| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-05-30, 3:31 am |
| GAME OVER
"Nobody cares about your chronolgy. You are the only person who cares
about that. We only care about whether Keres threw the games to
Botvinnik, not about who knew what and when did he know it." Sam Sloan
to Taylor Kingston
That sums it all up. It''s been great fun, guys, but I really have
nothing further to conrribute to this thread except to wrap up some
loose ends.
KINGSTON'S INTELLECTUAL PUSS
Mr. Kingston is showing the wounds of our past encounters. He may
insist that his huffing and puffing is not the festering of
intellectual puss, but he won't sound too convincing.
I called the discrete dates silly, as Mr. Kingston well knows,
because they were not the point of his questions. The point was the
deductions to be drawn from the dates, and I chose to address them. As
for chronology, I handsomely stipulated that he could fill in the
blanks with whatever dates he chose and I would agree for the sake of
argument. He dishonestly represented my point about dates to suggest a
disregard for rigor in history. Once again: I was addressing the
evident points that he wished to have addressed.
Mr. Kingston does not like my answers. Sorry about that.
Now.he wishes to change the subject from what he OUGHT to have
done when pursuing his Keres-Botvinnik cottage industry to when Ken
Whyld, for example, published his earlier verbal representations to
people. He wants to talk about when Pam-Sosonko first appeared in
English rather than to discuss why he was not on the blower with people
in-the-know before going to press with his review of the evidence.
This whole business came up about at another site -- I can't
remember which. GM Genna Sosonko phoned me a number of times from
Amsterdam regarding his book "Russian Silhouettes." I believe those
calls were in June or July 2001, and I asked him whether he recollected
our talk about Botvinnik in New York and he did. I was not exactly
anticipating the current brouhaha, but I admit to regarding my question
at the time as a future intellectual insurance policy.
I would suggest to Mr. Kingston that he contact GM Sosonko. Thanks
to our phone conversations in 2001, I hope and believe it will be the
same as mine. Presumably, there will be some international phone bills
to substantiate the existence of such calls, if it finally comes to
that.
I can only testify that GM Evans' talks with Ken Whyld in London
were chummy. The single point that Taylor Kingston makes with any
weight is why GM Evans did not bring it up in his 1996 article THE
TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES..
First, GM Evans was concerned with the games, and some of the other
points he made were important, especially, say, the Bogatyrchuk story
to depict the atmosphere of the times. Secondly, GM Evans may have
felt constrained by the very fact that Ken Whyld had not yet raised the
issue in print. I was given stories in the past and agreed not to
write about them. That's normal enough for all writers. The moment you
break confidence, that's when you get cut off.
Still, I am not speaking for GM Evans here. He may have had other
concerns. One wild possibility is that Mr. Kingston ask him, though I
suspect he will get the back of the hand from someone he has called
grossly, amazingly dishonest.
Over and out.
|