The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

Main

Date: 15 Sep 2008 18:36:30
From: Chess One
Subject: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

Since Taylor Kingston has written consecutively, posts challenging
everything he doesn't quite understand, and has to invent what other people
say 7 TIMES in 4 weeks - while presenting no chessic evidence for anything
whatever - I celebrate him! How difficult this is to get away with!

If Kingston wants to post what Kasparov wrote in the same year I interviewed
Taimanov, then let us see if GK improves on Taimanov. If not, if there is
only more opinionating with the usual lack of presented evidence, let us
hear no more at all!

For 6 years I have been receiving Vaguer Kingston's protests. This includes
30 e-mails with no chess in whatsoever which he now 'can't recall' he even
sent. Guess what they were about? Other people who did have 'chess in'!

His latest idiocy, the 7th in 4 weeks, is to invent yet another 'fact' then
challenge me to disprove what he cannot say himself.

The latest issue is to do with the Fischer - Taimanov game 3, and I assert
that Taimanov said Kasparov [or anyone else - not even a supercomputer]
hadn't solved it at the time of the 2004 interview. Taimanov lays out two
lines for black at 22. These are the critical lines that need address, and
in chessic terms, not in opinions.

If Taylor Kingston thinks he understand from Kasparov addresses to these
lines, please let him post them here - then we will see if GK solved them at
all. I already posted Taimanov's analysis of both.

If Taylor Kingston doesn't understand the challenge, and wants to talk
'about' the analysis, as he did with Fischer's 'analysis', then 'Hochberg's'
then shall we assume it is more of the same type?

I don't care to win anything here, since I do not even represent my own
opinion. Taimanov issued the statement and I should like to understand if
anyone contacted and solved the issue - I should like to understand in
chessic terms - and this is what I wrote at the start of this disreputable
dialog with Vaguer Kingston.

Phil Innes

Date: 18 Sep 2008 00:02:38
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/4cba7a57072a2f16?hl=en

Date: 17 Sep 2008 23:24:39
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/97d86a8e885df4e3?hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/90c847f31020b6ea?hl=en

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!
not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:56:54 -0500
From: "Chess One" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
References: <7b4a0fb7-6b10-48a1-9300-
[email protected] > <65ee9a2f-8b79-4e85-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <d5d5f80c-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <b53d576d-acd4-4a6f-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <7c189bb7-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <50aae72f-f932-4e99-
[email protected] >
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:56:50 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080912-1, 09/12/2008), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Lines: 109
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103
X-Trace: sv3-xY0Aof0mNdiutkMv
+qtOxwQte3xx3/1XgSZOqdQ4m9XVqocRKgHtRX2QR5olGWpIhXz7kJvsG16c7QG!xVavqnx
+k9sFtTByjDqcZuMHrVcwCb/3X/YoXwAHDulIchehqD+Pxz4jgOcVsMVk5GsnqvphEDwb!
pA7wwMLe5IZsuhFuikFalcu9V01+
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:50aae72f-f932-4e99-
[email protected]...
On Sep 12, 2:45 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> **Yes it could, but ONLY responding to what people have fixated upon,
> albeit
> Taylor Kingston's recommendation of Hochberg as some kind of saint beyond
> reproach,

You're really mixed up, Phil. All I've said is that I believe

**What does ' beleive mean?

Fischer did indeed do what Hochberg reported in the footnote, which
was this:

"In New York after the match, Fischer said 'This was the turning
point of the match. Taimanov missed a win with 20.Q-R3.' -- ed."

In other words, I believe that Fischer said this, and that he said
it in New York, after the Taimanov match was over. I do not consider
Hochberg a saint, though he did have a good reputation.

> [though he seemingly wrote a footnote without providence

The correct word is provenance, Phil.

**No Sir, providence would indicate something else, which Hochberg
also
lacked. I mean what I said. Providence meaning he had something to
base his
opinion upon. Preovenance is that basis.

> which he
> could not confirm,

Our Phil, who can only rarely tell us his source for anything, and
who will readily believe hearsay, is suddenly concerned with
provenance and confirmation? Interesting.

**In other words, Taylor Kingston who has lionised Hochberg, and wants
to
challenge why Hochberg repeated something which, Bill Hyde thinks is
not
likely the result to what Byrne knew or understood. So what are the
facts of
it? Hochberg represented what he thought were Fischer's views, but
these
were not illustrated? Is this really defendable? Taylor Kingston
thinks so -
but a sincere wad of Russian GMs call this American 'opinion', and
Fissher
has nothing to say.

**For those familiar with the posts of Vaguer Kingston, this is no
surprise.
It is usual for him to contest on no specific chess knowledge those
who have
some. pfft!

> and also not followed through upon]

It would seem to me that the main responsibility to follow through
was Fischer's. It was Fischer who made the claim that 20.Qh3 would
win, not Hochberg.

**It was not Fischer - it was Taimanov!

It would have been nice if Bert could have gotten
more from Fischer, but Bobby *_was_* rather busy at the time.

**Yeah, nice. And, hey, cool! But hey! But 25 years later not a
sausage from
Fischer, so hey! Maybe bullshit from Fischer? Hey! When serious
evaluation
of a position occurs from very serious players in Petersberg, then we
got
'nice from Bert', then hey! Who seems like the hey-seed?

> **Instead there remains the difficult task of attempting to understand
> what
> Taimanov and Fischer created together, as something rather remarkable.

It seems to me the group here is mainly interested in whether there
is or is not an objective win for White after 20.Qh3.

**Taimanov says ther is.

It sure doesn't
look like it, both Rybka and Fritz being unable to find any.

**ROFL! Really? What evidence is ther of that? Nothing! We don't even
see
their evaluations quantitatively, yet Taylor Kingston 'sees it'.

:))))

Oh yes,
neither could Kasparov. Unless you have some analysis refuting their
conclusions, I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.

**That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion. Do you have some evidence that it
is to
support your statement? I rather think that Garry is persuaded
otherwise.

**CERTAINLY no strong GM has played Fischer's line since, to obtain a
what
should understand to be a certain draw, and this would only interest
the
curious [real players], rather than the Librarian, no?

**Taylor Kingston here does not comment on any single move or sequence
of
moves. Yet he concludes on the arguably most complex position of the
C20th,
without need of that.

**What you, dear reader, are convinced by is either this form of
commentary,
or a vital understanding of an electric position as being something
that
would make you wonder.

Phil Innes

Date: 17 Sep 2008 23:11:19
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

Date: 17 Sep 2008 07:37:37
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

On Sep 17, 8:09=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 16, 1:07 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > I don't care to win anything here, since I do not even represent my o=
wn
> > > opinion. Taimanov issued the statement and I should like to understan=
d
> > > if
> > > anyone contacted and solved the issue - I should like to understand i=
n
> > > chessic terms - and this is what I wrote at the start of this
> > > disreputable
> > > dialog with Vaguer Kingston.
>
> =A0 Translation: Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he was
> talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
> nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
> is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
> there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.
>
> > =A0Kingston can't even /understand the
> > challenge/ to address Taimanov's analysis.
>
> =A0 I'm not interested in challenging Taimanov's analysis.
>
> **Okay! That's enough then.
>
> =A0My point
> really has nothing to do with Taimanov, except that he happened to
> play the game in question.
>
> **I know it's Kingston's point. But at least we now understand that he is
> not /attempting/ to answer my point.

As I have already said, Phil, I will be happy to supply Kasparov's
analysis from MGP4, just as soon as you either: (A) show us where, as
you claimed, he changed his opinion about 20.Qh3, or (B) admit here
that you actually know of no such other opinion.

> =A0 I'm interested in ***__Phil Innes' justification for his bizarre
> claim that what Kasparov wrote in MGP4 is somehow not really
> Kasparov's opinion.__*** That is what Phil wrote here on 12 September.
> I quote directly:
>
> **Another hapless paraphrase!

"Paraphrase"?? Phil, I have quoted you verbatim on this several
times. Let's try again:

TK: I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.

PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion. Do you have some evidence
that it is to support your statement? I rather think that Garry is
persuaded otherwise.

> But why is Kingston /interested/ in something
> that is strakly different from what he admits I wrote below?

Because it shows you lying, Phil. You have nothing to support your
claim of "That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion." You don't know Kasparov's
opinion from your elbow. You're flim-flamming, trying to sound more
knowledgeable than you really are, and I enjoy calling you on it.
That's why I'm interested in this. I don't care what it's "strakly
[sic] different" from. You said what you said. Now either prove it, or
admit you were wrong.

> =A0 TK: =A0I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
>
> =A0 PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion. Do you have some evidence
> that it is to support your statement? I rather think that Garry is
> persuaded otherwise.
>
> **I don't challenge Kasparov's opinion is his opinion.

But Phil, that's *_exactly_* what you did. I presented Kasparov's
opinion, published in 2004, and you said "That is /not/ Kasparov's
opinion."

> I challenge whether
> his analysis resolves the issue, 'that a win is a myth'.

There you go, shifting ground again. I say "Kasparov believes X."
You reply "Kasparov does /not/ believe X." When I say "Prove it," you
then say "What I said is that X is false." Not at all the same thing.

> Now - I wrote that
> over a week ago.

No, Phil, you wrote "That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion" on September
12, 2008. Today is September 17, 2008. Last I checked, weeks have more
than 5 days. In any event, the date of your statement is completely
irrelevant to its truth or falsehood.

> Meanwhile the idiotic Taylor Kingston has changed what he
> has bother to research and turned it into something else.

Haven't changed anything, Phil. I've just been hammering you with
the same question over and over. And you have failed to answer.

> **As before - Kingston is not worth engaging unless he can say what he is
> challenging, and not 'translate' it!

The only person here who seems not to understand my point is you,
Phil.

> Its only his own famous tussle with
> words, with me, with Laurie, with Evans, Schiller and Keene, that confoun=
ds
> the poor chap. He will keep on finding 'things that interest him' until t=
he
> end of time, and then challenge people who never wrote them to what they
> mean.

Now you're saying you never wrote "That is /not/ Kasparov's
opinion"?? Phil, it's a matter of public record, plain as day. This is
not "1984", where you can eliminate inconvenient facts by decree.

> **Kingston claimed Fischer had analysis.

I made no such claim. In fact, I said the opposite.

> You claimed Hochberg was irreproachable,

I said no such thing. I merely said he had a good reputation.

> and he reported the analysis.

I never said any such thing. In fact, I said that to my knowledge,
Fischer's analysis of 20.Qh3 was never published in CL&R.

> Neither existed.

Well waddya know, Phil finally says something we can agree on. But
tell us, Phil, why have you felt compelled to LIE about what I
actually wrote? Apparently you think that not only can you eliminate
unpleasant facts by fiat, but that you can also call new "facts" into
existence, like Glendower calling spirits from the vasty deep.

> Kasparov's
> analysis does exist - and Kingston actyually has it.

Yes, I do. Wanna see it? You know whatcha gotta do.

> But since he can't
> understand what I am saying, and dismisses Taimanov as analyst entirerely=
,

Boy, Phil, once you start making shit up, you can't stop. I think
highly of Taimanov as an analyst. I also think highly of Zinfandels
from the Dry Creek region of Sonoma County. It's just that neither is
very relevant to the matter of this new opinion you've claimed
Kasparov has.

> then no wonder he can't understand that Kasparov's analysis must address
> Taimanov's in order to prove/refute anything.

Phil, we're not talking about proving/refuting Kasparov or Taimanov
here. We're talking about proving/refuting *_Innes._* Got it now?

Date: 17 Sep 2008 17:42:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 17, 8:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 16, 1:07 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > I don't care to win anything here, since I do not even represent my
> > > own
> > > opinion. Taimanov issued the statement and I should like to understand
> > > if
> > > anyone contacted and solved the issue - I should like to understand in
> > > chessic terms - and this is what I wrote at the start of this
> > > disreputable
> > > dialog with Vaguer Kingston.
>
> Translation: Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he was
> talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
> nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
> is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
> there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.
>
> > Kingston can't even /understand the
> > challenge/ to address Taimanov's analysis.
>
> I'm not interested in challenging Taimanov's analysis.
>
> **Okay! That's enough then.
>
> My point
> really has nothing to do with Taimanov, except that he happened to
> play the game in question.
>
> **I know it's Kingston's point. But at least we now understand that he is
> not /attempting/ to answer my point.

As I have already said, Phil, I will be happy to supply Kasparov's
analysis from MGP4, just as soon as you either: (A) show us where, as
you claimed, he changed his opinion about 20.Qh3, or (B) admit here
that you actually know of no such other opinion.

**Dear Kingston,

**What you would be happy to do is prevaricate. You do this by supposing on
what others mean, including your new GUFFAW of 'he changed his opinion'.

**You yesterday, after 20 posts on this subject admitted indifference to
Taimanov's analysis. You do not feel that Kasparov needs answer that, and
you reserve whatever he did answer. Previously you volunteeted Fischer's
opinion, with Hochberg to 'substantiate it.' That also is a bust.

**If you do not understand what I put before you, then stop challenging it,
unless you are completely sure you want to demonstrate your own dumbth as
you have in the face of other strong players, where you prefer to infer. You
may not know it, but you achieved a certain reputation this way!

**Do not paraphrase me further, especially if you, as you continue to do,
excerpt the context. That is cheap cheating crap, and as above, you are
marked for it! Do you not understand this Vaguer?

**If you got something come with it or shut up. Get it?

> I'm interested in ***__Phil Innes' justification for his bizarre
> claim that what Kasparov wrote in MGP4 is somehow not really
> Kasparov's opinion.__*** That is what Phil wrote here on 12 September.
> I quote directly:
>
> **Another hapless paraphrase!

"Paraphrase"?? Phil, I have quoted you verbatim on this several
times.

**ROFL - but not HERE!

Let's try again:

**Let's not. Since Kingston is not interested in Taimanov's chessic
analysis! He prefers to allude to what Kasparov said, whether or not it
related to Taimanov's analysis.

TK: I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.

PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion. Do you have some evidence
that it is to support your statement? I rather think that Garry is
persuaded otherwise.

> But why is Kingston /interested/ in something
> that is strakly different from what he admits I wrote below?

Because it shows you lying, Phil. You have nothing to support your
claim of "That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion." You don't know Kasparov's
opinion from your elbow.

**SWAMI KINGSTON! What a fucking numbskull we got here! HOW can Kingston
know that? He just hates the idea of it, no? So he must talk about my elbow
instead of chess analysis. That is the measure of this guy - he HATES these
connections.

You're flim-flamming, trying to sound more
knowledgeable than you really are, and I enjoy calling you on it.
That's why I'm interested in this. I don't care what it's "strakly
[sic] different" from. You said what you said. Now either prove it, or
admit you were wrong.

**I said wot I said! doh! I said if Kingston can offer anything TWENTY posts
later, then he would have. But he don't. ;) He tried Fischer, then he tried
Hochberg, then he tries Fischer wasn't bust, and now he AVOIDS actual
analysis.

**This is EXACTLY what he did with Larry Evans - first praising him for his
Botvinnik analysis, then on becoming resentful his praise should not
continue in Chess Life [anyone here want to read Kingston's non-analytic
posing? Never before published!] he then found another opinion contradictory
to Evans - and chose to lionise that.

> TK: I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
>
> PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion. Do you have some evidence
> that it is to support your statement? I rather think that Garry is
> persuaded otherwise.
>
> **I don't challenge Kasparov's opinion is his opinion.

But Phil, that's *_exactly_* what you did. I presented Kasparov's
opinion, published in 2004, and you said "That is /not/ Kasparov's
opinion."

**Sorry - but you are stupid. You do not understand the English as she is
wrote. What was Kasparov's opinion at the time of the Taimanov interview -
tell me that, Kingston? Otherwise, don't tell me what I know, since I think
you know absolutely nothing whatever, and though you represent opinions, you
don't understand them in this instance any more than you did contra-Evans.

> I challenge whether
> his analysis resolves the issue, 'that a win is a myth'.

There you go, shifting ground again. I say "Kasparov believes X."
You reply "Kasparov does /not/ believe X."

**Spare me further 'Xs'; YOU SAY Kasparov resolved something, and that is
all you say. You do not demonstate he resolved shit.

When I say "Prove it," you
then say "What I said is that X is false." Not at all the same thing.

*Quite!

> Now - I wrote that
> over a week ago.

No, Phil, you wrote "That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion" on September
12, 2008. Today is September 17, 2008.

**AND i repeated it a week ago. OK sleezy? COME ON KINGSTON, refute me,
refute Taimanov! Don't just go about it like a frightened virgin, where's
the beef?

**There is no more chess in this message as there has been of any refutation
of anything in the past 20 Kingston has issued. He is apparently still
employed as a chess editor of 'Chesscafe' where he edits such as Jerry
Spinrad, who is of similar philosophy.

Last I checked, weeks have more
than 5 days. In any event, the date of your statement is completely
irrelevant to its truth or falsehood.

> Meanwhile the idiotic Taylor Kingston has changed what he
> has bother to research and turned it into something else.

Haven't changed anything, Phil. I've just been hammering you with
the same question over and over. And you have failed to answer.

> **As before - Kingston is not worth engaging unless he can say what he is
> challenging, and not 'translate' it!

The only person here who seems not to understand my point is you,
Phil.

> Its only his own famous tussle with
> words, with me, with Laurie, with Evans, Schiller and Keene, that
> confounds
> the poor chap. He will keep on finding 'things that interest him' until
> the
> end of time, and then challenge people who never wrote them to what they
> mean.

Now you're saying you never wrote "That is /not/ Kasparov's
opinion"?? Phil, it's a matter of public record, plain as day. This is
not "1984", where you can eliminate inconvenient facts by decree.

> **Kingston claimed Fischer had analysis.

I made no such claim. In fact, I said the opposite.

> You claimed Hochberg was irreproachable,

I said no such thing. I merely said he had a good reputation.

> and he reported the analysis.

I never said any such thing. In fact, I said that to my knowledge,
Fischer's analysis of 20.Qh3 was never published in CL&R.

> Neither existed.

Well waddya know, Phil finally says something we can agree on. But
tell us, Phil, why have you felt compelled to LIE about what I
actually wrote?

**I tell you what KINGSTON - LET ME PUBLISH WHAT YOU ACTAULLY WROTE - you
agree? I will publish your e-mails on a parallel subject, and then your
MOUTH can motor on defending all 30 of them from all-comers, and the ONLY
reason I have not done so before is because you will likely be sued. But let
me know, huh?

**In the above, Kingston contests that his hero Hochberg may have not acted
on actual information from Fischer, yet published something anyone,
suggestive that he was! Of course, these are my words, and Kingston's words
were merely suggestive that Fischer and Byrne had something. Kingston again
has nothing whatever to support himself = so decides I have told a "LIE".

**What a numbskull!

Apparently you think that not only can you eliminate
unpleasant facts by fiat, but that you can also call new "facts" into
existence, like Glendower calling spirits from the vasty deep.

> Kasparov's
> analysis does exist - and Kingston actyually has it.

Yes, I do. Wanna see it? You know whatcha gotta do.

**?? I would say that that is a severe 'duck'. But if Kingston means 'suck'
then I ain't the type.

> But since he can't
> understand what I am saying, and dismisses Taimanov as analyst entirerely,

Boy, Phil, once you start making shit up, you can't stop.

**YOU JUST SAID SO. You just said you didn't care for Taimanov's analysis!

I think
highly of Taimanov as an analyst. I also think highly of Zinfandels
from the Dry Creek region of Sonoma County.

**Ok - that is a redefinition of 'care' from Kingston, himself a Zinfandel
Californian.

It's just that neither is
very relevant to the matter of this new opinion you've claimed
Kasparov has.

> then no wonder he can't understand that Kasparov's analysis must address
> Taimanov's in order to prove/refute anything.

Phil, we're not talking about proving/refuting Kasparov or Taimanov
here. We're talking about proving/refuting *_Innes._* Got it now?

**I understand that you don't understand shit about chess, but I do
understand you need to challenge those who do, by normal methods, which have
to do with chessic analysis. That you do not do so, or understand the need
of it, is your demonstrated intelligence quotient of discussing chess - with
me, and with very much stronger players than me.

Phil Innes

Date: 16 Sep 2008 10:47:57
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

On Sep 16, 1:07=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4cd5bd65-cdd1-4b72-94d2-d706a1fceb85@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 6:36 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since Taylor Kingston has written consecutively, posts challenging
> > everything he doesn't quite understand, and has to invent what other
> > people
> > say 7 TIMES in 4 weeks - while presenting no chessic evidence for anyth=
ing
> > whatever - I celebrate him! How difficult this is to get away with!
>
> > If Kingston wants to post what Kasparov wrote in the same year I
> > interviewed
> > Taimanov, then let us see if GK improves on Taimanov. If not, if there =
is
> > only more opinionating with the usual lack of presented evidence, let u=
s
> > hear no more at all!
>
> > For 6 years I have been receiving Vaguer Kingston's protests. This
> > includes
> > 30 e-mails with no chess in whatsoever which he now 'can't recall' he e=
ven
> > sent. Guess what they were about? Other people who did have 'chess in'!
>
> > His latest idiocy, the 7th in 4 weeks, is to invent yet another 'fact'
> > then
> > challenge me to disprove what he cannot say himself.
>
> > The latest issue is to do with the Fischer - Taimanov game 3, and I ass=
ert
> > that Taimanov said Kasparov [or anyone else - not even a supercomputer]
> > hadn't solved it at the time of the 2004 interview. Taimanov lays out t=
wo
> > lines for black at 22. These are the critical lines that need address, =
and
> > in chessic terms, not in opinions.
>
> > If Taylor Kingston thinks he understand from Kasparov addresses to thes=
e
> > lines, please let him post them here - then we will see if GK solved th=
em
> > at
> > all. I already posted Taimanov's analysis of both.
>
> > If Taylor Kingston doesn't understand the challenge, and wants to talk
> > 'about' the analysis, as he did with Fischer's 'analysis', then
> > 'Hochberg's'
> > then shall we assume it is more of the same type?
>
> > I don't care to win anything here, since I do not even represent my own
> > opinion. Taimanov issued the statement and I should like to understand =
if
> > anyone contacted and solved the issue - I should like to understand in
> > chessic terms - and this is what I wrote at the start of this disreputa=
ble
> > dialog with Vaguer Kingston.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> =A0 Translation:
>
> **No translation necessary! No chess from Kingston, opinion a-plenty. But=
no
> chess. 'Translation' means 'spin'.
>
> =A0Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he
> was
> talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
> nonsense.
>
> **How vague! Whereas I am quite specific. If Kingstson has something whic=
h
> supercedes Taimanov's analysis, let us see!
>
> =A0Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
> is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
> there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.
>
> **I've done 'this' many times before. Kingston can't even /understand the
> challenge/ to address Taimanov's analysis. He literally can't repeat what
> the challenge is - not in a dozen tries - so permits himself to use the
> tautalogical 'There is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote i=
n
> MGP4', as if that /was/ an answer to anything I asked. And even if it is,
> then what is it? I merely repeat Taimanov's comment written the same year=
,
> 2004, and if there is something GK came up with the same year - can Kings=
ton
> reproduce it - or will he divert and dodge as he has already done with
> 'Fischer's analysis, as known to friend Hochberg? That had not a shred of
> evidence. I am perfectly willing to accept Kasparov has something, but no=
t
> because Kingston says so, and not even because Fischer said so or Hochber=
g.
> I want to see what it /is/.
>
> **As for Kingston's predictions - they are easy to find - he found one no
> one else found in graphology, and volunteering his opinion of Polk and th=
e
> best managed to find a sense of 'only' from the word 'unusual.' These wer=
e
> but two excuses to [deliberately] misunderstand and go on and on... and h=
ere
> he utters a new one! the Swami knows that I 'sure as hell' don't know
> something??? That's rather strange, since the Swami first wrote to me abo=
ut
> my contact with this very same group of Pertersburg GMs and assorted
> Russians, because I evidently did know not just about them, but knew them=
.
> Since that time he can no longer 'recall' if he did or not =A0;) =A0 [but=
I have
> the e-mails]
>
> **No chess yet, but who knows, maybe the situation will unvague?
>
> Phil Innes

Translation: Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he was
talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.

> Kingston can't even /understand the
> challenge/ to address Taimanov's analysis.

I'm not interested in challenging Taimanov's analysis. My point
really has nothing to do with Taimanov, except that he happened to
play the game in question.
I'm interested in ***__Phil Innes' justification for his bizarre
claim that what Kasparov wrote in MGP4 is somehow not really
Kasparov's opinion.__*** That is what Phil wrote here on 12 September.
I quote directly:

TK: I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.

PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion. Do you have some evidence
that it is to support your statement? I rather think that Garry is
persuaded otherwise.

I immediately challenged Phil to produce some tangible support for
this claim, something that shows "Garry is persuaded otherwise" than
what he wrote on page 387 of My Great Predecessors, vol. 4. Since then
Phil has produced nothing but noise, even making the ridiculous claim
that Kasparov's real opinion was somehow contained in the Taimanov
analysis.

Phil used to be in the habit of telling people to "own their own
words." He seems clearly intent on not owning his own words "That is /
not/ Kasparov's opinion." Yet another wild Innes claim that will
wither and die from lack of nutrition. Phil, how can you treat your
verbal offspring that way?

Date: 17 Sep 2008 08:09:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 16, 1:07 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > I don't care to win anything here, since I do not even represent my own
> > opinion. Taimanov issued the statement and I should like to understand
> > if
> > anyone contacted and solved the issue - I should like to understand in
> > chessic terms - and this is what I wrote at the start of this
> > disreputable
> > dialog with Vaguer Kingston.

Translation: Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he was
talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.

> Kingston can't even /understand the
> challenge/ to address Taimanov's analysis.

I'm not interested in challenging Taimanov's analysis.

**Okay! That's enough then.

My point
really has nothing to do with Taimanov, except that he happened to
play the game in question.

**I know it's Kingston's point. But at least we now understand that he is
not /attempting/ to answer my point.

I'm interested in ***__Phil Innes' justification for his bizarre
claim that what Kasparov wrote in MGP4 is somehow not really
Kasparov's opinion.__*** That is what Phil wrote here on 12 September.
I quote directly:

**Another hapless paraphrase! But why is Kingston /interested/ in something
that is strakly different from what he admits I wrote below?

TK: I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.

PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion. Do you have some evidence
that it is to support your statement? I rather think that Garry is
persuaded otherwise.

**I don't challenge Kasparov's opinion is his opinion. I challenge whether
his analysis resolves the issue, 'that a win is a myth'. Now - I wrote that
over a week ago. Meanwhile the idiotic Taylor Kingston has changed what he
has bother to research and turned it into something else.

**As before - Kingston is not worth engaging unless he can say what he is
challenging, and not 'translate' it! Its only his own famous tussle with
words, with me, with Laurie, with Evans, Schiller and Keene, that confounds
the poor chap. He will keep on finding 'things that interest him' until the
end of time, and then challenge people who never wrote them to what they
mean.

**Taimanov's analysis is the definitive challenge to this position - and
Kasparov dealt with that or not. It doesn't matter to me if Taylor Kingston
thinks Taimanov is of little interest except he played the game.

I immediately challenged Phil to produce some tangible support for
this claim, something that shows "Garry is persuaded otherwise" than
what he wrote on page 387 of My Great Predecessors, vol. 4. Since then
Phil has produced nothing but noise, even making the ridiculous claim
that Kasparov's real opinion was somehow contained in the Taimanov
analysis.

**?? Another beaut. I bet Kingston could even find where I 'said' that, but
<aargh > will the words he quotes mean the same as his paraphrase of them?

Phil used to be in the habit of telling people to "own their own
words." He seems clearly intent on not owning his own words "That is /
not/ Kasparov's opinion." Yet another wild Innes claim that will
wither and die from lack of nutrition. Phil, how can you treat your
verbal offspring that way?

**Kingston claimed Fischer had analysis. You claimed Hochberg was
irreproachable, and he reported the analysis. Neither existed. Kasparov's
analysis does exist - and Kingston actyually has it. But since he can't
understand what I am saying, and dismisses Taimanov as analyst entirerely,
then no wonder he can't understand that Kasparov's analysis must address
Taimanov's in order to prove/refute anything.

**It is within Kingston's power to actually demonstrate that - but of
course, if he just trots out Garry's stuff, does it address all the critical
lines? And all the critical lines are in Taimanov's book - most of them
represented in the Lessons Learned article at Chessville. Surely Garry had
access to Taimanov's work, since Garry published in 2004, and he could have
read Taimanov's analysis in 1993. [hint] Both GK and MT being good friends
with the publisher.

Phil Innes

Date: 15 Sep 2008 15:39:10
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

On Sep 15, 6:36=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Since Taylor Kingston has written consecutively, posts challenging
> everything he doesn't quite understand, and has to invent what other peop=
le
> say 7 TIMES in 4 weeks - while presenting no chessic evidence for anythin=
g
> whatever - I celebrate him! How difficult this is to get away with!
>
> If Kingston wants to post what Kasparov wrote in the same year I intervie=
wed
> Taimanov, then let us see if GK improves on Taimanov. If not, if there is
> only more opinionating with the usual lack of presented evidence, let us
> hear no more at all!
>
> For 6 years I have been receiving Vaguer Kingston's protests. This includ=
es
> 30 e-mails with no chess in whatsoever which he now 'can't recall' he eve=
n
> sent. Guess what they were about? Other people who did have 'chess in'!
>
> His latest idiocy, the 7th in 4 weeks, is to invent yet another 'fact' th=
en
> challenge me to disprove what he cannot say himself.
>
> The latest issue is to do with the Fischer - Taimanov game 3, and I asser=
t
> that Taimanov said Kasparov [or anyone else - not even a supercomputer]
> hadn't solved it at the time of the 2004 interview. Taimanov lays out two
> lines for black at 22. These are the critical lines that need address, an=
d
> in chessic terms, not in opinions.
>
> If Taylor Kingston thinks he understand from Kasparov addresses to these
> lines, please let him post them here - then we will see if GK solved them=
at
> all. I already posted Taimanov's analysis of both.
>
> If Taylor Kingston doesn't understand the challenge, and wants to talk
> 'about' the analysis, as he did with Fischer's 'analysis', then 'Hochberg=
's'
> then shall we assume it is more of the same type?
>
> I don't care to win anything here, since I do not even represent my own
> opinion. Taimanov issued the statement and I should like to understand if
> anyone contacted and solved the issue - I should like to understand in
> chessic terms - and this is what I wrote at the start of this disreputabl=
e
> dialog with Vaguer Kingston.
>
> Phil Innes

Translation: Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he
was
talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.

Date: 16 Sep 2008 13:07:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files [no chess in it]

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4cd5bd65-cdd1-4b72-94d2-d706a1fceb85@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 6:36 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Since Taylor Kingston has written consecutively, posts challenging
> everything he doesn't quite understand, and has to invent what other
> people
> say 7 TIMES in 4 weeks - while presenting no chessic evidence for anything
> whatever - I celebrate him! How difficult this is to get away with!
>
> If Kingston wants to post what Kasparov wrote in the same year I
> interviewed
> Taimanov, then let us see if GK improves on Taimanov. If not, if there is
> only more opinionating with the usual lack of presented evidence, let us
> hear no more at all!
>
> For 6 years I have been receiving Vaguer Kingston's protests. This
> includes
> 30 e-mails with no chess in whatsoever which he now 'can't recall' he even
> sent. Guess what they were about? Other people who did have 'chess in'!
>
> His latest idiocy, the 7th in 4 weeks, is to invent yet another 'fact'
> then
> challenge me to disprove what he cannot say himself.
>
> The latest issue is to do with the Fischer - Taimanov game 3, and I assert
> that Taimanov said Kasparov [or anyone else - not even a supercomputer]
> hadn't solved it at the time of the 2004 interview. Taimanov lays out two
> lines for black at 22. These are the critical lines that need address, and
> in chessic terms, not in opinions.
>
> If Taylor Kingston thinks he understand from Kasparov addresses to these
> lines, please let him post them here - then we will see if GK solved them
> at
> all. I already posted Taimanov's analysis of both.
>
> If Taylor Kingston doesn't understand the challenge, and wants to talk
> 'about' the analysis, as he did with Fischer's 'analysis', then
> 'Hochberg's'
> then shall we assume it is more of the same type?
>
> I don't care to win anything here, since I do not even represent my own
> opinion. Taimanov issued the statement and I should like to understand if
> anyone contacted and solved the issue - I should like to understand in
> chessic terms - and this is what I wrote at the start of this disreputable
> dialog with Vaguer Kingston.
>
> Phil Innes

Translation:

**No translation necessary! No chess from Kingston, opinion a-plenty. But no
chess. 'Translation' means 'spin'.

Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he
was
talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
nonsense.

**How vague! Whereas I am quite specific. If Kingstson has something which
supercedes Taimanov's analysis, let us see!

Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.

**I've done 'this' many times before. Kingston can't even /understand the
challenge/ to address Taimanov's analysis. He literally can't repeat what
the challenge is - not in a dozen tries - so permits himself to use the
tautalogical 'There is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in
MGP4', as if that /was/ an answer to anything I asked. And even if it is,
then what is it? I merely repeat Taimanov's comment written the same year,
2004, and if there is something GK came up with the same year - can Kingston
reproduce it - or will he divert and dodge as he has already done with
'Fischer's analysis, as known to friend Hochberg? That had not a shred of
evidence. I am perfectly willing to accept Kasparov has something, but not
because Kingston says so, and not even because Fischer said so or Hochberg.
I want to see what it /is/.

**As for Kingston's predictions - they are easy to find - he found one no
one else found in graphology, and volunteering his opinion of Polk and the
best managed to find a sense of 'only' from the word 'unusual.' These were
but two excuses to [deliberately] misunderstand and go on and on... and here
he utters a new one! the Swami knows that I 'sure as hell' don't know
something??? That's rather strange, since the Swami first wrote to me about
my contact with this very same group of Pertersburg GMs and assorted
Russians, because I evidently did know not just about them, but knew them.
Since that time he can no longer 'recall' if he did or not ;) [but I have
the e-mails]

**No chess yet, but who knows, maybe the situation will unvague?

Phil Innes