| |
Main
GREG KENNEDY'S BIG LIE
<GK's handling of his private world title had selected
GM Shirov as challenger, but instead of, say, giving
GK a rematch clause, Mr. Shirov was simply cheated
out of his shot at the title altogether! ....Instead of arguing
that Gary Kasparov was a champion of "justice", perhaps
Larry Evans should take a good, hard look at what justice
is -- like he did when Bobby Fischer was barking "demands"
at FIDE. -- help bot
GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
decades, yet Greg Kennedy's big lie is that the 5-time U.S. champion
is in Kasparov's pocket -- even though he has been critical of
Kasparov on numerous occasions. I realize that setting the record
straight won't do much good when it comes to the "bots" of this world
because they will just continue inventing new lies
EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)
Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
"Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."
GM EVANS RESPONDED
I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
Shirov a shot at the title first.
1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
pledging to play the winner for $2 million.
2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.
3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
straight draws.
In a match of limited duration, each draw inches the champion closer
to victory. Do fans really want that?
As a follow-up, here is SHIROV'S SAD SAGA (Chess Life, April 2000,
page 16).
EVANS ON CHESS
From: Owen Williams (Worldwide Agent for Garry Kasparov, Palm Beach,
Florida)
Q. I decided it was time to answer your oft-repeated line about
"Kasparov's shabby treatment of challenger Alexei Shirov."
The World Chess Council (WCC) under its Chairman and Founder, Luis
Rentero, agreed to put up $2.1 million for a title match plus another
$100,000 for the loser in Kramnik vs. Shirov after Anand withdrew in
1998. Rentero then arbitrarily announced this $100,000 would have to
be deducted from the $2.1 million. In retrospect, it was an early
indication as to how things would be run! The glue began to come
unstuck and as soon as we heard rumors and questioned Rentero, he told
all of us "my word is my bond" and "if necessary I pay the prize money
myself." Coupled with this was a continuous "Trust Me" and another
constant refrain was "the Government will approve the signing this
week."
Garry and I discussed going public but you can imagine the hullabaloo
that would have ensued with him blamed for pulling the plug
prematurely. We started to scramble. I personally made half a dozen
transatlantic trips and spent enough time and dollars to make my case.
Rentero finally ran out of ideas and we were left with no
alternatives. The match backing disappeared and soon thereafter
tragedy struck in the form of a life-threatening auto accident for
Rentero. Garry retains a healthy respect for what he did for chess in
Linares over the years, but Rentero's foray into bigger things was an
unmitigated disaster of his own making.
Eventually a businessman in California agreed to put up $600,000 in
cash plus full airfares and hotel for each player at a value of
$50,000 each. We went to Shirov and he refused. Dr. William Wirth (a
notable chess sponsor and patron himself) agreed to top up the prize
with a further $200,000 of his own money. Shirov said "no." He
repeated to me that there was an offer from Tarrasa near Barcelona,
where he was living at the time for 225 million pesetas (about $1.6
million). The hope of the Catalonian offer was, I believe, the real
reason why Shirov turned down our $800,000 offer. He has since tried
to say that it was not in writing, but the truth is he said "no" so
firmly that we never had time to confirm it in writing.
Meanwhile we kept going from Southern Africa to the Far East without
success while waiting for Tarrasa. My file is full of many Shirov e-
mails saying, "there is a very important meeting next week, and you
will get an offer right away." It never happened. By Christmas of '98
we received no answers and I discovered Shirov had moved from that
area. That, from my viewpoint, was the end of the Tarrasa non-offer.
Now let's come to the interesting question -- why is it so fashionable
to blame Kasparov? He has been World Champion since 1985. He has been
Number 1 on all ratings systems for a decade and more. There is a
general perception that he pulls every string in every deal from start
to finish and he has made the sort of enemies who will make up
stories if they can't find evidence of wrongdoing. LET'S FACE IT.
GARRY WAS THE MOST HARMED PLAYER IN THIS WHOLE FIASCO AND HERE'S WHY:
[The next five points made by Owen Williams are snipped but can be
read by anyone with access to back issues of Chess Life who is
interested in the subject.]
LARRY EVANS' RESPONSE
Mr. Williams, you know where I stand on the major issues swirling
around Kasparov. I believe he is the "real" champion. I believe he is
the strongest player in the world. I believe he is NOT trying to duck
anyone.
I already know the hard facts you outlined about l'affaire Shirov,
though not the lengths to which you endeavored to arrange such a
match. From what you wrote, it is obvious Kasparov felt either a moral
or legal responsibility (perhaps both) to make enormous good-faith
efforts to arrange a match with Shirov under a sanctioning
organization that was clearly his vehicle. Fine. I have no problem
with this because, if nothing else, it was less corrupt than FIDE.
Now we come to the crux of the matter. Despite good-faith efforts and
even the challenger's apparent folly, Kasparov is not absolved from
his pledge to give Shirov a title shot for $2 million as announced to
the world at Linares in 1998. Kasparov put his trust in a person who
proved unreliable, but he also put his credibility and prestige behind
the WCC (which went the way of his GMA and PCA). These facts can't be
evaded. It turned out, perhaps, that he unwittingly treated himself
more shabbily than he did Shirov.
I still believe Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to play Shirov.
If he should do so, you can rely on me to celebrate in bold type and
capital letters. As it stands, however, Shirov never got paid for
beating Kramnik or a title shot -- both are Kasparov's obligation.
I accept your account, though Shirov might take issue with it. After
all, if I had beaten someone eight times and drawn seven out of a
total of 15 games (recent results over a short period) and if I could
arrange a match against the same opponent for big bucks, I would
certainly do so.
Until that happens I will continue to write that Kasparov has treated
Shirov shabbily, just as I will continue to opine that Kasparov
remains the only true champion who is NOT cosseted by playing in elite
events against very strong opponents. (Also see my Best Question in
September 1999).
|
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2008 14:18:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On May 5, 7:38 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> Yes, of course: The mistake is most likely due to loss
> of concentration, since the endgame is easily drawn and
> the game finished.
While that may well be true, the point is that
the lunatic-fringers have presented no substantive
evidence to support their speculations.
> All these conspiracy theories are absurd: Chess
> players sometimes make mistakes, and occasionally
> grand masters make mistakes that beginners would
> avoid.
In fact, in analyzing the ending of this game I ran
across yet another position where the world's very
strongest chess player seemed quite clueless. (It
rendered a positive position score where the very
rules of chess indicated a drawn game.) I think
that was the very same program against which
then-world champion Kramnik overlooked a mate-in-
one.
> The idea that there wasn't enormous competition
> among the Soviet players is just as silly as to believe that the
> top players don't often agree to quick and easy
> draws.
If I were "king" and had ordered one of my "subjects"
to throw his game to me, and he then did to me what
GM Polugaevsky did to GM Karpov in that game, I
would have him hung; make an example out of him.
Mr. Karpov had White, and yet he spent much of the
game on the defensive, narrowly escaping being
"crushed like a chicken".
> Idiots like Parr will randomly choose arguments that
> suit their momentary purpose, e.g. one moment the Soviets
> are discriminating against Jewish players, the next
> moment they favor a Jewish player over an ethnic
> Russian.
In truth, Mr. Parr is but a mindless parrot, so when
he repeats the speculations of Larry Evans, one can
no more hold him responsible for their idiocy than
one could blame a fish for swimming. It is not a
parrot's job to carefully "review" his master's jabber,
but only to repeat it faithfully; that is what parrots do.
Sadly, in many cases Mr. Evans acts the parrot,
mindlessly repeating ridiculous speculations of
others; Raymond Keene for instance. One such
"story" has long been debunked by Edward Winter,
yet all the original mindless parrots have continued
their faithful jabbering, while the hack who invented
the lies has turned to radio silence... .
> Most likely the political potentates didn't
> pay any more attention to the silly squabbles among
> chess players in the USSR than they did in the USA
> or elsewhere.
According to one fellow who was anointed by
Larry Evans as an authority on such matters,
Vassily Smyslov was the preferred champion;
this was precisely the *opposite* of what Mr.
Evans had "predicted" he would say; even so,
the contradiction was ignored, just like all other
contradictions in the theories and speculations
of the imbecilic Evans ratpack. My view is that
the erroneous "prediction" was an example of
grotesque dishonesty, and that the lack of any
correction proves this to be correct.
> An extreme example of chess blindness is the game
> Huebner-Petrosian in the Biel Interzonal 1976. I
> actually watched this game live. Petrosian was
> totally lost when he makes a completely unexpected
> attacking move, after which H. has a simple mate
> in 3 or 4. But instead H. defends and makes an
> unbelievable sequence of blunders until he loses...
This reminds me of a famous game in which
Gary Kasparov launched one of his speculative
attacks, only to find himself down a Rook;
unfazed, GK continued the "attack", ultimately
winning despite his opponent being one of the
best players in the world (initials LL). Granted,
in that case, time-pressure probably played a
role.
-- help bot
|
| |
ANTI-SOVIET HOLY WATER
<Idiots like Parr will randomly choose arguments that
suit their momentary purpose, e.g. one moment the Soviets
are discriminating against Jewish players, the next
moment they favor a Jewish player over an ethnic
Russian. Most likely the political potentates didn't
pay any more attention to the silly squabbles among
chess players in the USSR than they did in the USA
or elsewhere. > -- Juergen
Juergen does not like unpleasants truths about the
late, unlamented Soviet Union. He has likely yet to
recover from the mass demonstrations throughout
Russia and Eastern Europe that finally ended communism
east of the Elbe.
We reported what Korchnoi said about chess
players in the Soviet Union learning widely about his
defection when Pravda, Izvestia and other Soviet
propaganda vehicles would be forced to report on
his candidates' matches.
Juergen's response was a lulu. Soviet players on the
scene in Biel, Switzerland heard the news. Hence the
news would spread throughout the USSR like wildfire.
Nonsense. Korchnoi was not talking about limited
chess circles; his reference was evidently to, say,
the 60 or so closed major Soviet cities of that period
to which travel was difficult, if not impossible, for
outsiders. Korchnoi was speaking of chess
players throughout the vast hinterland of the USSR.
We should not take pleasure in provoking a
creature such as our Juergen by tossing anti-soviet
holy water on the man and hearing the hissing as he
burns. Regrettably, we are not totally unamused by
the man's knee-jerk, very old-fashioned pro-Sovietism.
We thought his type had ceased to exist,
especially in the USSR but also throughout most of
Western Europe. Evidently there are still isolated examples.
Juergen est; ergo, Juergen est.
Yours, Larry Parr
J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:2072ef3b-ff70-4fae-a7e6-52b6e9f1a5cd@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 1, 6:26 pm, J?rgen R. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in=
> > >> his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen i=
t
> > >> happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
> > >> Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
> > >> endgame.
> >
> > > I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.
> >
> > > It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
> > > Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
> > > for much of the game. However, at the very, very
> > > finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
> > > achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
> > > flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
> > > GetClub program might have held the draw?
> >
> > The position is lost for Black after 53. -- Nxa5 but is
> > drawn after 53. -- Nd4.
>
>
> That is an ordinary mistake. What I was looking
> for was an "obvious", game-throwing blunder in an
> "easily drawn" position.
>
> I erred in thinking it was a draw at the very finish;
> White wins by force, and this explains GM
> Polugaevsky's resignation.
>
> Back to 53. ... Nd4+ though: I've seen far worse
> oversights by grandmasters; one fairly recent
> example was then-world champion Kramnik
> overlooking a mate-in-one which many weak
> players might well have seen. It is ludicrous to
> assert intentions where such things exist, as in
> fact they do. It is simply arrogance to maintain
> that grandmasters are error-free chess machines.
> In the real world (not Evans ratpacker La-la land),
> everyone makes such mistakes-- even the world
> champions.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
> _________________________________________
>
> Yes, of course: The mistake is most likely due to loss
> of concentration, since the endgame is easily drawn and
> the game finished.
>
> All these conspiracy theories are absurd: Chess
> players sometimes make mistakes, and occasionally
> grand masters make mistakes that beginners would
> avoid.
>
> The idea that there wasn't enormous competition
> among the Soviet players is just as silly as to believe that the
> top players don't often agree to quick and easy
> draws.
>
> Idiots like Parr will randomly choose arguments that
> suit their momentary purpose, e.g. one moment the Soviets
> are discriminating against Jewish players, the next
> moment they favor a Jewish player over an ethnic
> Russian. Most likely the political potentates didn't
> pay any more attention to the silly squabbles among
> chess players in the USSR than they did in the USA
> or elsewhere.
>
> An extreme example of chess blindness is the game
> Huebner-Petrosian in the Biel Interzonal 1976. I
> actually watched this game live. Petrosian was
> totally lost when he makes a completely unexpected
> attacking move, after which H. has a simple mate
> in 3 or 4. But instead H. defends and makes an
> unbelievable sequence of blunders until he loses...
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2008 16:23:44
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dc5df3f1-6ae5-4b86-b977-b52e5b3825cb@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
ANTI-SOVIET HOLY WATER
<Idiots like Parr will randomly choose arguments that
suit their momentary purpose, e.g. one moment the Soviets
are discriminating against Jewish players, the next
moment they favor a Jewish player over an ethnic
Russian. Most likely the political potentates didn't
pay any more attention to the silly squabbles among
chess players in the USSR than they did in the USA
or elsewhere. > -- Juergen
Juergen does not like unpleasants truths about the
late, unlamented Soviet Union. He has likely yet to
recover from the mass demonstrations throughout
Russia and Eastern Europe that finally ended communism
east of the Elbe.
We reported what Korchnoi said about chess
players in the Soviet Union learning widely about his
defection when Pravda, Izvestia and other Soviet
propaganda vehicles would be forced to report on
his candidates' matches.
Juergen's response was a lulu. Soviet players on the
scene in Biel, Switzerland heard the news. Hence the
news would spread throughout the USSR like wildfire.
Nonsense. Korchnoi was not talking about limited
chess circles; his reference was evidently to, say,
the 60 or so closed major Soviet cities of that period
to which travel was difficult, if not impossible, for
outsiders. Korchnoi was speaking of chess
players throughout the vast hinterland of the USSR.
We should not take pleasure in provoking a
creature such as our Juergen by tossing anti-soviet
holy water on the man and hearing the hissing as he
burns. Regrettably, we are not totally unamused by
the man's knee-jerk, very old-fashioned pro-Sovietism.
We thought his type had ceased to exist,
especially in the USSR but also throughout most of
Western Europe. Evidently there are still isolated examples.
Juergen est; ergo, Juergen est.
Yours, Larry Parr
=====================================
Parr, you are a bore.
Your diatribes are so full of pretentious nonsense
that it doesn't make sense to respond in detail.
Are you the spokesman for a whole group of
superannuated McCarthyites? Or is it the
pluralis majestatis you are using when you
say 'we'? What a pompous ass!
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2008 22:56:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On May 1, 6:26 pm, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
> >> his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
> >> happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
> >> Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
> >> endgame.
>
> > I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.
>
> > It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
> > Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
> > for much of the game. However, at the very, very
> > finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
> > achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
> > flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
> > GetClub program might have held the draw?
>
> The position is lost for Black after 53. -- Nxa5 but is
> drawn after 53. -- Nd4.
That is an ordinary mistake. What I was looking
for was an "obvious", game-throwing blunder in an
"easily drawn" position.
I erred in thinking it was a draw at the very finish;
White wins by force, and this explains GM
Polugaevsky's resignation.
Back to 53. ... Nd4+ though: I've seen far worse
oversights by grandmasters; one fairly recent
example was then-world champion Kramnik
overlooking a mate-in-one which many weak
players might well have seen. It is ludicrous to
assert intentions where such things exist, as in
fact they do. It is simply arrogance to maintain
that grandmasters are error-free chess machines.
In the real world (not Evans ratpacker La-la land),
everyone makes such mistakes-- even the world
champions.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2008 13:38:15
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2072ef3b-ff70-4fae-a7e6-52b6e9f1a5cd@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:26 pm, J�rgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
> >> his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
> >> happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
> >> Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
> >> endgame.
>
> > I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.
>
> > It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
> > Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
> > for much of the game. However, at the very, very
> > finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
> > achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
> > flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
> > GetClub program might have held the draw?
>
> The position is lost for Black after 53. -- Nxa5 but is
> drawn after 53. -- Nd4.
That is an ordinary mistake. What I was looking
for was an "obvious", game-throwing blunder in an
"easily drawn" position.
I erred in thinking it was a draw at the very finish;
White wins by force, and this explains GM
Polugaevsky's resignation.
Back to 53. ... Nd4+ though: I've seen far worse
oversights by grandmasters; one fairly recent
example was then-world champion Kramnik
overlooking a mate-in-one which many weak
players might well have seen. It is ludicrous to
assert intentions where such things exist, as in
fact they do. It is simply arrogance to maintain
that grandmasters are error-free chess machines.
In the real world (not Evans ratpacker La-la land),
everyone makes such mistakes-- even the world
champions.
-- help bot
_________________________________________
Yes, of course: The mistake is most likely due to loss
of concentration, since the endgame is easily drawn and
the game finished.
All these conspiracy theories are absurd: Chess
players sometimes make mistakes, and occasionally
grand masters make mistakes that beginners would
avoid.
The idea that there wasn't enormous competition
among the Soviet players is just as silly as to believe that the
top players don't often agree to quick and easy
draws.
Idiots like Parr will randomly choose arguments that
suit their momentary purpose, e.g. one moment the Soviets
are discriminating against Jewish players, the next
moment they favor a Jewish player over an ethnic
Russian. Most likely the political potentates didn't
pay any more attention to the silly squabbles among
chess players in the USSR than they did in the USA
or elsewhere.
An extreme example of chess blindness is the game
Huebner-Petrosian in the Biel Interzonal 1976. I
actually watched this game live. Petrosian was
totally lost when he makes a completely unexpected
attacking move, after which H. has a simple mate
in 3 or 4. But instead H. defends and makes an
unbelievable sequence of blunders until he loses...
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2008 20:28:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On May 1, 10:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
Snip latest rant.
I think Mr. Parr is slipping. Some time back, his
prattle could at least be expected to have good
spelling and an anecdote here and there about
"fave" Josef Stalin. Nowadays, he commits nearly
as many spelling errors as Rob Mitchell or Phil
nearly-IMnes. It's quite a drop in standards, even
by his own, ultra-low standards. This sort of thing
needs to be nipped in the bud, before it gets out
of hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here is what I find a bit puzzling: notorious
hack Raymond Keene was quoted here as writing
that both Anatoly Karpov and Victor Kortchnoi
were in "peak form" during their championship
match. I did a little research to see if any purely
objective data backed that observation up, and it
did: both players had an above-normal result, just
looking at the numbers (at chessmetrics.com).
So, if that is true, then GM Kortchnoi somehow
managed to perform *well* in spite of what the evil
Soviets did to his son. And GM Karpov managed
to perform well enough, in spite of supposed
death threats from the Ananda Marga, Helter-
Skelter types. In any case, it is notable that a
hack like Ray Keene -- who can always be count-
ed on to attack Mr. Karpov, would in this case
make such an assessment-- if indeed that was his
overall assessment of the match.
-- help bot
|
| |
LOW-LIFES LIKE PARR
<And I can lament the fact that his association with low-lifes like
yourself has
cheated the chess world out of some good work, the truth is that he
{GM Evans]
doesn't owe me or the chess world anything. > -- David Kane
So, then, David Kane charged Larry Evans with
being a USCF appaartchik, though he tells us more for
ego than for money or "lifetime employment.".
The truth, as readers here know, is that no
columnist was fired more often and rehired more
often than GM Larry Evans. And if one counts the
behind-the-scenes threats and the censoring of
articles written by Evans, then one is counting
possibly as many as 100 or more battles over the
years. Policy Boards and, no doubt, the current
Executive Board made angry discussion of Evans'
work in Chess Life at a staple at meetings. He revealed
scandalous news they didn't want readers to know.
Kanester's charge was not a lie. It was worse
than that. It was an inversion of truth.
Next came Kanester's charge that Evans wrote
unwarranted (if his charge is to have any meaning)
anti-Soviet material (e.g., mentioning that Viktor Korchnoi's
son was arrested, sent to a labor camp, and beaten on the
eve of his second match with Karpov).
I asked the Kanester for proof. What I received was
a statement that amounted to this: "I, David Kane, a
nobody in the chess world, have no proof that any such
directive was ever handed down. The absence of proof
on my part is proof in itself. I shall not retract any of the
charges and, in one instance, inversion of truth that I wrote
about Larry Evans. The fact that I invert factoids and cannot
addudice proof is proof itself that I speak the truth."
That is the current Kanester position The lovely and rather
succulent thing is that it will continue to be his position.
And so it goes.
Yours, Larry Parr
David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE
> >
> Larry - When your argument boils down to Larry Evans' tax status as a CL writer,
> and the absence of
> a written directive to politicize chess, you should be grateful for any response
> whatsoever.
>
> You obviously take yourself very seriously, but you take your role as defender
> of GM Evans'
> honor way too seriously. So his positions changed over the years, he
> misremembers things in
> a way favorable to his present beliefs, and he has a tendency to exaggerate his
> own
> accomplishments? Really that describes just about everybody.
>
> The irony is that the comic book story of Evans that you peddle incessantly
> doesn't
> really make him look that good.
>
> And I can lament the fact that his association with low-lifes like yourself has
> cheated the chess world out of some good work, the truth is that he doesn't
> owe me or the chess world anything.
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2008 21:11:22
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LOW-LIFES LIKE PARR
>
> <And I can lament the fact that his association with low-lifes like
> yourself has
> cheated the chess world out of some good work, the truth is that he
> {GM Evans]
> doesn't owe me or the chess world anything.> -- David Kane
> I asked the Kanester for proof.
The proof is the magazine itself. As far as Parr's "points",
I've already recanted use of the term "apparatchik"
for GM Evans which has too strong a connotation
of conformity that does not apply in this case where
the USCF has no official voice. When CL did pass
through its USSR obsession, Evans *was* first in line.
However, as help bot has pointed out, that could be
mere coincidence. The more appropriate description
of Evans is that of the consummate bureaucratic
insider, using his connections and alliances to
guarantee his personal survival, even as the
federation's own fortunes (not coincidentally)
suffered.
Parr's obsession with "written directives" is
rather ironic given his journalistically inappropriate
reliance on rumor, hearsay, etc. But of course
policies can be effected without such directives,
so it is the classic red-herring.
|
| |
FISCHER & KASPAROV ON THE USCF (some 20-odd years ago)
=93As far as the U.S. Chess Federation goes, I have nothing to do with
them, I consider them to be a pro-Soviet, criminal organization,
terrible people. I would like...I would appreciate it if all my fans
canceled their subscriptions to their horrible magazine Chess Life. I
call it Chess Lies -- and withdrew from membership of this
organization.=94 -- Bobby Fischer
=93The small minded leaders of the Unites States Chess Federation try to
keep it an amateur game and must be purged like entrenched Communist
Bureaucrats.=94 -- Garry Kasparov
P.S. <Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red-baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free
allegations > --
David Kane cannot prove his ludicrous charge because there was never
any
such policy -- either verbal or written. In fact, the powers-that-be
largely tried to squelch exposure of
either FIDE's dirty deeds or Soviet cheating.
And so it goes.
[email protected] wrote:
> ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE
>
> <Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
> red- baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free
> allegations> --
> David Kane
>
> The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
> largely exhibited here by both Jurgen and David Kane who lied
> outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
> any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
> In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
> his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
>
> I<If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him
> present it here.>
>
> Unable to offer a scintilla of proof -- as expected -- the Kanestar
> typically launches new smears and the old Ad Hom Attack.
>
>
>
> David Kane wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:ede19792-8086-4380-9cf4-5d7691a873f9@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > > PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!
> > >
> > > <Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
> > > red-
> > > baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations> --=
> > > David
> > > Kane
> > >
> > > The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
> > > largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
> > > outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
> > > any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
> > > In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
> > > his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
> > >
> > > If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
> > > it here.
> >
> > Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
> > he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
> > contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
> > His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
> > The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
> > strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.
> >
> > During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
> > with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
> > was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
> > this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
> > more responsible approach earlier in his life.
> >
> > There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
> > any one man can document. Many of them have been
> > posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
> > Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
> > for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
> > repeating it.
> >
> > A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
> > in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
> > defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
> > isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
> > for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
> > that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
> > reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
> > Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
> > on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
> > was actively engaged in genocidal repression.
> >
> > Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.
> >
> > For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
> > for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
> > hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
> > in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
> > behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
> > me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
> > has a lot more to do with my view of them.
> > And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
> > that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
> > on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
> > some of the blame for the behavior of his side.
> >
> > But the truth is that for both Karpov and
> > Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
> > the political controversy was a manufactured
> > sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
> > memorable match.
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2008 14:29:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On May 1, 8:52 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion in the FIDE
> era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice with Korchnoi,
> once vs. Kasparov)> -- David Kane
>
> Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in
> international tourneys.
One of these "Soviets" was named Victor Kortchnoi.
GM Kortchnoi later debunked some accusations, and
others debunked the asinine theory that it was a vast
conspiracy to "stop BF" from winning.
However, there was collusion between three of the
/top contenders/; they did not "throw" their games,
but agreed to uncontested draws.
> GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
> his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
> happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
> Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
> endgame.
I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.
It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
for much of the game. However, at the very, very
finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
GetClub program might have held the draw?
> When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of
> Karpov in Spain, they cut off his interzonal funding -- which is
> why Spassky left Russia and went to play for France in the
> Olympiads."
Mr. Spassky was a real annoyance. I recall that
at one time he, and he alone, had a nice plus
score against fave Bobby Fischer-- even with the
King's Gambit! In retaliation, BF wrote an article
"refuting" the whole shebang.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 00:26:24
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
>
>> GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
>> his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
>> happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
>> Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
>> endgame.
>
>
> I went to chessgames.com and replayed this game.
>
> It seemed to me that GM Polugaevsky gave GM
> Karpov a very difficult time-- forcing him onto defense
> for much of the game. However, at the very, very
> finish, it is not clear how or why the "1-0" score was
> achieved, since the position is drawn. Was there a
> flag fall? Did some idiot *resign*, where even the
> GetClub program might have held the draw?
The position is lost for Black after 53. -- Nxa5 but is
drawn after 53. -- Nd4.
>
>
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2008 13:57:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On May 1, 6:44 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
> red- baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free
> allegations> --
> David Kane
>
> The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
> largely exhibited here by both Jurgen and David Kane who lied
> outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
> any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
> In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
> his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
Mr. Parr always seems to manage to get himself
confused. Above, we see that he has confounded
the FIDE with the Soviet Union, and in addition, he
misrepresented the facts regarding David Kane's
error and Mr. Jurgen's position.
The text above contains several points, most of
which Larry Parr was careful to avoid, for obvious
reasons:
1) the "red-baiting angle" or slant of CL magazine;
2) Larry Evans' wild, "fact-free" allegations;
3) the part about CL making it "mandatory;
4) Larry Evans' criticism of FIDE.
Apparently, Mr. Parr can only tackle the error
regarding Chess Lies allegedly making it
"mandatory" that articles have a "red-baiting"
angle.
Obviously, the narrow position that no
Chess Lies /editor/ ever gave such an order,
evades facing the real complaints here: the
"red-baiting" slant, Mr. Evans' fact-freeness,
and so forth. Mr. Parr has singled out one
fabrication, and has somehow convinced
himself that it is all that really matters, for the
"game" he wants to play is the ad hominem
game. If Mr. Kane makes one mistake, he is
eliminated, according to Mr. Parr's strategy.
It's something akin to The Weakest Link, with
the notable exception that if any of the Evans
ratpackers makes a mistake, it doesn't count.
LOL!
Mr. Jurgen seems to feel that the rats have
a rabidly anti-Soviet bias, which he called
"antiquated". In response, Mr. Parr -- one of
the higher-up rats -- tells us that Mr. Jurgen is
pro-Soviet, which is "reasonable" position for
a rabidly anti-Soviet rat to take, even if he did
fail to give any support for the accusation. I
suppose most readers have duly noted the
dishonest ploy of always placing Mr. Jurgen's
name in the same part of the sentence as the
phrase "David Kane who lied". Long-time
observers of the ratpack will likely yawn and
note that this is just the sort of fundamental
dishonesty which is endemic to them.
What Mr. Jurgen may not know, is that even
today, "Russia" is perceived as a threat, and all
the mass media outlets here in the USA pound
away on a regular basis at Mr. Putin, cast as an
evil villain; sort of like Count Dracula, or Snidely
Whiplash. But it is true that the Evans clan is
stuck in the past; stuck in the Cold War era.
As for Mr. Kane, he messed up; there was no
"mandatory" order that Mr. Evans switch to
pounding away at the Soviet Union. Suffice it
to say that the overall slant of the magazine
was rabidly pro-Fischer, rabidly anti-Soviet, and
that there was a problem with being a member
of the FIDE, while at the same time bashing it
to smithereens in the pages of Chess Lies.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2008 07:29:01
From:
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 29, 12:12=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The prize fund being offered Shirov was generous in spite of these
> problems. I believe that the amount offered was $250,000. This is more
> than the amount initially offered for the Kamsky Tapolov Match more
> than ten years later. Shirov was a fool not to take the $250,000.
Sam, what is your source for this claim of $250,000? I have not been
able to find any report of a prize fund, whatever the amount,
definitely being offered to Shirov after Rentero reneged on the $2M
Seville deal. To hear Shirov himself tell it, he never turned down
anything:
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic283.html
THE WEEK IN CHESS 283 10th April 2000 by Mark Crowther
Open Letter from Alexei Shirov
This is just a short note to remind the chess World that Kasparov's
statement that I turned down the offer from California untrue. I never
got any serious offer on paper and while I was negotiating the offer
disappeared by itself. This was back in October 1998. It was already
in 1999 that I was informed by reliable sources that the California
offer was in fact turned down by Kasparov himself since he found the
prize fund too low and tried to negotiate a better deal with the
California organizers. This still may be the wrong information but
it's completely clear to me that Kasparov just made me a scapegoat in
order to avoid the match.
**** And once again: I did not have any serious offer at all, so there
was nothing to turn down. ***** [emphasis added -- TK]
I do believe that the Kasparov-Kramnik match can not have anything to
do with any kind of World Championship, be it official, historical,
brain or whatsoever. I am legitimate candidate for it since 1998 and
the speculations about the California offer can not change it.
Sincerely Alexei Shirov
|
| |
KARPOV'S SPORTING ETHICS (continued)
<As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion in the FIDE
era to play a title defense with *no* advantage (twice with Korchnoi,
once vs. Kasparov) > -- David Kane
Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in
international tourneys.
GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
endgame. When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of
Karpov in Spain, they
cut off his interzonal funding -- which is why Spassky left Russia and
went to play for France in the Olympiads."
Karpov,A (2710) - Polugaevsky,L (2620)
Tilburg 1983
[D32]
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Be2 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bf3 Be5 11.Qd3 Nb4 12.Qd2 Bxd4 13.exd4 Bf5
14.Bd1 Re8 15.Na4 Nc6 16.f3 Qa5 17.Qxa5 Nxa5 18.Kf2 Nc6 19.Be3 Nb4
20.Bg5 Nd7 21.g4 Bg6 22.Bb3 Bc2 23.Bxc2 Nxc2 24.Rad1 f6 25.Bf4 Nf8
26.Rd2 Ne6 27.Bg3 Ncxd4 28.Rfd1 Nc6 29.Rxd5 Rad8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.Rxd8+
Ncxd8 32.Ke3 Kf7 33.f4 g6 34.f5 gxf5 35.gxf5 Ng7 36.Ke4 Nc6 37.Bd6 Ne7
38.Nc5 b6 39.Na6 Ngxf5 40.Bb8 Ke6 41.Bxa7 Nd6+ 42.Kd3 Nd5 43.a4 f5
44.b4 f4 45.a5 bxa5 46.bxa5 Kd7 47.Nc5+ Kc6 48.Nb3 Nb4+ 49.Ke2 Kb5
50.Kf3 Nc6 51.Bb6 Nc4 52.Bc7 N4xa5?? 53.Nxa5 Nxa5 54.Bxa5 Kxa5 55.Kxf4
Kb5 56.Kg5 Kc5 57.Kh6 1-0
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2008 17:16:45
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
>
> Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in
> international tourneys.
>
> GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in
> his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it
> happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw
> Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple
> endgame. When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of
> Karpov in Spain, they
> cut off his interzonal funding -- which is why Spassky left Russia and
> went to play for France in the Olympiads."
>
I suppose you expect everyone to take your word for the accuracy
of this quote from Seirawan - but what if somebody wanted to
confirm that this statement was made?
You don't need Seirawan to tell you that Polugayevsky made a crude
error in the game quoted - anybody can see that, and it obviously
doesn't prove that there was collusion among the players.
Since when is Seirawan an authority on prearranged results between
Soviet players?
Any kind of serious journalist would be ashamed to base such
an accusation on such weak evidence.
|
| |
ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE
<Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red- baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free
allegations > --
David Kane
The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by both Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
I<If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him
present it here. >
Unable to offer a scintilla of proof -- as expected -- the Kanestar
typically launches new smears and the old Ad Hom Attack.
David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ede19792-8086-4380-9cf4-5d7691a873f9@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!
> >
> > <Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
> > red-
> > baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations> --
> > David
> > Kane
> >
> > The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
> > largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
> > outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
> > any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
> > In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
> > his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
> >
> > If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
> > it here.
>
> Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
> he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
> contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
> His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
> The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
> strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.
>
> During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
> with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
> was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
> this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
> more responsible approach earlier in his life.
>
> There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
> any one man can document. Many of them have been
> posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
> Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
> for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
> repeating it.
>
> A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
> in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
> defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
> isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
> for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
> that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
> reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
> Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
> on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
> was actively engaged in genocidal repression.
>
> Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.
>
> For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
> for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
> hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
> in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
> behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
> me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
> has a lot more to do with my view of them.
> And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
> that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
> on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
> some of the blame for the behavior of his side.
>
> But the truth is that for both Karpov and
> Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
> the political controversy was a manufactured
> sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
> memorable match.
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2008 08:43:24
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE
>
Larry - When your argument boils down to Larry Evans' tax status as a CL writer,
and the absence of
a written directive to politicize chess, you should be grateful for any response
whatsoever.
You obviously take yourself very seriously, but you take your role as defender
of GM Evans'
honor way too seriously. So his positions changed over the years, he
misremembers things in
a way favorable to his present beliefs, and he has a tendency to exaggerate his
own
accomplishments? Really that describes just about everybody.
The irony is that the comic book story of Evans that you peddle incessantly
doesn't
really make him look that good.
And I can lament the fact that his association with low-lifes like yourself has
cheated the chess world out of some good work, the truth is that he doesn't
owe me or the chess world anything.
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 20:20:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
> he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
> contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
> His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
> The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
> strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.
>
> During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
> with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
> was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
> this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
> more responsible approach earlier in his life.
This observation demonstrates coincidence, but
not causation. (If you fart and at the same time
World War III breaks out, does that prove that
*your flatulence* is responsible for it?)
> There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
> any one man can document. Many of them have been
> posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
> Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
> for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
> repeating it.
This problem with inconsistency is the hallmark
of a very confused mind. In Larry Evans' case,
his "huge bias" (John Watson, et al) frequently
blinds him to the objective facts which don't
neatly "fit" into his many preconceived, biased
opinions.
> A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
> in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
> defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
> isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
> for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
> that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
> reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
> Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
> on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
> was actively engaged in genocidal repression.
One anecdote which always puzzled me was
the one where a young Bobby Fischer went to
see about getting some "free" money. Upon
arrival, he was informed that in return for lots of
financial support in his quest for the title, the
financier wanted just one thing: recognition of
his financial help, *if* BF somehow managed
to win. Larry Evans presented this as an
example of BF having "principles", which has
always puzzled me. What principles, exactly?
Selfishness? Naivety? Greed? It seemed
more an example of those, and of a general
the-world-revolves-around-me mentality. Yet
Mr. Evans was somehow /impressed/ when
BF walked out.
> Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.
Brown-nosing seems to be the key for new
members to get accepted. I suppose that in
that respect, /consistency/ would have some
small value.
> For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
> for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
> hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
> in Nazi-organized tournaments.
This brings up yet another problem for the Evans
ratpack: the fact that Paul Keres is one of those
fellows they like to "use" to bash Mr. Botvinnik.
Yet even the widely-liked PK has skeletons in his
closet, just as MB does.
> How they
> behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
> me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
> has a lot more to do with my view of them.
> And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
> that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
> on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
> some of the blame for the behavior of his side.
Mr. Karpov is a classic case of "wrong place,
wrong time". Nobody (here) liked it when Bobby
Fischer quit playing chess, and guess who just
happened to be "handy" as a scapegoat? The
folks at Chess Lies magazine had a field day at
his expense.
> But the truth is that for both Karpov and
> Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
> the political controversy was a manufactured
> sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
> memorable match.
The sad thing is, it seems not enough to just
determine who is the strongest chess player in
the world, oh no! It always has to entail politics
and pet peeves of the press. I "can't hardly wait"
until the Chinese produce a number of serious
contenders; that will no doubt be /deja vu/, all
over again.
-- help bot
|
| |
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!
<Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
red-
baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations > --
David
Kane
The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
it here.
[email protected] wrote:
> PRO-SOVIET BIAS
>
> <I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?
> If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes
> on as if you don't know? That would be deceptive, no?
> That would be a form of lying. And there is no doubt that
> Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings.> -- Phil Innes
>
> Phil asks a good question.
>
> <Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a red-
> baiting
> angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations> -- David
> Kane
>
> The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
> largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
> outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
> or any other editor of Chess Life to any writher in this magazine..
> In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
> his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
>
> If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
> it here.
>
> HEARSAY?
>
> <The point is that you don't know what Korchnoi's
> motives were [for defecting] nor about the evil deeds
> of the Soviet Chess functionaries. You are repeating
> hearsay that nobody can confirm.> -- Jurgen
>
> These FACTS have been amply confirmed by Soviet players of that era,
> including but not limited to Averbakh, Bronstein, Taimanov, Spassky,
> etc., etc., etc.
>
> Some volumes worth consultingare RUSSIANS VS. FISCHER by Dmitri
> Plisetsky
> and Sergey Vorinkov (Chess World Ltd. 1994) CHESS SCANDALS by Ed
> Edmondson (Pergamon 1981) and PERSONA NON GRATA by Viktor Korchnoi
> with Lenny Cavallaro (Thinkers' Press 1981). Even ACHIEVING THE AIM by
> Mikhail Botvinnik exposes some of these dirty deeds.
>
> Ample evidence of Sovietism pulling the strings in FIDE is also cited
> in THIS CRAXY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans. His research is beyond
> dispute.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
> > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:cf446a4b-fa7f-457d-a27f-b85628557007@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
> > >> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
> > >> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
> > >> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
> > >>
> > >> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The
> > >> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
> > >
> > >
> > > Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
> > > Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
> > > he may well be independent of the folks who run
> > > the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
> > > independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
> > > were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
> > > apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
> >
> > This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
> > people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
> > along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? Being 'independent' is
> > no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers, in fact,
> > it detracts from the issue to become a personality point of view.
> >
> > Or is Evans writing for people who know nothing at all, and who want to
> > start from the beginning? I don't think so. I think the former is true, and
> > if Evans has a fault in this, then it is his presumption that the chess
> > public actually know very much at all about the goings on of chess
> > politicians.
> >
> > > One of these was examined in an article by Taylor
> > > Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original
> > > source was unreliable.
> >
> > That's very vague.
> >
> > > Other "ideas" of Larry Evans
> > > originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack
> > > whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed
> > > Winter.
> >
> > It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
> > Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him,
> > while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it
> > was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other
> > personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.
> >
> > Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty
> > of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
> > propaganda whether it was issued from East or West, and preferred what they
> > knew as fact to some filtered gloss on it.
> >
> > > But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr.
> > > Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known
> > > liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players
> > > who ever lived.
> >
> > I know it is your favorite. But the elephant in your viewing room is you! It
> > is this obsessional general opinions that you then fix onto individual
> > circumstance - and therefore an honest though very real mistake or error by
> > Kasparov is sufficient for you to condemn the man's entire character.
> >
> > My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who
> > <emphasis> accepted that apology. Why then is this still an issue for Greg
> > Kennedy?
> >
> > Not that such compacted cynicism can be answered in anything less than an
> > essay, but in terms of collaborations and discussions, many strong players
> > talk with each other about the organisational side of chess, and it is much
> > less a matter of who spoke what first, as that strong players witness a
> > common set of facts - then report matters in their own ways.
> >
> > >> > GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
> > >> > works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
> > >> > or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems the further back in time you go, the
> > > better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging
> > > backwards, like Merlin.
> >
> > Criticism is always welcome, but this isn't criticism, its bitching. The
> > reader will note that there is no suggested /subject/ that critics mention
> > that they thought better then rather than now - and they don't even bother
> > to say what they personally would like to read about. <shrug> That's no
> > critique, and it doesn't even indicate if the critics want to read
> > anything... So is this 'complaint' on behalf of other people? [lol]
> >
> > >> > Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
> > >> > every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
> > >> > complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
> > >> > contradicting his own prior writings.
> > >
> > >
> > > I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF
> > > "forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to
> > > adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that
> > > largely on his own.
> >
> > I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?
> >
> > If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes on as if you don't
> > know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And there
> > is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings.
> >
> > >> Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this
> > >> as
> > >> a basis?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to
> > > consider what people who live further East might
> > > have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning?
> >
> > I see that response is not an answer. But the fatuous chess-lout Kennedy
> > ignores the fact that I interviewed Taimanov who spoke of the systemic
> > aspect of soviet life - it was into everything!
> >
> > So in reading all these 'questions' from Kennedy I have yet to find one
> > which is not about himself - since anyone who has applied themselves to the
> > subject could answer his 'questions' the same as me.
> >
> > But vague and abstracted criticisms are useless to any understanding of what
> > goes on - and the usual projection takes place in this speil, which the
> > reader will remember began with the phrase
> >
> > with apparently zero critical examination
> >
> > Phil Innes
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> > But I will grant that
> > >> > Parr does have a point in that the USCF
> > >> > does not speak with a single voice and
> > >> > at times he's been at odds with certain factions
> > >> > within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
> > >> > is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
> > >> > emphasizes conformity above all else.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused
> > > to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought
> > > to have phrased what he said a bit differently.
> > > Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks,
> > > and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to
> > > admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is
> > > going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are
> > > unable to admit error? (Preposterous.)
> > >
> > > Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is
> > > right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos
> > > at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue.
> > > (Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from
> > > LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE
> > > needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or
> > > thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.)
> > >
> > >
> > > -- help bot
> > >
> > >
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 19:32:28
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ede19792-8086-4380-9cf4-5d7691a873f9@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!
>
> <Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
> red-
> baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations> --
> David
> Kane
>
> The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
> largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
> outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
> any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
> In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
> his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
>
> If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
> it here.
Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.
During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
more responsible approach earlier in his life.
There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
any one man can document. Many of them have been
posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
repeating it.
A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
for all of the worlds ills in his other posts? Not only
that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
was actively engaged in genocidal repression.
Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.
For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
me. How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
has a lot more to do with my view of them.
And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
some of the blame for the behavior of his side.
But the truth is that for both Karpov and
Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
the political controversy was a manufactured
sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
memorable match.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 May 2008 08:22:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ede19792-8086-4380-9cf4-5d7691a873f9@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> PUT UP OR SHUT UP, MR. KANE!
>>
>> <Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a
>> red-
>> baiting angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations> --
>> David
>> Kane
>>
>> The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
>> largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
>> outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
>> any other editor of Chess Life to any writer in this magazine..
>> In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
>> his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
>>
>> If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
>> it here.
>
> Parr continues to astound with his ridiculous arguments. First,
> he raised the technicality that GM Evans' was an independent
> contractor rather than a salaried employee as proof of something.
Well David, that is not entirely candid, is it? He was an independent both
as a contractor and also financially, from any need to earn a buck. To ask
if that is 'proof of something' it to ask for what every other reader
already understands - LE doesn't need to toe the line in order to pay the
mortgage. I would say that being a millionairre is not exactly 'a
technicality'.
As I understand the point; it allows a columnist an independent point of
view from whatever board pressures are put on the editor of CL.
Is that resume of the issue to this point a fair synopsis?
> His new line is that only a written directive can establish policy.
> The man is surely confused. If you are going to shoot down
> strawmen, at least build up something worth shooting at.
I understand your point to be that on being challenged, you cannot produce
any written evidence - since there is none, and directives need not be
written. Also fair?
> During the period that Chess Life was filled cover to cover
> with sophomoric polemic, do you think that GM Evans
> was too stupid to notice? Of course not. And it was at
> this time that his own writing moved away from its somewhat
> more responsible approach earlier in his life.
There is a small danger that your own writing illustrates the same fault;
any polemic is a verbal campaign about a /system/, it is a process of
activities, not a topic of itself. The level of polemic can be sophomoric,
or merely pertaining to sophomores! but that is to append an adjective to it
which is your own point of view.
But what is the subject matter? Isn't that the /system/ of Soviet-era chess?
To regularly comment on it is to necessarily engage in polemics, and the
level of public reception of such material, since it is novel to them, may
indeed be sophomoric in understanding.
Therefore you will understand the difference between the means and the
topical matter, as well as the reception by a public of material new to
them.
> There are more inconsistencies in Evans' output than
> any one man can document. Many of them have been
> posted here repeatedly (such as his approach to
> Fischer, at first reasonable, later blaming the Soviets
> for Fischer's own behavior) and I'll not bother
> repeating it.
But this is to gloss far a complex subject with 'sophomoric' attention, no?
Surely two things are possible here, that over time different factors were
in play in respect of Fischer and the Russians, and also the awareness of
the writer changed over time.
To speak of changing circumstances and understand as 'inconsistent' is
tautalogical, since by that definition the past is always inconsistent with
any present. As the grape becomes the wine, so does understanding mature.
The thing to remember is that there was almost no reporting on the subject
of Soviet manipulations in chess. It was literally secretive stuff, and it
took Taimanov some 10 years after the Wall came down, and the great
unfreezing of what was a vry real War, to obtain his own KGB file.
> A particular favorite of mine is approach to playing
> in Cuba. He portrays himself as a fearless maverick -
> defying the embargo as a matter of principle. But
> isn't that just aiding the same evil communists responsible
> for all of the worlds ills in his other posts?
That is an open question. Is it better to engage people with antithetical
political orientations than your own, or to shun them? I see that the US
embargo and isolation of Cuba did absolutely nothing to change its system.
Whereas what brought the Wall down in Europe was not politics, but washing
machines, television, vacuum cleaners, cars... the exposure of Bloc citizens
to materials freely available in the West, which even poor people could own.
As to playing chess in a war-zone, that relies upon a philosophical
orientation. Some people are quite content with war - but war is also
described as a failure of the peace - it is the result of a process, of a
failed process. Some people understand that to be the case and do not chose
to honor the failed process in the sense of declaring it 'right' as in 'our
country right or wrong'.
Last week I reported on a guy in Somalia which has suffered horrible and
long-time civil war, introducing chess to schools and the culture, because
instead of conflict, it is a /ritual/ conflict, and an acceptable way to
express aggression.
Sports and games have always formed this function between regions, and
different peoples. For sure, Fischer didn't believe in politics, he believed
in pawns - and maybe he genuinely thought that where the politicians had
failed, he could do better as an individual? You don't have to agree with
that in order to understand the sense of what individuals may attempt.
> Not only
> that, but he brings out this particular little story as a
> reason for why it was wrong to get upset at
> Fischer for defying the worldwide embargo
> on Serbia - a country, let us not forget, that
> was actively engaged in genocidal repression.
I don't think the Russians were practicing an embargo. But the main point is
what to do when things are failing, and Serbians only know what their
leaders tell them? You can dislike Americans and Western values, but can you
dislike Fischer, an actual American with Western values? Doesn't the very
fact of Fischer's presence put a doubt into people's minds on how evil the
enemy actually is?
Again, you need not agree with that perspective to be able to understand it.
> Consistency is not highly valued in Parr's crowd.
>
> For the record, I do not hold Karpov responsible
> for the USSR's wrongdoing any more than I
> hold Keres' responsible for the Nazis' for playing
> in Nazi-organized tournaments. How they
> behaved politically is frankly of little interest to
> me.
They are of course playing different roles. Keres and Alekhine were
propaganda pawns for the regime, but in Russia GM Karpov was part of the
regime. That is a rather different positioning.
But actually, I think as with my idea above on a maturation of GM Evans'
point of view, so I see a change in GM Karpov's orientation to chess in the
world - a factor which had to do with /exposure/ to the greater picture,
rather than official unengaged isolationism.
> How they behaved as chessplaying sportsmen
> has a lot more to do with my view of them.
> And Karpov does deserve condemnation on
> that count - there was abominable sportsmanship
> on both sides and Karpov certainly does deserve
> some of the blame for the behavior of his side.
>
> But the truth is that for both Karpov and
> Korchnoi it was always about the chess -
> the political controversy was a manufactured
> sideshow. And they did give the chess world a
> memorable match.
I happen to be friends with Korchnoi's Russian publisher, have an inscribed
copy of his book, and have exchanged several thousand e-mails with him, and
those around him, on the subject of chess in the Russias.
I would add from that knowledge that the 'picture' was much more complicated
than your paragraph above presents. It is not a matter of absolutes, but of
relative differences East and West in the system of living, not in chess.
That context is the inescapable one.
Korchnoi after all, in his press conference in Holland, spoke about Soviet
corruption in chess, but he also spoke about Western corruption in chess,
which he said was not about power and positions, but about money. These days
we would say we are differently corrupted. Whether the degree of that
corruption was anything on the scale of Soviet invigilation is unlikely,
though not much investigated [!], but the principle of corruption being
present is established in both East and West; that it is systemic, and
lorded over by real politicians and chess politicians.
If individuals acted outside the scope of that corruption, then there was
real danger, East and West, of them being ostracised. If you want to know
what happened at USCF when the issue was raised of Western cheaters, then
you already write with someone here who can tell you, since he was editor of
USCF's magazine. That is a measure of how honest CL was, and how interested
people were in doing anything at all to discuss corrupted chess burocrats at
home or abroad. That's the background context which GM Evans borached.
What happened 40 years ago was indeed a crude polemic, often with no shades
in it, few gradations of thought, as is often the case in a war. Those who
broached the gap may not have written or acted as we would now like, but
neither are any pioneers the most sophisticated of people, otherwise they
would never get out the door and find out what its really like. Neither
would people interred in close societies ever discover what anything else
was like.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 16:38:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 30, 5:28 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> These are no doubt phrases understood where you are. But my question to you
> is what you want? Not what some people want. Maybe you get to it in this
> message?
You keep tossing out assertions, and when I
point out that you are mistaken, giving specific
examples in support, you always change the
subject so you can pretend that you were not
debunked. Where does that get *you*?
As for *me*, here are my requests:
1) Organizer to provide PB&J sandwiches either before,
after, or during play.
2) Mr. Sloan must bathe, wear deodorant, that sort of
thing. I will do the same; in fact, if I lose to SS, I may
react by taking cold showers and slapping myself
repeatedly.
3) First to win six, draws not counting. If the score
is tied at 5-5, both players get a free bag of Doritos.
> I pass on something so vague and anodyne I don't know what it is.
Blah, blah, blah! If you have nothing to say, why
don't you go somewhere else and play chess or
something?
Nobody here in rgc writes more vague jabber than
you do. Sometimes I wonder if you are being paid
*by the word*... .
> Still no chessic subject matter...
I didn't want to go beyond your depth. Why don't
you consider getting a *real* job? All this following
LP around like a lost puppy, then having RM tag
along behind you-- that's not what real men do; it's
for kiddies.
I already gave you a challenge: write an op/ed
piece in which you express your own thinking, not
parrot LE, RK, LP or anybody else. Unchain your
mind from *their* agendas.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 16:19:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 30, 9:26 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
> largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
> outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
> or any other editor of Chess Life
Whoa there, fella. I don't think David Kane would
believe that a Chess Lies editor called the shots at
the USCF. So many "stories" have appeared here
over the years that surely Mr. Kane must have seen
at least one of them; in these stories, editor LP
claimed to have been dictated to by higher-ups. So
the issue has nothing to do with what "editors" of
CL may or may not have done-- that's a red herring.
> to any writher in this magazine..
The only writhing I recall, was that of those who
had the difficult task of attacking the world's best
chess player, Anatoly Karpov, during the time
when the world's strongest non-player refused to
compete altogether. As one famous fellow put it,
"I feel your pain" -- the pain of having so difficult a
task. Fortunately for the "writhers", Mr. Karpov
was a member of the Communist Party, and as
such his politics made for easy pickins. It so
happened that he also became friends with a big
FIDE honcho, which further eased their pain. I
still feel sorry for them though, for the writhers
that is, because they had virtually no hope of
comprehending how Mr. Karpov was winning so
many games; his style was too subtle for them.
> In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
> his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
Here's the problem: Chess Lies is the magazine of
the USCF, which in turn is a member of the FIDE.
It boils down to the fine line between merely bashing
the superior organization, and constructive criticism--
if politicos at FIDE can even handle that, which is
doubtful.
> Ample evidence of Sovietism pulling the strings in FIDE is also cited
> in THIS CRAXY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans. His research is beyond
> dispute.
Oh, I'm sure that Mr. Evans' famed "research" skills
are not in dispute here. [Chortle.]
But it was not only the Soviet Union which pulled
strings with FIDE. In fact, a whole lot of strings
were pulled when Bobby Fischer made his assault
on the title-- including, but certainly not limited to,
qualifying. Perhaps the issue is not the pulling of
strings, but a matter of degree-- how many times
and to what degree strings were pulled? In that
case, the Soviets obviously were involved more
often and to a far greater degree, since they had
the world's best chess players for so many years.
But it is the pretense that "cheating" is limited
to or unique to the Soviets that reveals the "huge
bias" (John Watson, et al) of the Evans ratpack.
A lot of what appears here in rgc is in response
to this "huge bias" (John Watson, et al), and as a
direct result, Larry Parr and his dregs seem to
feel that others are taking a "pro-Soviet" view; in
reality, it only /appears that way/, because the
many corrections target the bias and factual
errors and omissions of the rabidly anti-Soviet
Evans ratpack. If instead, we had a rabidly pro-
Soviet ratpack posting their lunacies to rgc, it
might /appear/ that those who corrected their
many gaffes were anti-Soviet. Fortunately for
everyone, the Evans ratpack is unique... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 13:54:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
> >> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
> >> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
> >> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
>
> >> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The
> >> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
>
> > Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
> > Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
> > he may well be independent of the folks who run
> > the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
> > independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
> > were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
> > apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
>
> This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
> people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
> along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue?
No. Mr. Evans rarely "substantiates". In fact, the
main reason people are aware that he is merely
*parroting* is that there is nothing added, nothing
considered, nothing but a parrot and his cracker.
We noticed this at least as early as 1974-5, back
when a certain Chess Lies article was swallowed
whole, ants and all. The poor fellow did not even
bother with thinking about a ludicrous claim; he
seemed almost /eager/ to be a parrot.
An article by Taylor Kingston happened upon
one instance of this *uncritical* parroting of what
Mr. Evans thinks may "fit" into his biased fantasy
world. But no doubt it would be easier to locate
the stuff by EW, who stumbles upon such things
whilst correcting misspellings, as all good pedants
must, by their very nature.
> Being 'independent' is
> no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers
My point had nothing to do with the *virtues* of
independent thinking; I merely observed the fact
that a parrot is certainly not truly independent. If
Mr. Evans carefully considered before he parroted,
that would be acceptable, though even here, "his"
ideas are not emerging independently of others
inside his small circle of alike-thinkers. This
think-alike business is what allows wrong-headed
thinking to go unchecked. It reminds me of the
dregs who surrounded Bobby Fischer, while he
was ranting and raving about Jews and Russian
cheaters and how he was a, if not the, chess god.
> It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
> Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him,
> while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it
> was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other
> personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.
Systemic corruption of the SU, you say? I keep
reading about such things, and nowadays the
focus has turned to /China/. What I find interesting
is the "familiar" feel these stories... the way they
remind me of home. Yeah, that's right my boy,
right here in the good old U.S. of A. I am often
reminded of a certain FBI chief, who told all his
fellow Americans that there was "no such thing
as organized crime"-- things like that. Not that
anyone needs to travel so far back in time, oh no!
I just happen to like that example.
Please take off that holier-than-thou cape-- it's
not even your color!
> Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty
> of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
> propaganda whether it was issued from East or West
Wrong.
> My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who
> <emphasis> accepted that apology.
It is not enough. The entire chess world was
humiliated by this. Cheating is bad for chess,
just as it is bad for baseball, for instance. It is
also bad for chess when faves are allowed to
cheat, and afterward protected by apologists
who spin the facts.
If there is one thing you take away from this
post, let it be this: a writer who throws his
integrity out the window in favor of personal
bias, is just a hack. You can't allow these
agendas to take over and run your whole life!
So, when a camera reports that the pitches are
moving at 96 mph, if you hear the commentator
ranting that there is something "wrong" with the
camera because Nolan Ryan is really a 110 mph
pitcher, you can safely assume he is a nutter.
Especially when the same camera reports the
same numbers for several other pitchers, in the
same game, and the hack commentator says
it is working correctly /for them/.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 17:28:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:145ba7b3-6bbb-4ff0-82b9-0a4042af024a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
>> >> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
>> >> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
>> >> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
>>
>> >> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices.
>> >> The
>> >> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
>>
>> > Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
>> > Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
>> > he may well be independent of the folks who run
>> > the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
>> > independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
>> > were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
>> > apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
>>
>> This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
>> people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
>> along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue?
>
>
> No. Mr. Evans rarely "substantiates". In fact, the
> main reason people are aware that he is merely
> *parroting* is that there is nothing added, nothing
> considered, nothing but a parrot and his cracker.
These are no doubt phrases understood where you are. But my question to you
is what you want? Not what some people want. Maybe you get to it in this
message?
> We noticed this at least as early as 1974-5, back
> when a certain Chess Lies article was swallowed
> whole, ants and all. The poor fellow did not even
> bother with thinking about a ludicrous claim; he
> seemed almost /eager/ to be a parrot.
I pass on something so vague and anodyne I don't know what it is. If the
current writer intends to engage another, rather than, er, 'parrot'
opinions, he might mention what it is...
> An article by Taylor Kingston happened upon
> one instance of this *uncritical* parroting of what
> Mr. Evans thinks may "fit" into his biased fantasy
> world. But no doubt it would be easier to locate
> the stuff by EW, who stumbles upon such things
> whilst correcting misspellings, as all good pedants
> must, by their very nature.
Still no chessic subject matter... for how long will I engage such a
conversation? For sure, we already see attitude, what about what?
>> Being 'independent' is
>> no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers
>
>
> My point had nothing to do with the *virtues* of
> independent thinking; I merely observed the fact
> that a parrot is certainly not truly independent. If
> Mr. Evans carefully considered before he parroted,
> that would be acceptable, though even here, "his"
> ideas are not emerging independently of others
> inside his small circle of alike-thinkers.
Just to break into this abstract criticism a moment, has the topic yet been
declared? Or is abstract critical material intellectually sufficient to
those who I must not need any?
> This
> think-alike business is what allows wrong-headed
> thinking to go unchecked.
Did I say that it is not think-alike, as in go along with, but independently
verify, from own experience?
> It reminds me of the
> dregs who surrounded Bobby Fischer, while he
> was ranting and raving about Jews and Russian
> cheaters and how he was a, if not the, chess god.
Does it indeed? What reminds you of it? I made an entirely differnent point,
but which still 'reminds you' - and I wonder if what you respond to has any
external reference at all? Sorry to be so shrink-ish, but any ful would say
same, after yoru response.
>> It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
>> Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him,
>> while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what
>> it
>> was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other
>> personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.
>
>
> Systemic corruption of the SU, you say?
Yes, systemic corruption is what I say and what they say. I suffer from
receiving some 2,000 exchanges with Russian chess players and organisers in
order to ask you to suffer this opinion.
> I keep
> reading about such things, and nowadays the
> focus has turned to /China/. What I find interesting
> is the "familiar" feel these stories... the way they
> remind me of home.
I am afraid that such internal referencing is your business alone, and none
of mind. It matters not to me that you see your own country the same, but
that you aver that such things are at all odd in the world, and should so
continuously shock you.
> Yeah, that's right my boy,
> right here in the good old U.S. of A. I am often
> reminded of a certain FBI chief, who told all his
> fellow Americans that there was "no such thing
> as organized crime"-- things like that. Not that
> anyone needs to travel so far back in time, oh no!
> I just happen to like that example.
So, is this some equation of false Russians with false Americans?
I would say that this is a rather extraordianry means to come about the
subject that Korchnoi represented, that corruption in the West in chess was
for money. But I do not assume I understand Kennedy's comment here, except
it is so gerneral as to equate any form of government [corruption] with any
other.
> Please take off that holier-than-thou cape-- it's
> not even your color!
The meaning of this sentence is obscure. No doubt the questioner would like
to be asked what he means, though, given what goes before, I don't need to
ask.
>
>> Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is
>> guilty
>> of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
>> propaganda whether it was issued from East or West
>
>
> Wrong.
And when people make such declarations they might as well be Ken Sloan
defending ratings at USCF, this person who can attest that politically
rigging of ratings [eg. Tanner's] is 'Not' or some monosyllablic rejoinder,
despite all evidence.
I leave the rest of this message and its analogies to another day, maybe.
But note the abandonement of even the seemingness of detailed content
discussion by someone absolutely intent on rubbishing other people for what
he cannot do himself.
Phil Innes
>
>> My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit,
>> who
>> <emphasis> accepted that apology.
>
>
> It is not enough. The entire chess world was
> humiliated by this. Cheating is bad for chess,
> just as it is bad for baseball, for instance. It is
> also bad for chess when faves are allowed to
> cheat, and afterward protected by apologists
> who spin the facts.
>
> If there is one thing you take away from this
> post, let it be this: a writer who throws his
> integrity out the window in favor of personal
> bias, is just a hack. You can't allow these
> agendas to take over and run your whole life!
>
> So, when a camera reports that the pitches are
> moving at 96 mph, if you hear the commentator
> ranting that there is something "wrong" with the
> camera because Nolan Ryan is really a 110 mph
> pitcher, you can safely assume he is a nutter.
> Especially when the same camera reports the
> same numbers for several other pitchers, in the
> same game, and the hack commentator says
> it is working correctly /for them/.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 13:13:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Another Silly Ploy
|
On Apr 30, 5:41 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> >> The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
> >> a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
> >> stands. If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and
> >> move it elsewhere. But move it you must.
> >> Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
>
> >Nonsense.
>
> You yelling "Nonsense" does not change the rules of chess,
Your dishonest cut-and-paste job tells us much
about you, but nothing about what I actually wrote.
> I don't know Evans and certainly am not part of any
> "ratpack."
In truth, you seem to know virtually nothing at all.
-- help bot
|
| |
PRO-SOVIET BIAS
<I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?
If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes
on as if you don't know? That would be deceptive, no?
That would be a form of lying. And there is no doubt that
Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings. > -- Phil Innes
Phil asks a good question.
<Of course, when CL made it mandatory for every article to have a red-
baiting
angle, Evans complied with his wild, fact-free allegations > -- David
Kane
The opposite of rabid anti-Soviet bias evidently is pro-Soviet bias,
largely exhibited here by bothf Jurgen and David Kane who lied
outright because no such directive was ever issued by me or
or any other editor of Chess Life to any writher in this magazine..
In fact, the opposite was true. GM Evans was asked to tone down
his criticism of FIDE on several occasions..
If David Kane has any proof of his ludicrous charge, let him present
it here.
HEARSAY?
<The point is that you don't know what Korchnoi's
motives were [for defecting] nor about the evil deeds
of the Soviet Chess functionaries. You are repeating
hearsay that nobody can confirm. > -- Jurgen
These FACTS have been amply confirmed by Soviet players of that era,
including but not limited to Averbakh, Bronstein, Taimanov, Spassky,
etc., etc., etc.
Some volumes worth consultingare RUSSIANS VS. FISCHER by Dmitri
Plisetsky
and Sergey Vorinkov (Chess World Ltd. 1994) CHESS SCANDALS by Ed
Edmondson (Pergamon 1981) and PERSONA NON GRATA by Viktor Korchnoi
with Lenny Cavallaro (Thinkers' Press 1981). Even ACHIEVING THE AIM by
Mikhail Botvinnik exposes some of these dirty deeds.
Ample evidence of Sovietism pulling the strings in FIDE is also cited
in THIS CRAXY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans. His research is beyond
dispute.
Chess One wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:cf446a4b-fa7f-457d-a27f-b85628557007@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
> >> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
> >> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
> >> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
> >>
> >> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The
> >> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
> >
> >
> > Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
> > Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
> > he may well be independent of the folks who run
> > the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
> > independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
> > were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
> > apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
>
> This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
> people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
> along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? Being 'independent' is
> no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers, in fact,
> it detracts from the issue to become a personality point of view.
>
> Or is Evans writing for people who know nothing at all, and who want to
> start from the beginning? I don't think so. I think the former is true, and
> if Evans has a fault in this, then it is his presumption that the chess
> public actually know very much at all about the goings on of chess
> politicians.
>
> > One of these was examined in an article by Taylor
> > Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original
> > source was unreliable.
>
> That's very vague.
>
> > Other "ideas" of Larry Evans
> > originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack
> > whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed
> > Winter.
>
> It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
> Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him,
> while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it
> was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other
> personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.
>
> Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty
> of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
> propaganda whether it was issued from East or West, and preferred what they
> knew as fact to some filtered gloss on it.
>
> > But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr.
> > Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known
> > liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players
> > who ever lived.
>
> I know it is your favorite. But the elephant in your viewing room is you! It
> is this obsessional general opinions that you then fix onto individual
> circumstance - and therefore an honest though very real mistake or error by
> Kasparov is sufficient for you to condemn the man's entire character.
>
> My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who
> <emphasis> accepted that apology. Why then is this still an issue for Greg
> Kennedy?
>
> Not that such compacted cynicism can be answered in anything less than an
> essay, but in terms of collaborations and discussions, many strong players
> talk with each other about the organisational side of chess, and it is much
> less a matter of who spoke what first, as that strong players witness a
> common set of facts - then report matters in their own ways.
>
> >> > GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
> >> > works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
> >> > or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),
> >
> >
> > It seems the further back in time you go, the
> > better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging
> > backwards, like Merlin.
>
> Criticism is always welcome, but this isn't criticism, its bitching. The
> reader will note that there is no suggested /subject/ that critics mention
> that they thought better then rather than now - and they don't even bother
> to say what they personally would like to read about. <shrug> That's no
> critique, and it doesn't even indicate if the critics want to read
> anything... So is this 'complaint' on behalf of other people? [lol]
>
> >> > Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
> >> > every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
> >> > complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
> >> > contradicting his own prior writings.
> >
> >
> > I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF
> > "forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to
> > adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that
> > largely on his own.
>
> I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?
>
> If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes on as if you don't
> know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And there
> is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings.
>
> >> Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this
> >> as
> >> a basis?
> >
> >
> > Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to
> > consider what people who live further East might
> > have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning?
>
> I see that response is not an answer. But the fatuous chess-lout Kennedy
> ignores the fact that I interviewed Taimanov who spoke of the systemic
> aspect of soviet life - it was into everything!
>
> So in reading all these 'questions' from Kennedy I have yet to find one
> which is not about himself - since anyone who has applied themselves to the
> subject could answer his 'questions' the same as me.
>
> But vague and abstracted criticisms are useless to any understanding of what
> goes on - and the usual projection takes place in this speil, which the
> reader will remember began with the phrase
>
> with apparently zero critical examination
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> >
> >> > But I will grant that
> >> > Parr does have a point in that the USCF
> >> > does not speak with a single voice and
> >> > at times he's been at odds with certain factions
> >> > within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
> >> > is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
> >> > emphasizes conformity above all else.
> >
> >
> > Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused
> > to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought
> > to have phrased what he said a bit differently.
> > Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks,
> > and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to
> > admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is
> > going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are
> > unable to admit error? (Preposterous.)
> >
> > Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is
> > right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos
> > at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue.
> > (Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from
> > LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE
> > needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or
> > thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.)
> >
> >
> > -- help bot
> >
> >
|
| |
KENNEDY BUSTED AGAIN
>The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
stands.
If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and move it
elsewhere. But move it you must. Since the rules specify that a
protest
must be lodged during play.... > -- Touch Move byGM Larry Evans
>Nonsense. The proper thing to do is recognize that
Mr. Kasparov is a low-down good-for-nothing cheater,
and then treat him accordingly. > -- Greg Kennedy
You yelling "Nonsense" does not change the rules of chess,
which clearly state:
4.7 A player forfeits his right to a claim against his
opponent`s violation of Article 4.3 or 4.4, once he
deliberately touches a piece.
-- Guy Macon
Source: http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
<Judit Polgar made her next move without making any such
claim. It would have been a violation of the rules if
the arbiter had examined the video tape and ruled against
Kasparov after Polgar made her next move. It would have
been a serious breach of professional ethics if he had
shown any sort of reaction that would indicate that this
was in any way different from any other move. -- Guy Macon
[Unfortunately he posted his reply only on rec.games.chess.misc. For
the rest of
the material he cites check it out.]
[email protected] wrote:
> KENNEDY'S NEW LIE
>
> <Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but those two certainly
> cannot deal with any facts which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre
> fairyland world. For instance, having long cast Gary Kasparov as a
> hero who fights a never-ending battle for Justice, they must painfully
> struggle to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
> little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back. Nutters don't have it
> so easy as you might think... .> -- Greg Kennedy
>
> As this writer noted when this thread began: <I realize that setting
> the record straight won't do much good when it comes to the "bots" of
> this world because they will just continue inventing new lies.>
>
> This thread is about Shirov, but that doesn't stop Greg from
> changing the header or the subjet to beat dead horses. As soon as one
> charge is refuted (Evans is USCF apparatchik -- then Kane withdrew it
> and instead called him a wily politician) a new one pops up. One would
> fill a book refuting all of their fabrications.
>
> I will answer David Kane later. Needless to say, contrary to Greg's
> new lie, GM Evans did report on the Polgar-Kasparov incident in his
> newspaper column as well as in his new book, giving both sides of the
> story.
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 266)
>
> Touch Move!
> April 25, 2005
>
> Chess is perfect. People aren?t.
>
> The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
> a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
> stands. If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and
> move it elsewhere. But move it you must.
>
> Enforcing touch move in the heat of battle isn?t always easy. A case
> in point was the first encounter in 1994 between Judit Polgar, then
> 17, and world champion Garry Kasparov, then 31, at a major tournament
> in Linares, Spain.
>
> After a tough fight Polgar threw in the towel because 47 Kg1 e2 49 Re1
> Qd4 49 Kh1 Nf2 50 Kg1 Nh3 51 Kh1 Qg1! 52 Rxg1 Nf2 leads to smothered
> mate.
>
> Afterwards she complained that Kasparov took back a move. At first he
> played 36...Nc5 but then saw it refuted by 37 Bc6 and instead he
> placed the knight on f8.
> [Note: As it turns out, his initial 36...Nc5 probably didn't lose --
> LP]
>
> Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
> nothing could be done after the game was over. "I didn?t want to cause
> unpleasantness during my first invitation to such an important event,"
> she explained. "We were both in severe time pressure. I was also
> afraid I would be penalized on the clock if my protest was rejected."
>
> "Kasparov did not take his hand off the knight, so he had a perfect
> right to change his move," said the chief arbiter. "My conscience is
> clear. I have the feeling my hand was still on it," added Kasparov.
>
> Yet we all know the naked eye can be fooled. A camera crew was filming
> the game and a replay revealed that Kasparov removed his hand for
> exactly ? of a second! Deliberate foul or did he try to change his
> grip in order to reverse direction? Who can say for sure?
>
> His enemies promptly called it cheating. But Robert Solso, a noted
> cognitive psychologist, said that a time span of 250 milliseconds
> might be too short to make such a conscious decision.
>
> POLGAR vs. KASPAROV
> Sicilian Defense, 1994
> 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 f4 e6 7 Be2 Be7 8
> 0?0 Qc7 9 Qe1 Nbd7 10 a4 b6 11 Bf3 Bb7 12 Kh1 Rd8 13 Be3 0?0 14
> Qg3 Nc5 15 f5 e5 16 Bh6 Ne8 17 Nb3 Nd7 18 Rad1 Kh8 19 Be3 Nef6
> 20 Qf2 Rfe8 21 Rfe1 Bf8 22 Bg5 h6 23 Bh4 Rc8 24 Qf1 Be7 25 Nd2
> Qc5 26 Nb3 Qb4 27 Be2 Bxe4 28 Nxe4 Nxe4 29 Bxe7 Rxe7 30 Bf3
> Nef6 31 Qxa6 Ree8 32 Qe2 Kg8 33 Bb7 Rc4 34 Qd2 Qxa4 35 Qxd6
> Rxc2 36 Nd2 Nf8 37 Ne4 N8d7 38 Nxf6 Nxf6 39 Qxb6 Ng4 40 Rf1 e4
> 41 Bd5 e3 42 Bb3 Qe4 43 Bxc2 Qxc2 44 Rd8 Rxd8 45 Qxd8 Kh7 46
> Qe7 Qc4 White Resigns
>
>
>
> help bot wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 2:32 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
> > > > *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
> > > > requests as those by family members of defector
> > > > Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
> > > > such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
> > > > avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
> > > > another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
> > > > flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
> > > > that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
> >
> > > The bigger point really was that no rational person
> > > could expect a chessplayer to influence the
> > > emigration policies of the Soviet government.
> >
> >
> > That's true, but what if the government sometimes
> > makes exceptions to their usual policies? Well, of
> > course this has a serious drawback in that the
> > "criminal" is in essence rewarded for having
> > defected.
> >
> >
> > > The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
> > > not capable of dealing with facts which get
> > > in the way of their simplistic stories.
> >
> >
> > Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but
> > those two certainly cannot deal with any facts
> > which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre fairyland
> > world. For instance, having long cast Gary
> > Kasparov as a hero who fights a never-ending
> > battle for Justice, they must painfully struggle
> > to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
> > little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back.
> > Nutters don't have it so easy as you might
> > think... .
> >
> >
> > -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 09:41:14
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Another Silly Ploy
|
help bot wrote:
>
>"[email protected]"wrote:
>
>> The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
>> a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
>> stands. If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and
>> move it elsewhere. But move it you must.
>> Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
>
>Nonsense.
You yelling "Nonsense" does not change the rules of chess,
which clearly state:
4.7 A player forfeits his right to a claim against his
opponent`s violation of Article 4.3 or 4.4, once he
deliberately touches a piece.
Source: http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
Judit Polgar made her next move without making any such
claim. It would have been a violation of the rules if
the arbiter had examined the video tape and ruled against
Kasparov after Polgar made her next move. It would have
been a serious breach of professional ethics if he had
shown any sort of reaction that would indicate that this
was in any way different from any other move.
>Apparently, to the Evans ratpack,
I don't know Evans and certainly am not part of any
"ratpack."
Reference:
From [ http://www.controltheweb.com/polgar/ ]:
Transcript of incident from video analysis (7:50-11:39) of
the Polgar-Kasparov game during the time pressure incident:
"But what actually happens here is Kasparov touched his
knight, and made a move with his knight to c5. And then he
saw if he moves there there would be Bc6 skewing the queen
and rook, which result would most likely be a loss for
Kasparov. So he changed his move ... he moved his knight to
f8.
"But the problem was when he moved, he let go of the piece.
Judit Polgar saw this, and she was stunned. She looked at
the arbiter and there was no response from him. She made a
mistake and didn't disupte this, didn't claim that Kasparov
had let go of the piece. That move should have been final,
and the most probable result would most likely been a
Kasparov loss.
"Afraid her claim would have lost, and she would have been
penalized time on the clock, and they were in time pressure.
She should have established a claim and won that game. The
actual event was recorded on camera, and saw that Kasparov
let go of the Knight on c5, for less than a second.
"After that, she never shook hands with Kasparov for a few
years, whenever they met."
What Judit says:
"Kasparov touched a knight in our 1994 Linares game and
didn't move with this piece afterwards. Unfortunately there
were no witnesses and also the arbiter was not there. There
was a video tape which they didn't show me. We didn't talk
for a long time after that."
- From an August, 1996 interview with Martin Raubal (Scroll
down to bottom of interview)
The Washington Post/Kavalek:
"In 1994 in Linares, Spain, Kasparov played a knight move
against Judit Polgar and removed his fingers from that
piece. But after he saw that he might lose material, he took
the knight back and made a different move. His act was
caught on camera by a Spanish television crew."
- Excerpted from Washington Post Chess (Kavalek) July 3,
2000; Page C13 (removed from Archive.org)
The Campbell Report:
"An interesting example of taking back moves at the highest
level of OTB chess occurred recently at the elite 1994
Linares super tournament (see p. 20 of the April 4, 1994
issue of Inside Chess for a fuller report). It's claimed
that there is video tape showing that PCA World Champion
Garry Kasparov, while playing Judit Polgar, moved a knight
to a square which would have cost him the exchange.
"Apparently, even though he had released the piece, he
picked it up again and moved it to another square and went
on to win the game. So even players at the top can be
tempted.
"My favorite quote picked up by Yasser Seirawan was by FIDE
President Florencio Campomanes who is reported to have said,
"What do you expect from an unrated player?" For those who
missed it, FIDE removed both Kasparov and Nigel Short from
their rating list when they played their world championship
match under the PCA instead of FIDE."
- Excerpted from The Campbell Report - May/June 1994 (scroll
down to bottom of report)
Chess author and NM Macon Shibut:
"For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Kasparov
cheated, plain and simple. It was something that happened in
the blink of an eye under pressure of the competitive
situation. That does not excuse what he did in any way, but
in light of the circumstances it's possible that he has
convinced himself that the infraction didn't occur. Still,
in his heart of hearts, I think he knows.
"But the real scandal is not Kasparov's disgrace, any more
than we consider it an outrage if a football player throws
an illegal block when the referee is not looking. The real
scandal is the action of the tournament controller, who
apparently had videotape evidence and did not forfeit
Kasparov."
- Kasparov-Polgar Linares `94 touch move controversy
discussed at All Experts.com
The Hindu/Arvind Aaron:
"(Judit) was close to beating (Kasparov) in Linares 1994
(when) Kasparov blundered, (then) took back the move at
lightning speed and swiftly made another to win."
- Excerpted from The Hindu "An icon of women's chess
"- June 3, 2000
From Commentary on the 2006 Women's World Chess
Championship:
"At Harvard in 1990, some remember Kasparov saying something
such as "A computer will beat me before a woman will." (Ed
Note: Max Euwe was the first world champion to lose to a
woman.)
"Well, he was proven correct -- but not, I think, in quite
the way he wanted. He eventually did lose a match to a
computer, and it's one of the last things he may be
remembered for. And he avoided losing a game to woman Judit
Polgar only by cheating on camera.
"Kasparov is a genius among geniuses in chess. Did he cheat
against Polgar? Yes, he cheated."
Full (print) report on the incident:
April 4, 1994 print issue of Inside Chess, page 20.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 23:39:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
>
> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The
> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
he may well be independent of the folks who run
the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
One of these was examined in an article by Taylor
Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original
source was unreliable. Other "ideas" of Larry Evans
originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack
whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed
Winter. But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr.
Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known
liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players
who ever lived.
> > GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
> > works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
> > or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),
It seems the further back in time you go, the
better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging
backwards, like Merlin.
> > Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
> > every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
> > complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
> > contradicting his own prior writings.
I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF
"forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to
adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that
largely on his own.
> Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this as
> a basis?
Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to
consider what people who live further East might
have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning?
> > But I will grant that
> > Parr does have a point in that the USCF
> > does not speak with a single voice and
> > at times he's been at odds with certain factions
> > within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
> > is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
> > emphasizes conformity above all else.
Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused
to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought
to have phrased what he said a bit differently.
Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks,
and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to
admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is
going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are
unable to admit error? (Preposterous.)
Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is
right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos
at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue.
(Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from
LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE
needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or
thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 07:40:17
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:cf446a4b-fa7f-457d-a27f-b85628557007@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
>> > and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
>> > someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
>> > Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
>>
>> Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The
>> inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
>
>
> Larry Parr has indeed promulgated the fiction that
> Larry Evans is an "independent" voice. Well, while
> he may well be independent of the folks who run
> the show at the USCF, he is far from a truly
> independent thinker. Many of the stories I've seen
> were merely parroted or borrowed from others, with
> apparently zero critical examination on LE's part.
This may or may not have significance; after all, is Evans writing for
people who already know some things so that he records his own comments
along with theirs in order to substantiate an issue? Being 'independent' is
no virtue if what you are describing is common to other observers, in fact,
it detracts from the issue to become a personality point of view.
Or is Evans writing for people who know nothing at all, and who want to
start from the beginning? I don't think so. I think the former is true, and
if Evans has a fault in this, then it is his presumption that the chess
public actually know very much at all about the goings on of chess
politicians.
> One of these was examined in an article by Taylor
> Kingston (I think), who noted that even the original
> source was unreliable.
That's very vague.
> Other "ideas" of Larry Evans
> originated from Raymond Keene, a notorious hack
> whose antics have long annoyed pedants like Ed
> Winter.
It must be particularly galling for Winter to have to deal with 'hack'
Keene, since Winter has only tittle-tattle from those who feed it to him,
while Keene actually was behind the Wall and smuggling out stuff on what it
was really like from first hand knowledge, and also the samizdat of other
personal witness to the /systemic/ corruption of the SU.
Larry Evans also engaged the Soviet chess machine, and therefore is guilty
of the same crime as Keene; essentially neither of them bought into any
propaganda whether it was issued from East or West, and preferred what they
knew as fact to some filtered gloss on it.
> But my favorite are the "stories" which Mr.
> Evans has borrowed from Gary Kasparov, known
> liar and cheater but one of the finest chess players
> who ever lived.
I know it is your favorite. But the elephant in your viewing room is you! It
is this obsessional general opinions that you then fix onto individual
circumstance - and therefore an honest though very real mistake or error by
Kasparov is sufficient for you to condemn the man's entire character.
My personal understanding of the issue is that he apologised to Judit, who
<emphasis > accepted that apology. Why then is this still an issue for Greg
Kennedy?
Not that such compacted cynicism can be answered in anything less than an
essay, but in terms of collaborations and discussions, many strong players
talk with each other about the organisational side of chess, and it is much
less a matter of who spoke what first, as that strong players witness a
common set of facts - then report matters in their own ways.
>> > GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
>> > works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
>> > or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),
>
>
> It seems the further back in time you go, the
> better were Larry Evans' writings! He's aging
> backwards, like Merlin.
Criticism is always welcome, but this isn't criticism, its bitching. The
reader will note that there is no suggested /subject/ that critics mention
that they thought better then rather than now - and they don't even bother
to say what they personally would like to read about. <shrug > That's no
critique, and it doesn't even indicate if the critics want to read
anything... So is this 'complaint' on behalf of other people? [lol]
>> > Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
>> > every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
>> > complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
>> > contradicting his own prior writings.
>
>
> I somehow doubt that the honchos at the USCF
> "forced" Mr. Evans to contradict himself or to
> adopt a rabid anti-Soviet bias. I think he did that
> largely on his own.
I suppose the opposite of 'rabid' anti-soviet bias is... ?
If you know the game is rigged, do you report what goes on as if you don't
know? That would be deceptive, no? That would be a form of lying. And there
is no doubt that Sovietism was pulling Fide's strings.
>> Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this
>> as
>> a basis?
>
>
> Hmm. It seems that nearly-IMnes is afraid to
> consider what people who live further East might
> have to say; I wonder what he is afraid of learning?
I see that response is not an answer. But the fatuous chess-lout Kennedy
ignores the fact that I interviewed Taimanov who spoke of the systemic
aspect of soviet life - it was into everything!
So in reading all these 'questions' from Kennedy I have yet to find one
which is not about himself - since anyone who has applied themselves to the
subject could answer his 'questions' the same as me.
But vague and abstracted criticisms are useless to any understanding of what
goes on - and the usual projection takes place in this speil, which the
reader will remember began with the phrase
with apparently zero critical examination
Phil Innes
>
>> > But I will grant that
>> > Parr does have a point in that the USCF
>> > does not speak with a single voice and
>> > at times he's been at odds with certain factions
>> > within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
>> > is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
>> > emphasizes conformity above all else.
>
>
> Well, when Taylor Kingston goofed, he refused
> to admit it was really a mistake, saying he ought
> to have phrased what he said a bit differently.
> Now we have this fuss over appa-rat chicks,
> and -- surprise -- somebody again refuses to
> admit error. My pattern-recognition detector is
> going wild; could it be that chess players (?) are
> unable to admit error? (Preposterous.)
>
> Why can't we all just grant that Larry Parr is
> right about LE being a thorny-chick to the honchos
> at the USCF? After all, that was not the real issue.
> (Remember, the ploy was to divert attention from
> LP's *gaffe* regarding Mr. Kane insisting that LE
> needed the USCF's money. Appa-ratta-chick or
> thorny-pointy-chick, it makes no real difference.)
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| |
THE GOD THAT FAILED
>It is generally known that he got involved with
Petra Leeuwerik very soon after his defection,
and that he divorced his wife shortly after she
moved to the West in 1982. It is also well known
That Korchnoi is a difficult character -- impolite,
unsophisticated, paranoid, definitely not somebody
easily made into a hero. > -- Jurgen
Juergen is a throwback to a simpler, more evil
time. His attack on Korchnoi was standard fare among
pro-Soviet types in the 1930s and 1940s. The idea was
always to find imperfections and shortcomings on the
part of defectors so as to discredit their message.
Perhaps the most famous instance of this ploy was
in the case of Victor Kravchenko, who wrote the 1946
bestseller "I Chose Freedom." The attacks on him in
the communist and fellow-traveller press were legion.
Finally, the French communist newspaper,
L'Humanite, charged that Kravchenko's very powerful
book was written by an OSS agent named Sim Thomas.
There was a libel trial that became a major cultural
cause celebre. On one side you had the likes of Andre
Malraux and Albert Camus, who had moved away from
Stalinism decisively, and in the other camp you had
Sartre, Duclos and others of that ilk.
The Soviets brought in witnesses from the USSR,
including Kravchenko's wife. Kravchenko's lawyer
eviscerated these people on the witness stand, and
Kravchenko won his libel suit decisively.
Decades later, a new edition of "I Chose Freedom"
appeared in French, with an admiring introduction
written by the editor of "L'Humanite" who initially
libelled Kravchenko. The editor admitted his role in
the falsehood. Over the years he had become yet
another recruit to that army of intellectuals who
regretted following, the party line as in the title of
the eponymous book of essays by former Communists
called "The God that Failed."
Juergen would have been among those screaming
about Kravchenko's imperfections.
KENNEDY HITS HEAD ON NAIL
"Nutters don't have it so easy as you might think" -- Greg Kennedy.
Based on Greg Kennedy's testimony about his
tribulations working in an Indiana factory and his cri
de coeur that he coulda been a contendah, the man
has certainly hit his own head on the nail.
For several years Greg complained about a faulty
spellchecker, and he kept telling us that he would one
day become a real power player on this forum after finding
a better electronic crutch.
Another theme that kept him going was that he
coulda been anotha Bobby, if he had grown up in
Brooklyn rather than in the cultural wasteland, as he
described it, of Indiana.
Greg moaned that others such as yours truly and
Larry Evans were writing all of the books and winning
the awards. He coulda done that, too, if he had not
been deprived in Indiana. He coulda been a contendah,
maybe a champ. But Indiana made him an assembly-line
working chump instead of a champ..
Another Greg theme was that he would one day
read history and refute what this writer offered here
and elsewhere. Readers of this forum have sampled
his erudition, and perhaps you will agree with Greg
himself that living in Indiana prevented him from
reading history.
Our response has always been that Indiana is not
a cultural wasteland, possessing numerous large
university libraries as well as, no doubt, many
impressive new and used bookstores. The knowledge
was there if Greg had been willing to pursue it during his
youth. As he once wrote, he read Ratman or some such
comic books instead, which were more accessible, say,
than Xenophon.
If one accepts Greg's testimony, he has never
had it easy and suffered mightily and experienced
emotional and intellectual sorrows,through no fault
of his own.
"Nutters don't have it so easy as you might
think." Greg is telling us that while he may not know
much about Pope Urban II or anything else much
further back than last week, he has finally gained
self-knowledge.
He has finally hit his head right on the nail.
And so it goes.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On Apr 29, 8:31 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
> > a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
> > stands. If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and
> > move it elsewhere. But move it you must.
>
>
> While I don't agree with Mr. Evans regarding the "concise"
> part, he at least seems to be familiar with the basic rules of
> chess.
>
>
> > Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
>
>
> Nonsense. The proper thing to do is recognize that
> Mr. Kasparov is a low-down good-for-nothing cheater,
> and then treat him accordingly.
>
>
> > "Kasparov did not take his hand off the knight, so he had a perfect
> > right to change his move," said the chief arbiter.
>
>
> Unbiased sources told a very different story. One
> had it that the arbiter claimed he could not "see"
> the infraction, because he was standing behind Mr.
> Kasparov (a GK "backer"?).
>
>
> > "My conscience is clear. I have the feeling my hand was
> still on it," added Kasparov.
>
>
> Okay, make that dirty, low-down, good-for-nothing,
> *lying* cheater.
>
>
> > Yet we all know the naked eye can be fooled.
>
>
> Ah, I knew there would be a "twist" in the plot. As
> with the Fox spin-zone, if you remove the spin, you
> are left with nothing but dead air.
>
>
> > A camera crew was filming
> > the game and a replay revealed that Kasparov removed his hand for
> > exactly ? of a second! Deliberate foul or did he try to change his
> > grip in order to reverse direction? Who can say for sure?
>
>
> The subject is changed to this or that, deftly avoiding
> the actual cheating. It makes no difference if anyone
> can guess GK's motive, nor the length of time it took
> to enact the cheating, nor what color the sky may be
> when viewed from outer space. A typical Larry Evans
> ploy is to ignore the facts, and change the subject to
> something else; in fact, I'm a bit disappointed that he
> failed to attack Judit Polgar's character or religion. The
> old man seems to be slipping.
>
>
> > His enemies promptly called it cheating.
>
>
> Ah, now THAT'S more like it! Ad hominize the folks
> who want the rules to be enforced, even upon faves
> like GK. The problem, you understand, is not that GK
> is a cheater-- no sir! It's that he has "enemies" who
> stalk him, just waiting for a chance to point out when
> some errant camera may try and make it appear that
> he did something wrong-- which he never ever could.
>
> Apparently, to the Evans ratpack, Gary Kasparov is
> a sacred cow-- almost like Bobby Fischer. He can
> do no wrong, and if Judit Pogar gets run over, well,
> she ought not to have gotten in his way... .
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2008 11:22:05
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> THE GOD THAT FAILED
>
>>It is generally known that he got involved with
> Petra Leeuwerik very soon after his defection,
> and that he divorced his wife shortly after she
> moved to the West in 1982. It is also well known
> That Korchnoi is a difficult character -- impolite,
> unsophisticated, paranoid, definitely not somebody
> easily made into a hero.> -- Jurgen
>
> Juergen is a throwback to a simpler, more evil
> time.
[etc. etc. pp]
None of the blather that follows has anything to do with
the subject.
The point is that you don't know what Korchnoi's
motives were, nor about the evil deeds of the Soviet Chess
functionaries.
You are repeating hearsay that nobody can confirm. Your
horizon seems to be roughly that of a hamster in a cage,
the cage being your ludicrous antiquated anti-Soviet bias.
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 18:44:26
From: help bot
Subject: Another Silly Ploy
|
On Apr 29, 8:31 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
> a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
> stands. If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and
> move it elsewhere. But move it you must.
While I don't agree with Mr. Evans regarding the "concise"
part, he at least seems to be familiar with the basic rules of
chess.
> Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
Nonsense. The proper thing to do is recognize that
Mr. Kasparov is a low-down good-for-nothing cheater,
and then treat him accordingly.
> "Kasparov did not take his hand off the knight, so he had a perfect
> right to change his move," said the chief arbiter.
Unbiased sources told a very different story. One
had it that the arbiter claimed he could not "see"
the infraction, because he was standing behind Mr.
Kasparov (a GK "backer"?).
> "My conscience is clear. I have the feeling my hand was
still on it," added Kasparov.
Okay, make that dirty, low-down, good-for-nothing,
*lying* cheater.
> Yet we all know the naked eye can be fooled.
Ah, I knew there would be a "twist" in the plot. As
with the Fox spin-zone, if you remove the spin, you
are left with nothing but dead air.
> A camera crew was filming
> the game and a replay revealed that Kasparov removed his hand for
> exactly =BC of a second! Deliberate foul or did he try to change his
> grip in order to reverse direction? Who can say for sure?
The subject is changed to this or that, deftly avoiding
the actual cheating. It makes no difference if anyone
can guess GK's motive, nor the length of time it took
to enact the cheating, nor what color the sky may be
when viewed from outer space. A typical Larry Evans
ploy is to ignore the facts, and change the subject to
something else; in fact, I'm a bit disappointed that he
failed to attack Judit Polgar's character or religion. The
old man seems to be slipping.
> His enemies promptly called it cheating.
Ah, now THAT'S more like it! Ad hominize the folks
who want the rules to be enforced, even upon faves
like GK. The problem, you understand, is not that GK
is a cheater-- no sir! It's that he has "enemies" who
stalk him, just waiting for a chance to point out when
some errant camera may try and make it appear that
he did something wrong-- which he never ever could.
Apparently, to the Evans ratpack, Gary Kasparov is
a sacred cow-- almost like Bobby Fischer. He can
do no wrong, and if Judit Pogar gets run over, well,
she ought not to have gotten in his way... .
-- help bot
|
| |
KENNEDY'S NEW LIE
<Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but those two certainly
cannot deal with any facts which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre
fairyland world. For instance, having long cast Gary Kasparov as a
hero who fights a never-ending battle for Justice, they must painfully
struggle to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back. Nutters don't have it
so easy as you might think... . > -- Greg Kennedy
As this writer noted when this thread began: <I realize that setting
the record straight won't do much good when it comes to the "bots" of
this world because they will just continue inventing new lies. >
This thread is about Shirov, but that doesn't stop Greg from
changing the header or the subjet to beat dead horses. As soon as one
charge is refuted (Evans is USCF apparatchik -- then Kane withdrew it
and instead called him a wily politician) a new one pops up. One would
fill a book refuting all of their fabrications.
I will answer David Kane later. Needless to say, contrary to Greg's
new lie, GM Evans did report on the Polgar-Kasparov incident in his
newspaper column as well as in his new book, giving both sides of the
story.
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 266)
Touch Move!
April 25, 2005
Chess is perfect. People aren=92t.
The rules of the game are clear, concise, and consistent. If you touch
a piece, you must move it. If your hand quits the piece, the move
stands. If your hand is still on it, then you can change your mind and
move it elsewhere. But move it you must.
Enforcing touch move in the heat of battle isn=92t always easy. A case
in point was the first encounter in 1994 between Judit Polgar, then
17, and world champion Garry Kasparov, then 31, at a major tournament
in Linares, Spain.
After a tough fight Polgar threw in the towel because 47 Kg1 e2 49 Re1
Qd4 49 Kh1 Nf2 50 Kg1 Nh3 51 Kh1 Qg1! 52 Rxg1 Nf2 leads to smothered
mate.
Afterwards she complained that Kasparov took back a move. At first he
played 36...Nc5 but then saw it refuted by 37 Bc6 and instead he
placed the knight on f8.
[Note: As it turns out, his initial 36...Nc5 probably didn't lose --
LP]
Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
nothing could be done after the game was over. "I didn=92t want to cause
unpleasantness during my first invitation to such an important event,"
she explained. "We were both in severe time pressure. I was also
afraid I would be penalized on the clock if my protest was rejected."
"Kasparov did not take his hand off the knight, so he had a perfect
right to change his move," said the chief arbiter. "My conscience is
clear. I have the feeling my hand was still on it," added Kasparov.
Yet we all know the naked eye can be fooled. A camera crew was filming
the game and a replay revealed that Kasparov removed his hand for
exactly =BC of a second! Deliberate foul or did he try to change his
grip in order to reverse direction? Who can say for sure?
His enemies promptly called it cheating. But Robert Solso, a noted
cognitive psychologist, said that a time span of 250 milliseconds
might be too short to make such a conscious decision.
POLGAR vs. KASPAROV
Sicilian Defense, 1994
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 f4 e6 7 Be2 Be7 8
0=960 Qc7 9 Qe1 Nbd7 10 a4 b6 11 Bf3 Bb7 12 Kh1 Rd8 13 Be3 0=960 14
Qg3 Nc5 15 f5 e5 16 Bh6 Ne8 17 Nb3 Nd7 18 Rad1 Kh8 19 Be3 Nef6
20 Qf2 Rfe8 21 Rfe1 Bf8 22 Bg5 h6 23 Bh4 Rc8 24 Qf1 Be7 25 Nd2
Qc5 26 Nb3 Qb4 27 Be2 Bxe4 28 Nxe4 Nxe4 29 Bxe7 Rxe7 30 Bf3
Nef6 31 Qxa6 Ree8 32 Qe2 Kg8 33 Bb7 Rc4 34 Qd2 Qxa4 35 Qxd6
Rxc2 36 Nd2 Nf8 37 Ne4 N8d7 38 Nxf6 Nxf6 39 Qxb6 Ng4 40 Rf1 e4
41 Bd5 e3 42 Bb3 Qe4 43 Bxc2 Qxc2 44 Rd8 Rxd8 45 Qxd8 Kh7 46
Qe7 Qc4 White Resigns
help bot wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2:32 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
> > > *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
> > > requests as those by family members of defector
> > > Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
> > > such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
> > > avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
> > > another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
> > > flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
> > > that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
>
> > The bigger point really was that no rational person
> > could expect a chessplayer to influence the
> > emigration policies of the Soviet government.
>
>
> That's true, but what if the government sometimes
> makes exceptions to their usual policies? Well, of
> course this has a serious drawback in that the
> "criminal" is in essence rewarded for having
> defected.
>
>
> > The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
> > not capable of dealing with facts which get
> > in the way of their simplistic stories.
>
>
> Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but
> those two certainly cannot deal with any facts
> which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre fairyland
> world. For instance, having long cast Gary
> Kasparov as a hero who fights a never-ending
> battle for Justice, they must painfully struggle
> to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
> little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back.
> Nutters don't have it so easy as you might
> think... .
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 14:59:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 29, 2:32 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
> > *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
> > requests as those by family members of defector
> > Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
> > such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
> > avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
> > another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
> > flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
> > that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
> The bigger point really was that no rational person
> could expect a chessplayer to influence the
> emigration policies of the Soviet government.
That's true, but what if the government sometimes
makes exceptions to their usual policies? Well, of
course this has a serious drawback in that the
"criminal" is in essence rewarded for having
defected.
> The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
> not capable of dealing with facts which get
> in the way of their simplistic stories.
Not all their stories are of a simple nature, but
those two certainly cannot deal with any facts
which don't neatly "fit" into their bizarre fairyland
world. For instance, having long cast Gary
Kasparov as a hero who fights a never-ending
battle for Justice, they must painfully struggle
to somehow deal with the man's cheating poor
little Judit Polgar with his infamous take-back.
Nutters don't have it so easy as you might
think... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 09:45:29
From:
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 29, 12:12=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:28 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now we come to the crux of the matter. Despite good-faith efforts and
> > even the challenger's apparent folly, Kasparov is not absolved from
> > his pledge to give Shirov a title shot for $2 million as announced to
> > the world at Linares in 1998. Kasparov put his trust in a person who
> > proved unreliable, but he also put his credibility and prestige behind
> > the WCC (which went the way of his GMA and PCA). These facts can't be
> > evaded. It turned out, perhaps, that he unwittingly treated himself
> > more shabbily than he did Shirov.
>
> > I still believe Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to play Shirov.
> > If he should do so, you can rely on me to celebrate in bold type and
> > capital letters. As it stands, however, Shirov never got paid for
> > beating Kramnik or a title shot -- both are Kasparov's obligation.
>
> Sorry, but I disagree with your analysis.
>
> Garry Kasparov did not refuse to play a match with Shirov. Kasparov
> was ready and willing to play. Shirov refused to play because he
> wanted more money.
He only wanted what was promised to him, and guaranteed by signed
contract.
> One of the reasons more money was not available was that Kasparov had
> easily beaten Shirov many times and Shirov had never beaten Kasparov.
Quite irrelevant to the ethical problem. And there are plenty of
cases where the challenger has won a world title match despite having
a poor record against the champion beforehand. For example, Capablanca
was +0 -1 =3D2 vs. Lasker before 1921, Alekhine was +0 -5 =3D7 vs.
Capablanca before 1927, Euwe was +3 -6 =3D8 vs. Alekhine before 1935,
Smyslov was +2 -7 =3D10 vs. Botvinnik before 1954, and Fischer was +0 -3
=3D2 vs. Spassky until 1972.
> Nobody gave Shirov any chance at all to beat Kasparov in a match.
> Thus, sponsors were unwilling to put up much money for such a match.
Quite irrelevant to the ethical problem, which stems from the fact
that Shirov was indeed promised much money.
> The prize fund being offered Shirov was generous in spite of these
> problems. I believe that the amount offered was $250,000. This is more
> than the amount initially offered for the Kamsky Tapolov Match more
> than ten years later. Shirov was a fool not to take the $250,000.
Nonsense. The final offer to Shirov was nothing like $250,000 -- as
I recall, it was closer to $50,000, peanuts considering the work
involved in preparation, the expense of paying seconds, etc. And in
any event even $250,000 would be insultingly low compared to initial
promise of a $2 million purse.. The initial contract called for Shirov
to be paid $200,000 if the match was cancelled -- but Rentero simply
refused! What nerve! Utter faithlessness.
> The claim that Kasparov had a moral obligation to pay Shirov out of
> his own pocket has no basis.
Somebody sure as hell had a moral obligation to pay Shirov
something. If not Kasparov, then certainly Rentero.
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 09:12:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 26, 5:28 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now we come to the crux of the matter. Despite good-faith efforts and
> even the challenger's apparent folly, Kasparov is not absolved from
> his pledge to give Shirov a title shot for $2 million as announced to
> the world at Linares in 1998. Kasparov put his trust in a person who
> proved unreliable, but he also put his credibility and prestige behind
> the WCC (which went the way of his GMA and PCA). These facts can't be
> evaded. It turned out, perhaps, that he unwittingly treated himself
> more shabbily than he did Shirov.
>
> I still believe Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to play Shirov.
> If he should do so, you can rely on me to celebrate in bold type and
> capital letters. As it stands, however, Shirov never got paid for
> beating Kramnik or a title shot -- both are Kasparov's obligation.
Sorry, but I disagree with your analysis.
Garry Kasparov did not refuse to play a match with Shirov. Kasparov
was ready and willing to play. Shirov refused to play because he
wanted more money.
One of the reasons more money was not available was that Kasparov had
easily beaten Shirov many times and Shirov had never beaten Kasparov.
Nobody gave Shirov any chance at all to beat Kasparov in a match.
Thus, sponsors were unwilling to put up much money for such a match.
None of this was any fault of Kasparov.
The prize fund being offered Shirov was generous in spite of these
problems. I believe that the amount offered was $250,000. This is more
than the amount initially offered for the Kamsky Tapolov Match more
than ten years later. Shirov was a fool not to take the $250,000.
The claim that Kasparov had a moral obligation to pay Shirov out of
his own pocket has no basis.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
SIMPLE FACTS
>What you refer to as "cold war rhetoric" I view as the simple facts.> -- John Savard
"That's your mistake right there. Judgements derived from false
premises will also be false. > -- Karpov apologist David Kane
Phil Innes makes an interesting point about what
occurs today as opposed to Soviet times. One notes,
though, that the Red Square demonstration in August
1968 (if memory serves, at Lobnoye Mesto, but I could
be wrong),against the Soviet attack on Czechoslovakia
was the first known demonstration of the kind in
decades, just as the great coal miner strikes in the
summer of 1989 were the first major labor actions in
over 60 years.
My point re the Czech demonstration is that
virtually no one for more than a half century imagined
that such a gesture could ever have substantive
meaning. The very idea of demonstrating disappeared
for more than a generation.
And then, one day, Pavel Litvinov (the son of
Maxim Litvinov, Stalin's foreign minister during the
phony Collective Security years of the 1930s) Larisa
Bogoraz, poetess Natalya Gorbanevskaya (later to be
tortured brutally in Soviet mental asylums) and three
or four others unfurled banners and sat down, waiting
for what would come.
What would come came within minutes, but it did
not include summary execution of the demonstrators and
their families. Instead a trial, long sentences that
were written beforehand and so on.
But the world took note that if the Soviet state
did not exactly blink and certainly did not wink, it
nodded. Nothing would be the same thereafter. Ut
was the beginning of the celebrated dissident movement.
A Spassky was on the side of those people in Red
Square. A Karpov, whatever his interior convictions,
had no doubt that as a Caissic godyonesh, to employ
Korchnoi's favorite word for the man, he was a
Brezhnev boyo.
A fascinating historical footnote is provided by
Bertram Wolfe re Maxim Litvinov, who probably died
a natural death, though a Jew and likely in bad odor
with Stalin after he was dropped as foreign minister
in favor of Molotov in preparation for signing the
Non-Aggression Pact with Germany on August 23(?),
1937. Years later, Litvinov had a rare private moment
in the Kremlin with CBS news correspondent Richard
Hottelot. Litvinov, who was near the peak of the
Soviet hierarchy, proceeded to beg Hottelot to tell
American leaders that Stalin was intent on conquering
Europe and the world.
For Greg Kennedy's edification, Bertram Wolfe is
the author of "Three Who Made a Revolution" which is
still in print more than a half century after it first
appeared. It is still the best single volume history
of the lives of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. The book
is one of those that I would have Greg read, if he
were of a mind to undertake serious independent study.
Which, alas, he is not and, by this point in his life is
is likely never to be.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One wrote:
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:9d0ee65b-2e07-4502-aab2-40f88e5ea4c4@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
> >> *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
> >> requests as those by family members of defector
> >> Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
> >> such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
> >> avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
> >> another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
> >> flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
> >> that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
> >>
> >
> > The bigger point really was that no rational person
> > could expect a chessplayer to influence the
> > emigration policies of the Soviet government.
>
> No rational person would credit any objective sense whatever to Soviet
> Government.
>
> We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
> - Viktor Chernomyrdin,
> - Russian prime minister, 1992-1998.
>
> But David Kane might appreciate the particular sensitivity displayed by all
> totalitarian regimes to the // appearance // of things, in contradistinction
> to the difficulty of reporting what actually goes on in closed societies,
> which is to contrast the appearance with the practice. If Mr. Parr's
> commentary related to either individual pressure put on chess players, or to
> other individuals whose intelligence and ability was valued by the Soviet
> State, then his is /not/ an exceptional point of view.
>
> In chess one would only have to read Boris Gulko's testimony to understand
> that specifically; not only was the Russian champion duffed-up by KGB but
> his wife was also beaten.
>
> It is getting that news out of the country which is the difficult bit - not
> just the anecdote, but records establishing its extent and probity.
>
> Therefore while it is unusual to have then found such samizdat in the West,
> almost all such records as Gulko's, each made independently of each other,
> and necessarily without knowledge of each other; these records all accord
> with each other.
>
> I think to perhaps innocently blame the reporter for inventiveness, or some
> such thing, is an attitude that is relieved by knowledge after even a little
> study.
>
> > The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
> > not capable of dealing with facts which get
> > in the way of their simplistic stories.
>
> JUST ANOTHER MASSACRE
>
> The stories are simple. They are often brutal, so brutal that it is hard to
> believe that, for example, even in the post-Soviet era one's own head of
> state will appear on camera smiling and shaking hands with the perpetrators
> of repression, and make 'simplistic' statements expressing their feelings
> they could 'do business' with them.
>
> On February 5, 2000, the mass murder of civilians took place during a
> passport inspection by sub-units of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry
> of the Interior of the Russian Federation in the village of Novye Aldy,
> Zavodskoi District, Grozny. This was reported by;
>
> - T. A. Murdalov
> - Investigator for Especially Important Matters,
> - Office of the North Caucasus Prosecutor General of the Russian
> Federation.
>
> Those refer to OMON units. The issue was not further investigated because of
> jurisdictional 'problems' of troops from Petersburg and Ryazan, and in 2002
> "it came quietly to rest." says Andrew Meier, who continued his report in
> Black Earth with...
>
> ...Not long after the dead in Aldy were reburied for the final time,
> Yuri Dyomin, Russia's chief military prosecutor, told an audience of Western
> human rights advocates in Moscow that he regretted "the time I have wasted"
> investigating reports of abuses "based on disinformation." He went on to
> accuse Chechen refugees of spreading // skazki //, fairy tales.
>
> This ended the affair for catch-phrase Western apologists of the Regime in
> the post-Soviet era, since it was just another [unexplained] massacre,
> despite contravening Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, on internal
> conflicts.
>
> And that Mr. Kane, I suggest to you is <emphasis> //post// Soviet era.
> Those who reported things even earlier gained less attention in the West,
> since for many people, such behaviors by a state were literally
> 'unbelievable.'
>
> Phil Innes
|
| |
DAVID KANE INVERTED THE TRUTH
<You cannot rely on Evans for unbiased information.
Evans is the classic USCF apparatchik. When the Chess
Life "bosses" demand cold war rhetoric - he complies.
Say or write anything to maintain lifetime employment,
that's the ticket. > -- David Kane
When Greg Kennedy wrote that David Kane is
smarter than this writer in "thinking skills," he
wrote another of his typical redundancies, without
quite realizing it.
Still, one concedes that Greg will never know
how much he wounded me with that cruel comparison.
Meanwhile, David Kane babbles about this writer
changing some subject. I've stayed directly on point,
which has been to examine the meaning of a
statement that Korchnoi was treated in typical fashion
by the Soviet state re his family. Therefore, if
Kanester has any point at all, Karpov is no less a
sportsman for playing Korchnoi while the latter's
family was held hostage (during the first match) and
no less a sportsman for sitting down at the board in
the second match even as the Soviet state ratcheted up
the ante by arresting Korchnoi's son, sending him to a
labor camp and then arranging for his beating on the
eve of the 1981 title match to send his father a message..
As for Karpov, he no longer sports that Order of
Lenin, and one can make a shrewd guess at how he
regards his own person.
One reckons that nearly every reader on this
forum knows that Kanester inverted truth when calling
Larry Evans an apparatchik of the USCF. He has
been an independent contractor, never a USCF employee.
Given that Kanester told something worse than a lie by
turning truth literally inside out, my comment about Evans
having no financial interest in toeing any line was by
no means off-topic. After all, there was no topic except
except an inversion of truth that had, therefore, no
substantive content.
Once again, for the record: anyone who knows
USCF political history knows that GM Evans has been
a thornchik in the side of USCF politicians for decades,
fighting them repeatedly on dozens of issues. Indeed,
on one occasion the politicos even hired a Pinkerton
detective to go after him. Later, when the hot lead
turned out to be false, the politicos who voted USCF
money to pursue Evans reimbursed the Federation
out of their own pocket for the Pinkerton costs.
Our Kanester is not going to admit that he
inverted truth in his name-calling directed against
GM Evans. However, he will continue his geyser-like
gushing of evident hatred toward the five-time U.S.
champion and famous author.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One wrote:
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:9d0ee65b-2e07-4502-aab2-40f88e5ea4c4@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
> >> *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
> >> requests as those by family members of defector
> >> Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
> >> such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
> >> avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
> >> another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
> >> flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
> >> that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
> >>
> >
> > The bigger point really was that no rational person
> > could expect a chessplayer to influence the
> > emigration policies of the Soviet government.
>
> No rational person would credit any objective sense whatever to Soviet
> Government.
>
> We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
> - Viktor Chernomyrdin,
> - Russian prime minister, 1992-1998.
>
> But David Kane might appreciate the particular sensitivity displayed by all
> totalitarian regimes to the // appearance // of things, in contradistinction
> to the difficulty of reporting what actually goes on in closed societies,
> which is to contrast the appearance with the practice. If Mr. Parr's
> commentary related to either individual pressure put on chess players, or to
> other individuals whose intelligence and ability was valued by the Soviet
> State, then his is /not/ an exceptional point of view.
>
> In chess one would only have to read Boris Gulko's testimony to understand
> that specifically; not only was the Russian champion duffed-up by KGB but
> his wife was also beaten.
>
> It is getting that news out of the country which is the difficult bit - not
> just the anecdote, but records establishing its extent and probity.
>
> Therefore while it is unusual to have then found such samizdat in the West,
> almost all such records as Gulko's, each made independently of each other,
> and necessarily without knowledge of each other; these records all accord
> with each other.
>
> I think to perhaps innocently blame the reporter for inventiveness, or some
> such thing, is an attitude that is relieved by knowledge after even a little
> study.
>
> > The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
> > not capable of dealing with facts which get
> > in the way of their simplistic stories.
>
> JUST ANOTHER MASSACRE
>
> The stories are simple. They are often brutal, so brutal that it is hard to
> believe that, for example, even in the post-Soviet era one's own head of
> state will appear on camera smiling and shaking hands with the perpetrators
> of repression, and make 'simplistic' statements expressing their feelings
> they could 'do business' with them.
>
> On February 5, 2000, the mass murder of civilians took place during a
> passport inspection by sub-units of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry
> of the Interior of the Russian Federation in the village of Novye Aldy,
> Zavodskoi District, Grozny. This was reported by;
>
> - T. A. Murdalov
> - Investigator for Especially Important Matters,
> - Office of the North Caucasus Prosecutor General of the Russian
> Federation.
>
> Those refer to OMON units. The issue was not further investigated because of
> jurisdictional 'problems' of troops from Petersburg and Ryazan, and in 2002
> "it came quietly to rest." says Andrew Meier, who continued his report in
> Black Earth with...
>
> ...Not long after the dead in Aldy were reburied for the final time,
> Yuri Dyomin, Russia's chief military prosecutor, told an audience of Western
> human rights advocates in Moscow that he regretted "the time I have wasted"
> investigating reports of abuses "based on disinformation." He went on to
> accuse Chechen refugees of spreading // skazki //, fairy tales.
>
> This ended the affair for catch-phrase Western apologists of the Regime in
> the post-Soviet era, since it was just another [unexplained] massacre,
> despite contravening Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, on internal
> conflicts.
>
> And that Mr. Kane, I suggest to you is <emphasis> //post// Soviet era.
> Those who reported things even earlier gained less attention in the West,
> since for many people, such behaviors by a state were literally
> 'unbelievable.'
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 08:36:02
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c4ab7bd5-4f96-44fe-8e42-9cc570d3c58e@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> One reckons that nearly every reader on this
> forum knows that Kanester inverted truth when calling
> Larry Evans an apparatchik of the USCF. He has
> been an independent contractor, never a USCF employee.
One has to laugh. When faced with an unpleasant
reality, Parr comes up with the defense that Larry
Evans was not technically "on the payroll" but rather
an independent contractor! I stand corrected. LOL
Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),
chose to make his chess name writing for the USCF's
"government" periodical. As such, his survival was not
related to excellence or even competence, but rather
his skill in negotiating the political winds of the
federation. He's done that in admirable fashion -
and I don't deny that in part that relates to having
a group of loyal followers, mostly of the Sam Sloan
variety.
Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
contradicting his own prior writings. But I will grant that
Parr does have a point in that the USCF
does not speak with a single voice and
at times he's been at odds with certain factions
within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
emphasizes conformity above all else.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 16:52:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:c4ab7bd5-4f96-44fe-8e42-9cc570d3c58e@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> One reckons that nearly every reader on this
>> forum knows that Kanester inverted truth when calling
>> Larry Evans an apparatchik of the USCF. He has
>> been an independent contractor, never a USCF employee.
>
> One has to laugh. When faced with an unpleasant
> reality, Parr comes up with the defense that Larry
> Evans was not technically "on the payroll" but rather
> an independent contractor! I stand corrected. LOL
Not the point I took, which was that Larry Evans was independent of
employment and also the need for a few hundred bucks a month, since he is a
millionairre.
> Of course, that detail has little to do with anything,
> and does not resurrect the Evans mythology (of
> someone bravely takes on a corrupt establishment) that
> Parr has been assigned with promulgating.
Who else has bravely done so? There are few truly independent voices. The
inverse of Larry Evans is Jerry Hanken, eg.
> GM Evans, a player I admire and an author of chess
> works of which I am a satisfied customer (believe it
> or not, he actually wrote about chess at one time!),
> chose to make his chess name writing for the USCF's
> "government" periodical. As such, his survival was not
> related to excellence or even competence, but rather
> his skill in negotiating the political winds of the
> federation. He's done that in admirable fashion -
> and I don't deny that in part that relates to having
> a group of loyal followers, mostly of the Sam Sloan
> variety.
My opinion is that people use their own judgement rather more than an
weighted attention from Sloan, who, after all, is only known to chess
politicians and the reader of the New York Times, if that is a distinction
worth making?
> Of course, when CL made it mandatory for
> every article to have a red-baiting angle, Evans
> complied with his wild, fact-free allegations - often
> contradicting his own prior writings.
These facts, you know, like judgement at chess, are not always communicable
to those with not the slightest sence of the culture addressed. Soviet
bashing is relatively easy, since there are now plenty of facts to support
it, in fact, to assume innocent action from a Soviet-era figure would be the
exception, and facts would be required to explicate that person from the
system.
Korchnoi was certainly such an exception to corruption to the degree that he
could still exist in the SU and say anything at all. A bit later Boris
Spassky was the same. They both got the hell out of there. Gulko was merely
a refusenik and was persecuted for his religion and culture.
Are there ex-Soviets chess players in the West who actually contest this as
a basis?
> But I will grant that
> Parr does have a point in that the USCF
> does not speak with a single voice and
> at times he's been at odds with certain factions
> within the organization. Perhaps the wily politician
> is a more apt image than apparatchik, which
> emphasizes conformity above all else.
Like in the SU, non-conformity is treated the same way - by being
frozen-out; by being ostracized by the burocratic class in chess who rather
like it the way it is.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 05:27:41
From:
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 28, 10:03=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 YUSUPOV BROKE THE BOYCOTT
>
> =A0 =A0Taylor Kingston is right about the number. =A0It
> was the ninth Lone Pine Open. =A0On the other side of
> the coin, Korchnoi rubbed no salt in any posited wound
> that Artur Yusupov supposedly suffered.
I should have phrased that differently. The "they" I had in mind
when I said "Korchnoi rubbed salt their wounds" was the Soviet
authorities behind the boycott, but instead it was phrased so that
"they" referred to Yusupov and Romanishin.
> Korchnoi beat
> him in a very good game, but Yusupov did a big, brave
> thing when playing Korchnoi and breaking the boycott.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Yusupov was and is no Karprov. =A0Indeed, Yusupov
> detested the boycott against Korchnoi and was
> delighted to be the man who broke it.
I am glad to know that about Yusupov.
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 10:08?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)
>
> > > The matter did not stop there. The Soviet Union suddenly pulled out
> > > two of her players from the Nineteenth Lone Pine Open in America after=
> > > learning Korchnoi was competing.
>
> > =A0 Either Larry Parr did not copy this correctly from Evans' book, or
> > Evans made a small mistake.There never was a "Nineteenth Lone Pine
> > Open." There were only 11, running annually 1971-1981 (see for
> > example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Pine_International). Evans
> > is correct that two Soviet players, Tseshkovsky and Romanishin, who
> > planned to play in 1979, did indeed pull out (or were ordered to pull
> > out) when it was learned that Korchnoi would play. That was the 9th
> > Lone Pine Open, so perhaps "nineteenth" is just an inadvertent typo.
> > =A0 At Lone Pine 1981, Korchnoi arrived only at the last minute,
> > catching the two Soviet GMs Yusupov and Romanishin by suprise. This
> > time they went ahead and played, and Korchnoi rubbed salt in their
> > wounds by winning the tournament.
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 00:09:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 29, 1:36 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Kanester calls GM Larry Evans (a millionaire)
> an apparatchik" who needs lifetime employment by
As usual, Mr. Parr changes the subject from one
he cannot handle to something else entirely; here,
the poor fellow slaves away at building a straw man
--Larry Evans' imagined "need for money" ( a need
which Mr. Kane never even mentioned).
> [Larry Evans] angered chess politicians when he
> attacked Bobby's match conditions
I expect he also angered a lot of fans-- not just
evil politicians.
> So, then, one says to Mr. Savard that Evans'
> long-time political enemies hated him and wanted to
> destroy his career in chess precisely because he was
> NO apparatchik. They wanted him to write as they
> pleased, but he never would.
Well then, if this is true, why the need to slave
away at building straw men? (Perhaps Mr. Parr
enjoys it, and that is reason enough for him.)
> No American writer has
> been more critical of the USCF as attested by chapter 31
> ("How America Was Betrayed") in his new book
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS.
It's not spam! It's called "free advertising".
Even though Mr. Kane often seems a lot smarter
than Larry Parr when it comes to thinking skills,
he sometimes falls flat on his face, as here. Just
about everybody knows that Mr. Evans has his
own agenda, and it's not the USCF's-- not even
close.
> Mr. Savard also needs to know that in the debates
> over Karpov, Evans was NOT spouting the USCF line.
> Far from it. The USCF political class, quietly led by
> Ed Edmonson at Caracas, helped Karpov get back the
> rematch clause for title matches, a far bigger edge
> than any advantage ever sought by Bobby Fischer.
Mr. Parr seems to have -- temporarily -- corrected
his usual mistake, that of carelessly tossing in the
term "mathematical" as an adjective for "advantage".
This goes back to an old article in Chess Lies-- an
article which purported to demonstrate how the
rematch clause somehow nullified a challenger's
winning the title, by pretending he didn't win it
unless he later held onto it. The whole idea was
wrongheaded, and it is a simple matter to come up
with a superior approach to criticizing the rematch
clause; simple that is, for those who can reason
and think.
> Most lies have an element of truth and are not
> diametrical inversions of what was or is the case.
> Most liars have enough respect for their audience to
> know that lies must contain elements of truth.
It's good to know that Mr. Parr is so um, well-
informed about his chief occupation. But consider
how much /work/ and /effort/ could be saved if a
different approach were to be tried. Liars, as you
must know, need to keep careful track of all their
fibs, and just whom they were told to. Compare
and contrast to the easy, laid-back life of an
honest person, who doesn't have to remember
anything at all! Sometimes, I feel kind of sorry for
the liars... .
-- help bot
|
| |
GREG GOT SOMETHING RIGHT FOR A CHANGE
For once, Greg Kennedy got something right.
David Kane did strike a nerve. For one always
reprehends those who are, to employ Trotsky's term,
fellow-travellers. Vladimir Nabokov has some nice
pages devoted to these Kanester types.
Greg appears to be on a roll in his brief
posting. It is also true, as he suggests, that he
knows little about the history of the Soviets and
their activities in either the larger world or in our
little world of chess.
Families of defectors often ended in slave camps
or in the cellars of the Lubyanka or Lefortovo. Their
bodies would then be shipped to assorted hecatombs.
Perhaps some of Gouzenko's relatives ended up in, say,
one of the 1,500 or so mass graves around Kuropaty.
We shall never know for sure.
The consensus among the Kane-Gregs here
appears to be that holding Korchnoi's family hostage,
while not ideal, may be usefully compared with
Korchnoi complaining about such treatment. Torturers
are wrong to rip out human organs, but those who are
being thus treated are wrong to scream too loudly.
SOME APPARATCHIK!
<You cannot rely on Evans for unbiased information.
Evans is the classic USCF apparatchik. When the
Chess Life "bosses" demand cold war rhetoric - he
complies. Say or write anything to maintain lifetime
employment, that's the ticket. > -- David Kane
David Kane is becoming quite the big liar in
retailing the big lie. His latest effort comes in a
response to John Savard.
The Kanester calls GM Larry Evans (a millionaire)
an apparatchik" who needs lifetime employment by
the USCF (even though the current editor eliminated
Evans On Chess to please his new bosses). The
Kanestar evidently has as little respect for Mr. Savard
as this writer and others have for the Kanester.
Mr. Savard: for the record, no columnist in
the history of Chess Life had a rockier road than GM
Evans. He was fired and rehired many a time; and he
was typically the subject of Policy Board and
policy board discussions about how to get rid of
him. He angered chess politicians when he attacked
Bobby's match conditions; later, he angered the
politicians and editor Hochberg when he broke the
ludicrous ban on mentioning Bobby's very name in CL.
The second time around, he got fired.
The problem -- and how the likes of Greg Kennedy
and Kanester hate the fact -- was that in every Chess
Life reader survey ever conducted, GM Evans was either
at the top or second behind Andy Soltis in reader
approval. One of the surveys had over 3,000 responses.
Among GM Evans' political enemies was Gary
Sperling, who served a number of terms on USCF
governing boards. During his final stint, when he was
treasurer, a discusson about GM Evans was conducted in
a public Board session. Unlike your Kanester or Greg,
Sperling had an intelligence that readily recognized
facts as he set about trying to work his will. During
this Board debate, when Evans' supporters pointed out
the 5-time U.S. champion's high popularity among readers,
Sperling did not try to deny the known evidence of both
surveys and his own anecdotal experiences.
Not at all.
Sperling conceded Evans' popularity and then
pointed out, "But he is not the kind of writer we want
in Chess Life" or words very close to that effect. His
point was that as members of the governing Policy
Board, his colleagues and he had an obligation to seek
writers of the kind that they preferred, if such were
their considered judgment that changes should be made.
And it was Sperling's judgment that Evans should
go, popular or not. He could not summon a majority
or, possibly, a consensus in that debate, but he
always kept trying.
I usually enjoyed talking with Sperling. because,
although he was devious, he was devious in an
intelligent and, to a degree, honest way. He did not
serve up the intellectually scrofulous stuff about
Evans offered here by Kanester and Greg. Sperling
was the frank type who said that far from being an
apparatchik (the kind of writer Sperling wanted in
CL) Evans was a thornchik in their political
posteriors. Sperling and Don Schultz (who sued
Evans unsuccessfully for $21 million) were enemies
who worked long and hard to fire the famous GM.
So, then, one says to Mr. Savard that Evans'
long-time political enemies hated him and wanted to
destroy his career in chess precisely because he was
NO apparatchik. They wanted him to write as they
pleased, but he never would. No American writer has
been more critical of the USCF as attested by chapter 31
("How America Was Betrayed") in his new book
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS.
Mr. Savard also needs to know that in the debates
over Karpov, Evans was NOT spouting the USCF line.
Far from it. The USCF political class, quietly led by
Ed Edmonson at Caracas, helped Karpov get back the
rematch clause for title matches, a far bigger edge
than any advantage ever sought by Bobby Fischer.
Federation politicians, while publicly condemning
Campomanes for stopping KK-I, privately hoped to
downplay what happened. When Campo came to
America for the 1985 U.S. Open, this writer was told by
then USCF President E. Steven Doyle not to attack
Campomanes for his decision because although Doyle
himself had publicly announced at that year's Amateur
Team East that the USCF reprehended Campomanes for
making such a decision, the real, behind-the-scenes
policy was to support Campo and FIDE.
The USCF political heat always was on Evans to tone
down his comments on Karpov and Campomanes, which
he would not do. Several of his comments were censored.
He was fired for a brief period in 1990 over this issue.
In short, Mr. Savard the truth is 180 degrees
the opposite of what Kanester wrote.
Most lies have an element of truth and are not
diametrical inversions of what was or is the case.
Most liars have enough respect for their audience to
know that lies must contain elements of truth. Our
Kanester is, in this sense, not so much a liar as
something even worse -- an inverter of fact and truth.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > KANE'S VERSION OF HISTORY
> >
> > >Don't get your history from Larry Parr. Refusing
> > emigration requests for families of defectors has little
> > do with chess and less to do with Karpov. It was
> > routine Soviet practice.
> > Karpov and Korchnoi have been cordial in later years - hardly
> > what one would expect if Karpov had been behind some evil plot.
> > -- David Kane
>
>
> Long-winded rant snipped.
>
> It certainly appears that Mr. Kane struck a nerve
> by correcting another of Mr. Parr's innumerable
> fallacies.
>
> In ratpacker world, the Soviet Union was supposed
> to allow Victor Kortchnoi's entire family to emigrate
> as a sort of public relations stunt. Well, in the USSR
> chess was immensely popular, so perhaps this pig
> could fly; to hell with our totalitarian principles! Let's
> set everybody VK knows free, and then hope that AK
> wins. Wait-- there is a problem; Mr. Kortchnoi is a
> genuine Russian-trained chess powerhouse. What
> if we abandon our evilness, our principles, set all
> those people free, and then we *lose*? Yikes.
>
> Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
> *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
> requests as those by family members of defector
> Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
> such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
> avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
> another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
> flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
> that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 23:46:30
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:79208232-4a6a-4c7a-bbb9-73a4f7329b95@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Kanester calls GM Larry Evans (a millionaire)
> an apparatchik" who needs lifetime employment by
> the USCF (even though the current editor eliminated
> Evans On Chess to please his new bosses).
I never claimed that Evans' motivation was financial.
Having long since given up competing at chess, I
suspect that his reason for clinging to the column
over the years was emotional - it connects him
(however remotely) to his glory days as an
exceptional chess player. That he has written so much
false and embarrassing stuff in pursuit of that
connection is a shame but hardly surprising.
Mediocre outfit + mediocre people (e.g. Parr) =
mediocre output.
And Parr distorts again. Evans is still on the payroll.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 19:55:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 28, 10:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> KANE'S VERSION OF HISTORY
>
> >Don't get your history from Larry Parr. Refusing
> emigration requests for families of defectors has little
> do with chess and less to do with Karpov. It was
> routine Soviet practice.
> Karpov and Korchnoi have been cordial in later years - hardly
> what one would expect if Karpov had been behind some evil plot.
> -- David Kane
Long-winded rant snipped.
It certainly appears that Mr. Kane struck a nerve
by correcting another of Mr. Parr's innumerable
fallacies.
In ratpacker world, the Soviet Union was supposed
to allow Victor Kortchnoi's entire family to emigrate
as a sort of public relations stunt. Well, in the USSR
chess was immensely popular, so perhaps this pig
could fly; to hell with our totalitarian principles! Let's
set everybody VK knows free, and then hope that AK
wins. Wait-- there is a problem; Mr. Kortchnoi is a
genuine Russian-trained chess powerhouse. What
if we abandon our evilness, our principles, set all
those people free, and then we *lose*? Yikes.
Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
*routine practice* was to deny such emigration
requests as those by family members of defector
Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 23:32:56
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9d0ee65b-2e07-4502-aab2-40f88e5ea4c4@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
> *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
> requests as those by family members of defector
> Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
> such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
> avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
> another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
> flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
> that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
>
The bigger point really was that no rational person
could expect a chessplayer to influence the
emigration policies of the Soviet government.
The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
not capable of dealing with facts which get
in the way of their simplistic stories.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 09:22:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9d0ee65b-2e07-4502-aab2-40f88e5ea4c4@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> Mr. Kane's point was that (he says) the Soviets'
>> *routine practice* was to deny such emigration
>> requests as those by family members of defector
>> Victor Kortchnoi. Now, while I don't know about
>> such things, I do know that Mr. Parr studiously
>> avoided addressing that issue, instead doing
>> another of his ad hominem dances, with both feet
>> flying this way and that. It must be concluded then
>> that Mr. Kane struck a nerve.
>>
>
> The bigger point really was that no rational person
> could expect a chessplayer to influence the
> emigration policies of the Soviet government.
No rational person would credit any objective sense whatever to Soviet
Government.
We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
- Viktor Chernomyrdin,
- Russian prime minister, 1992-1998.
But David Kane might appreciate the particular sensitivity displayed by all
totalitarian regimes to the // appearance // of things, in contradistinction
to the difficulty of reporting what actually goes on in closed societies,
which is to contrast the appearance with the practice. If Mr. Parr's
commentary related to either individual pressure put on chess players, or to
other individuals whose intelligence and ability was valued by the Soviet
State, then his is /not/ an exceptional point of view.
In chess one would only have to read Boris Gulko's testimony to understand
that specifically; not only was the Russian champion duffed-up by KGB but
his wife was also beaten.
It is getting that news out of the country which is the difficult bit - not
just the anecdote, but records establishing its extent and probity.
Therefore while it is unusual to have then found such samizdat in the West,
almost all such records as Gulko's, each made independently of each other,
and necessarily without knowledge of each other; these records all accord
with each other.
I think to perhaps innocently blame the reporter for inventiveness, or some
such thing, is an attitude that is relieved by knowledge after even a little
study.
> The Evans and Parrs of this world are simply
> not capable of dealing with facts which get
> in the way of their simplistic stories.
JUST ANOTHER MASSACRE
The stories are simple. They are often brutal, so brutal that it is hard to
believe that, for example, even in the post-Soviet era one's own head of
state will appear on camera smiling and shaking hands with the perpetrators
of repression, and make 'simplistic' statements expressing their feelings
they could 'do business' with them.
On February 5, 2000, the mass murder of civilians took place during a
passport inspection by sub-units of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry
of the Interior of the Russian Federation in the village of Novye Aldy,
Zavodskoi District, Grozny. This was reported by;
- T. A. Murdalov
- Investigator for Especially Important Matters,
- Office of the North Caucasus Prosecutor General of the Russian
Federation.
Those refer to OMON units. The issue was not further investigated because of
jurisdictional 'problems' of troops from Petersburg and Ryazan, and in 2002
"it came quietly to rest." says Andrew Meier, who continued his report in
Black Earth with...
...Not long after the dead in Aldy were reburied for the final time,
Yuri Dyomin, Russia's chief military prosecutor, told an audience of Western
human rights advocates in Moscow that he regretted "the time I have wasted"
investigating reports of abuses "based on disinformation." He went on to
accuse Chechen refugees of spreading // skazki //, fairy tales.
This ended the affair for catch-phrase Western apologists of the Regime in
the post-Soviet era, since it was just another [unexplained] massacre,
despite contravening Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, on internal
conflicts.
And that Mr. Kane, I suggest to you is <emphasis > //post// Soviet era.
Those who reported things even earlier gained less attention in the West,
since for many people, such behaviors by a state were literally
'unbelievable.'
Phil Innes
|
| |
BLAMING THE DEFECTORS
>How many families do you think Korchnoi wanted? Why do
you think he ditched his family in the first place? > -- Jurgen
Jurgen checks in. Defectors are now those who
"ditch" their families. And it is true: those who
escape totalitarian regimes, another would be GM Lev
Alburt, often make the choice of seeking freedom at
the expense of slaves left behind.
Karpov becomes at worst a neutral figure --
though some here like David Kane admire him --
as he toadied to a regime that murdered, if one
accepts the figures of noted demographer Murray
Feshbach, 100 million of its own citizens.
Korchnoi? He becomes a guy who ditches his family.
When Igor and Anna Gouzenko defected, they had
to know that their families likely would be eliminated by
Stalin. Those who spoke up in the great literature of
honor -- Jerzy Gliksman in "Tell the West;"Vladimir
Tchernavin in "I Speak for the Silent" Elizaveta
Lermolo in "Face of a Victim" and so many others --
sentenced relatives to death in the concentration camp
regime they left behind.
In the case of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, he smuggled a
manuscript of The Gulag Archipelago to a woman who
was arrested, tortured, revealed the location of the
manuscript she was hiding, and then committed suicide.
In a sense Solzhenitsyn had some responsibility for
her sad end.
But some of us are aware who the bad guys were
-- the Cheka, OGPU, KGB torturers and bosses, not
those who "ditched" their families.
Yours, Larry Parr
J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> [...]
>
> >Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
> >First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
> >that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
> >challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
> >FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
> >accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.
>
> The clock will soon have stricken 12 for chess journalists
> without a command of the irregular verb forms.
>
> >Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi?s family
>
> How many families do you think Korchnoi wanted? Why do you think
> he ditched his family in the first place?
>
> [...]
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 17:07:17
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:e1721af8-4dd6-466f-bdcf-e5c3006c7f8a@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>BLAMING THE DEFECTORS
>>How many families do you think Korchnoi wanted? Why do
>>you think he ditched his family in the first place?> -- Jurgen
> Jurgen checks in. Defectors are now those who
>"ditch" their families.
I did not say that. However:
You don't know and never will know why Korchnoi
stayed in the West.
You also don't know and will never know, whether
his family was happy to see him go, nor whether
he was glad to be rid of them.
It is generally known that he got involved with
Petra Leeuwerik very soon after his defection,
and that he divorced his wife shortly after she moved
to the West in 1982.
It is also well known That Korchnoi is a difficult
character - impolite, unsophisticated, paranoid,
definitely not somebody easily made into a hero.
Korchnoi was an excellent chess player in his
day - second only to Karpov.
The rest is none of our business.
[...deleting standard anti-Soviet fantasies]
|
| |
YUSUPOV BROKE THE BOYCOTT
Taylor Kingston is right about the number. It
was the ninth Lone Pine Open. On the other side of
the coin, Korchnoi rubbed no salt in any posited wound
that Artur Yusupov supposedly suffered. Korchnoi beat
him in a very good game, but Yusupov did a big, brave
thing when playing Korchnoi and breaking the boycott.
Yusupov was and is no Karprov. Indeed, Yusupov
detested the boycott against Korchnoi and was
delighted to be the man who broke it.
KANE'S VERSION OF HISTORY
>Don't get your history from Larry Parr. Refusing
emigration requests for families of defectors has little
do with chess and less to do with Karpov. It was
routine Soviet practice.
Karpov and Korchnoi have
been cordial in later years - hardly
what one would
expect if Karpov had been behind some evil plot. -- David Kane
And so,we have the Kane vein of sporting understanding.
A government that supports one of two
participants in a world title chess match holds
hostage the family of the opponent of their
standardbearer. Nothing unusual about that -- in
Kanethink. More or less acceptable sporting behavior,
and we are not to imagine that Anatoly Karpov, who
toadied and toadied and toadied beyond the call of
even Soviet duty of that period, is to be blamed.
Karpov worked hard for his Order of Lenin,
tendered countless interviews that helped earn
this careerist his privileges, and he finally got his
dinner with Leonid Brezhnev and other bigwigs. We
don't see photos these days of Lenin's visage hanging
on Karpov's chest because those who held power in the
name of one of history's greatest mass murderers fell
from power themselves.
In the second match in 1981, the acceptable
sporting arrangements -- in our Kane's version --
included arresting Korchnoi's son, sending him to a
slave labor camp and announcing on the eve of the
match that the boy had been badly beaten by,
presumably, outraged pro-Soviet slaves.
Yasser Seirawan, who was Korchnoi's aide,
later said that the news
crushed Korchnoi, whose
fighting spirit waned.
As for Korchnoi and Karpov proving to be
friendly in later years, Korchnoi himself said that he
made an enormous mistake ever sitting at a table with
that worm to play a game of bridge.
In Kane world, if the Cuban military kidnaps
Lasker's beloved Martha Lasker on the eve of his match
with Capablanca and lets it be known that she has,
shall we say, been attended to by outraged pro-Cuban
workers, then we have a sporting situation that is
more or less normal. And if Capa later gives
interviews and toadies beyond the call of duty to
those who attended to Martha, then he is later to be
suppported as a normal sportsman. Indeed, it is
Lasker who is to be held in some disrepute for daring
to question Martha's treatment.
Kanester tells us that holding families hostage
was normal practice in Soviet times, so what's the big
deal anyway? Shooting families and sending those not
shot to slave camps was also a common practice, since
under Soviet law families members were responsible for
the actions of other members.
For the Kanester, then, we had essentially a
normal sporting event, and Karpov who toadied
heroically (Spassky never lowered himself as Karpov
did) is to be looked upon as at worst a neutral figure
in terms of sportsmen and, given the canker in the
souls of the likes of Greg and Kane, an admirable
figure in important ways.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:08?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)
> >
> > The matter did not stop there. The Soviet Union suddenly pulled out
> > two of her players from the Nineteenth Lone Pine Open in America after
> > learning Korchnoi was competing.
>
> Either Larry Parr did not copy this correctly from Evans' book, or
> Evans made a small mistake.There never was a "Nineteenth Lone Pine
> Open." There were only 11, running annually 1971-1981 (see for
> example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Pine_International). Evans
> is correct that two Soviet players, Tseshkovsky and Romanishin, who
> planned to play in 1979, did indeed pull out (or were ordered to pull
> out) when it was learned that Korchnoi would play. That was the 9th
> Lone Pine Open, so perhaps "nineteenth" is just an inadvertent typo.
> At Lone Pine 1981, Korchnoi arrived only at the last minute,
> catching the two Soviet GMs Yusupov and Romanishin by suprise. This
> time they went ahead and played, and Korchnoi rubbed salt in their
> wounds by winning the tournament.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 15:04:45
From: help bot
Subject: Yet another strange ploy
|
On Apr 28, 10:08 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
> in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage
> (twice with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov)> -- David Kane
>
> How quickly we forget!
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)
>
> Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
Larry Parr has a disturbing habit of taking other
posters' words out of context to distort their
meaning. It is a strange ploy, and one which
reveals the sort of fundamental dishonesty that is
endemic in him.
David Kane was, of course, discussing the rematch
clause. Mr. Parr quite dishonestly reported on how
ratpacker whipping boys like Anatoly Karpov and
Mikhail Botvinnik had supposedly benefited
immensely from the rematch clause at the expense
of some ratpacker faves, and Mr. Kane jumped in to
point out some contrary facts which Mr Parr had
deliberately omitted.
> First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
> that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
> challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
It is interesting to note how the FIDE is said to have
had "courage", when they happen to have voted the
way the Evans ratpack prefers.
> FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
> accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.
>
> Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi=92s family and
> objected to his playing under the flag of his new country,
> Switzerland. During his 1978 title match, the Soviet press never
> mentioned his name, referring to him only as "the challenger" or
> "Karpov=92s opponent."
The term "never" seems rather reckless here; ah,
but then, the ratpackers never were ones to use
care or thoughtfulness.
> Korchnoi squawked that the deck was stacked against him even in a
> neutral country like the Philippines. Two members of his delegation
> were denied entry to the auditorium
Here is yet another example of the "huge bias" (John Watson,
et al) of these Evans ratpackers. Even the American magazine
Chess Lies was not so bold as to attempt such a ploy as this
one. The two members were known criminals, who perhaps
should have been locked up along with the Helter Skelter crew.
Charles Manson could have used some "quality" company, I
expect, and the whole lot would have about the same genuine
interest in watching a chess match.
> but a parapsychologist with
> Karpov=92s entourage was allowed to roam freely in the audience while
> trying to hypnotize and unnerve Korchnoi.
Oh bother. Was it not enough to have held the man's
entire family hostage at Mr. Karpov's estate outside
Moscow? Apparently not, if you buy into all these
stories.
> Try as he might, Korchnoi could not get Dr. Zukhar removed.
Ah, but then Dr. Zukhar was not the problem. The
real problem was that the blueberry yogurt contained
significant quantities of anti-oxidants, which are known
to combat free radicals-- like Mr. Kortchnoi.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 11:54:05
From:
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 28, 1:10=A0pm, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> [...]
>
> >Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
> >First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
> >that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
> >challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
> >FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
> >accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.
>
> The clock will soon have stricken 12 for chess journalists
> without a command of the irregular verb forms.
I believe "stricken" is quite proper here. I've seen hundreds of TV
and movie courtroom scenes where an attorney says "I move that
statement be stricken from the record." By the same token, a rule may
be stricken from the books.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 17:15:08
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:be3a9894-2c73-4fdc-b7b6-815cc6327cb4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 1:10 pm, J�rgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> >The clock will soon have stricken 12 for chess journalists
> >without a command of the irregular verb forms.
> I believe "stricken" is quite proper here. I've seen hundreds of TV
> and movie courtroom scenes where an attorney says "I move that
> statement be stricken from the record." By the same token, a rule may
> be stricken from the books.
Fowler: 'stricken' - this archaic p.p. of strike survives chiefly in
particular phrases, & especially in senses divorced from those
now usual with the verb; then gives examples: poverty-stricken,
etc.
However, it is possible that English and American usage
differ sufficiently to make 'stricken', as used in the
original quote, acceptable to many.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 13:31:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
"J�rgen R." <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:be3a9894-2c73-4fdc-b7b6-815cc6327cb4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 1:10 pm, J�rgen R. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The clock will soon have stricken 12 for chess journalists
>> >without a command of the irregular verb forms.
>
>> I believe "stricken" is quite proper here. I've seen hundreds of TV
>> and movie courtroom scenes where an attorney says "I move that
>> statement be stricken from the record." By the same token, a rule may
>> be stricken from the books.
>
> Fowler: 'stricken' - this archaic p.p. of strike survives chiefly in
> particular phrases, & especially in senses divorced from those
> now usual with the verb; then gives examples: poverty-stricken,
> etc.
Jurgen finds the right point: there are several points.
Even English usage various considerably over time. The original word in
'English' is from A. Sax; STRICAN; with the usual sense of 'to go directly'.
In fact from the normative verb form there are given some 21 definitions of
the word - earlier spelled STREKE. Earliest rendition I can find is from the
Anglo Saxon:
He sall noght eftyr hys lyfes ende
Weende strycke to purgatory,
Bot even to helle withowten mercy.
// Hampole, MS Bowes, p. 105.
STRICAN: to go rapidly in a straight course
ASTRICAN: to strike, to smite
D. strijken; to stroke
G. streichen;
Icel. strykja; to stroke, to flog
['stroke' is a derivative]
In England there is also STRETT; a straight way, and even STRAIT; meaning
/to straighten, to puzzle/ [as if to say, to straighter one's thoughts or
ideas].
It is a fascinating observation that many "Americanisms" are actually older
than current English ones; since the early 1600's American English often
recorded words which were latterly superceded in England itself.
Receding a thousand years there is also: STRAKE: to go; to proceed, 'to
strake about, circumcere,' [MS Devonsh. Glossary]
The stormes straked with the wynde,
The wawes to-bote bifore and bihynde.
// Cursor Mundi, MS Coll. Trin. Cantab. f. 12.
An original sense can also be that of latter usage - as in the 1960's people
were called 'straights' in exactly the same way as here below [severe,
straight-laced, strict]:
Of his ordres he wol streit, and he was in greete
fere
For to ordeini eni man bote he the betere were.
// Like of Thomas Beket, ed. Black, p. 14
I think the sense of strike with a meaning to eliminate from consideration
is of British Naval usage, as in, to strike the colors is to cease
resistance, to contest no more, and this is relatively late, circa 1700.
Phil Innes
> However, it is possible that English and American usage
> differ sufficiently to make 'stricken', as used in the
> original quote, acceptable to many.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 08:08:38
From:
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
On Apr 28, 10:08=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)
>
> The matter did not stop there. The Soviet Union suddenly pulled out
> two of her players from the Nineteenth Lone Pine Open in America after
> learning Korchnoi was competing.
Either Larry Parr did not copy this correctly from Evans' book, or
Evans made a small mistake.There never was a "Nineteenth Lone Pine
Open." There were only 11, running annually 1971-1981 (see for
example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Pine_International). Evans
is correct that two Soviet players, Tseshkovsky and Romanishin, who
planned to play in 1979, did indeed pull out (or were ordered to pull
out) when it was learned that Korchnoi would play. That was the 9th
Lone Pine Open, so perhaps "nineteenth" is just an inadvertent typo.
At Lone Pine 1981, Korchnoi arrived only at the last minute,
catching the two Soviet GMs Yusupov and Romanishin by suprise. This
time they went ahead and played, and Korchnoi rubbed salt in their
wounds by winning the tournament.
|
| |
KARPOV'S SPORTING ETHICS
<As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage
(twice with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) > -- David Kane
How quickly we forget!
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)
Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.
Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi=92s family and
objected to his playing under the flag of his new country,
Switzerland. During his 1978 title match, the Soviet press never
mentioned his name, referring to him only as "the challenger" or
"Karpov=92s opponent."
Korchnoi squawked that the deck was stacked against him even in a
neutral country like the Philippines. Two members of his delegation
were denied entry to the auditorium, but a parapsychologist with
Karpov=92s entourage was allowed to roam freely in the audience while
trying to hypnotize and unnerve Korchnoi. Try as he might, Korchnoi
could not get Dr. Zukhar removed. When Korchnoi appealed his loss in
the final game of the match on the grounds that the hypnotist had
broken an agreement by moving from the rear of the auditorium to the
fourth row while play was in progress, FIDE not only turned down the
appeal but went on to condemn the challenger for not conforming to
"the sporting ethics of chess and general social obligations."
The matter did not stop there. The Soviet Union suddenly pulled out
two of her players from the Nineteenth Lone Pine Open in America after
learning Korchnoi was competing. Other tournament organizers were
notified that if Korchnoi were invited, no Russians would come. His
name was conspicuously absent from the list of the world=92s top ten
grandmasters in 1979 competing at the $110,000 Challenge Cup in
Montreal. Anatoly Karpov, who tied for first there with ex-titleholder
Mikhail Tal, had been able to wield his influence as world champion in
support of the party line,
cabling the organizers, "If I could not refuse to face Korchnoi at
Baguio, I am now entitled to expect organizers to respect certain
conditions. Either they invite Korchnoi or me."
Not all the Russians joined the offensive against the expatriate.
Spassky was one of three (but only three) Soviet grandmasters who
refused to sign a letter of censure against Korchnoi. (Botvinnik and
Bronstein were the other two holdouts.) Korchnoi=92s son was imprisoned
in the USSR and beaten on the eve of his next title match with Karpov
in 1981. After Korchnoi lost, his family finally was released.
[email protected] wrote:
> GREG'S BILE
>
> Most of you probably noticed that among the
> reasons Greg Kennedy attacked Larry Evans was that
> the 5-time U.S. champion's "scolding" of Kasparov
> for doublecrossing Shirov "had no effect."
>
> Key-razy stuff from a very bitter man in Indiana.
> That would also be a reason for attacking GM Evans
> for pointing out Anatoly Karpov's depredations which
> also "had no effect."
>
> A few of you also likely caught the reference to
> Evans' "puff piece." Greg has a tin ear. Evans was
> answering a question from readers in his column,
> including Kasparov's manager who took umbrage at
> referring to his client's "shabby behavior."
> .
> That is not a "piece," as the term is commonly used in
> journalism. It is an answer from a Q&A column.
>
> Greg is right that GM Evans screamed louder over
> several of Karpov's outrages, but that is because
> GM Evans could and can distinguish among differing
> wrongs, unlike the coulda-been-a-contendah guy who
> is a nobody in chess and rarely has a good word to
> say about anyone..
>
> Kasparov cheated Shirov outrageously; Karpov played
> matches against Korchnoi with the latter's family held
> prisoner inside the USSR. On the eve of the second match
> in 1981, Korchnoi's son was beaten in a Soviet slave camp --
> an event that had a disastrous,though anticipated effect on
> Korchnoi's morale.
>
> Kasparov cheated and swerved and tergiversated; Karpov
> was, and may remain, a prime Grade AAA bonded rat,
> though in sheep's clothing these days.
>
> GM Evans' answer in his Q&A column was strongly
> worded and to the point, which is the way he always
> answered questions when his views were definite.
>
> In a separate posting I will present a long
> COPYRIGHTED article I wrote at the World Chess
> Network.It takes note of every sickening curve in
> Kasparov's swerving on the Shirov match. It is rather
> long and may seem a bit unrelenting to those of you
> outside the "coulda been a contendah" bitterness of
> our Greg, but it got the issue right -- an issue that
> had permutations of which our detail-shy Greg is
> blissfully unaware.
>
> Including, I might add, a refutation of a
> famous comment by Leo Durocher.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
> help bot wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
> > > decades
> >
> > In fact, Larry Evans is the most biased "observer"
> > I know; his spin-zone reminds me of the "fair and
> > balanced" Fox News channel on TV.
> >
> >
> > > EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)
> > >
> > > Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way=
> > > "Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."
> > >
> > > GM EVANS RESPONDED
> > >
> > > I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
> > > Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
> > > got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
> > > Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
> > > Shirov a shot at the title first.
> > >
> > > 1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
> > > pledging to play the winner for $2 million.
> > >
> > > 2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.
> > >
> > > 3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
> > > compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
> > > defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair=
> > > to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight=
> > > straight draws.
> >
> >
> > I was a subscriber to Chess Lies at the time that
> > article appeared. Having become well accustomed to
> > the "huge bias" (IM John Watson, et al) of Mr. Evans,
> > I took the article as a token puff-piece-- not anything
> > like what one would expect if, say, FIDE or Anatoly
> > Karpov or any of the other, usual whipping boys had
> > done precisely the same thing.
> >
> > You see, when FIDE messes up -- and it quite often
> > does -- Mr. Evans has a cow. He will rant and rave
> > about the "injustice" or whatever until the day he dies,
> > guaranteed. Yet when one of his faves -- here, Gary
> > Kasparov -- blunders, all we can expect from the
> > hugely biased five-time U.S. Champ is a scolding,
> > and then silence. It is a double-standard to be sure,
> > but then, that seems to be the only kind of standard
> > Mr. Evans knows.
> >
> > So you see, the fact that Mr. Evans wanted "to be
> > seen" as having come out in support of Mr. Shirov
> > does not impress. LE's scolding had no effect, and I
> > don't mean just on the cheating of Mr. Shirov, but on
> > his overall favoritism with regard to Mr. Kasparov.
> >
> > The reason is obvious: supporting GK is conducive
> > to Larry Evan's FIDE-bashing agenda. That agenda
> > is so important to LE that he cannot afford to side
> > with "justice", no matter what it might happen to be.
> >
> > I couldn't help bot notice that Mr. Parr felt it might
> > help his ad hominem "cause" to switch threads; so
> > then, what was it that he was so worried about in
> > the original thread? I think I know: it was probably
> > the post in which LP presented Gary Kasparov as
> > a champion of "justice", who, much like Superman,
> > fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and
> > the Kasparov way.
> >
> > The ploy /could have/ worked, but for making such
> > a titanic blunder in the area of casting. I cannot say
> > who is right for the role of champion of justice, but it
> > is painfully obvious that Gary Kasparov ain't it.
> >
> >
> > -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 19:10:31
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga
|
[...]
>Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
>First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
>that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
>challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
>FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
>accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.
The clock will soon have stricken 12 for chess journalists
without a command of the irregular verb forms.
>Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi�s family
How many families do you think Korchnoi wanted? Why do you think
he ditched his family in the first place?
[...]
|
| |
GREG'S BILE
Most of you probably noticed that among the
reasons Greg Kennedy attacked Larry Evans was that
the 5-time U.S. champion's "scolding" of Kasparov
for doublecrossing Shirov "had no effect."
Key-razy stuff from a very bitter man in Indiana.
That would also be a reason for attacking GM Evans
for pointing out Anatoly Karpov's depredations which
also "had no effect."
A few of you also likely caught the reference to
Evans' "puff piece." Greg has a tin ear. Evans was
answering a question from readers in his column,
including Kasparov's manager who took umbrage at
referring to his client's "shabby behavior."
.
That is not a "piece," as the term is commonly used in
journalism. It is an answer from a Q&A column.
Greg is right that GM Evans screamed louder over
several of Karpov's outrages, but that is because
GM Evans could and can distinguish among differing
wrongs, unlike the coulda-been-a-contendah guy who
is a nobody in chess and rarely has a good word to
say about anyone..
Kasparov cheated Shirov outrageously; Karpov played
matches against Korchnoi with the latter's family held
prisoner inside the USSR. On the eve of the second match
in 1981, Korchnoi's son was beaten in a Soviet slave camp --
an event that had a disastrous,though anticipated effect on
Korchnoi's morale.
Kasparov cheated and swerved and tergiversated; Karpov
was, and may remain, a prime Grade AAA bonded rat,
though in sheep's clothing these days.
GM Evans' answer in his Q&A column was strongly
worded and to the point, which is the way he always
answered questions when his views were definite.
In a separate posting I will present a long
COPYRIGHTED article I wrote at the World Chess
Network.It takes note of every sickening curve in
Kasparov's swerving on the Shirov match. It is rather
long and may seem a bit unrelenting to those of you
outside the "coulda been a contendah" bitterness of
our Greg, but it got the issue right -- an issue that
had permutations of which our detail-shy Greg is
blissfully unaware.
Including, I might add, a refutation of a
famous comment by Leo Durocher.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
> > decades
>
> In fact, Larry Evans is the most biased "observer"
> I know; his spin-zone reminds me of the "fair and
> balanced" Fox News channel on TV.
>
>
> > EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)
> >
> > Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
> > "Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."
> >
> > GM EVANS RESPONDED
> >
> > I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
> > Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
> > got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
> > Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
> > Shirov a shot at the title first.
> >
> > 1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
> > pledging to play the winner for $2 million.
> >
> > 2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.
> >
> > 3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
> > compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
> > defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
> > to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
> > straight draws.
>
>
> I was a subscriber to Chess Lies at the time that
> article appeared. Having become well accustomed to
> the "huge bias" (IM John Watson, et al) of Mr. Evans,
> I took the article as a token puff-piece-- not anything
> like what one would expect if, say, FIDE or Anatoly
> Karpov or any of the other, usual whipping boys had
> done precisely the same thing.
>
> You see, when FIDE messes up -- and it quite often
> does -- Mr. Evans has a cow. He will rant and rave
> about the "injustice" or whatever until the day he dies,
> guaranteed. Yet when one of his faves -- here, Gary
> Kasparov -- blunders, all we can expect from the
> hugely biased five-time U.S. Champ is a scolding,
> and then silence. It is a double-standard to be sure,
> but then, that seems to be the only kind of standard
> Mr. Evans knows.
>
> So you see, the fact that Mr. Evans wanted "to be
> seen" as having come out in support of Mr. Shirov
> does not impress. LE's scolding had no effect, and I
> don't mean just on the cheating of Mr. Shirov, but on
> his overall favoritism with regard to Mr. Kasparov.
>
> The reason is obvious: supporting GK is conducive
> to Larry Evan's FIDE-bashing agenda. That agenda
> is so important to LE that he cannot afford to side
> with "justice", no matter what it might happen to be.
>
> I couldn't help bot notice that Mr. Parr felt it might
> help his ad hominem "cause" to switch threads; so
> then, what was it that he was so worried about in
> the original thread? I think I know: it was probably
> the post in which LP presented Gary Kasparov as
> a champion of "justice", who, much like Superman,
> fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and
> the Kasparov way.
>
> The ploy /could have/ worked, but for making such
> a titanic blunder in the area of casting. I cannot say
> who is right for the role of champion of justice, but it
> is painfully obvious that Gary Kasparov ain't it.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2008 18:37:51
From: help bot
Subject: A Strange Ploy
|
[email protected] wrote:
> GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
> decades
In fact, Larry Evans is the most biased "observer"
I know; his spin-zone reminds me of the "fair and
balanced" Fox News channel on TV.
> EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)
>
> Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
> "Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."
>
> GM EVANS RESPONDED
>
> I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
> Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
> got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
> Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
> Shirov a shot at the title first.
>
> 1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
> pledging to play the winner for $2 million.
>
> 2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.
>
> 3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
> compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
> defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
> to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
> straight draws.
I was a subscriber to Chess Lies at the time that
article appeared. Having become well accustomed to
the "huge bias" (IM John Watson, et al) of Mr. Evans,
I took the article as a token puff-piece-- not anything
like what one would expect if, say, FIDE or Anatoly
Karpov or any of the other, usual whipping boys had
done precisely the same thing.
You see, when FIDE messes up -- and it quite often
does -- Mr. Evans has a cow. He will rant and rave
about the "injustice" or whatever until the day he dies,
guaranteed. Yet when one of his faves -- here, Gary
Kasparov -- blunders, all we can expect from the
hugely biased five-time U.S. Champ is a scolding,
and then silence. It is a double-standard to be sure,
but then, that seems to be the only kind of standard
Mr. Evans knows.
So you see, the fact that Mr. Evans wanted "to be
seen" as having come out in support of Mr. Shirov
does not impress. LE's scolding had no effect, and I
don't mean just on the cheating of Mr. Shirov, but on
his overall favoritism with regard to Mr. Kasparov.
The reason is obvious: supporting GK is conducive
to Larry Evan's FIDE-bashing agenda. That agenda
is so important to LE that he cannot afford to side
with "justice", no matter what it might happen to be.
I couldn't help bot notice that Mr. Parr felt it might
help his ad hominem "cause" to switch threads; so
then, what was it that he was so worried about in
the original thread? I think I know: it was probably
the post in which LP presented Gary Kasparov as
a champion of "justice", who, much like Superman,
fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and
the Kasparov way.
The ploy /could have/ worked, but for making such
a titanic blunder in the area of casting. I cannot say
who is right for the role of champion of justice, but it
is painfully obvious that Gary Kasparov ain't it.
-- help bot
|
|
