| |
Main
Date: 18 Nov 2007 14:58:46
From: [email protected]
Subject: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
Subj: Reply to TK please post
Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [email protected]
It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.
In the beginning of this particular issue, GM Larry Evans published
an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
games?
Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
matter drop.
When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.
Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
Evans' ability to analyze. His basis for this assault appears to have
been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky. (Mr.
Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
on pages 227-30.
This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
ask if he could present his side of the issue.
He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
between GM Evans and Ed Winter. Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
behind people's backs.
Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him I
had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.
His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
"Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.
I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.
These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.
Period. End of story.
Richard Laurie
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2007 07:07:51
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 20, 2:09 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:17 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 10:41 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 20, 9:12 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
> > > > > basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
> > > > > of the Mind"
>
> > > > Good God, Larry, but this is rich! LOL, ROFL, and other such
> > > > anagrams! You are so in the the habit of distoring what people write
> > > > that you can't even keep straight *_what your own guy wrote_*, and
> > > > what *_you yourself posted here_*.
>
> > > So-called Taylor,
>
> > > So you admit then that you don't know the difference between an
> > > anagram and an acronym? And you call yourself a 2300 player? All
> > > decent men of good will demand that you make the amende honorable
> > > here!
>
> > > LT
>
> > Already did, LT. See my follow-up correction.
>
> TK,
>
> Just looking for an excuse to demand the amende honorable. But sorry,
> the joke fell flat.
>
> Here's the latest Google tally:
>
> -Posts authored by parrthenon with "Kingston" and "2300": 243
> ----------------------------------------------------------------with
> "NMNot": 115
> --------------------------------------------------------------with
> "Xylothist": 91
>
> And this doesn't include numerous more oblique references to your
> alleged moral turpitude.
>
> A rekable and appalling record, really. Especially in view of the
> fact that Parr has had nothing new to say about his charges for years
> now. Maybe he's bucking for the annual Zola Memorial J'Accuse Award.
>
> LT
I emailed "Xylothist" several years ago about a comment on the
newsgroup and received a nasty response. It was nothing like my
cordial correspondence with Mr. Kingston. I find Parr's 'evidence'
unpersuasive.
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2007 07:02:33
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 21, 7:48 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> ANOTHER FAKE?
>
> This appears to be from a Fake Chess One (Phil Innes)
The term "Fake Phil Innes" is a redundancy.
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2007 04:48:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
ANOTHER FAKE?
This appears to be from a Fake Chess One (Phil Innes) whose regular
login is
[email protected]
But this one is from [email protected]
Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ac700d8d-d04c-445a-8591-
> >> LT
> >
> > Already did, LT. See my follow-up correction.
>
> Yeah, anyone can mix their matadors, no? But let's hope this instance
> doesn't get back to Winter himself, otherwise... 7 years bad luck? Phil
> Innes
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 18:42:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
THE RAPPER-TAPPER MAN
Larry Tapper's point is that it is okay for Taylor Kingston
to post over and over again IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF
under false names, though it is not okay to mention this
morally unspeakable ploy over and over again.
And so it goes.
Yours, Larry Parr
Larry Tapper wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:17 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 10:41 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 20, 9:12 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
> > > > > basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
> > > > > of the Mind"
> >
> > > > Good God, Larry, but this is rich! LOL, ROFL, and other such
> > > > anagrams! You are so in the the habit of distoring what people write
> > > > that you can't even keep straight *_what your own guy wrote_*, and
> > > > what *_you yourself posted here_*.
> >
> > > So-called Taylor,
> >
> > > So you admit then that you don't know the difference between an
> > > anagram and an acronym? And you call yourself a 2300 player? All
> > > decent men of good will demand that you make the amende honorable
> > > here!
> >
> > > LT
> >
> > Already did, LT. See my follow-up correction.
>
> TK,
>
> Just looking for an excuse to demand the amende honorable. But sorry,
> the joke fell flat.
>
> Here's the latest Google tally:
>
> -Posts authored by parrthenon with "Kingston" and "2300": 243
> ----------------------------------------------------------------with
> "NMNot": 115
> --------------------------------------------------------------with
> "Xylothist": 91
>
> And this doesn't include numerous more oblique references to your
> alleged moral turpitude.
>
> A rekable and appalling record, really. Especially in view of the
> fact that Parr has had nothing new to say about his charges for years
> now. Maybe he's bucking for the annual Zola Memorial J'Accuse Award.
>
> LT
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 16:47:40
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 20, 6:24 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE FINEST THING IN THE MAGAZINE
>
> In snipping GM Larry Evans' answer, Taylor Kingston conveniently omits
> the full Q&A from Chess Life, April 1997 (page 28) -- an answer to a
> letter submitted by Taylor Kingston which as part of a long series of
> items appearing in Evans on Chess.
>
> The Tragedy of Paul Keres (Cont'd)
> Taylor Kingston
> Shelburne, Vermont
>
> Q. I find your historical articles such as "The Tragedy of Paul Keres"
> last October interesting. I hope you continue to write them; to me
> they are the finest thing in the magazine. Your analysis of games
> where Keres seemed clearly to be playing below his level against
> Botvinnik is not definite proof of a fix, but it is strong
> circumstantial evidence.
Yes, Larry, I expected you'd pull this stunt. We went through all
this in Kingpin years ago. Even I was fooled by Evans for a while.
Never said I wasn't. But I wised up, and repudiated all that. Back in
1998, remember? What's your excuse for letting yourself continue to be
fooled?
Now, what's interesting is that while you come up with this very
quickly, you never have shown us any quote of mine where I make this
much ballyhooed "malignant assault on Evans' ability to analyze" or
whatever I'm alleged to have done.
In any event, your golden boy Laurie is toast. His memory, by which
you set such great store, is shown to be as sturdy as wet Kleenex.
Even you can't change the fact that Laurie said:
> GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
> there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that
> ONE OR MORE SMOKING GUNS WOULD BE FOUND
> as the Soviet archives were explored ... (emphasis added)
while Evans in fact said:
"We doubt such a document will ever surface."
Very embarrassing, isn't it Larry?
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 15:48:35
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
It's a matter of trust, in the end.
I trust and like Taylor K, although I've never met him - I'm in
London.
I would not trust Parr or Evans to look after a fake one penny coin
for one second. It would get lost and they would blame other people.
That's entirely a personal opinion, of course!
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 15:24:42
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
THE FINEST THING IN THE MAGAZINE
In snipping GM Larry Evans' answer, Taylor Kingston conveniently omits
the full Q&A from Chess Life, April 1997 (page 28) -- an answer to a
letter submitted by Taylor Kingston which as part of a long series of
items appearing in Evans on Chess.
The Tragedy of Paul Keres (Cont'd)
Taylor Kingston
Shelburne, Vermont
Q. I find your historical articles such as "The Tragedy of Paul Keres"
last October interesting. I hope you continue to write them; to me
they are the finest thing in the magazine. Your analysis of games
where Keres seemed clearly to be playing below his level against
Botvinnik is not definite proof of a fix, but it is strong
circumstantial evidence. You said "the price of [Keres'] reprieve
[from punishment by the KGB] was to abandon his quest for the crown."
Can you publish the exact wording of the relevant KGB document? Is
there a smoking gun?
A. We doubt such a document will ever surface. These deals often are
communicated by winks and nods, but some facts already were widely
reported. "The Oxford Companion to Chess" (1984 edition) states on
page 163: "When the war in Europe ended Keres returned home, but not
before making a deal with the 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."
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Re-reading this, I noticed yet another example of Mr. Laurie's
> amazingly fallible memory
>
> On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
> >
> > Subj: Reply to TK please post
> > Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > From: [email protected]
> >
> > GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
> > there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that
> > ONE OR MORE SMOKING GUNS WOULD BE FOUND
> > as the Soviet archives were explored ... (emphasis added)
>
> Checking the factual record, we find instead this from "Evans on
> Chess," Chess Life, April 1997, page 28:
>
> Q: Can you publish the exact wording of the relevant document? Is
> there a smoking gun?
>
> Evans: We doubt such a document will ever surface.
>
> Only someone with Mr. Laurie's amazing talents for total recall
> could characterize this as "one or more smoking guns would be found."
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 14:05:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 20, 7:58 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Okay, I read the article. I am impressed with the amount of work that
> Taylor put into it. As for the topic covered, my conclusion was that
> there was a lot of evidence to consider, and it appeared that there was
> nothing definitely conclusive. However, for the most part it was
> persuasive -- the dark forces of Stalin worked against Keres' interests.
Did you skip over the part where TK used elementary
logic to skewer Larry Evans' argument? Did you see
TK's offhand reference to John Nunn, and how it was
not any attempt to "disparage" the ability of LE? It
sure sounds like you missed something important.
> What ever became of Averbakh's memoirs?
They are available -- in Russian.
> I see some disagreements with Evans are mentioned. I suppose these are
> the seeds (at least in part) of the present controversy.
On top of rejecting LE's approach, Mr. Kingston
was very annoyed when LE quoted him in support,
/after/ being informed he had changed his mind.
That was either grossly incompetent, or else deeply
dishones.
> I was promised crystal clarity.
...with regard to the issue of "disparaging"
the chess abilities of Larry Evans. That was
the actual context of my comment.
> I feel that that promise has not been
> met. What remains very unclear to me: How can mature, intelligent
> human beings keep a feud going for 7+ years on something like this?
Another issue entirely. This changing of subject
reveals something -- which I leave the readers to
discern for themselves.
Now, as I see it, there is no "feud". Mr. Kingston does
not sumily attack everything Larry Parr/Evans writes,
just out of spite. The vast majority of TK's stuff
consists in self-defense against unwarranted ad hom.
attacks by the Evans ratpackers. It is a matter of
principle for them to ad hominize anyone who might
dare to disagree with GM Evans, about anything.
As they say, it takes two to tango; but if you do not
just uncritically adopt the ideas of the evil ratpack, you
should have no trouble in seeing that these
multitudinous attacks on Taylor Kingston are baseless
red herrings, aimed at changing the subject and of
course, frightening away or at least demeaning critics
so their criticisms will not be seriously considered.
This kind of dishonesty is endemic in them; it reminds
me of an old John Wayne movie in which he "serves" a
writ on a rat, to no effect.
> Hasn't anyone had the thought, "This is enough, I am putting it behind
> me and moving on...?"
Killfiling all the ratpackers would work here, but it
would hardly have any impact on further efforts by
Larry Evans or other hack writers. Some claim that
Edward Winter has been going after Ray Keene for
many years -- but as we can see, to no avail.
But why focus on the critics, as if /they/ were the
problem? Without spelling errors, pedants like EW
would live a very dull life; and without blunders in
logic, LE would not have nearly as many critics to
worry about.
If you are a doctor, do you treat the symptoms, or
the disease? It seems to me you are focusing on
the symptoms here.
> The apparent chemistry reminds me of a particular
> type of bad riage where the weaknesses of each mate act as incendiary
> catalysts on the other leading to wild arguments and fights. Get a divorce!
Not a very good analogy. This is a public forum,
and everyone has a perfect right to speak their
mind here. Attempts to silence critics reminds
me of Nazis, Josef Stalin, and of what happened
in this country not so long ago.
I think the proper response to the Evans ratpack
is to do what John Wayne did, figuratively speaking,
of course. Louis Blair has served them, and all that
remains is to finish the job. ; >D
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 13:22:11
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
Re-reading this, I noticed yet another example of Mr. Laurie's
amazingly fallible memory
On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
>
> Subj: Reply to TK please post
> Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From: [email protected]
>
> GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
> there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that
> ONE OR MORE SMOKING GUNS WOULD BE FOUND
> as the Soviet archives were explored ... (emphasis added)
Checking the factual record, we find instead this from "Evans on
Chess," Chess Life, April 1997, page 28:
Q: Can you publish the exact wording of the relevant document? Is
there a smoking gun?
Evans: We doubt such a document will ever surface.
Only someone with Mr. Laurie's amazing talents for total recall
could characterize this as "one or more smoking guns would be found."
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 11:09:30
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 20, 11:17 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 10:41 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 9:12 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
> > > > basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
> > > > of the Mind"
>
> > > Good God, Larry, but this is rich! LOL, ROFL, and other such
> > > anagrams! You are so in the the habit of distoring what people write
> > > that you can't even keep straight *_what your own guy wrote_*, and
> > > what *_you yourself posted here_*.
>
> > So-called Taylor,
>
> > So you admit then that you don't know the difference between an
> > anagram and an acronym? And you call yourself a 2300 player? All
> > decent men of good will demand that you make the amende honorable
> > here!
>
> > LT
>
> Already did, LT. See my follow-up correction.
TK,
Just looking for an excuse to demand the amende honorable. But sorry,
the joke fell flat.
Here's the latest Google tally:
-Posts authored by parrthenon with "Kingston" and "2300": 243
----------------------------------------------------------------with
"NMNot": 115
--------------------------------------------------------------with
"Xylothist": 91
And this doesn't include numerous more oblique references to your
alleged moral turpitude.
A rekable and appalling record, really. Especially in view of the
fact that Parr has had nothing new to say about his charges for years
now. Maybe he's bucking for the annual Zola Memorial J'Accuse Award.
LT
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2007 09:47:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
"Larry Tapper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:136d3996-c6d8-4151-bd59-5b04536ab349@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Here's the latest Google tally:
Good idea!
> -Posts authored by parrthenon with "Kingston" and "2300": 243
> ----------------------------------------------------------------with
> "NMNot": 115
> --------------------------------------------------------------with
> "Xylothist": 91
How many posts with Xylothist and Kingston, how many with Xylothist /not/
with TK?
> And this doesn't include numerous more oblique references to your
> alleged moral turpitude.
Sink the Tirpitz!
> A rekable and appalling record, really. Especially in view of the
> fact that Parr has had nothing new to say about his charges for years
> now. Maybe he's bucking for the annual Zola Memorial J'Accuse Award.
As ani f�l no, Pink comes and goes as a fashion. Its even coming back in the
Russias, according to Kasparov.
Phil Innes
> LT
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 08:17:15
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 20, 10:41 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 9:12 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
> > > basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
> > > of the Mind"
>
> > Good God, Larry, but this is rich! LOL, ROFL, and other such
> > anagrams! You are so in the the habit of distoring what people write
> > that you can't even keep straight *_what your own guy wrote_*, and
> > what *_you yourself posted here_*.
>
> So-called Taylor,
>
> So you admit then that you don't know the difference between an
> anagram and an acronym? And you call yourself a 2300 player? All
> decent men of good will demand that you make the amende honorable
> here!
>
> LT
Already did, LT. See my follow-up correction.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2007 07:32:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ac700d8d-d04c-445a-8591-
>> LT
>
> Already did, LT. See my follow-up correction.
Yeah, anyone can mix their matadors, no? But let's hope this instance
doesn't get back to Winter himself, otherwise... 7 years bad luck? Phil
Innes
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 07:41:04
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 20, 9:12 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
> > basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
> > of the Mind"
>
> Good God, Larry, but this is rich! LOL, ROFL, and other such
> anagrams! You are so in the the habit of distoring what people write
> that you can't even keep straight *_what your own guy wrote_*, and
> what *_you yourself posted here_*.
So-called Taylor,
So you admit then that you don't know the difference between an
anagram and an acronym? And you call yourself a 2300 player? All
decent men of good will demand that you make the amende honorable
here!
LT
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 06:46:26
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
Reposting this to replace "anagrams" with the correct word
"acronynms."
On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
> basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
> of the Mind"
Good God, Larry, but this is rich! LOL, ROFL, and other such
acronyms! You are so in the the habit of distoring what people write
that you can't even keep straight *_what your own guy wrote_*, and
what *_you yourself posted here_*.
Here, let me explain it to you. On November 18, 2007, as the first
post in this thread, you posted this statement, dated the same day,
from Richard Laurie:
"Mr. Kingston published a counter article; but unable to refute the
analysis itself, he maligned GM Evans' ability
to analyze. HIS BASIS FOR THIS ASSAULT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE BOOK,
'WARRIORS OF THE MIND' BY KEENE AND DIVINSKY." (emphasis added)
Contrary to your claim above, your guy Laurie is *_not_* saying that
"Winter's savage review" was the basis for this alleged attack, he's
quite plainly saying "THE BOOK Warriors of the MInd" was my "basis for
this assault." Then he added:
"This book received a savage review from Ed Winters in his 'Chess
Explorations' on pages 227-30."
So you see Larry, Mr. Laurie's logic goes like this:
1. Kingston "maligned Evans' ability to analyze."
2. Kingston based this malignant attack on "Warriors of the Mind."
3. "Warriors" is no good -- Edward Winter said so.
4. Therefore, Kingston's attack is no good.
But of course, the real situation is this:
1. Kingston never "maligned Evans' ability to analyze."
2. Kingston never used "Warriors of the Mind" as a basis for
anything. It was Richard Laurie who brought "Warriors" into the
discussion, not me.
3. There is nothing in "Warriors of the Mind" that can possibly
serve as any basis to attack Larry Evans in any way.
4. Therefore, Mr. Laurie is totally out to lunch.
Further in this vein, Larry, I'd like to ask:
1. How can a book that does not even mention Larry Evans be used as
a basis to attack Larry Evans?
2. How can a review that does not even mention Larry Evans, of a
book that does not even mention Larry Evans, be used as a basis to
attack Larry Evans?
> Finally, a couple of minor errors of recollection
> by Laurie were irrelevant, since this discussion
> is really about the evidentiary value of a letter that he
> wrote AT THE TIME he and Kingston were interacting.
Oh no, Larry, this is about the letter you yourself posted at the
top of this thread. Remember? Sunday, 18 November 2007? It says that
right at the top of your post. That's, um, two days ago at this
moment.
Your condition appears to be worsening rapidly, Larry. Does
Alzheimer's disease accelerate in a tropical climate?
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 06:12:22
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
> basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
> of the Mind"
Good God, Larry, but this is rich! LOL, ROFL, and other such
anagrams! You are so in the the habit of distoring what people write
that you can't even keep straight *_what your own guy wrote_*, and
what *_you yourself posted here_*.
Here, let me explain it to you. On November 18, 2007, as the first
post in this thread, you posted this statement, dated the same day,
from Richard Laurie:
"Mr. Kingston published a counter article; but unable to refute the
analysis itself, he maligned GM Evans' ability
to analyze. HIS BASIS FOR THIS ASSAULT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE BOOK,
'WARRIORS OF THE MIND' BY KEENE AND DIVINSKY." (emphasis added)
Contrary to your claim above, your guy Laurie is *_not_* saying that
"Winter's savage review" was the basis for this alleged attack, he's
quite plainly saying "THE BOOK Warriors of the MInd" was my "basis for
this assault." Then he added:
"This book received a savage review from Ed Winters in his 'Chess
Explorations' on pages 227-30."
So you see Larry, Mr. Laurie's logic goes like this:
1. Kingston "maligned Evans' ability to analyze."
2. Kingston based this malignant attack on "Warriors of the Mind."
3. "Warriors" is no good -- Edward Winter said so.
4. Therefore, Kingston's attack is no good.
But of course, the real situation is this:
1. Kingston never "maligned Evans' ability to analyze."
2. Kingston never used "Warriors of the Mind" as a basis for
anything. It was Richard Laurie who brought "Warriors" into the
discussion, not me.
3. There is nothing in "Warriors of the Mind" that can possibly
serve as any basis to attack Larry Evans in any way.
4. Therefore, Mr. Laurie is totally out to lunch.
Further in this vein, Larry, I'd like to ask:
1. How can a book that does not even mention Larry Evans be used as
a basis to attack Larry Evans?
2. How can a review that does not even mention Larry Evans, of a
book that does not even mention Larry Evans, be used as a basis to
attack Larry Evans?
> Finally, a couple of minor errors of recollection
> by Laurie were irrelevant, since this discussion
> is really about the evidentiary value of a letter that he
> wrote AT THE TIME he and Kingston were interacting.
Oh no, Larry, this is about the letter you yourself posted at the
top of this thread. Remember? Sunday, 18 November 2007? It says that
right at the top of your post. That's, um, two days ago at this
moment.
Your condition appears to be worsening rapidly, Larry. Does
Alzheimer's disease accelerate in a tropical climate?
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 02:25:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 20, 3:28 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <Sighs> Unwilling no; lazy yes. It seems I've misplaced the link now...
Google is a velous tool; I used it to find the
article myself before Taylor Kingston posted the link
once again. It's at www.chesscafe.com, I think.
The focus of the article was logic, reason -- not
who wins a pissing contest betwixt GMs Evans
and Nunn, as you will see.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 23:56:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 10:58 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:
> 7 ... Louis Blair just dug up a quote from Kingston
> 7 apparently posted in this forum over seven years ago
> _
> _
> Actually, as I previously indicated, I reproduced a quote that
> Taylor Kingston posted in this forum LESS THAN A WEEK
> AGO. The quote was in Taylor Kingston's Tue, 13 Nov 2007
> 07:38:53 -0800 post.
"Errors creep in." -- Larry Evans/Parr
"The memory plays tricks." -- Larry Evans
> 7 ... In debates with this writer, NMnot invented false names
> 7 such as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then wrote
> 7 messages IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for Pete's sake.
After years of waiting with bated breath, still no
evidence has surfaced... only repetitions of accusations.
> "This writer and others have argued that if one
> references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
> in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
> perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
> 20:29:53 -0700)
> _
> _
> "Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
My best guess: nearly-an-IM Innes; he has a long
history of aping mistaken claims by his master, Larry
Parr, so odds are it was him and perhaps another
drone (since the term "others" is plural). But this is
like counting a parrot as "agreeing" with you, because
he mindlessly repeats whatever you say without any
hesitation or thought.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 23:43:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 10:14 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > But since the question is one of logic -- not chess
> > analysis -- it makes no real difference how strong or
> > "admirable" LE might be.
>
> I still find room in my heart to admire the grand old lions of chess.
> Nunn, if he is lucky, will be there soon enough himself. I guess I
> missed the question of "logic" amidst all the attempts I have seen to
> tear down various people's characters. My apologies...
This is probably because you are not willing to do
the required research, to actually read the article in
question. Do that, and all will become crystal clear.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 00:28:20
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
help bot wrote:
> On Nov 19, 10:14 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> But since the question is one of logic -- not chess
>>> analysis -- it makes no real difference how strong or
>>> "admirable" LE might be.
>> I still find room in my heart to admire the grand old lions of chess.
>> Nunn, if he is lucky, will be there soon enough himself. I guess I
>> missed the question of "logic" amidst all the attempts I have seen to
>> tear down various people's characters. My apologies...
>
> This is probably because you are not willing to do
> the required research, to actually read the article in
> question. Do that, and all will become crystal clear.
>
>
> -- help bot
<Sighs > Unwilling no; lazy yes. It seems I've misplaced the link now...
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 04:58:55
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
J.D. Walker wrote:
> help bot wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 10:14 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> But since the question is one of logic -- not chess
>>>> analysis -- it makes no real difference how strong or
>>>> "admirable" LE might be.
>>> I still find room in my heart to admire the grand old lions of chess.
>>> Nunn, if he is lucky, will be there soon enough himself. I guess I
>>> missed the question of "logic" amidst all the attempts I have seen to
>>> tear down various people's characters. My apologies...
>>
>> This is probably because you are not willing to do
>> the required research, to actually read the article in
>> question. Do that, and all will become crystal clear.
>>
>>
>> -- help bot
>
> <Sighs> Unwilling no; lazy yes. It seems I've misplaced the link now...
>
Mr. Bot,
Okay, I read the article. I am impressed with the amount of work that
Taylor put into it. As for the topic covered, my conclusion was that
there was a lot of evidence to consider, and it appeared that there was
nothing definitely conclusive. However, for the most part it was
persuasive -- the dark forces of Stalin worked against Keres' interests.
What ever became of Averbakh's memoirs?
I see some disagreements with Evans are mentioned. I suppose these are
the seeds (at least in part) of the present controversy.
I was promised crystal clarity. I feel that that promise has not been
met. What remains very unclear to me: How can mature, intelligent
human beings keep a feud going for 7+ years on something like this?
Hasn't anyone had the thought, "This is enough, I am putting it behind
me and moving on...?" The apparent chemistry reminds me of a particular
type of bad riage where the weaknesses of each mate act as incendiary
catalysts on the other leading to wild arguments and fights. Get a divorce!
Thats it in a nutshell.
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 20:53:52
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
After quoting part of Taylor Kingston's Mon, 19 Nov 2007
06:16:04 -0800 (PST) post, Larry Parr wrote (Mon,
19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 Notice how he again accuses Richard Laurie of having a
7 faulty memory. Even were it the case that Mr. Laurie
7 could remember nothing further back than, say, 2006,
7 the point would be irrelevant. For Mr. Laurie's letter was
7 written in 2002, and he was describing events involving
7 NMnot Kingston in which the two were involved AT THE
7 TIME.
7 ...
_
_
Taylor Kingston was not responding to a 2002 letter. He
was responding to a letter described by Larry Parr himself
as having "Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard
Time".
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
7 basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of
7 "Warriors of the Mind"
_
_
What Richard Laurie actually wrote (according to Larry
Parr himself):
_
"Mr. Kingston published a counter article; but unable to
refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM Evans' ability
to analyze. HIS BASIS FOR THIS ASSAULT APPEARS
TO HAVE BEEN THE BOOK, 'WARRIORS OF THE MIND'
BY KEENE AND DIVINSKY. (Mr. Kingston and I
discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but
not a good foundation for intellectual discourse. It was
instead rather like comparing the Green Bay Packers of
the 1960's with the Pittsburgh Steelers of the 70's and
New England Patriots of today. This book received a
savage review from Ed Winters in his 'Chess
Explorations' on pages 227-30." - Larry Parr presentation
(Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:58:46 -0800 (PST)) of a 11/18/2007
2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Richard Laurie quote
(Emphasis added.)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 though Laurie made the somewhat lesser claim that it
7 "appears" to be so. Which, indeed, it certainly did.
7
7 Finally, a couple of minor errors of recollection by Laurie
7 were irrelevant, since this discussion is really about the
7 evidentiary value of a letter that he wrote AT THE TIME
7 he and Kingston were interacting.
7 ...
_
_
Larry Parr has no right to issue decrees on what the
discussion "is really about". If he himself chooses to post
modern letters, others are entitled to discuss the reliability
of what is in them.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 20:50:58
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
After quoting part of Taylor Kingston's Mon, 19 Nov 2007
06:16:04 -0800 (PST) post, Larry Parr wrote (Mon,
19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 Notice how he again accuses Richard Laurie of having a
7 faulty memory. Even were it the case that Mr. Laurie
7 could remember nothing further back than, say, 2006,
7 the point would be irrelevant. For Mr. Laurie's letter was
7 written in 2002, and he was describing events involving
7 NMnot Kingston in which the two were involved AT THE
7 TIME.
7 ...
_
_
Taylor Kingston was not responding to a 2002 letter. He
was responding to a letter described by Larry Parr himself
as having "Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard
Time".
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
7 basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of
7 "Warriors of the Mind"
_
_
What Richard Laurie actually wrote (according to Larry
Parr himself):
_
"Mr. Kingston published a counter article; but unable to
refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM Evans' ability
to analyze. HIS BASIS FOR THIS ASSAULT APPEARS
TO HAVE BEEN THE BOOK, 'WARRIORS OF THE MIND'
BY KEENE AND DIVINSKY. (Mr. Kingston and I
discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but
not a good foundation for intellectual discourse. It was
instead rather like comparing the Green Bay Packers of
the 1960's with the Pittsburgh Steelers of the 70's and
New England Patriots of today. This book received a
savage review from Ed Winters in his 'Chess
Explorations' on pages 227-30." - Larry Parr presentation
(Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:58:46 -0800 (PST)) of a 11/18/2007
2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Richard Laurie quote
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 though Laurie made the somewhat lesser claim that it
7 "appears" to be so. Which, indeed, it certainly did.
7
7 Finally, a couple of minor errors of recollection by Laurie
7 were irrelevant, since this discussion is really about the
7 evidentiary value of a letter that he wrote AT THE TIME
7 he and Kingston were interacting.
_
_
Larry Parr has no right to issue decrees on what the
discussion "is really about". If he himself chooses to post
modern letters, others are entitled to discuss the reliability
of what is in them.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 20:38:52
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
After quoting part of Taylor Kingston's Mon, 19 Nov 2007
06:16:04 -0800 (PST) post, Larry Parr wrote (Mon,
19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 Notice how he again accuses Richard Laurie of having a
7 faulty memory. Even were it the case that Mr. Laurie
7 could remember nothing further back than, say, 2006,
7 the point would be irrelevant. For Mr. Laurie's letter was
7 written in 2002, and he was describing events involving
7 NMnot Kingston in which the two were involved AT THE
7 TIME.
7 ...
_
_
Taylor Kingston was not responding to a 2002 letter. He
was responding to a letter described by Larry Parr himself
as having "Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard
Time".
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
7 basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of
7 "Warriors of the Mind"
_
_
What Richard Laurie actually wrote (according to Larry
Parr himself):
_
"Mr. Kingston published a counter article; but unable to
refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM Evans' ability
to analyze. HIS BASIS FOR THIS ASSAULT APPEARS
TO HAVE BEEN THE BOOK, 'WARRIORS OF THE MIND'
BY KEENE AND DIVINSKY. (Mr. Kingston and I
discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but
not a good foundation for intellectual discourse. It was
instead rather like comparing the Green Bay Packers of
the 1960's with the Pittsburgh Steelers of the 70's and
New England Patriots of today. This book received a
savage review from Ed Winters in his 'Chess
Explorations' on pages 227-30." - Larry Parr presentation
(Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:58:46 -0800 (PST)) of a 11/18/2007
2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Richard Laurie quote
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:48:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 though Laurie made the somewhat lesser claim that it
7 "appears" to be so. Which, indeed, it certainly did.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 19:58:59
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
I wrote (Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:18:59 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 "Kingston to Laurie, 21 February 2002:
7 '... I am not aware of any personal attacks by Mr.
7 Winter, though admittedly I do not have the full
7 voluminous record of words that have passed
7 between [Winter and Evans] ...'" - Taylor Kingston
7 (Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:38:53 -0800)
7 ...
_
Notice that date at the end: Tue, 13 Nov 2007
07:38:53 -0800.
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:41:37 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 ... Louis Blair just dug up a quote from Kingston
7 apparently posted in this forum over seven years ago
_
_
Actually, as I previously indicated, I reproduced a quote that
Taylor Kingston posted in this forum LESS THAN A WEEK
AGO. The quote was in Taylor Kingston's Tue, 13 Nov 2007
07:38:53 -0800 post.
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:41:37 -0800 (PST)):
7 that contradicts this claim by Kingston on November 18,
7 2007:
7
7 < I am on record as being quite aware of the Evans-Winter
7 feud in 1999, three years before writing to Mr. Laurie. >
7 -- Taylor Kingston,
7 ...
_
_
Does Larry Parr maintain that being unaware of personal
attacks (by Winter) implies being unaware of an Evans
-Winter feud?
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:41:37 -0800 (PST)):
7 ... In debates with this writer, NMnot invented false names
7 such as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then wrote
7 messages IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for Pete's sake. ...
7 ...
_
_
What about those "others" who supposedly agreed with
Larry Parr on the "highlighted" and "singled out" controversy?
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the k of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. [In his review of the Soltis book, TK] simply
selected a sentence from the [Soltis] introduction to
the game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis
to provide such information as the round in which the
game was played" - Louis Blair (2 Jun 2006
01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 19:05:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 8:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Finally, a couple of minor errors of recollection
> by Laurie were irrelevant, since this discussion
> is really about the evidentiary value of a letter that he
> wrote AT THE TIME he and Kingston were interacting.
It looks like chief rat Larry Parr is once again lowering
the bar; it appears that the Evans clan is taking up a new
position, "digging in" where demonstrated blunders by RL
are sumily dismissed, while any mistakes by TK are
obsessed over. How long before they are forced to retreat
still further? How long before Mr. Blair sends them on the
run again? Time will tell.
My pecuniary losses are still mounting; as with the
gambler's fallacy, I cannot seem to resist the temptation
to go for what /appear/ to be good odds, but which in
reality are nothing more than throwing good money
after bad. "I should have demanded 20:1 odds", I think to
myself; but then comes the painful realization: "you *still*
would have lost your money, at any odds, fool".
Clearly, what is required is a re-balancing of intellect;
either the ratpack must give up IM Innes to the rationals
as a massive handicap, or else Dr. Blair must join up with
the Evans ratpack, though this would hardly be sufficient
to obtain balanced winning chances since one man cannot
"carry" the whole team.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 18:45:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 7:18 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think we can all agree that both Evans and Nunn are admirable chess
> players.
I don't know about that; at seventy-five or thereabouts,
GM Evans has done well to withdraw from competitive
play, for obvious reasons. I like to join Larry Parr in
daring the likes of Randy Bauer to meet the old lion
OTB, but this hardly represents any endorsement of
LE's attempts at chess analysis; indeed, many years
hence, weak players were skewering a somewhat
stronger Evans, using their old Chessmaster programs
on their now-obsolete computers.
But since the question is one of logic -- not chess
analysis -- it makes no real difference how strong or
"admirable" LE might be.
> In an age that boasts Vladimir Afromeev, his dog and his
> chauffeur -- and the mass production of IM and GM titles -- I do not
> believe that ratings and credentials have as much credibility as we
> might hope.
Apparently directed at phantom GM Nunn promoters,
but who cares? The chess analysis has been rendered
moot by the process of rational thinking, AKA logic.
> If so, then I'd prefer an approach of concrete analysis of specifics --
> whether it be chess moves or elements of published articles. Even
> patzers and madmen can stumble on to good ideas.
Precisely. The "concrete" you seek is to be found
in the article I referenced repeatedly. Seek and ye
shall find!
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 19:14:09
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
help bot wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:18 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think we can all agree that both Evans and Nunn are admirable chess
>> players.
>
> I don't know about that; at seventy-five or thereabouts,
> GM Evans has done well to withdraw from competitive
> play, for obvious reasons. I like to join Larry Parr in
> daring the likes of Randy Bauer to meet the old lion
> OTB, but this hardly represents any endorsement of
> LE's attempts at chess analysis; indeed, many years
> hence, weak players were skewering a somewhat
> stronger Evans, using their old Chessmaster programs
> on their now-obsolete computers.
>
> But since the question is one of logic -- not chess
> analysis -- it makes no real difference how strong or
> "admirable" LE might be.
>
I still find room in my heart to admire the grand old lions of chess.
Nunn, if he is lucky, will be there soon enough himself. I guess I
missed the question of "logic" amidst all the attempts I have seen to
tear down various people's characters. My apologies...
>
>> In an age that boasts Vladimir Afromeev, his dog and his
>> chauffeur -- and the mass production of IM and GM titles -- I do not
>> believe that ratings and credentials have as much credibility as we
>> might hope.
>
> Apparently directed at phantom GM Nunn promoters,
> but who cares? The chess analysis has been rendered
> moot by the process of rational thinking, AKA logic.
>
I intended no particular target with that statement. I am generally
very disappointed in the modern chess world. That is my problem;
forgive me for harping on it. But excuse me, on with your logic...
>
>> If so, then I'd prefer an approach of concrete analysis of specifics --
>> whether it be chess moves or elements of published articles. Even
>> patzers and madmen can stumble on to good ideas.
>
> Precisely. The "concrete" you seek is to be found
> in the article I referenced repeatedly. Seek and ye
> shall find!
>
Oh yes, the articles. On to the articles...
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 17:48:59
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
KINGSTON BABBLES ON
<My statement that Nunn is 'generally considered a stronger player
than Evans' is well based. For example Divinsky's "Life Maps of the
Great Chess Masters", charting
best 10-year strengths, puts Nunn at #42 all-time (among 88 total).
Evans is not
even on the list. Evans's best 5-year average Elo rating is 2560.
Nunn's is well over 2600 and even now past his prime (nearing age 47)
he is at 2595. My statement can no more be considered a personal
attack than saying that Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar
Robertson." > -- Taylor Kingston
Taylor Kingston's latest response to
Richard Laurie is a farrago of false analogies
and attempts to create strawmen.
BUT FIRST: We once again ask the gent
whether he posted here under false names (e.g.,
Paulie Graf, Xylothist) IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
No answer. Nevvah has answered.Nevvah will.
What does such a practice tell us about him?
I think it tells us that he has a serious character
weakness; he thinks it tells us that he is a man with
"standards." Readers will judge for themselves.
Now, back to his response to Richard Laurie.
Notice how he again accuses Richard Laurie of
having a faulty memory. Even were it the case that
Mr. Laurie could remember nothing further back than,
say, 2006, the point would be irrelevant. For Mr.
Laurie's letter was written in 2002, and he was
describing events involving NMnot Kingston in
which the two were involved AT THE TIME.
Notice, too, Kingston's analogy between chess
strength (a fluctuating abstraction demonstrated in
practice) and a static condition (the differing heights
of Oscar Robertson and Wilt Chamberlain). A low
ploy from either a stinker or a desperate man with
"standards." (Readers will judge for themselves.)
Notice how Kingston tries to make something
of Richard Laurie attributing part of his attack on GM
Larry Evans to "Warriors of the Mind" which Laurie
wrote APPEARED to be Kingston's"basis."
Kingston says he did not cite the work and,
as he would have it, this could not underlie the
assumptions of his attack. Utter nonsense.
A leftist who writes an attack on America's
criminal adventure in Iraq might employ the
assumptions of Lenin's Capitalism: the Last and
Highest Stage of Imperialism and never mention the
work. So, too, a pro-capitalist historian could write
on the endless change of an urban landscape, employing
Joseph Schumpeter's category of creative destruction,
without mentioning the name of Schumpeter or any of
his works. Moreover, both writers might be justified
in the omissions, given that there is understood
knowledge among the educated. Not every idea requires
a reference if the ideas being employed are evident to
most readers.
As another example -- a puerile one, to be sure
-- we mention Kingston's adoption of the rhetorical
device, "our Larry," in a recent message. He did not
reference this writer's practice any more than Greg
Kennedy does when he borrows and attempts to toss
ploys back in the face of yours truly.
Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
of the Mind" though Laurie made the somewhat lesser
claim that it "appears" to be so. Which, indeed,
it certainly did.
Finally, a couple of minor errors of recollection
by Laurie were irrelevant, since this discussion
is really about the evidentiary value of a letter that he
wrote AT THE TIME he and Kingston were interacting.
Yours, Larry Parr
-
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 17:48:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> KINGSTON BABBLES ON
> Now, back to his response to Richard Laurie.
>
> Notice how he again accuses Richard Laurie of
> having a faulty memory. Even were it the case that
> Mr. Laurie could remember nothing further back than,
> say, 2006, the point would be irrelevant. For Mr.
> Laurie's letter was written in 2002, and he was
> describing events involving NMnot Kingston in
> which the two were involved AT THE TIME.
What is strange is that Our Taylor wrote to me seeking Laurie's address, and
also under the guise of confidentiality. I suppose I should have wondered
more at the time why that was. While the, um, campaign carried on over the
next month - a one-sided campaign, I asked why, since Chess Cafe was
featuring the same issues in its forum, and favoring its own columnists -
that Evans, Parr, Schiller et c, did not seem to have equitable right of
reply.
The answer was stunning! :))
But more of that another time.
Phil Innes
> Notice, too, Kingston's analogy between chess
> strength (a fluctuating abstraction demonstrated in
> practice) and a static condition (the differing heights
> of Oscar Robertson and Wilt Chamberlain). A low
> ploy from either a stinker or a desperate man with
> "standards." (Readers will judge for themselves.)
PS: Yes - that is a sad effort. Shakespeare may have been 5'7" and the
tallest Elizabethan around, no?
> Notice how Kingston tries to make something
> of Richard Laurie attributing part of his attack on GM
> Larry Evans to "Warriors of the Mind" which Laurie
> wrote APPEARED to be Kingston's"basis."
>
> Kingston says he did not cite the work and,
> as he would have it, this could not underlie the
> assumptions of his attack. Utter nonsense.
>
> A leftist who writes an attack on America's
> criminal adventure in Iraq might employ the
> assumptions of Lenin's Capitalism: the Last and
> Highest Stage of Imperialism and never mention the
> work. So, too, a pro-capitalist historian could write
> on the endless change of an urban landscape, employing
> Joseph Schumpeter's category of creative destruction,
> without mentioning the name of Schumpeter or any of
> his works. Moreover, both writers might be justified
> in the omissions, given that there is understood
> knowledge among the educated. Not every idea requires
> a reference if the ideas being employed are evident to
> most readers.
>
> As another example -- a puerile one, to be sure
> -- we mention Kingston's adoption of the rhetorical
> device, "our Larry," in a recent message. He did not
> reference this writer's practice any more than Greg
> Kennedy does when he borrows and attempts to toss
> ploys back in the face of yours truly.
>
> Mr. Laurie is almost certainly correct that Kingston's
> basis for the attack was Winter's savage review of "Warriors
> of the Mind" though Laurie made the somewhat lesser
> claim that it "appears" to be so. Which, indeed,
> it certainly did.
>
> Finally, a couple of minor errors of recollection
> by Laurie were irrelevant, since this discussion
> is really about the evidentiary value of a letter that he
> wrote AT THE TIME he and Kingston were interacting.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
> -
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 16:20:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 1:38 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> Not that either man needs to be in a pissing contest as to who is
> better - they both were great GMs, Nunn comes out better at
> Chessmetrics rating wise, all-time rating, etc.
>
> But what about depth of analysis? In his younger days, Evans was a
> wonderful analyst; his column was evidence of that. I still try to
> find a copy of that Bronstein book; I've been searching for years. It
> is a powerhouse of analysis.
>
> Nunn was and still is a great analyst - you are talking about someone
> who took the time to demolish nearly half of the studies ever
> published. He remains active as a chess problem solver and world
> champion in that area. He wrote more books of analytic depth than
> Evans, who seems to have fallen prey to the churn out some popular
> trash syndrome. His theory on Keres can be seen to fall into that same
> vein - "Let's go with the cheating aspect - the not cheating side is
> so b-ooorrring."
>
> Evans seems to have given up on analysis entirely when he declared
> computers an evil god and stopped doing analytical work in his column,
> focusing instead on Fischer fawning.
>
> I would respect both men's analysis, Nunn's more.
Yet even a lowly peon has skewered the "logic" behind
GM Evans' analysis, by simply pointing to the many
books on his shelf made up of examples of grandmaster
errors, not unlike the ones LE wants to pretend were
"evidence" of cheating.
In one fine piece of detective work, Taylor Kingston
showed how Larry Evans wanted to have his cake and
eat it, too; LE argued that making "obvious" errors was
an indication of the throwing of games, but in another
of his many gaffes, LE has argued that "of course" a
genius like Paul Keres would not make his errors
obvious. LOL That boo boo was in response to a
criticism by his peer -- GM John Nunn. Indeed, self-
contradictions such as this are the hallk of a
confused mind.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 15:51:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 9:35 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > This new Laurie post shows just how jumbled his memory actually is.
> > It was actually *_he_* who injected "Warriors" into our discussion in
> > 2002. In my aforementioned article, I pointed out that British GM John
> > Nunn disagreed with Evans' interpretation of the 1948 K-B games,
> > adding the very well-based statement that Nunn was "generally
> > considered a stronger player than Evans."
> > Mr. Laurie chose to construe this (as he seems to do with anything I
> > say) as a personal attack on and insult to Evans. On 6 ch 2002, I
> > replied to him:
---
> This is one of the most absurd, ridiculous arguments ever made by
> anyone, absurd even by the Taylor Kingston standard of absurdity.
>
> Larry Evans was an active player back in 1948 when the events in
> question occurred. Remember that Larry Evans won the US Championship
> in 1951.
Mr. Sloan shows a rekable lack of erudition here;
it makes no difference how strong Larry Evans was in
1802, in1912, or in 1948 or 1951, for the article in
question was not written *then*. That article was written
nearer the turn of the milleneum -- at which time both
GMs Evans and Nunn had become weaker or stronger,
as can be seen by checking their respective ratings.
> John Nunn is a relatively recent arrival. Saying that a player now
> rated 2595 is proven to be better than a player rated 2560 40 years
> ago is ridiculous.
Indeed, even if true, that statement is irrelevant. The
question (a mere red herring, but anyway...) was the
playing strength of these two GMs at the time of:
a) for LE, the writing of his article for Chess Lies
b) for JN, the writing of his response to that article
This really isn't all that complicated -- provided one
can think /rationally/! LOL
> More than that, the book "Warriors of the Mind" and "Life Maps of the
> Great Chess Masters" is simply somebodies opinion and analysis and is
> not even an official source, and is far different "than saying that
> Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar Robertson."
On that point we agree. The mathematical formulae
were hand-picked or hand-crafted, with knowledge of
the results and of course "tuned" by their creator(s)
to fit preconceptions. But given that neither Larry
Evans nor John Nunn was likely a principal of any
interest (unlike say, Bobby Fischer, Gary Kasparov,
or Jose Capablanca), it seems reasonable that no
monkey-business occurred in deciding which of their
results to include or exclude, no "fine-tuning" to
elevate or depress either of those players in the
rankings.
Besides, it's not even close. Dr. Nunn was younger
and much closer to his peak strength than Larry Evans
was. I believe the numbers show LE to have peaked
at a very young age -- about twenty in fact, so he has
had a very long time to descend to his current position
on any chart (which BTW is still above Randy Bauer).
But lest anyone get the idea that discussing this
red herring is of any real import, let me remind the
reader that the proper way to decide this issue is
to actually read the article in question, the one by
Taylor Kingston. Having done so, it is painfully
obvious that Larry Parr and his drones are lying
through their teeth: TK did not attack or impugn
LE's analytical or playing strength in that article
at all; what he did was simply refute LE's faulty
logic. (In fact, I got the general impression that
TK was /afraid/ to say anything negative about
Larry Evans in that article.)
The realm of logic now seems beyond the grasp of
Larry Evans and his many drones. But I still recall
a time when the grandmaster was considered by
many to be a sharp wit, a slicer and dicer. Now all
we ever seem to get is the feeble excuse about how
"errors creep in". :<(
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 16:18:46
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
help bot wrote:
> On Nov 19, 9:35 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> This new Laurie post shows just how jumbled his memory actually is.
>>> It was actually *_he_* who injected "Warriors" into our discussion in
>>> 2002. In my aforementioned article, I pointed out that British GM John
>>> Nunn disagreed with Evans' interpretation of the 1948 K-B games,
>>> adding the very well-based statement that Nunn was "generally
>>> considered a stronger player than Evans."
>>> Mr. Laurie chose to construe this (as he seems to do with anything I
>>> say) as a personal attack on and insult to Evans. On 6 ch 2002, I
>>> replied to him:
>> This is one of the most absurd, ridiculous arguments ever made by
>> anyone, absurd even by the Taylor Kingston standard of absurdity.
>>
>> Larry Evans was an active player back in 1948 when the events in
>> question occurred. Remember that Larry Evans won the US Championship
>> in 1951.
>
> Mr. Sloan shows a rekable lack of erudition here;
> it makes no difference how strong Larry Evans was in
> 1802, in1912, or in 1948 or 1951, for the article in
> question was not written *then*. That article was written
> nearer the turn of the milleneum -- at which time both
> GMs Evans and Nunn had become weaker or stronger,
> as can be seen by checking their respective ratings.
>
>> John Nunn is a relatively recent arrival. Saying that a player now
>> rated 2595 is proven to be better than a player rated 2560 40 years
>> ago is ridiculous.
>
> Indeed, even if true, that statement is irrelevant. The
> question (a mere red herring, but anyway...) was the
> playing strength of these two GMs at the time of:
>
> a) for LE, the writing of his article for Chess Lies
>
> b) for JN, the writing of his response to that article
>
> This really isn't all that complicated -- provided one
> can think /rationally/! LOL
>
I think we can all agree that both Evans and Nunn are admirable chess
players. In an age that boasts Vladimir Afromeev, his dog and his
chauffeur -- and the mass production of IM and GM titles -- I do not
believe that ratings and credentials have as much credibility as we
might hope.
If so, then I'd prefer an approach of concrete analysis of specifics --
whether it be chess moves or elements of published articles. Even
patzers and madmen can stumble on to good ideas.
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 15:09:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 6:48 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I do not believe that it is fair or accurate to call it a "feud"
> between Edward Winter and Grandmaster Larry Evans.
>
> "Edward Winter" (whose actual identity is unknown) has a known
> tendency to become obsessed with certain writers and to attack them
> relentlessly. The best example of this is Raymond Keene. Edward Winter
> has been attacking Keene for 30 years starting in the 1970s. Hundreds
> of articles have been written by Winter attacking Keene. Since Keene
> has written one hundred chess books and has a regular newspaper
> column, Winter has a lot to attack.
Not only has Ray Keene's multitudinous books and
articles provided ample material for EW, but by their
very nature as "quickie" hack jobs, they have proved
to be excellent targets. Please note that Tony Miles,
too, went after the work of Ray Keene, essentially
calling him a boastful liar for misstating facts. The
key difference? GM Miles was not obsessed with
erroneous spelling and dates, nor did he find it worth
his while to go looking for them.
> Winter has expanded his list of people he attacks all the time. For
> example, he always attacks Eric Schiller and Larry Evans.
As for Eric Schiller, he is another example from the
school of quickie hack jobs, churned out /en masse/
for pecuniary gain. It seems to me that Mr. Sloan is
looking at this back-asswards, from effect-to-cause
instead of the other way around. It is spelling errors
and wrong dates that attract the attention of pedants,
not the pedants who are attracted to poor spellers
and fact-fumblers, with evil intentions. If one of
these obsessive-compulsives "adopts" a writer like
Ray Keene, for instance, it is only because he feels
certain that Mr. Keene will keep feeding him (errors);
he feels secure in knowing that is a virtual certainty.
> We could be seeing the beginnings of another "feud". Winter has just
> attacked a book by Bruce Pandolfini that just came out. If Pandolfini
> decides to respond and to defend himself from this attack by Winter,
> we will have another of what Taylor Kingston calls a "feud".
The attack, as you call it, was not personal. It is
obvious that EW cannot tolerate sloppy work, poor
spelling or fumbled facts. Mr. Pandolfini would be
wise to take note of his own sloppiness, and get to
work improving his quality -- even at the expense of
churning out fewer tomes.
Now, as for the /personal/ feud issue, shots were
fired by both sides, by EW and by LE. For the most
part, EW's hit amidships, causing substantial damage,
but then very few readers of Chess Lies will ever see
those articles.
And "supporters" of Larry Evans can claim
a "hit" where Mr. Winter went A Bridge Too Far, a
careless overstepping of bounds in recounting the
photographic reprint just as though LE had written
it anew. What is most amusing here, is that if he
had re-written that all over again, the number of
errors which would likely have "crept in" -- all by
themselves -- would have far exceeded the original
number on account of the falling off in quality of
LE's work which has manifested itself over time.
But aside from the issue of Larry Evans' sloppiness,
there is also the small matter of his obsession with
attacking FIDE, the USCF and well, almost
everything associated with modern chess. He
appears to pine for the good old days, and is thus
out of tune, like an ancient piano. Imagine for one
moment a man who is obsessed with the myriad
details, not surrounding the Cold War era, but the
Paul Morphy -- Howard Staunton match, and who
can talk about NOTHING ELSE. How do you
imagine Chess Lies readers would feel, after years
of reading about his singular obsession? Bored,
sickened? Nauseated?
Younger readers almost certainly are sick of
reading the same old same old, year after year.
What about GMs Anand, Kramnik, or even Judit
Polgar? ...you will learn nothing from GM Evans.
He is frozen in time, a true ice man, such as might
be planted somewhere near a melting glacier, then
"discovered" and sold to a museum as an historical
artifact. I feel sorry for him; were it not for unlucky
timing, which is to say peaking just prior to Bobby
Fischer -- an anomaly, GM Evans would likely not
be known as a mere "five time" U. S. Champion.
He would also very likely not be so mad at the
world around him, not be so irritated and annoyed.
He would very likely have found a way to direct
his dissatisfaction in some more constructive
manner than merely flailing away at FIDE.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 17:34:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 19, 6:48 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I do not believe that it is fair or accurate to call it a "feud"
>> between Edward Winter and Grandmaster Larry Evans.
Quite so. Aquiring a tick is not to have 'a feud' with the tick.
>> "Edward Winter" (whose actual identity is unknown) has a known
>> tendency to become obsessed with certain writers and to attack them
>> relentlessly. The best example of this is Raymond Keene. Edward Winter
>> has been attacking Keene for 30 years starting in the 1970s. Hundreds
>> of articles have been written by Winter attacking Keene. Since Keene
>> has written one hundred chess books and has a regular newspaper
>> column, Winter has a lot to attack.
>
> Not only has Ray Keene's multitudinous books and
> articles provided ample material for EW, but by their
> very nature as "quickie" hack jobs, they have proved
> to be excellent targets. Please note that Tony Miles,
> too, went after the work of Ray Keene, essentially
> calling him a boastful liar for misstating facts.
How good of Keene to make a biography of Tony in that case. Tony Miles, Bot,
had the emotions of a [early] teenager.
And while Miles may critisize, it is from his vast innocence of book-making.
This cannot be said of Winter, since the difference is that Winter is a
journalist, and cannot be said to be innocent nor naive about writing, but
criticises Keene for a standard which he, Winter, does not attain himself.
Tony was not a writer, but a wit! He liked and disliked people for somewhat
personal reasons, including Nigel Short, with whom he shared a girlfriend:
To rebut one of Nigel's flings at him, [at some considerable length] said,
"I said 'Good Morning' to Nigel at a Moscow tournament, and he is still
thinking of a witty reply."
> The
> key difference? GM Miles was not obsessed with
> erroneous spelling and dates, nor did he find it worth
> his while to go looking for them.
GM Miles aslo knocked Sam Sloan on his arse, for his own 'witty' inquiry.
That was Tony's style.
>> Winter has expanded his list of people he attacks all the time. For
>> example, he always attacks Eric Schiller and Larry Evans.
>
> As for Eric Schiller, he is another example from the
> school of quickie hack jobs, churned out /en masse/
> for pecuniary gain.
But you see, Bot, even if this is true, EVEN... Winter's own catastrophe
resulted in the entire recall of Kingpin after THREE years of preparation.
Its as if he poses as superior to others, that he himself makes no mistakes,
and such mistakes as others do, he collects and publishes all together, as
if.... he could do better!
But all chess players now, 'show me' is the way we think, not tell me what
you can't demonstrate yourself, which relegates Winter to the bad-tempered
nagging goosip of a fishwife.
> It seems to me that Mr. Sloan is
> looking at this back-asswards, from effect-to-cause
> instead of the other way around. It is spelling errors
> and wrong dates that attract the attention of pedants,
> not the pedants who are attracted to poor spellers
> and fact-fumblers, with evil intentions. If one of
> these obsessive-compulsives "adopts" a writer like
> Ray Keene, for instance, it is only because he feels
> certain that Mr. Keene will keep feeding him (errors);
> he feels secure in knowing that is a virtual certainty.
I have probably found more errors in Keene's book than Winter has. OTOH, I
read his books to learn something about chess, not merely to memorise and
produce things not understood or gone into, and I think it is /my/
responibility to properly audit content material.
It is a large question to my mind if Winter even understands the chessic
content, in order to be able to actually perform at the game using that
content... which leads me to one final observation below...
>> We could be seeing the beginnings of another "feud". Winter has just
>> attacked a book by Bruce Pandolfini that just came out. If Pandolfini
>> decides to respond and to defend himself from this attack by Winter,
>> we will have another of what Taylor Kingston calls a "feud".
>
> The attack, as you call it, was not personal. It is
> obvious that EW cannot tolerate sloppy work, poor
> spelling or fumbled facts. Mr. Pandolfini would be
> wise to take note of his own sloppiness, and get to
> work improving his quality -- even at the expense of
> churning out fewer tomes.
...that if it is not chess content that is criticised then whatever else is
in question is so secondary to me personally, it scarcely registers - and if
its not the chess, then I beg pardon to presume that it won't matter to all
real chess players either
Instead we get to read resentment of such as Evans for repetition of things,
which by all reading here, are known, //but still not understood//.
Indeed, this is one of the fascinations of reading history, no?
Phil Innes
Vermont [where its snowing!]
> Now, as for the /personal/ feud issue, shots were
> fired by both sides, by EW and by LE. For the most
> part, EW's hit amidships, causing substantial damage,
> but then very few readers of Chess Lies will ever see
> those articles.
>
> And "supporters" of Larry Evans can claim
> a "hit" where Mr. Winter went A Bridge Too Far, a
> careless overstepping of bounds in recounting the
> photographic reprint just as though LE had written
> it anew. What is most amusing here, is that if he
> had re-written that all over again, the number of
> errors which would likely have "crept in" -- all by
> themselves -- would have far exceeded the original
> number on account of the falling off in quality of
> LE's work which has manifested itself over time.
>
> But aside from the issue of Larry Evans' sloppiness,
> there is also the small matter of his obsession with
> attacking FIDE, the USCF and well, almost
> everything associated with modern chess. He
> appears to pine for the good old days, and is thus
> out of tune, like an ancient piano. Imagine for one
> moment a man who is obsessed with the myriad
> details, not surrounding the Cold War era, but the
> Paul Morphy -- Howard Staunton match, and who
> can talk about NOTHING ELSE. How do you
> imagine Chess Lies readers would feel, after years
> of reading about his singular obsession? Bored,
> sickened? Nauseated?
>
> Younger readers almost certainly are sick of
> reading the same old same old, year after year.
> What about GMs Anand, Kramnik, or even Judit
> Polgar? ...you will learn nothing from GM Evans.
> He is frozen in time, a true ice man, such as might
> be planted somewhere near a melting glacier, then
> "discovered" and sold to a museum as an historical
> artifact. I feel sorry for him; were it not for unlucky
> timing, which is to say peaking just prior to Bobby
> Fischer -- an anomaly, GM Evans would likely not
> be known as a mere "five time" U. S. Champion.
> He would also very likely not be so mad at the
> world around him, not be so irritated and annoyed.
> He would very likely have found a way to direct
> his dissatisfaction in some more constructive
> manner than merely flailing away at FIDE.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 10:38:57
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
Not that either man needs to be in a pissing contest as to who is
better - they both were great GMs, Nunn comes out better at
Chessmetrics rating wise, all-time rating, etc.
But what about depth of analysis? In his younger days, Evans was a
wonderful analyst; his column was evidence of that. I still try to
find a copy of that Bronstein book; I've been searching for years. It
is a powerhouse of analysis.
Nunn was and still is a great analyst - you are talking about someone
who took the time to demolish nearly half of the studies ever
published. He remains active as a chess problem solver and world
champion in that area. He wrote more books of analytic depth than
Evans, who seems to have fallen prey to the churn out some popular
trash syndrome. His theory on Keres can be seen to fall into that same
vein - "Let's go with the cheating aspect - the not cheating side is
so b-ooorrring."
Evans seems to have given up on analysis entirely when he declared
computers an evil god and stopped doing analytical work in his column,
focusing instead on Fischer fawning.
I would respect both men's analysis, Nunn's more.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 09:06:57
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 9:35 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 9:16 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is an excellent example of how confused Mr. Laurie is, and how
> > misplaced is Parr's faith in him. Allow me to explain at some length.
>
> > As I stated yesterday, "Warrirors of the Mind" was merely a minor
> > background source for my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey
> > of the Evidence." Anyone who actually bothers to read the article
> > here:
>
> >http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txthttp://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb...
>
> > will see that far from being any "basis" for an "assault" on Evans,
> > that book is not even cited in the body of the article. Furthermore,
> > there is nothing in Warriors' chapters on Keres or Botvinnik that
> > could serve as any basis for an anti-Evans "assault."
>
> > This new Laurie post shows just how jumbled his memory actually is.
> > It was actually *_he_* who injected "Warriors" into our discussion in
> > 2002. In my aforementioned article, I pointed out that British GM John
> > Nunn disagreed with Evans' interpretation of the 1948 K-B games,
> > adding the very well-based statement that Nunn was "generally
> > considered a stronger player than Evans."
> > Mr. Laurie chose to construe this (as he seems to do with anything I
> > say) as a personal attack on and insult to Evans. On 6 ch 2002, I
> > replied to him:
>
> > "Secondly, your point about Evans and Nunn shows another
> > misinterpretation. My statement that Nunn is 'generally considered a
> > stronger player than Evans' is well based. For example Divinsky's
> > "Life Maps of the Great Chess Masters", charting best 10-year
> > strengths, puts Nunn at #42 all-time (among 88 total). Evans is not
> > even on the list. Evans's best 5-year average Elo rating is 2560.
> > Nunn's is well over 2600 and even now past his prime (nearing age 47)
> > he is at 2595. My statement can no more be considered a personal
> > attack than saying that Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar
> > Robertson."
>
> This is one of the most absurd, ridiculous arguments ever made by
> anyone, absurd even by the Taylor Kingston standard of absurdity.
>
> Larry Evans was an active player back in 1948 when the events in
> question occurred. Remember that Larry Evans won the US Championship
> in 1951.
>
> John Nunn is a relatively recent arrival. Saying that a player now
> rated 2595 is proven to be better than a player rated 2560 40 years
> ago is ridiculous.
>
> More than that, the book "Warriors of the Mind" and "Life Maps of the
> Great Chess Masters" is simply somebodies opinion and analysis and is
> not even an official source, and is far different "than saying that
> Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar Robertson."
Sam, we all know that your knowledge of chess history is second only
to the whistling ability of shrimps, but I will stand by my opinion,
shared by many, that overall Nunn is/was superior to Evans, whether
we're comparing them today, or in 1998, or at their respective primes.
Not vastly superior, but better.
The important point is that, contrary to Parr and Laurie, this in no
way is any attack on or denigration of Evans. Nunn in his prime was in
the world's top 10 or 20, evinced, for example, by his playing 7th
board (of 10) for the Rest of the World Team against the USSR in 1984.
He took first place at Wijk aan Zee two years running (1990, 1991),
finishing ahead of such top GMs as Portisch, Andersson, M. Gurevich,
Short, Korchnoi, Anand, Adams, Khalifman, Salov, Seirawan, Lautier, I.
Sokolov et al. As of mid-1993 he had lifetime plus or even scores
against Anand, Gelfand, Short, Nikolic, A. Sokolov, Yusupov, Gurevich,
Speelman, Vaganian, Llubojevic, Hort, Portisch, Spassky, Tal,
Polugaevsky, Petrosian Taimanov, Geller and Gligoric. It is no shame
to be considered not quite as good as that.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 06:35:11
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 9:16 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is an excellent example of how confused Mr. Laurie is, and how
> misplaced is Parr's faith in him. Allow me to explain at some length.
>
> As I stated yesterday, "Warrirors of the Mind" was merely a minor
> background source for my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey
> of the Evidence." Anyone who actually bothers to read the article
> here:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txthttp://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
>
> will see that far from being any "basis" for an "assault" on Evans,
> that book is not even cited in the body of the article. Furthermore,
> there is nothing in Warriors' chapters on Keres or Botvinnik that
> could serve as any basis for an anti-Evans "assault."
>
> This new Laurie post shows just how jumbled his memory actually is.
> It was actually *_he_* who injected "Warriors" into our discussion in
> 2002. In my aforementioned article, I pointed out that British GM John
> Nunn disagreed with Evans' interpretation of the 1948 K-B games,
> adding the very well-based statement that Nunn was "generally
> considered a stronger player than Evans."
> Mr. Laurie chose to construe this (as he seems to do with anything I
> say) as a personal attack on and insult to Evans. On 6 ch 2002, I
> replied to him:
>
> "Secondly, your point about Evans and Nunn shows another
> misinterpretation. My statement that Nunn is 'generally considered a
> stronger player than Evans' is well based. For example Divinsky's
> "Life Maps of the Great Chess Masters", charting best 10-year
> strengths, puts Nunn at #42 all-time (among 88 total). Evans is not
> even on the list. Evans's best 5-year average Elo rating is 2560.
> Nunn's is well over 2600 and even now past his prime (nearing age 47)
> he is at 2595. My statement can no more be considered a personal
> attack than saying that Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar
> Robertson."
This is one of the most absurd, ridiculous arguments ever made by
anyone, absurd even by the Taylor Kingston standard of absurdity.
Larry Evans was an active player back in 1948 when the events in
question occurred. Remember that Larry Evans won the US Championship
in 1951.
John Nunn is a relatively recent arrival. Saying that a player now
rated 2595 is proven to be better than a player rated 2560 40 years
ago is ridiculous.
More than that, the book "Warriors of the Mind" and "Life Maps of the
Great Chess Masters" is simply somebodies opinion and analysis and is
not even an official source, and is far different "than saying that
Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar Robertson."
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 06:31:09
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 19, 9:16 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
>
> > Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
> > article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
> > Evans' ability to analyze. His basis for this assault appears to have
> > been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky.
>
> This is an excellent example of how confused Mr. Laurie is, and how
> misplaced is Parr's faith in him. Allow me to explain at some length.
>
> As I stated yesterday, "Warrirors of the Mind" was merely a minor
> background source for my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey
> of the Evidence." Anyone who actually bothers to read the article
> here:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txthttp://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
>
> will see that far from being any "basis" for an "assault" on Evans,
> that book is not even cited in the body of the article. Furthermore,
> there is nothing in Warriors' chapters on Keres or Botvinnik that
> could serve as any basis for an anti-Evans "assault."
>
> This new Laurie post shows just how jumbled his memory actually is.
> It was actually *_he_* who injected "Warriors" into our discussion in
> 2002. In my aforementioned article, I pointed out that British GM John
> Nunn disagreed with Evans' interpretation of the 1948 K-B games,
> adding the very well-based statement that Nunn was "generally
> considered a stronger player than Evans."
> Mr. Laurie chose to construe this (as he seems to do with anything I
> say) as a personal attack on and insult to Evans. On 6 ch 2002, I
> replied to him:
>
> "Secondly, your point about Evans and Nunn shows another
> misinterpretation. My statement that Nunn is 'generally considered a
> stronger player than Evans' is well based. For example Divinsky's
> "Life Maps of the Great Chess Masters", charting best 10-year
> strengths, puts Nunn at #42 all-time (among 88 total). Evans is not
> even on the list. Evans's best 5-year average Elo rating is 2560.
> Nunn's is well over 2600 and even now past his prime (nearing age 47)
> he is at 2595. My statement can no more be considered a personal
> attack than saying that Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar
> Robertson."
>
> On 7 ch 2002, Laurie replied:
>
> "Furthermore, Divinsky's 'Life Charts [sic] of the Great Chess
> Masters' is included in 'Warriors of the Mind' by Keene and Divinsky.
> (Some would have trouble with this exclusion of detail.) I,
> personally, found that book disappointing; but I only paid ten bucks
> for it, used. Ed Winter called it 'swill.'"
>
> I had not mentioned "Warrirors" at all to this point in my
> discussion with Mr. Laurie. So rather than my using it as my "basis"
> to "assault" Evans, Laurie just threw it in on his own.
> Laurie is also quite wrong to say that Life Maps "is included" in
> Warrirors. Warriors was published in 1989 by Harding-Simpole. Life
> Maps was published in 1994 by ICE. Warriors charted 64 players. Life
> Maps charted 88, and included results up to July 1993. How a larger,
> later book from one publisher can be somehow "included" in a smaller,
> earlier book from a different publisher, is a concept I somehow cannot
> grasp. Yet to Mr. Laurie it somehow makes perfect sense, so much so
> that he considers me remiss in failing to mention this impossibility.
> It's also amusing to see an Evans partisan citing a Winter review.
> Normally anything from Winter is rejected out of hand, while anything
> from Keene (co-author of "Warriors") is highly praised.
>
> But my main point is that this shows how utterly faulty Mr. Laurie's
> memory is. It was *_HE_* who brought "Warriors of the Mind" into our
> discussion, not I. I never cited anything in "Warriors" in my 1998
> article, regarding Evans or anyone, much less made it the "basis" of
> anything. Yet 5 1/2 years later Mr. Laurie has become so confused that he
> claims I made it the main "basis" of an "assault" on Evans. While I
> have been highly critical of GM Evans' work, "Warriors of the Mind"
> has nothing to do with that.
>
> Oh yes, I should note in passing this latest from Larry Parr:
>
> "Mr. Laurie wrote with precision about the work serving, in NMnot's
> hands, as a 'basis' for the attack."
>
> Notice how our Larry is already starting to wriggle back in retreat,
> changing "his basis for this assault" to merely "a" basis. Such
> precision. Now he need merely retreat back to "no basis" to get it
> right.
>
> So, Larry, keep those cards and letters coming. This is getting
> better all the time.
On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
> Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
> article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
> Evans' ability to analyze. His basis for this assault appears to have
> been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky.
This is an excellent example of how confused Mr. Laurie is, and how
misplaced is Parr's faith in him. Allow me to explain at some length.
As I stated yesterday, "Warrirors of the Mind" was merely a minor
background source for my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey
of the Evidence." Anyone who actually bothers to read the article
here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
will see that far from being any "basis" for an "assault" on Evans,
that book is not even cited in the body of the article. Furthermore,
there is nothing in Warriors' chapters on Keres or Botvinnik that
could serve as any basis for an anti-Evans "assault."
This new Laurie post shows just how jumbled his memory actually is.
It was actually *_he_* who injected "Warriors" into our discussion in
2002. In my aforementioned article, I pointed out that British GM
John
Nunn disagreed with Evans' interpretation of the 1948 K-B games,
adding the very well-based statement that Nunn was "generally
considered a stronger player than Evans."
Mr. Laurie chose to construe this (as he seems to do with anything
I
say) as a personal attack on and insult to Evans. On 6 ch 2002, I
replied to him:
"Secondly, your point about Evans and Nunn shows another
misinterpretation. My statement that Nunn is 'generally considered a
stronger player than Evans' is well based. For example Divinsky's
"Life Maps of the Great Chess Masters", charting best 10-year
strengths, puts Nunn at #42 all-time (among 88 total). Evans is not
even on the list. Evans's best 5-year average Elo rating is 2560.
Nunn's is well over 2600 and even now past his prime (nearing age 47)
he is at 2595. My statement can no more be considered a personal
attack than saying that Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar
Robertson."
On 7 ch 2002, Laurie replied:
"Furthermore, Divinsky's 'Life Charts [sic] of the Great Chess
Masters' is included in 'Warriors of the Mind' by Keene and Divinsky.
(Some would have trouble with this exclusion of detail.) I,
personally, found that book disappointing; but I only paid ten bucks
for it, used. Ed Winter called it 'swill.'"
I had not mentioned "Warrirors" at all to this point in my
discussion with Mr. Laurie. So rather than my using it as my "basis"
to "assault" Evans, Laurie just threw it in on his own.
Laurie is also quite wrong to say that Life Maps "is included" in
Warrirors. Warriors was published in 1989 by Harding-Simpole. Life
Maps was published in 1994 by ICE. Warriors charted 64 players. Life
Maps charted 88, and included results up to July 1993. How a larger,
later book from one publisher can be somehow "included" in a smaller,
earlier book from a different publisher, is a concept I somehow
cannot
grasp. Yet to Mr. Laurie it somehow makes perfect sense, so much so
that he considers me remiss in failing to mention this impossibility.
It's also amusing to see an Evans partisan citing a Winter review.
Normally anything from Winter is rejected out of hand, while anything
from Keene (co-author of "Warriors") is highly praised.
But my main point is that this shows how utterly faulty Mr. Laurie's
memory is. It was *_HE_* who brought "Warriors of the Mind" into our
discussion, not I. I never cited anything in "Warriors" in my 1998
article, regarding Evans or anyone, much less made it the "basis" of
anything. Yet 5 1/2 years later Mr. Laurie has become so confused that
he
claims I made it the main "basis" of an "assault" on Evans. While I
have been highly critical of GM Evans' work, "Warriors of the Mind"
has nothing to do with that.
Oh yes, I should note in passing this latest from Larry Parr:
"Mr. Laurie wrote with precision about the work serving, in NMnot's
hands, as a 'basis' for the attack."
Notice how our Larry is already starting to wriggle back in
retreat,
changing "his basis for this assault" to merely "a" basis. Such
precision. Now he need merely retreat back to "no basis" to get it
right.
So, Larry, keep those cards and letters coming. This is getting
better all the time.
Oh, BTW -- Larry, will you or Mr. Laurie please tell us where
"Warriors of the Mind" ranks John Nunn?
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 06:16:04
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
>
> Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
> article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
> Evans' ability to analyze. His basis for this assault appears to have
> been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky.
This is an excellent example of how confused Mr. Laurie is, and how
misplaced is Parr's faith in him. Allow me to explain at some length.
As I stated yesterday, "Warrirors of the Mind" was merely a minor
background source for my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A Survey
of the Evidence." Anyone who actually bothers to read the article
here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
will see that far from being any "basis" for an "assault" on Evans,
that book is not even cited in the body of the article. Furthermore,
there is nothing in Warriors' chapters on Keres or Botvinnik that
could serve as any basis for an anti-Evans "assault."
This new Laurie post shows just how jumbled his memory actually is.
It was actually *_he_* who injected "Warriors" into our discussion in
2002. In my aforementioned article, I pointed out that British GM John
Nunn disagreed with Evans' interpretation of the 1948 K-B games,
adding the very well-based statement that Nunn was "generally
considered a stronger player than Evans."
Mr. Laurie chose to construe this (as he seems to do with anything I
say) as a personal attack on and insult to Evans. On 6 ch 2002, I
replied to him:
"Secondly, your point about Evans and Nunn shows another
misinterpretation. My statement that Nunn is 'generally considered a
stronger player than Evans' is well based. For example Divinsky's
"Life Maps of the Great Chess Masters", charting best 10-year
strengths, puts Nunn at #42 all-time (among 88 total). Evans is not
even on the list. Evans's best 5-year average Elo rating is 2560.
Nunn's is well over 2600 and even now past his prime (nearing age 47)
he is at 2595. My statement can no more be considered a personal
attack than saying that Wilt Chamberlain was taller than Oscar
Robertson."
On 7 ch 2002, Laurie replied:
"Furthermore, Divinsky's 'Life Charts [sic] of the Great Chess
Masters' is included in 'Warriors of the Mind' by Keene and Divinsky.
(Some would have trouble with this exclusion of detail.) I,
personally, found that book disappointing; but I only paid ten bucks
for it, used. Ed Winter called it 'swill.'"
I had not mentioned "Warrirors" at all to this point in my
discussion with Mr. Laurie. So rather than my using it as my "basis"
to "assault" Evans, Laurie just threw it in on his own.
Laurie is also quite wrong to say that Life Maps "is included" in
Warrirors. Warriors was published in 1989 by Harding-Simpole. Life
Maps was published in 1994 by ICE. Warriors charted 64 players. Life
Maps charted 88, and included results up to July 1993. How a larger,
later book from one publisher can be somehow "included" in a smaller,
earlier book from a different publisher, is a concept I somehow cannot
grasp. Yet to Mr. Laurie it somehow makes perfect sense, so much so
that he considers me remiss in failing to mention this impossibility.
It's also amusing to see an Evans partisan citing a Winter review.
Normally anything from Winter is rejected out of hand, while anything
from Keene (co-author of "Warriors") is highly praised.
But my main point is that this shows how utterly faulty Mr. Laurie's
memory is. It was *_HE_* who brought "Warriors of the Mind" into our
discussion, not I. I never cited anything in "Warriors" in my 1998
article, regarding Evans or anyone, much less made it the "basis" of
anything. Yet 5 1/2 years later Mr. Laurie has become so confused that he
claims I made it the main "basis" of an "assault" on Evans. While I
have been highly critical of GM Evans' work, "Warriors of the Mind"
has nothing to do with that.
Oh yes, I should note in passing this latest from Larry Parr:
"Mr. Laurie wrote with precision about the work serving, in NMnot's
hands, as a 'basis' for the attack."
Notice how our Larry is already starting to wriggle back in retreat,
changing "his basis for this assault" to merely "a" basis. Such
precision. Now he need merely retreat back to "no basis" to get it
right.
So, Larry, keep those cards and letters coming. This is getting
better all the time.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 03:48:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
> < I am on record as being quite aware of the Evans-Winter feud
> in 1999, three years before writing to Mr. Laurie.> -- Taylor
> Kingston,
>
> "Kingston to Laurie, 21 February 2002: '... I am not aware of any
> personal attacks by Mr. Winter, though admittedly I do not have the
> full voluminous record of words that have passed between [Winter and
> Evans] ...'" -- quote produced by Louis Blair
I do not believe that it is fair or accurate to call it a "feud"
between Edward Winter and Grandmaster Larry Evans.
"Edward Winter" (whose actual identity is unknown) has a known
tendency to become obsessed with certain writers and to attack them
relentlessly. The best example of this is Raymond Keene. Edward Winter
has been attacking Keene for 30 years starting in the 1970s. Hundreds
of articles have been written by Winter attacking Keene. Since Keene
has written one hundred chess books and has a regular newspaper
column, Winter has a lot to attack.
Winter has expanded his list of people he attacks all the time. For
example, he always attacks Eric Schiller and Larry Evans.
We could be seeing the beginnings of another "feud". Winter has just
attacked a book by Bruce Pandolfini that just came out. If Pandolfini
decides to respond and to defend himself from this attack by Winter,
we will have another of what Taylor Kingston calls a "feud".
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 23:57:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 18, 8:10 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> My motivation was quite simple. Mr.Laurie wrote something false. I
> wished to show him the facts. Alas, one may lead a horse to water,
> but ...
This is an insult to horses.
Mr. Laurie has demonstrated an inability to think
rationally, most clearly in his repetitions of the lie
regarding comments about Dr. Nunn. No horse is
that stupid. In fact, I think all the ratpackers could
do worse than to study how horses think.
> Larry, you promised rgc readers scandalous revelations from the
> Laurie archives. Instead, you just regurgitate the same old crap, with
> Laurie's seriously fallible memory even more wrong than it was 5 years
> ago. I must say, this is proving quite entertaining.
Well, it's a grave disappointment to those of us
who took 10-1 odds, thinking the ratpack might
*for once* get lucky.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 23:43:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
> explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
> course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
> way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
> original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.
We are used to this problem by now, so there is no point
in complaining so late about Mr. Par's tactics; where were
you five, ten, or fifteen years ago? The party's nearly over,
and you missed it.
> In the beginning of this particular issue,
The facts of the chronology are fairly stated in the
article by Taylor Kingston, so attempting to "write
out" Larry Evans' predecessors looks suspect; is the
motive to obscure his *dubious sources*? Perhaps,
but writing those characters out also makes LE
look good for raising the questions himself, as
opposed to being a mere repeater antenna (which
is much closer to the reality).
> GM Larry Evans published
> an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
> levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
> World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
> games?
I wouldn't know. I sent three different guys to interrogate
Mr. Krylenko, but each time their IDs were returned to me
with a note attached, reading "now sleeps with the fishes".
What can it mean?
> Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
> history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
> Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
> matter drop.
In truth, just prior to the article by LE there were
articles published by others, and these were in fact
his (dubious) sources. The idea fit well with a
general bashing-FIDE mindset, so the facts were
dealt with accordingly.
> When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
> there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
> or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
> explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.
Friend, eh? This is starting to sound completely
dishonest. Perhaps it is a ritual of some sort, which
must be completed before gaining full membership
status in the Evans ratpack.
> Later, for reasons of his own
I note a deliberate omission of TK's research efforts,
which prompted the new article. Hmm -- complete
dishonesty, omission of pertinent facts along with a
"reasons of his own" lie... congratulations, my boy,
I think you've made the cut!
> Mr. Kingston published a counter
> article; but unable to refute the analysis itself
Another lie. Mr. Kingston largely agreed with
the chess analysis, so there was no effort at
"refutation" at all. (One thing you can say for the
ratpackers: they are nothing if not consistent.)
> he maligned GM
> Evans' ability to analyze.
Another lie. It appears this guy wants to not
merely get in, but advance rapidly up the ladder
to the top of the pack!
> His basis for this assault appears to have
> been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky. (Mr.
> Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
> book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
> foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
> comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
> Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
> received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
> on pages 227-30.
That should be Ed Winter, singular. (They may clone
sheep or frogs, but no one in their right mind would ever
clone Edward Winter. In fact, there ought to be a law
against it.)
> This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
> published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
> Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
> certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
> some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
> ask if he could present his side of the issue.
Well, nobody's perfect. Had he known now what
he didn't know then, he'd likely have dismissed it as
just another hack, who can't get his facts straight.
> He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
> could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
> between GM Evans and Ed Winter. Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
> communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
> behind people's backs.
This does not jibe with the story told here by Mr.
Parr. In LP's earlier version of this "story", the
request was not "ignored" until AFTER Taylor
Kingston contacted the magazine editor, thus
ticking Mr. Laurie off. (That's the trouble with all
liars: they can't remember every lie they've told,
and sooner or later, they contradict themselves
like this.)
> Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
> Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
> was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him
"Editors" is plural; "him", singular. You do realize
that quite recently LP was singing your literacy praises,
right? Don't let your head honcho, chief rat, or whatever
it is you people call him, down like this.
> I had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.
> His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
> of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
> with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
> reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
> mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
> friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
> "Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
> War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.
Ignorance is bliss! My suggestion would be to
get on the bad side of Larry Parr by disagreeing
with his opinions here, then kick back and watch
the carnage. If you take these Evans ratpackers
seriously, I can see how the term "battle fatigue"
might eventually set in. (Fortunately, their
overwhelming dishonesty precludes that from
ever happening.)
> I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
> him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.
Where Mr. Parr promised evidence from saved
emails, all we ever seem to actually get is foggy
memories of days gone by. Each time I see yet
another reference from the ratpack to such emails,
I wonder if it is really even possible, given the
vast number of OS upgrades, new hardware, or
both that I've experienced over the years. Maybe
somewhere out there, is a person who still has
their first-ever emails, their first (still-working)
computer. Maybe.
> These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.
>
> Period. End of story.
It makes for a good story.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 20:41:37
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
WOUNDS NOT OF THE FLESH
<I must say, this is proving quite entertaining. > -- Taylor Kingston
Before discussing what Mr. Laurie wrote, one has to
comment on the ploy employed by NMnot Kingston in response.
Once again, this writer recently published a
letter written by Mr. Laurie to NMnot Kingston in
ch 2002. In this letter, Laurie said that the
latter had denied knowledge of the Evans-Winter
brouhaha. The letter is evidently probative, if not
determinative, evidence of such dishonest behavior on
NMnot's part. Our NMnot issued a denial.
Now, then, in his response to Mr. Laurie, NMnot
says that he was on public record as being well aware
of the dispute between Evans and Winter. No one,
including Mr. Laurie, has denied that such is so. The
issue is whether NMnot wrote to Mr. Laurie, posing as
a naif in order to elicit certain hoped-for comments
from the playwright. There is probative evidence that
he did exactly that.
In fact, Louis Blair just dug up a quote from Kingston
apparently posted in this forum over seven years ago that
contradicts this claim by Kingston on November 18, 2007:
< I am on record as being quite aware of the Evans-Winter feud
in 1999, three years before writing to Mr. Laurie. > -- Taylor
Kingston,
"Kingston to Laurie, 21 February 2002: '... I am not aware of any
personal attacks by Mr. Winter, though admittedly I do not have the
full voluminous record of words that have passed between [Winter and
Evans] ...'" -- quote produced by Louis Blair
Mr. Laurie has described behavior by NMnot that
appears both sneaky and a trifle unbalanced. He
describes sheets of paper with NMnot's scribbled
annotations (such as "This is a lie") and they
reminded him of similar stuff from someone who had
suffered the travails of a war.
NMnot Kingston reacts poorly under moral and
intellectual pressure. When Sam Sloan was pressing
him mercilessly about his playing strength, our NMnot
raised his rating 500 points. It was a stupid, stupid
lie that easily refuted by Sam and others. Only after
after the exposure did NMnot offer an explanation for
the ego-driven fib.
In debates with this writer, NMnot invented false
names such as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then wrote
messages IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for Pete's sake. A
normal personality does not conduct business in such a
fashion, though we make no claim that he suffers from
psychopathology or needs therapy, which he advised me to get.
What Mr. Laurie says about NMnot Kingston's
behavior is what we here have come to know well.
In response thus far, NMnot Kingston dragged me
in a couple of times to toss out gratuitous insults.
He also tried to jump on Mr. Laurie's reference to
"Warriors of the Mind", stating that he did not
reference the book in his attack on GM Evans. That
was a typical Kingston strawman. Mr. Laurie wrote
with precision about the work serving, in NMnot's
hands, as a "basis" for the attack. That is quite different.
Mr. Laurie describes surprise at receiving from
our NMnot an envelope filled with paper that had
phrases such as, "This is a lie," scribbled over them.
To Mr. Laurie, the wad of pulp seemed like a similar
mailing he once received from a friend who was
suffering emotional turmoil, probably from experiences
during World War II.
The tone of Mr. Laurie's response here, while
strong and a mite angry, is not without feeling for
NMnot Kingston. He is right to intuit that the man
has suffered wounds, though in the current instance
the wounds were not ones of the flesh.
Yours, Larry Parr
David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:14b0d0e7-7317-4d27-9a38-f9ff0bfcd33e@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
> >
>
> >
> > He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
> > could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
> > between GM Evans and Ed Winter.
>
>
> Curious that Mr. Laurie can't provide a single shred of evidence
> to support that claim.
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 18:32:39
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
samsloan <[email protected] > (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote:
7 ... I did not know at the time that Taylor Kingston was
7 webmaster or whatever you call it of the Chess Cafe
7 Forum. ...
_
_
Does he claim to know it now? If so, how?
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 18:18:59
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
Larry Parr wrote (Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:58:46 -0800 (PST))
(Subject: The facts about Taylor Kingston):
7 LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
7
7 Subj: Reply to TK please post
7 Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
7 From: [email protected]
7 ...
7 ... Mr. Kingston published a counter article; but unable to
7 refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM Evans' ability to
7 analyze. ...
_
_
What does Larry Parr think about this Richard Laurie
perception?
_
"OPEN LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE (April 2 2006):
_
'...
... All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess
Life (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948
World Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
...'" - Larry Parr (Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:24:27 -0800)
_
"Nunn is 'generally considered a stronger player than
Evans'" - Larry Parr presentation (Thu, 15 Nov 2007
08:05:37 -0800 (PST)) of a Richard Laurie description
(ch 2, 2002) of what Taylor Kingston wrote (1998)
_
_
7 ...
7 ... Mr. Kingston ... denied any knowledge of a feud between
7 GM Evans and Ed Winter. ...
_
_
"Kingston to Laurie, 21 February 2002:
'... I am not aware of any personal attacks by Mr.
Winter, though admittedly I do not have the full
voluminous record of words that have passed
between [Winter and Evans] ...'" - Taylor Kingston
(Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:38:53 -0800)
_
Has Larry Parr tried asking Richard Laurie if that is the
comment that caused RL to claim that Taylor Kingston
denied being aware of the battle between Evans and
Winter? What would be the opinion of Larry Parr if the
"personal attacks" quote is the basis for RL's claim that
Taylor Kingston wrote such a denial?
_
_
7 Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs,
7 Mr. Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by
7 telling me he was in contact with the editors of Chess Life
7 and wanted to tell him I had switched sides in the dispute
7 even though I had not done so.
7 ...
_
_
"...
... There is no quote of me 'denigrating Evans' analysis.'
There is no quote of me telling Peter Kurzdorfer that
Laurie had changed his mind. There is no quote of me
calling Laurie and Evans 'evil.' And why are there no
such quotes? Very simple -- I never wrote nor said any
such thing.
..." - Taylor Kingston (Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:57:08 -0800)
_
_
7 ...
7 I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not
7 heard from him since he wrote me that I was even nastier
7 than GM Evans.
7 ...
7 Richard Laurie
_
_
Is Richard Laurie dropping his previous claim?
_
"...
[Playwright Richard Laurie just authorized me to post
this message.]
_
'When I refused to retract my letter to Chess Life, Taylor
Kingston told me, in effect, that I was even more evil than
Larry Evans. ...' -- Richard Laurie" - Larry Parr (Wed,
14 Nov 2007 00:08:06 -0800)
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 17:15:59
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 18, 8:10 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
>
> Gee, Larry, I must have really rankled your ass for you to go to
> such lengths as this. And all just because I dissed your boy-toy Sloan
> a while back.
>
> As for Mr. Laurie, what an utterly bizarre letter. A few
> observations below:
>
> > Subj: Reply to TK please post
> > Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > From: [email protected]
>
> > It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
> > explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
> > course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
> > way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
> > original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.
>
> I agree. That is Larry Parr's usual modus operandi, unfortunately.
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the beginning of this particular issue, GM Larry Evans published
> > an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
> > levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
> > World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
> > games?
>
> > Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
> > history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
> > Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
> > matter drop.
>
> > When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
> > there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
> > or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
> > explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.
>
> > Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
> > article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
> > Evans' ability to analyze.
>
> Why Messrs. Parr and Laurie cling repeatedly to this outright
> fiction defies understanding. They have never produced a single
> statement of mine that confirms this fabrication. As I have pointed
> out many times, I have never "maligned GM Evans' ability to analyze";
> quite the opposite. But, it seems that Parr and Laurie must continue
> to repeat the Big Lie.
>
> > His basis for this assault appears to have
> > been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky.
>
> This is perhaps the most bizarre of Mr. Laurie's many bizarre
> statements. "Warriors of the Mind" is not even mentioned within the
> body of my two articles. It is listed in the bibliography of the first
> only because it provided some minor background information.
> In any event, "Warriors" provides no basis for "maligning Evans'
> analytical ability."
>
> > (Mr. Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
> > book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
> > foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
> > comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
> > Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
> > received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
> > on pages 227-30.
>
> Quite irrelevant, in view of the fact the book in question was a
> very minor part of my two K-B-related articles.
>
> > This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
> > published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
> > Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
> > certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
> > some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
> > ask if he could present his side of the issue.
>
> > He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
> > could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
> > between GM Evans and Ed Winter.
>
> Another falsehood Laurie and Parr continue to peddle, one for which
> they have continually failed to present any evidence. I am on record
> as being quite aware of the Evans-Winter feud in 1999, three years
> before writing to Mr. Laurie.
>
> > Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
> > communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
> > behind people's backs.
>
> That's rich. No, Mr. Laurie simply lies in public.
>
> > Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
> > Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
> > was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him I
> > had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.
>
> Further falsehood.
>
> > His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
> > of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
> > with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
> > reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
> > mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
> > friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
> > "Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
> > War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.
>
> My motivation was quite simple. Mr.Laurie wrote something false. I
> wished to show him the facts. Alas, one may lead a horse to water,
> but ...
>
> > I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
> > him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.
Oh yes, I meant to add that I have never said anything to that
effect about Mr. Laurie. This is yet another fabrication Laurie and
Parr have yet to substantiate.
> > These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.
>
> Mr. Laurie's notion of "facts" and the testimony of the public
> record are two quite different things.
>
> Larry, you promised rgc readers scandalous revelations from the
> Laurie archives. Instead, you just regurgitate the same old crap, with
> Laurie's seriously fallible memory even more wrong than it was 5 years
> ago. I must say, this is proving quite entertaining.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 17:10:31
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
Gee, Larry, I must have really rankled your ass for you to go to
such lengths as this. And all just because I dissed your boy-toy Sloan
a while back.
As for Mr. Laurie, what an utterly bizarre letter. A few
observations below:
> Subj: Reply to TK please post
> Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From: [email protected]
>
> It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
> explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
> course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
> way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
> original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.
I agree. That is Larry Parr's usual modus operandi, unfortunately.
> In the beginning of this particular issue, GM Larry Evans published
> an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
> levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
> World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
> games?
>
> Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
> history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
> Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
> matter drop.
>
> When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
> there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
> or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
> explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.
>
> Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
> article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
> Evans' ability to analyze.
Why Messrs. Parr and Laurie cling repeatedly to this outright
fiction defies understanding. They have never produced a single
statement of mine that confirms this fabrication. As I have pointed
out many times, I have never "maligned GM Evans' ability to analyze";
quite the opposite. But, it seems that Parr and Laurie must continue
to repeat the Big Lie.
> His basis for this assault appears to have
> been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky.
This is perhaps the most bizarre of Mr. Laurie's many bizarre
statements. "Warriors of the Mind" is not even mentioned within the
body of my two articles. It is listed in the bibliography of the first
only because it provided some minor background information.
In any event, "Warriors" provides no basis for "maligning Evans'
analytical ability."
> (Mr. Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
> book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
> foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
> comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
> Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
> received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
> on pages 227-30.
Quite irrelevant, in view of the fact the book in question was a
very minor part of my two K-B-related articles.
> This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
> published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
> Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
> certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
> some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
> ask if he could present his side of the issue.
>
> He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
> could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
> between GM Evans and Ed Winter.
Another falsehood Laurie and Parr continue to peddle, one for which
they have continually failed to present any evidence. I am on record
as being quite aware of the Evans-Winter feud in 1999, three years
before writing to Mr. Laurie.
> Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
> communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
> behind people's backs.
That's rich. No, Mr. Laurie simply lies in public.
> Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
> Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
> was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him I
> had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.
Further falsehood.
> His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
> of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
> with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
> reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
> mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
> friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
> "Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
> War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.
My motivation was quite simple. Mr.Laurie wrote something false. I
wished to show him the facts. Alas, one may lead a horse to water,
but ...
> I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
> him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.
>
> These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.
Mr. Laurie's notion of "facts" and the testimony of the public
record are two quite different things.
Larry, you promised rgc readers scandalous revelations from the
Laurie archives. Instead, you just regurgitate the same old crap, with
Laurie's seriously fallible memory even more wrong than it was 5 years
ago. I must say, this is proving quite entertaining.
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2007 15:41:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The facts about Taylor Kingston
|
I want to mention that at one time an article appeared on
chesscafe.com attacking me. I did not know at the time that Taylor
Kingston was webmaster or whatever you call it of the Chess Cafe
Forum. Naturally, I wrote back to Chess Cafe refuting the attack on
me.
I was soon informed that Chess Cafe had rejected my posting.
This is just one of many incidents that has convinced me that Taylor
Kingston is just a nasty, dirty, despicable character, beneath
contempt.
Sam Sloan
|
|
