Home > Archive > Chess politics > May 2005 > Re: Parr Answers Kingston's Questions





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: Parr Answers Kingston's Questions
Taylor Kingston

2005-05-30, 8:32 pm



parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:

> GAME OVER
> 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.


Fine by me. I will address a few of Mr. Parr's latest points right
now, but will probably publish a more detailed summary later.
quote:

> 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 own a pussy cat, named Twinkie, but she is definitely neither
intellectual nor festering. I think the word you want is "pus."
quote:

> I would suggest to Mr. Kingston that he contact GM Sosonko.


I did, by e-mail yesterday morning (Friday 5/27/2005). Got a reply
almost immediately. Sosonko cannot confirm your claim. He does not
remember mentioning the 1991 Botvinnik interview to you in New York in
1994.
So it seems you are losing on all fronts, Larry. You have produced
nothing in the printed public record that supports your contrived
excuses for Evans' cheap fib. Not even anything in your own words, or
Evans'. All we have is your own unsupported word.
On the other hand, I have statements from Whyld himself, Bernard
Cafferty, Tim Krabb=E9, and Don Aldrich all supporting my chronology,
plus the evidence of the printed public record. How much of this does
it take to outweigh your word?
quote:

> 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..

..=2E. Secondly, GM Evans may have
quote:

> felt constrained by the very fact that Ken Whyld had not yet raised the
> issue in print.


Ah, so finally you admit that WHYLD WAS KEEPING IT SECRET! That is
correct, as I already knew from Bernard Cafferty, and FROM WHYLD
HIMSELF, as I posted here earlier. And yet Evans insists I should have
known in 1998 something Whyld was deliberately keeping secret, and did
not reveal to the world until June 2000?? Like I said, Evans thinks
like the Red Queen: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works
backwards."
Thank you, Larry, I think you just got hoist on your own petard.

Copyright 2003 - 2009 gamesreviews.net Software forum  PC Hardware reviews