Chess politics - Evans Answers Kingston's Questions

Author

Evans Answers Kingston's Questions

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-31, 12:31 am

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

>
> In 2001 GM Evans DID provide Chess Life readers and Mr. Kingston
> himself with
> information that the latter should have had earlier and would have had
> earlier had he exercised true due diligence in his research.

In 2001?? Rrriiight. By 2001 most people seriously interested in the
subject already knew, thanks to Tim Krabb=E9. As far who published what
in 2001, Kingston's article of October 2001
(http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf) beat Evans by two
months. In fact, based on the strict chronology of published material,
Kingston told Evans, rather than the other way around.
Larry Parr talking about "due diligence" is like Hugh Hefner talking
about chastity.

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-31, 12:31 am

[vbcol=seagreen]
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
> <snip introductory material>

In fact, a reasonable inference, already pointed out by Dr. Louis
Blair, is that Evans not only *forgot* to mention Whyld, but by
forgetting actually **misled** Chess Life readers. I refer to Evans'
statement:

"Keres was the favorite [sic], but his lips always remained sealed
about his awful score against Botvinnik." -- Larry Evans, Chess Life,
10/1996, page 40.

If in fact Evans knew as early as 1988 about Whyld's 1962
conversation with Keres, then clearly Evans knew in 1996 that Keres's
lips did *not* **always** remain sealed. Yet he told Chess Life readers
they did remain sealed. There is a contradiction here.
[vbcol=seagreen]

Very gratifying to hear that. Perhaps then Mr. Evans will admit he
was wrong, even dishonest, to deride, in the fashion he did, Taylor
Kingston's 1998 article, as he did on page 7 of the 12/2001 Chess Life?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-31, 12:31 am

I STILL HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO SOSONKO

Larry Evans wrote no lie regarding Taylor Kingston's advocacy.
Or, at least, Mr. Kingston has yet to adduce it.

In 2001 GM Evans DID provide Chess Life readers and Mr. Kingston
himself with
information that the latter should have had earlier and would have had
earlier had he exercised true due diligence in his research. His
article was written in 1998 -- two years after THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL
KERES -- and it's clear by then that other people knew about
Botvinnik's admission and Whyld said about Keres.

GM Alburt and I have written a number of books and, by now,
countless articles together -- as well as collaborating on works
outside of chess in the realm of Soviet politics. Mr. Kingston should
be pleased that GM Alburt shared some knowledge the other evening with
him, though he does not indicate it.

The end result of thisphone call was to confirm my outline of
events: it's highly likely that Alburt, Sosonko and myself discussed
what Botvinnik said about Stalin. It's disappointing but not overly
surprising that neither Alburt nor Sosonko may not be able to remember
what was said back then (up to this point, we have only Mr. Kingston's
word for it) since we were not talking on behalf of a future dispute
between this writer and Taylor Kingston.

I promised to contact Genna Sosonko last night but did not get a
hold of him.

What GM Evans and I knew by 1998 when Review of the Evidence
was printed in Chess Life should certainly have been known by Mr.
Kingston, who claimed to undertake formal research. He ought to have
been on the blower talking with people in the know before rushing into
print. He produced a decent piece of journalism -- no more and, to be
fair, no less. It doesn't hold a candle to the seminal article in 1996
on The Tragedy of Paul Keres that ignited an old scandal.

Louis Blair

2005-05-31, 12:31 am

Larry Parr wrote (30 May 2005
18:33:35 -0700):

quote:

> [Mr. Kingston's] article was written in
> 1998 -- two years after THE TRAGEDY
> OF PAUL KERES -- and it's clear by
> then that other people knew about
> Botvinnik's admission and Whyld
> said about Keres.

_
Can Larry Parr give ANY pre-May 1998
examples of some report in English of
what Keres told Whyld or Botvinnik's
1991 interview? How about pre-Dec.
1999?

_
Larry Parr wrote (30 May 2005
18:33:35 -0700):

quote:

> What GM Evans and I knew by 1998
> when Review of the Evidence was
> printed in Chess Life should certainly
> have been known by Mr. Kingston

_
Is Larry Parr trying to tell us that by
May 1998, both he and GM Evans
knew (and remembered) the 1991
Botvinnik comment and the Whyld
-Keres discussion?

The Historian

2005-05-31, 12:31 am

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

>
> <Since Winter's comment was written a half-decade before the Soviet
> book was published, I'm not surprised. Once again Larry Parr shows
> himself to be chronologically challenged.> Neil Brennen
>
> The Oxford Companion To Chess was published in 1984. The
> referenced Winter quotation was one marking, I believe, its 20th
> anniversary.Was that not the one Neil Brennen quoted here?

I wonder how it managed to appear on the back of the paperback issue of
the second edition then. Winter's comments were in reference to the
first edition of the book, published in 1984.

quote:

> What can be said is that someone is indeed chronologically
> challenged.

Confession is good for the soul, Larry. I'm glad to see you are trying
it.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-31, 12:31 am

THEY HUNT IN PACKS

<Dr. Blair published an article in the BCM about 15 years ago. It's
only been mentioned about a dozen times, Larry.> Neil Brennen

<Mr. Parr is evidently unaware of Dr. Blair's considerable writing and
research on the subject of Paul Morphy, and his controversy of many
years running with Ken Whyld on that subject. And his "Chess Notes"
contributions are actually quite readable and interesting.> Taylor
Kingston

It would appear that Taylor Kingston does not do much research
even when finally, at long last, getting on the blower with contacts.
I don't recollect the months when GM Sosonko was in New York or the
months (could have been all 12, because Lev and I were together on
many, many occasions back then) in 1994 when Lev Alburt and I were
discussing the topic here. Indeed, the year could have been 1995 or
late 1993 or even 1992, for all I can say for certain. Mr. Kingston
ought to have asked GM Sosonko. I will.

At the time, I was not keeping track of my meetings with Russians,
which were on a daily basis quite literally, in
anticipation of a future to-do with Mr. Kingston, whose name figured
not in my recognition back then. I will take care of that snippet of
research that Mr. Kingston neglected.

Mr. Kingston, as is his wont, did some more snipping. I noted, for
example, that Louis Blair offered an arrantly, obviously false reason
for dropping his Sosonko-Pam question. The obvious reason was that he
looked weakminded in asking it.

Parser Blair attempted to parry by arguing I had answered it
(apparently to his satisfaction) then stating the sensible and honest
thing to do is to move on to the next question. Wrongo. He never
aknowledged my having answered his question at that time. That would
have been the sensible and honorable thing to do. Mr. Kingston knows
it, though he will scarcely have the courage to admit such.

As for Parser Blair's interminable letters (his "writings") in
Chess Notes, I found them rebarbatively written and, at times, poorly
organized. hey bored.

If Parser Blair would put them online here, readers can judge for
themselves. Since the man wrote them and did not receive payment from
Edward Winter, they are his to use.

Some of Mr. Blair's longer paragraphs in Chess Notes, which
featured argumentation turning in on itself, reminded me of the style,
if not the content and brilliance, of Hannah Arendt's famously long
constructions in The Origins of Totalitarianism.

Still, to repeat, let Parser Blair put his "writings" -- those
often awkwardly phrased, unpublishable letters -- online so that folks
here can choose up sides.

CHRONOLOGICALLY CHALLENGED

<Since Winter's comment was written a half-decade before the Soviet
book was published, I'm not surprised. Once again Larry Parr shows
himself to be chronologically challenged.> Neil Brennen

The Oxford Companion To Chess was published in 1984. The
referenced Winter quotation was one marking, I believe, its 20th
anniversary.Was that not the one Neil Brennen quoted here?

What can be said is that someone is indeed chronologically
challenged.

As for beating a dead horse, one notes that Neil Brennen does not
disagree with what I wrote. He merely wishes it were not true.

THE DISTANCE BETWEEN EVANS AND KINGSTON

One doubts that either Neil Brennen or Taylor Kingston has ever seen,
let alone read, or, for that matter, being able to read Shakhmaty --
Ehntsiklopedicheskij Slova.' Suffice it to say, the difference between
this work and the Oxford Companion in terms of extent and basic
accuracy of dates is about the distance between Larry Evans and Taylor
Kingston in chess strength and celebrity.

Among other things, though the Messrs. Brennen and Kingston know
it not, the Encyclopedic Dictionary provides complete records of nearly
every major serial tournament -- indeed, offhand, I can't think of a
single tournament series that is not given completely. Every title
match ever played is covered. All results of any tournament of
significance, frequently with games, are provided. The number of
iographical entries is far larger, and the detailed information much
more complete than what can be found in the Companion. This
information frequently provides the
total number of first prizes in tournaments of major import.

The Encyclopedic Dictionary likely has about 40 times the number
of discrete facts -- and to be sure, many, many more photos, though
some of traditional Soviet quality.

One enjoys these two "historians" wallowing in their unawareness,
if not necessarily ignorance. Imagine: Mr. Kingston has been writing
on chess materials Soviet and appears utterly ignorant of this
important work. The chairman of the editorial college putting out the
volume was Yuri Averbakh of Kingstonian esteem. Others involved were
Nona Gaprindashvili, Nikolai Krogius, Tal, Smyslov, Linder, Suetin,
Chepizhny, Roshal, Baturinsky and many others.

Ah well, there are standards. And then there are the standards
evinced by Taylor Kingston and Neil Brennen.

Louis Blair

2005-05-31, 3:31 am

Larry Parr wrote (26 May 2005
05:13:38 -0700):

quote:

> Sosonko and I discussed the Keres-Botvinnik
> controversy in 1994 at great length when he
> was in New York visiting GM Lev Alburt.

_
I wrote (26 May 2005 16:36:09 -0700):

quote:

> Does Larry Parr claim that Sosonko told
> Larry Parr about the 1991 Botvinnik
> comments about the Stalin proposal?

_
Larry Parr wrote (30 May 2005
19:58:34 -0700):

quote:

> Louis Blair offered an arrantly, obviously
> false reason for dropping his Sosonko-Pam
> question. The obvious reason was that he
> looked weakminded in asking it.
>_
> Parser Blair attempted to parry by arguing
> I had answered it ...

_
Larry Parr's evidence for choosing his reason
consists of him asserting that it is "obvious".
Larry Parr himself does not reproduce my
supposedly "weakminded" question
(reproduced by me above). By Larry Parr
logic, would we conclude that he obviously
feared that people would not agree with his
"weakminded" assessment?

_
Larry Parr wrote (30 May 2005
19:58:34 -0700):

quote:

> ... (apparently to his satisfaction) then
> stating the sensible and honest thing to
> do is to move on to the next question.
> Wrongo. He never aknowledged my
> having answered his question at that
> time. That would have been the sensible
> and honorable thing to do.

_
I acknowledged Larry Parr's answer to
my question in my 26 May 2005
20:18:21 -0700 note. (I did not bother
to acknowledge his comment on the
supposed stupidity of my question.)

_
Larry Parr remains quiet about his claim that
I tried "to equate" Larry Parr's "responsibility
with that of a chess person who writes a
six page article for Chess Life." Is this
obviously because he realizes the claim
can not be defended?

_
Larry Parr wrote (30 May 2005
18:33:35 -0700):

quote:

> What GM Evans and I knew by 1998
> when Review of the Evidence was
> printed in Chess Life should certainly
> have been known by Mr. Kingston

_
I wrote (30 May 2005 19:19:31 -0700):

quote:

> Is Larry Parr trying to tell us that by
> May 1998, both he and GM Evans
> knew (and remembered) the 1991
> Botvinnik comment and the Whyld
> -Keres discussion?

_
Still no answer. What will come next
from Larry Parr? An answer or more
distractions?

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-31, 8:31 pm

Taylor Kingston wrote:

quote:

> As far who published what
> in 2001, Kingston's article of October 2001
> beat Evans by two
> months. In fact, based on the strict chronology of published material,
> Kingston told Evans, rather than the other way around.

I retract the above statement, which was written in undue haste.
Rechecking, I see that the Evans material I had in mind actually
appeared in 9/2001, not 12/2001 as indicated above.

quote:

> Larry Parr talking about "due diligence" is like Hugh Hefner talking
> about chastity.

I do not retract that statement.

Taylor Kingston

StanB

2005-05-31, 8:31 pm

<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1117570280.696173.299300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> To err is human.
>
> But people in glass houses should not throw stones.

I thought only hack reporters and sports journalists relied on clichés.

Taylor Kingston

2005-05-31, 8:31 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> WHO'S CHRONOLOGICALLY CHALLENGED
> So the two greatest sticklers for chronological accuracy, Neil
> Brennen and his ally Taylor Kingston -- the ones who raked GM Evans
> over the coals over this very issue -- got hoist in their own petard.
> To err is human.
> But people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Ah, but Larry -- you will notice that I published a correction,
something you very rarely do. Also note I did so on my own initiative,
with no prompting by you. I did it voluntarily as soon as I realized my
error, within about 12 hours.
In contrast, we have this recent chronology gaffe by you, from 26
April, 2005:

"The question is why did Mr. Kingston write several letters to Mr.
Laurie trying to convince him that GM Evans was wrong? [sic]
"Well, you see, at the time Mr. Kingston was still claiming there
was no evidence Keres was forced to throw games to Botvinnik in the
1948 World Championship. That was before Mr. Kingston changed his mind
(once again) and finally conceded 'the Commies did it' at ChessCafe."

In fact, Larry, my correspondence with Mr. Laurie took place in
February 2002. My article which you quote appeared in October 2001.
Maybe you don't know whether the chicken or the egg came first, but I
should think even you might know that 10/2001 is before 02/2002.
In all modesty I submit that such anachronisms are relatively rare on
my part, and always unintentional, but they seem to be almost habitual
with you, Larry.
This case is particularly egregious, as you have quoted both sources
frequently, and have no excuse for getting the chronology wrong. You
didn't even bother to check -- how negligent. As Richard Brinsley
Sheridan put it, "The Right Honourable Gentleman is indebted to his
memory for his jests, and to his imagination for his facts."
Finally, I note that in contrast to my very quick correction, you've
let this gaffe remain uncorrected for well over a month now. How
embarrassing.

Louis Blair

2005-05-31, 8:31 pm

Larry Parr wrote:

quote:

> To err is human.

_
What about clarifying where the errors are?
_
"What GM Evans and I knew by 1998 when
[Taylor Kingston's article] was printed in
Chess Life should certainly have been known
by Mr. Kingston, who claimed to undertake
formal research." - Larry Parr (30 May 2005
18:33:35 -0700)
_
"Is Larry Parr trying to tell us that by
May 1998, both he and GM Evans knew (and
remembered) the 1991 Botvinnik comment
and the Whyld-Keres discussion?" - Louis
Blair (30 May 2005 19:19:31 -0700)
_
Larry Parr confidently told us: "it's clear
by [1998] that other people knew about
Botvinnik's admission and [what] Whyld said
about Keres." Yet, Larry Parr does not want
to be specific about what he and GM Evans
knew by the time the Taylor Kingston article
appeared.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-05-31, 8:31 pm

WHO'S CHRONOLOGICALLY CHALLENGED

<As far who published what in 2001, Kingston's article of October 2001
beat Evans by two months. In fact, based on the strict chronology of
published material, Kingston told Evans, rather than the other way
around.> Larry Parr

< I retract the above statement, which was written in undue haste.
Rechecking, I see that the Evans material I had in mind actually
appeared in 9/2001, not 12/T2001 as indicated above.> Taylor Kingston

So the two greatest sticklers for chronological accuracy, Neil
Brennen and his ally Taylor Kingston -- the ones who raked GM Evans
over the coals over this very issue -- got hoist in their own petard.

To err is human.

But people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Mark Houlsby

2005-05-31, 8:31 pm

Parr *aspires* to the status of "hack reporter", I fear....