| Don C. Aldrich 2005-05-30, 8:32 pm |
| Larrry,
That is not what he told 'us'--there were about 35 in the audience,
some who do post here from time to time--and not what I said he said.
What he said is that there were no *overt* threats, but rather a sense
of what would happen if Keres were to win the 1948 match tmt over
Botvinnik. He was very particluar about this, as in Keres said he was
never directly threatened, never told to lose, and never told that he
or his family would be harmed if he won.
That is the essence of the difference in various views. I certianly
understand the Parr/Evans viewpoint, and indeed, it might be right.
And I certiainly am not privy to what Whyld said to Evans. However,
Whyld phrased it so carefully, and reiterated it in a question and
answer session, that I have trouble believing he said it any other
way.
One could also argue with some merit that Keres was lying, as at the
time of the discussion--early 70's--things were still very difficult
in the Sov Un, and there conceivably could have been some fallout had
he said otherwise.
But please, do not use my statement of what was said in support. It
does not support the direct threat argument, or the intentionally
throwing games argument.
==Dondo
On 26 May 2005 05:13:38 -0700, parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> I dealt with the Sosonko-Pam interview before. Ken Whyld, of
>course, spoke with many people about Keres on many occasions. He met
>Larry Evans in London to discuss this precise issue. Whyld's statement
>about Keres being warned not to finish ahead of Botvinnik was common
>knowledge long before 1998. He told it to many people over the years
>including, when he visited America, Don Aldrich.
|