: whether you like it or not, there was *nothing* wrong in what
Taylor Kingston wrote. This is because what Taylor Kingston wrote
*actually means* is something *entirely different* from what you seem
to want it to mean, in order that you might pursue your petty squabble
against him.

You have also made the *serious* mistake of assuming that Taylor
Kingston and I have formed a team. This is not so. You've made this
mistake at least twice now: once when you falsely accused Taylor
Kingston of resorting to bad language, when, in fact, only I have done
that, and again, just now, when you asserted that my actions are
somehow Taylor Kingston's responsibility, when *they are nothing of the
kind*. Taylor Kingston is *not* responsible for anything which I may
choose to write to you. Only I am responsible for what I write, so if
you must take issue with what I write, take issue with *me*, not with
Taylor Kingston.

Unfortunately, there's more. You have already begun to behave like the
notorious troll Jason Repa. Now you've taken another step down that
road. What will your calling me "Trollsby" do, besides winning you
friends like Jason Repa?

Here's a question: in the grand scheme of things, is this *really* so
important to you that you are prepared to lower yourself to such an
extent? What is so important about me, after all? I mean, I'm a nobody.
Why should you care what I write, ever?

Think about this:

'It often happens, that he who endeavours to ridicule other people,
especially in things of a serious nature, becomes himself a jest, and
frequently to his great cost.'
--Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-75) (Decameron, 'Second Day')

Maybe--just maybe--you should spend a little *more* time reading
fourteenth century Italian literature, and a little *less* time
pursuing petty squabbles in this group.

Put it in the background, there, and throw it a glance, once in a
while....

Oh, and *learn to spell* Dr. Blair's given name, if you intend to use
it in posts of an essentially defamatory nature...

Mark Houlsby

Sam Sloan

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

On 23 May 2005 14:19:06 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:

quote:

>
>parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> There goes Larry again, inventing things I never said. The letter in
>question was cut and altered by Evans, then used in the "Letters to the
>Editor" section of the 7/2001 CL, not in "Evans on Chess."
> One wonders how Mr. Parr explains his jump from two published
>letters, as we agreed just a short time ago, to a "FOURTH"?

More amazing arrogance by Taylor Kingston. Everybody who writes a
letter to the editor of any publication such as Chess Life knows that
his letter will probably not be used and if it is used it will
probably be cut or altered.

This is particularly true of a column like "Evans on Chess" which is
less than two pages and is supposed to be about chess and not about
the continuation of old feuds.

If Larry Evans wants his column to continue to be published he must
provide material that is entertaining to the readers. There is nothing
in the slightest way entertaining about the postings Taylor Kingston
makes here and elsewhere. I am amazed that three or four of his
letters got published. Yet, Taylor Kingston continues to insist that
all of his letters should be published by Larry Evans and that they
should be unaltered.

On the other hand, Cafe Chess has an Internet bulletin board which has
unlimited capacity and where anybody can post. When certain authors
are not allowed to post there that really is censorship. For example,
I was once personally attacked on Chess Cafe. I tried to post a
response several times but my postings were always refused. So far
nothing that I have written has ever been posted to Chess Cafe. I
strongly suspect that Taylor Kingston was in some way involved in
stopping my responses from being posted.

I also received a threatening letter from Chess Cafe threatening to
sue me for unauthorized publication of a photo of Raymond Weinstein
which is on my website at http://www.samsloan.com/weinste.htm . This
letter from Chess Cafe said that that photo was the property of Edward
Winter. I wrote back that that photo had been published in Chess
Review magazine in 1960 and I doubt that Edward Winter owns the
publication rights to Chess Review. Nothing more was heard on this
matter.

Sam Sloan

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

quote:

> Taylor Kingston continues to insist that
> all of his letters should be published by Larry Evans and that they
> should be unaltered.

For the second time I challenge Mr. Sloan to produce the quote in
which this insistence about all my letters being published is stated.
Otherwise, it will be even more obvious than it is already that he is,
quite simply, a liar.
A PREDICTION: Sloan will never provide any actual quote from me that
proves his allegation. However, he will continue to repeat his
allegation. In Sam Sloan's universe, facts are overruled by his
fantasies.

As for wanting my statements to be unaltered, I consider that demand
quite reasonable. I sent Evans this sentence:

"Furthermore, your question (quoted below) involved assumptions or
assertions I do not share." -- e-mail, July 2001

Evans printed this as supposedly a direct quote from me:

"Your involved assumptions or assertions I do not share." -- Chess
Life, 12/2001, page 7

This Evans called "pompous gobbledygook," after he had deleted four
words, including the subject of the verb, making the sentence
unintelligible.
When Mr. Sloan is quoted, he has shown a vehement insistence that the
quote be absolutely exact, or he will respond "I never said that."
Interesting that he is so tolerant of misquoting when others are
involved. The term "double standard" comes to mind.

quote:

> On the other hand, Cafe Chess has an Internet bulletin board which

has

quote:

> unlimited capacity and where anybody can post.

Wrong. The bulletin board was discontinued months ago.

quote:

> I was once personally attacked on Chess Cafe.

May we see the text of this "personal attack"? If you do not have it
but recall the date, I may be able to find it for you, assuming it
actually exists.

quote:

> So far
> nothing that I have written has ever been posted to Chess Cafe. I
> strongly suspect that Taylor Kingston was in some way involved in
> stopping my responses from being posted.

Sam, I was never consulted about other people's ChessCafe bulletin
board submissions, and I never asked for any by anyone to be vetoed. If
it is any consolation, quite a few of my own submissions were refused.
Speaking as we are of fairness, Sam, do you think it was fair when,
on this forum, you insinuated that Hanon Russell was a communist?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

THE INTERNET STALKER

quote:

>Anyone not bored to tears by now is referred to my response posted on

rgcp to Taylor Kingston's earlier diatribe.> Parr
:
<What's this? A glimmer of hope? Yes, Larry, we *are* bored to tears.
Your ceaseless idiocy ensures that. Do stop being an idiot. Do the
right thing. Stop trolling, there's a good chap.> Trollsby

:
I had thought Mark Houlsby to be a new voice, but a couple of you sent
me some past efforts of his. For example, an exchange with Tim Hanke
in which Mr. Houlsby used the technique of the indirect death threat:
Someone will shoot Mr. Hanke in the back of the head, but Heavens to
Betsy, it would never be he, Mark Houlsby.

That kind of stuff.

So, then, how does one deal with an evidently harmless Internet
stalker? Mr. Hanke, after all, is still alive and in greater danger of
discombobulation from Iraqis than from Mr. Houlsby's putative
assassins.

I think the rule here will have to be: When Mr. Houlsby stops
name-calling and directly or indirectly threatens my person or those
related to me with injury, I shall resist further amusement.

Mr. Houlsby started off reasonably well in terms of apparent
mental health until he wrote a posting in which he was literally
addressing one of his own postings. We see those poor unfortunates
muttering to themselves on the streets of our great urban center or, it
would appear, on the rgcp sidelwalk of the Internet. The man is
evidently entering a crisis period, and I genuinely hope he reemerges
as a more engaging version of Louie Blair rather than an Internet
candidate of the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Mr. Houlsby objects to my repeating material with which he
cannot disagree. His single attempt at a claim is that he did not ask
me to prove GM Evans had less space in Chess Life than an Internet
bulletin board with unlimited space. However, that is what he asked.

We now enter the Houlsby Watch period, when he will merit careful
observation. The fact that Taylor Kingston encourages him to "stick
around" tells us as much about Taylor Kingston as it does about Mark
Trollsby.

Bobby F

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

"Taylor Kingston" <snip egomaniacal blather>

Dear invertebrate:

Any publication has the right to edit any drivel that is sent to them by
mung-brain lower-life forms such as you.

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

Bobby F wrote:

quote:

> Dear invertebrate:
> Any publication has the right to edit any drivel that is sent to them

quote:

> mung-brain lower-life forms such as you.

Ah, the idea of "Vox populi, vox Dei" is met by yet another contrary
example. Maybe Alcuin was right all along.

Twittering One

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

Censorship at Chesscafe ~

"Ah, the idea of "Vox populi, vox Dei"
Is met by yet another contrary
Example.

Maybe Alcuin was right all along."
~ Taylor Kingston

"Vox,
Or telephonic kenetic context box ~ ?"
~ Nicholson

"... O, just
A bird's whistle blewing through the woods."
~ Fobby

Goran Tomic

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

Web site ChessCafe?
The appearance and web site looks somewhat archaic and maybe it would be
necessary to use some new web technique. But, maybe nobody could help to
return the readers. I would try to explain:
Many things they put in their archive are well known and some of them they
took without permission, like GM Bora Kostic's photos etc. That GM was from
Vrsac, Yugoslavia and facts about him were taken without permission of his
family.
In my country some people think that web site, and it's Archive is some type
of Pepper pot. Some columnist on that web site could write good, but it
seems that they have no inspiration to write. So, in my opinion that web
site is very bored and I didn't read nothing from that site about year or
more.
And last but not least, I think that scandal with Kingston's interview about
Kerens and Botvinnik definitely destroyed reputation that once good site.

Regards,
Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia

Louis Blair

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

Larry Parr wrote (quoting GM Evans, I think)
(23 May 2005 13:40:21 -0700):

quote:

> ... Botvinnik's startling admission in a 1991
> interview that Stalin did intervene.

Matt Nemmers

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

Goran Tomic wrote:

quote:

> Web site ChessCafe?
> The appearance and web site looks somewhat archaic and maybe it would be
> necessary to use some new web technique. But, maybe nobody could help to
> return the readers. I would try to explain:
> Many things they put in their archive are well known and some of them they
> took without permission, like GM Bora Kostic's photos etc. That GM was from
> Vrsac, Yugoslavia and facts about him were taken without permission of his
> family.
> In my country some people think that web site, and it's Archive is some type
> of Pepper pot. Some columnist on that web site could write good, but it
> seems that they have no inspiration to write. So, in my opinion that web
> site is very bored and I didn't read nothing from that site about year or
> more.
> And last but not least, I think that scandal with Kingston's interview about
> Kerens and Botvinnik definitely destroyed reputation that once good site.
>
> Regards,
> Goran Tomic,
> Yugoslavia

LOL!

Tomic, how many articles of importance have YOU written? How many
people have visited YOUR website or posted on YOUR forum?

You're a terrible writer, a barely passable communicator, and your
moronic posts only serve as proof-positive that you are nothing more
than a hack with a huge ego, "Internet Grandmaster Tomic." Get over
yourself. You've got nothing to be proud of.

MN

PS. What's my ISP's address again?

Bobby F

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

"Goran Tomic" <> And last but not least, I think that scandal with
Kingston's interview about Kerens and Botvinnik definitely destroyed
reputation that once good site.

quote:

>

Any site that would have Kingston as a writer can only be pornographic.

Chess One

2005-05-24, 8:34 pm

"Bobby F" <bobby@prisonlife.com> wrote in message
news:W4Oke.10088$lQ3.5089@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

quote:

> "Goran Tomic" <> And last but not least, I think that scandal with
> Kingston's interview about Kerens and Botvinnik definitely destroyed
> reputation that once good site.
> Any site that would have Kingston as a writer can only be pornographic.
>

Nonsense, such asperity is uncalled for.

- The opposite of one profound truth is not necessarily a lie, but another
profound truth - said Popper the philosopher -

That is only newsgroup blagh, and newsgroups are populated by people who
constantly present themselves in a way which would be preposterous in any
other sphere of human contact.

Taylor Kingston is a very good chess writer, and a decent person finding
himself engaged in a dispute with others, who are no more, no less! To argue
any substantial difference in elevation of one's own status as a person, or
to deprecate another in a general way, is merely to cheat oneself of a
degree of human sharing - a profoundly unhealthy activity [which we all
slyly engage]

No one here is more than an interpreter reporting their own indirect
experience of Keres/Botvinnik [their personal sources, reflections,
writings, musings and anecdotes]. When people state their stuff they really
want witness, rather than either contradiction or affirmation, both [!] of
which can lead to strife.

What is interesting about any conversation which becomes prolonged &
antagonistic, is that we are forced to look at the fact that we are willing
to hate other people, and this is distressing to us - not because we really
care about our antagonists - but because we realise that we are not in
control of ourselves, something is controlling us.

We might all think to love our neighbour, but in emotional fact we hate him,
and our distress is because we don't know how to remedy it. Dimly we realise
that an extension of the very same human process is to talk about world
peace among nations and at the same time bomb other nation's cities.

In other words, beneath our assuredly suave and rational conversations, we
all feel guilty as hell.

What is significant, then, about sharing any information with other people
are the levels of perception, learning and application we have and can
produce, as are the styles with which we go about expressing them.

Le style est l'homme même said Buffon, but the Gæl said, a man's a man for
a' that.

Phil Innes

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-25, 12:31 am

COPYRIGHT OF PHOTOS

<I also received a threatening letter from Chess Cafe threatening to
sue me for unauthorized publication of a photo of Raymond Weinstein
which is on my website at http://www.samsloan.com/winste.htm . This
letter from Chess Cafe said that that photo was the property of Edward
Winter. I wrote back that that photo had been published in Chess Review
magazine in 1960 and I doubt that Edward Winter owns the publication
rights to Chess Review. Nothing more was heard on this matter.> Sam
Sloan

The Cafe is tried a legal ploy, and it is incumbent on all of
us NOT to seek permission from them to publish nearly all of the photos
that appear there.

Sam Sloan is correct that the vast majority of these photos are
not the property of either Edward Winter or Hanon Russell. Many
appeared in old issues of Chess Review or the American Chess Bulletin
and the copyrights have, in any event, expired long ago.

Mr. Russell and Mr. Winter had this idea of building a legal case
for ownership based upon requests made by users.

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-25, 12:31 am

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-25, 8:33 pm

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-25, 8:33 pm

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-25, 8:33 pm

Don C. Aldrich wrote:

quote:

> Now this is interesting. Evans takes the comments by Whyld and jumps
> to the conclusion that he lost on purpose.

quote:

> possible he did not lose on purpose, but simply could not concentrate
> to the best effect due to the 'invisible' pressure?

quote:

> I realize this may be a subtle distinction, but a distinction
> nonetheless. The real tragedy is that Keres did not live long enough
> to tell us....

Agreed. He died at only age 59.

Taylor Kingston

Louis Blair

2005-05-25, 8:33 pm

Larry Parr wrote (23 May 2005 15:02:04 -0700):

quote:

> In a 1991 interview he finally conceded that
> Stalin personally intervened in the 1948 world
> championship. The meaning of this is crystal
> clear to anyone familiar with Soviet history. A
> ruthless tyrant with the power of life or death
> over his subjects made sure that no outsider
> would become world champion in a tournament
> with Botvinnik, Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky
> and Euwe.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-25, 8:33 pm

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-25, 8:33 pm

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-25, 8:33 pm