| |
Main
Date: 11 Oct 2007 08:35:20
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
Over the last few days a rancorous discussion has been going on
between Helpbot (aka Greg Kennedy), GM Mihai Suba, and Larry Parr on
the subject of telephone conversations between Bobby Fischer and Henry
Kissinger (then National Security Advisor) pertaining to Fischer's
1972 world title match with Spassky. There is obviously strong
disagreement, between Helpbot on one side, and Suba and Parr on the
other. However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
haven't seen.
Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
clarify matters?
It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong. A
search for the word "Kissinger" among these three posters brings up
these recent quotes:
Helpbot, 6 ch 2007:
"It remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
uphold the honor of his country, etc."
Mihai Suba, 4 October 2007:
"You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
the contrary of what you said."
Larry Parr, 5 October 2007:
"The word here [in Reykjavik -- not New York] is that Bobby Fischer
received an 11th-hour phone call from Henry Kissinger persuading him
to play the third game of his match with Boris Spassky. America's
honor was at stake as well as political relations with Iceland."
Helpbot, 10 October 2007:
"Speaking of gutless wonders, anybody notice what happened to Mr.
Parr when it was pointed out that the phone call described in the
recent pages of Chess Life was made from New York (not Iceland)?
That's right: he groaned and then ran away!
"The quote from an old article by GM Evans mentioned a call made to
Iceland during the match, but of course logic dictates that it is to
convince our hero to fly to a place when he is there playing already.
Mr. Parr seems to have grave difficulties with logic, but his research
skills are commendable in that he managed to dredge up /something/."
Parr in reply, 10 October 2007:
"Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
losing the first two games to Spassky.
"Sheesh."
(end quotes from rgc posts)
I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer. Checking the well-
researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (2004), the chronology
seems to be about like this:
1 July 1972: Opening ceremony in Reykjavik, Iceland. Fischer not in
attendance -- still in New York.
1 or 2 July 1972: Theodore Tremblay, US Ambassador to Iceland,
telegraphs Kissinger and Secretary of State Wiiliam Rogers, detailing
his concerns about Fischer's refusal to play.
1 or 2 July 1972: Kissinger (probably in Washington DC?),
telephones Fischer in Douglaston, NY, saying among other things
"America wants you to go over there and beat the Russians."
3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds =A350,000
to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
I have removed the element of money."
3 July 1972, 10:04 PM: Fischer takes off from JFK airport, arriving
early July 4 in Iceland.
14 July 1972: After losing the first game of the match, and
forfeiting the second, Fischer is threatening to walk out, objecting
to the presence of cameras filming the match. Kissinger calls from San
Clemente, California, encouraging Fischer to continue playing.
So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14, and if
Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neither
side is completely correct.
I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 11:21:31
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 16, 12:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> TWO CALLS FROM KISSINGER
>
> <It's still unclear to me whether Parr/Suba thinks there was only one
> call by
> Kissinger and not two. Does Suba think Fischer was motivated more by
> patriotism than money, or vice versa? What exact point(s) of dispute
> between
> them depend(s) on whether Fischer was in New York or Iceland when
> Kissinger called? Parr and Suba aren't saying, and it seeems
> Helpbot can't even remember his own position, let alone explain it.> -
> T. Kingston
>
> The first call from Kissinger came to Fischer while he was in New York
> AFTER Slater's offer of more money.
>
> The second call from Kissinger came to Fischer after he lost the first
> two games to Spassky in Iceland.
>
> It appears that Fischer was motivated by money the first time and
> patriotism the second time.
>
> This is my last word on the subject, though we can brace ourselves for
> more rants from Greg Kennedy (aka nomore chess and help bot) who is
> usually short on facts and long on opinions.
>
Thanks for contributing and making your view clear, Larry.
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 5:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > If you back up a few pages in the Darrach book, you will find that he
> > > also mentions the business with the Icelandic government. To the
> > > extent that I've been able to check it, Darrach's book seems quite
> > > good on details. (Remember that he was there at the time, while
> > > Edmonds and Eidenow were writing decades later from secondary
> > > sources.)
>
> > True, and a very relevant point, but I don't feel Darrach's account
> > can be fully trusted. He was basically a pop-journalist, writing for
> > "Life" magazine, a celebrity-oriented weekly not much different from
> > today's "People" or "Us." He was interested much more in
> > sensationalism than accuracy. He reports everything as if he were an
> > eye-witness, but it's very unlikely he was there for everything he
> > reports. E&E's book, though written decades later, has the definite
> > virtues of broader research, careful indexing and naming of
> > sources.
>
> > > Lina Grumette didn't like the Darrach book much -- she
> > > thought it made Fischer look bad (a giggling sociopath) -- but
> > > whenever I asked her about specific incidents, she always agreed that
> > > they had had occurred as he described.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Fischer definitely did not like the Darrach book, because in writing
> > it Darrach broke a promise that he would _not_ write a book, if I
> > recall correctly. I believe Fischer in fact sued Time-Life about it,
> > though I don't think anything came of it.
> > And nothing much seems to be coming of this thread. I had hoped that
> > Parr and/or Suba would weigh in, so that their differences with
> > Helpbot would be made clear, but they seem uninterested. It's still
> > unclear to me whether Parr/Suba thinks there was only one call by
> > Kissinger and not two. Does Suba think Fischer was motivated more by
> > patriotism than money, or vice versa? What exact point(s) of dispute
> > between them depend(s) on whether Fischer was in New York or Iceland
> > when Kissinger called? Parr and Suba aren't saying, and it seeems
> > Helpbot can't even remember his own position, let alone explain it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 09:59:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
TWO CALLS FROM KISSINGER
<It's still unclear to me whether Parr/Suba thinks there was only one
call by
Kissinger and not two. Does Suba think Fischer was motivated more by
patriotism than money, or vice versa? What exact point(s) of dispute
between
them depend(s) on whether Fischer was in New York or Iceland when
Kissinger called? Parr and Suba aren't saying, and it seeems
Helpbot can't even remember his own position, let alone explain it. > -
T. Kingston
The first call from Kissinger came to Fischer while he was in New York
AFTER Slater's offer of more money.
The second call from Kissinger came to Fischer after he lost the first
two games to Spassky in Iceland.
It appears that Fischer was motivated by money the first time and
patriotism the second time.
This is my last word on the subject, though we can brace ourselves for
more rants from Greg Kennedy (aka nomore chess and help bot) who is
usually short on facts and long on opinions.
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Oct 13, 5:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > If you back up a few pages in the Darrach book, you will find that he
> > also mentions the business with the Icelandic government. To the
> > extent that I've been able to check it, Darrach's book seems quite
> > good on details. (Remember that he was there at the time, while
> > Edmonds and Eidenow were writing decades later from secondary
> > sources.)
>
> True, and a very relevant point, but I don't feel Darrach's account
> can be fully trusted. He was basically a pop-journalist, writing for
> "Life" magazine, a celebrity-oriented weekly not much different from
> today's "People" or "Us." He was interested much more in
> sensationalism than accuracy. He reports everything as if he were an
> eye-witness, but it's very unlikely he was there for everything he
> reports. E&E's book, though written decades later, has the definite
> virtues of broader research, careful indexing and naming of
> sources.
>
> > Lina Grumette didn't like the Darrach book much -- she
> > thought it made Fischer look bad (a giggling sociopath) -- but
> > whenever I asked her about specific incidents, she always agreed that
> > they had had occurred as he described.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Fischer definitely did not like the Darrach book, because in writing
> it Darrach broke a promise that he would _not_ write a book, if I
> recall correctly. I believe Fischer in fact sued Time-Life about it,
> though I don't think anything came of it.
> And nothing much seems to be coming of this thread. I had hoped that
> Parr and/or Suba would weigh in, so that their differences with
> Helpbot would be made clear, but they seem uninterested. It's still
> unclear to me whether Parr/Suba thinks there was only one call by
> Kissinger and not two. Does Suba think Fischer was motivated more by
> patriotism than money, or vice versa? What exact point(s) of dispute
> between them depend(s) on whether Fischer was in New York or Iceland
> when Kissinger called? Parr and Suba aren't saying, and it seeems
> Helpbot can't even remember his own position, let alone explain it.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 08:13:59
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 13, 5:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> If you back up a few pages in the Darrach book, you will find that he
> also mentions the business with the Icelandic government. To the
> extent that I've been able to check it, Darrach's book seems quite
> good on details. (Remember that he was there at the time, while
> Edmonds and Eidenow were writing decades later from secondary
> sources.)
True, and a very relevant point, but I don't feel Darrach's account
can be fully trusted. He was basically a pop-journalist, writing for
"Life" magazine, a celebrity-oriented weekly not much different from
today's "People" or "Us." He was interested much more in
sensationalism than accuracy. He reports everything as if he were an
eye-witness, but it's very unlikely he was there for everything he
reports. E&E's book, though written decades later, has the definite
virtues of broader research, careful indexing and naming of
sources.
> Lina Grumette didn't like the Darrach book much -- she
> thought it made Fischer look bad (a giggling sociopath) -- but
> whenever I asked her about specific incidents, she always agreed that
> they had had occurred as he described.- Hide quoted text -
Fischer definitely did not like the Darrach book, because in writing
it Darrach broke a promise that he would _not_ write a book, if I
recall correctly. I believe Fischer in fact sued Time-Life about it,
though I don't think anything came of it.
And nothing much seems to be coming of this thread. I had hoped that
Parr and/or Suba would weigh in, so that their differences with
Helpbot would be made clear, but they seem uninterested. It's still
unclear to me whether Parr/Suba thinks there was only one call by
Kissinger and not two. Does Suba think Fischer was motivated more by
patriotism than money, or vice versa? What exact point(s) of dispute
between them depend(s) on whether Fischer was in New York or Iceland
when Kissinger called? Parr and Suba aren't saying, and it seeems
Helpbot can't even remember his own position, let alone explain it.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 14:24:38
From:
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Oct 13, 3:14 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > While it pains me to say so, Kennedy is right and Parr and Suba are
> > wrong. This was widely reported at the time and easily verified. The
> > call from Kissinger took place shortly after Slater's offer to
> > increase the prize fund, apparently at his instigation, and before
> > Fischer's departure for Iceland. There is a detailed account of the
> > incident on page 105 of Brad Darrach's "Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of
> > the World."
>
> Interesting. Darrach's account does not quite jibe with Edmonds &
> Eidinow. D says "The call had been suggested by James Slater and
> arranged by David Frost." E&E's account ("Bobby Fischer Goes to War,"
> p. 143) says "The prime minister [of Iceland] had asked [US
> Ambassador] Tremblay to relay this concern [abot the impact of
> Fischer's failure to show up] to the White House." Tremblay then sent
> the above-mentioned telegram.
> I wonder how accurate Darrach's chronology is? E&E don't give an
> exact date for the first Kissinger call, they refer to it happening
> "over a weekend," which would mean Saturday Juy 1 or Sunday July 2,
> 1972, while the Slater offer is said to have come on Monday, July 3.
If you back up a few pages in the Darrach book, you will find that he
also mentions the business with the Icelandic government. To the
extent that I've been able to check it, Darrach's book seems quite
good on details. (Remember that he was there at the time, while
Edmonds and Eidenow were writing decades later from secondary
sources.) Lina Grumette didn't like the Darrach book much -- she
thought it made Fischer look bad (a giggling sociopath) -- but
whenever I asked her about specific incidents, she always agreed that
they had had occurred as he described.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 05:42:49
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 13, 3:14 am, [email protected] wrote:
> While it pains me to say so, Kennedy is right and Parr and Suba are
> wrong. This was widely reported at the time and easily verified. The
> call from Kissinger took place shortly after Slater's offer to
> increase the prize fund, apparently at his instigation, and before
> Fischer's departure for Iceland. There is a detailed account of the
> incident on page 105 of Brad Darrach's "Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of
> the World."
Interesting. Darrach's account does not quite jibe with Edmonds &
Eidinow. D says "The call had been suggested by James Slater and
arranged by David Frost." E&E's account ("Bobby Fischer Goes to War,"
p. 143) says "The prime minister [of Iceland] had asked [US
Ambassador] Tremblay to relay this concern [abot the impact of
Fischer's failure to show up] to the White House." Tremblay then sent
the above-mentioned telegram.
I wonder how accurate Darrach's chronology is? E&E don't give an
exact date for the first Kissinger call, they refer to it happening
"over a weekend," which would mean Saturday Juy 1 or Sunday July 2,
1972, while the Slater offer is said to have come on Monday, July 3.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:14:21
From:
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
While it pains me to say so, Kennedy is right and Parr and Suba are
wrong. This was widely reported at the time and easily verified. The
call from Kissinger took place shortly after Slater's offer to
increase the prize fund, apparently at his instigation, and before
Fischer's departure for Iceland. There is a detailed account of the
incident on page 105 of Brad Darrach's "Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of
the World."
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 06:25:55
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 12, 5:06 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 5:04 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And, Al Lawrence is a former USCF ED. That should answer all questions
> > about the truth of the statement.
>
> You make a very obvious logic error here:
>
> a) All Chess Life editors are liars.
>
> b) Al Lawrence was a CL editor, hence a liar.
>
> c) Therefore, everything AL writes, is a lie.
>
> The flaw is in leaping to c), on account of the
> fact that liars do not /always/ lie. A liar is just
> someone who lies when he feels like it, not
> someone who does not ever tell the truth.
>
> I hope this was a simple enough explanation.
AFAIK, Al Lawrence was never editor of Chess Life. He was an
Executive Director of the USCF, in the 1990s as I recall.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 06:09:07
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 12, 5:31 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 6:56 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, we've heard from Helpbot. Perhaps now Parr and/or Suba will
> > weigh in? This forum grants equal time to both points of view.
>
> It looks to me like TK is anything but eager to
> go to the original thread and examine the time-line,
> to determine what really happened, and in which
> order.
Which "original" thread would that be, bot? As far as I've been able
to determine, the posts by you, Suba, and Parr pertaining to the
Kissinger-Fischer phone calls are scattered over several threads, and
several months. For example, Suba's post of 4 October 2007 seems to
have addressed one of yours from 6 ch. Extensive google searching
revealed no single "original" thread on this topic. Feel free to point
me to the "original" thread, if you consider it so important.
> That speaks volumes. It also seems very
> strange to attempt to remove the discussion to a
> new thread, as though afraid of what might be
> found in the original one. (Thus far, the original
> thread has been carefully set to the side, as if on
> purpose.)
What a strange way to think. Rather, my aim has been to try to bring
the three principals in on a single-topic thread, in order to achieve
some clarity. And to point out that there were *_two_* calls, one
before the match, the other during the match. The disputants seemed
not to have that clearly in mind.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 02:31:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 6:56 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> Well, we've heard from Helpbot. Perhaps now Parr and/or Suba will
> weigh in? This forum grants equal time to both points of view.
It looks to me like TK is anything but eager to
go to the original thread and examine the time-line,
to determine what really happened, and in which
order. That speaks volumes. It also seems very
strange to attempt to remove the discussion to a
new thread, as though afraid of what might be
found in the original one. (Thus far, the original
thread has been carefully set to the side, as if on
purpose.)
I note that, as usual, Mr. Parr has gone into
hiding after one of his typical boo boos. One of
the more memorable ones was where he lashed
out violently at IM Innes, mistaking him for one
of his old enemies. When this was pointed out,
the nearly-an-IM took no offense, understanding
as it were that it was nothing more than friendly
fire, "an accident".
As I see it, GM Suba simply didn't know what
he was talking about; he probably faintly recalled
something about a phone call or did a Google
search, and thinking he had found something
came here and lashed out at me wielding his
paper sword. Perhaps an honest mistake, made
in the heat of emotion; deep down, he must be
aware that his offhand discussion of bets made
or missed are of no real import; that his insults
of chess programs were greatly exaggerated,
so he is left grasping at straws.
But I suspect that Mr. Parr knew full well about
the call in question; after all, this was his
magazine; the facts were published therein a
multitude of times, both during and after the
Fischer boom, even unto this very day (Sept.
2007 issue, for instance). One can only conclude
that for LP, it was yet another example of deep
dishonesty to back the paper sword attack; yet
another revelation of character flaw. I strongly
suspect that one or more old Larry Evans articles
contain discussion of the call and of the doubling
of the purse, but we can not imagine that Larry
Parr would ever see fit to further embarrass
himself by quoting it here. No, he is the run
silent, run deep type, who simply submerges
when yet another of his many boo boos is
unveiled.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 02:06:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 5:04 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> And, Al Lawrence is a former USCF ED. That should answer all questions
> about the truth of the statement.
You make a very obvious logic error here:
a) All Chess Life editors are liars.
b) Al Lawrence was a CL editor, hence a liar.
c) Therefore, everything AL writes, is a lie.
The flaw is in leaping to c), on account of the
fact that liars do not /always/ lie. A liar is just
someone who lies when he feels like it, not
someone who does not ever tell the truth.
I hope this was a simple enough explanation.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 11:37:21
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone
|
help bot wrote:
> On Oct 11, 5:04 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> And, Al Lawrence is a former USCF ED. That should answer all questions
>> about the truth of the statement.
>
>
> You make a very obvious logic error here:
>
> a) All Chess Life editors are liars.
Did I say that?
or, did I say "all ED's are completely truthful"?
or, did I say neither - waiting for you to project...
>
> b) Al Lawrence was a CL editor, hence a liar.
AL was NOT a CL editor.
>
> c) Therefore, everything AL writes, is a lie.
>
>
> The flaw is in leaping to c), on account of the
> fact that liars do not /always/ lie. A liar is just
> someone who lies when he feels like it, not
> someone who does not ever tell the truth.
>
>
> I hope this was a simple enough explanation.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
I hope this helps.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 16:56:23
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 5:45 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 3:13 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So now you profess agnosticism about this first call?
>
> No. What I profess is that I was not a witness to
> the facts which have been reported by others, so if
> you want to know what the facts are, you are asking
> the wrong person, a *second-hand* reporter.
>
> Some accounts of one of the Kissinger calls state
> that GM Fischer "refused the call", while others
> *quote* HK. In either case, and no matter which
> phone call was or was not refused, the fact remains
> that the doubling of the prize fund was *omitted* in
> that part of the Chess Life article, which of course
> was my point and the basis of my criticism.
>
> I note that some people wish to focus on phone
> calls, and not on the fact that both GM Suba and
> Larry Parr made a boo boo by bringing up the wrong
> call, to the wrong country, while pretending that the
> call actually mentioned by the author did not exist.
> This is telling.
>
> My point had nothing to do with the call; it was the
> omission of facts that I targeted. The call was just
> a means by which a hero could be fabricated. A
> similar example was where Leroy Dubeck portrays
> his own life being endangered, except I know not
> what may or may not have been omitted from that
> story, whereas I do know what was omitted from
> Al Lawrence's account.
>
> > Then have you changed your mind since ch 6, 2007?
>
> No. I still am using the same one I had before.
>
> > That's when you wrote "It
> > remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
> > telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
> > uphold the honor of his country, etc."
>
> Taken out of any context, I know not what that
> referred to; however, I would venture to guess that
> it was in the middle of the idiotic attack in which
> GM Suba arrogantly proclaimed that "the" call
> from Henry Kissinger came after the match was in
> progress. Obviously, as the author, AL, had related
> that this call was the impetus which put BF on a
> plane to Iceland, GM Suba was utterly confused
> on the matter. According to Chess Life, the
> writers seem to all agree that the call did happen,
> and the only issue is which call, if any, was
> refused by GM Fischer.
>
> I would have serious doubts as to the intellectual
> abilities of some posters here were it not for the
> fact that I know their real motives are not to uncover
> the truth. In this thread, we all know that there is
> an ongoing dispute of sorts between myself and
> TK, which skews him toward attacking me, rather
> than say, LP, at the moment anyway. This would
> explain why there are repeated "questions" about
> phone calls, when the crux of the matter is the very
> simple logic of a) what Al Lawrence wrote, and
> b) what he omitted, and c) what I said he omitted,
> d) is there a match?, and e) did the ad hominists
> make a boo boo by trying to pretend the Al
> Lawrence call never happened?, f) now caught,
> where are the ad hominists hiding?, g) when they
> finally emerge, will they continue to pretend?
>
> -- help bot
Well, we've heard from Helpbot. Perhaps now Parr and/or Suba will
weigh in? This forum grants equal time to both points of view.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 15:09:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 3:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Larry Evans has that attribute of having lived in what Adorjan says was the
> creative period of chess
To me, this smacks of how old people (other than
me) often talk about the good old days, while always
seeming to be unable or unwilling to accept change.
I personally think that there is a lot of computer-
aided preparation going on right now, and in particular,
a much too heavy focus on openings theory at the
expense of a more balanced approach, but I would
not venture to say that creativity has died.
It really depends on the player; some may well
be computerized robots who use ChessBase to
figure out how to "optimize" results, helped by
Rybka-Fritz, which does all their "thinking" for
them. I wish I could give pertinent examples of
modern players to debunk this idea, but I am too
far out of the loop with regard to top-level chess
these days.
I am reminded of the hype surrounding the book
"The Greatest Generation"; is a generation greater
than all others because it experienced a world war?
I don't believe that. It smacks of self-worship, self
praise -- a foul stench I suspect.
Go back a bit further, to the time when there was
no "theory" on openings, or at least none to speak
of. Were not those players even more "creative",
out of sheer necessity? Did not they play more
original moves and plans than any of their more
modern successors? I imagine it must be so.
I just can't see any reason to single out the old
folks who are past their peaks but still living as
"the" creative generation, or the creative period
in chess, apart from self-idolatry on their part.
So much is hype these days; when I read about
the Hypermoderns, and how they revolutionized
chess, I recall even better games played by their
forerunners in the same style; assuming they
studied at all, more than a few ideas likely were
copied from earlier greats, the credit being doled
out to the wrong players out of writers' ignorance.
I have no doubt that GM Adorjan's generation
or "period" was creative; but it seems self-
delusional to pretend that creativity has now died
out; that his was the last of the great artists, and
henceforth we are relegated to mediocrity. I
think people are just getting old, and somehow
they trap themselves in the distant past. Except
me -- I am immune, of course.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 14:45:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 3:13 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> So now you profess agnosticism about this first call?
No. What I profess is that I was not a witness to
the facts which have been reported by others, so if
you want to know what the facts are, you are asking
the wrong person, a *second-hand* reporter.
Some accounts of one of the Kissinger calls state
that GM Fischer "refused the call", while others
*quote* HK. In either case, and no matter which
phone call was or was not refused, the fact remains
that the doubling of the prize fund was *omitted* in
that part of the Chess Life article, which of course
was my point and the basis of my criticism.
I note that some people wish to focus on phone
calls, and not on the fact that both GM Suba and
Larry Parr made a boo boo by bringing up the wrong
call, to the wrong country, while pretending that the
call actually mentioned by the author did not exist.
This is telling.
My point had nothing to do with the call; it was the
omission of facts that I targeted. The call was just
a means by which a hero could be fabricated. A
similar example was where Leroy Dubeck portrays
his own life being endangered, except I know not
what may or may not have been omitted from that
story, whereas I do know what was omitted from
Al Lawrence's account.
> Then have you changed your mind since ch 6, 2007?
No. I still am using the same one I had before.
> That's when you wrote "It
> remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
> telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
> uphold the honor of his country, etc."
Taken out of any context, I know not what that
referred to; however, I would venture to guess that
it was in the middle of the idiotic attack in which
GM Suba arrogantly proclaimed that "the" call
from Henry Kissinger came after the match was in
progress. Obviously, as the author, AL, had related
that this call was the impetus which put BF on a
plane to Iceland, GM Suba was utterly confused
on the matter. According to Chess Life, the
writers seem to all agree that the call did happen,
and the only issue is which call, if any, was
refused by GM Fischer.
I would have serious doubts as to the intellectual
abilities of some posters here were it not for the
fact that I know their real motives are not to uncover
the truth. In this thread, we all know that there is
an ongoing dispute of sorts between myself and
TK, which skews him toward attacking me, rather
than say, LP, at the moment anyway. This would
explain why there are repeated "questions" about
phone calls, when the crux of the matter is the very
simple logic of a) what Al Lawrence wrote, and
b) what he omitted, and c) what I said he omitted,
d) is there a match?, and e) did the ad hominists
make a boo boo by trying to pretend the Al
Lawrence call never happened?, f) now caught,
where are the ad hominists hiding?, g) when they
finally emerge, will they continue to pretend?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:54:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
Good post by Taylor Kingston!
I have been trying for 2 years to get Larry Evans into a 20 question session
with Chessville. The realm of possible questions is so great I would invite
others to contribute [as I did with k Taimanov - in fact I personally
have several specific question on Evans-Taimanov, with Che Guevara looking
on]
Larry Evans has that attribute of having lived in what Adorjan says was the
creative period of chess, and of knowing, contra mundam! the context and
personalities of historic chess circumstances. Strong players emphasis
context as being important. In much chess writing it doesn;t appear at all,
just some bland, if fantastical chess score.
We might all encourage the gent to get on the record - and Mihai, you
agree?!
I even have a question from Taimanov for Larry :)
Phil Innes
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Over the last few days a rancorous discussion has been going on
between Helpbot (aka Greg Kennedy), GM Mihai Suba, and Larry Parr on
the subject of telephone conversations between Bobby Fischer and Henry
Kissinger (then National Security Advisor) pertaining to Fischer's
1972 world title match with Spassky. There is obviously strong
disagreement, between Helpbot on one side, and Suba and Parr on the
other. However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
haven't seen.
Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
clarify matters?
It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong. A
search for the word "Kissinger" among these three posters brings up
these recent quotes:
Helpbot, 6 ch 2007:
"It remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
uphold the honor of his country, etc."
Mihai Suba, 4 October 2007:
"You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
the contrary of what you said."
Larry Parr, 5 October 2007:
"The word here [in Reykjavik -- not New York] is that Bobby Fischer
received an 11th-hour phone call from Henry Kissinger persuading him
to play the third game of his match with Boris Spassky. America's
honor was at stake as well as political relations with Iceland."
Helpbot, 10 October 2007:
"Speaking of gutless wonders, anybody notice what happened to Mr.
Parr when it was pointed out that the phone call described in the
recent pages of Chess Life was made from New York (not Iceland)?
That's right: he groaned and then ran away!
"The quote from an old article by GM Evans mentioned a call made to
Iceland during the match, but of course logic dictates that it is to
convince our hero to fly to a place when he is there playing already.
Mr. Parr seems to have grave difficulties with logic, but his research
skills are commendable in that he managed to dredge up /something/."
Parr in reply, 10 October 2007:
"Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
losing the first two games to Spassky.
"Sheesh."
(end quotes from rgc posts)
I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer. Checking the well-
researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (2004), the chronology
seems to be about like this:
1 July 1972: Opening ceremony in Reykjavik, Iceland. Fischer not in
attendance -- still in New York.
1 or 2 July 1972: Theodore Tremblay, US Ambassador to Iceland,
telegraphs Kissinger and Secretary of State Wiiliam Rogers, detailing
his concerns about Fischer's refusal to play.
1 or 2 July 1972: Kissinger (probably in Washington DC?),
telephones Fischer in Douglaston, NY, saying among other things
"America wants you to go over there and beat the Russians."
3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds �50,000
to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
I have removed the element of money."
3 July 1972, 10:04 PM: Fischer takes off from JFK airport, arriving
early July 4 in Iceland.
14 July 1972: After losing the first game of the match, and
forfeiting the second, Fischer is threatening to walk out, objecting
to the presence of cameras filming the match. Kissinger calls from San
Clemente, California, encouraging Fischer to continue playing.
So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14, and if
Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neither
side is completely correct.
I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 13:13:47
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 3:23 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, Bot, concerning the first Kissinger call, the one on July 1st or
> > 2nd, while Fischer was still in New York -- are you saying it did or
> > did not actually take place?
>
> Neither. I was not in New York; I did not take the
> call, nor was I on the other end. It is the author of
> the article, *Al Lawrence*, who wrote that the call
> took place. Just how much simpler can I make this?
So now you profess agnosticism about this first call? Then have you
changed your mind since ch 6, 2007? That's when you wrote "It
remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
uphold the honor of his country, etc."
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 12:23:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 12:06 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > You need to get a clue, as they say. There is no
> > dispute over the facts; ad hominists are not interested
> > in facts, except when they may be of some use in their
> > "work".
>
> > My complaints about the contents of Chess Life are
> > quite separate from any such ad hominist "work"; one
> > focus of mine has been the quality of game annotations
> > in CL, which I find disappointing. But this last was in
> > regard to a propaganda piece which was all editorial
> > rehash of the Fischer phenomenon. Some of what was
> > not "deliberately left out" I found interesting, such as
> > discussion of the financial risks involved in betting on
> > GM Fischer playing for the world title, accounts of just
> > how difficult that was to push through, and of course
> > the aftermath.
>
> > -- help bot
>
> So, Bot, concerning the first Kissinger call, the one on July 1st or
> 2nd, while Fischer was still in New York -- are you saying it did or
> did not actually take place?
Neither. I was not in New York; I did not take the
call, nor was I on the other end. It is the author of
the article, *Al Lawrence*, who wrote that the call
took place. Just how much simpler can I make this?
> Just trying to understand the point(s) under dispute and contribute
> some relevant information.
How about reading the original thread, in
chronological order then? You will find that GM
Suba does not take kindly to any disagreement
with his official pronouncements from up there in
the sky, and this is just a tempest in a teapot
stemming from his (and LP's) desperate need to
attack me in retaliation. Going deeper, if you
wish, you may find that some purported game
annotations on some Web site do not exist, or
you may agree or disagree with MS that all
chess programs are beginners in the endgame.
My criticisms were really very minor, yet as so
often happens with those who have giant egos,
serious offense was taken just the same.
In any case, when looked at objectively, this
attack on me personally is nothing more than a
cheap attempt at retaliation for my critical reks
regarding entirely separate issues. It is what
might best be described as opportunism gone
wrong, in the sense that the two attackers very
carelessly picked an issue they know nothing
about, by which to try and silence criticism of
their own ineptitude. They slipped up (yes, again).
My weak spot is my chess play, so GM Suba
(not LP, for God's sake) ought to have gone there,
challenged me, and then come here to report the
miniature, heavily annotated as one might a
world championship match game.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 17:04:49
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone
|
help bot wrote:
> It is the author of
> the article, *Al Lawrence*, who wrote that the call
> took place. Just how much simpler can I make this?
>
>
And, Al Lawrence is a former USCF ED. That should answer all questions
about the truth of the statement.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 10:06:37
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 12:59 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 10:35 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
> > point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
> > haven't seen.
> > Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
> > clarify matters?
>
> The article in question appears in Chess Life's September
> 2007 issue, page 25, lower right-had side. The author is Al
>
> Lawrence, who wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Even the Nixon White House helped. When Fischer wouldn't
> get on a plane to Reykjavik, his friends and advisors implored
> him to no avail. Finally, it was a phone call from President
> Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, that brought
> Fischer to attention. "Dr. Kissinger told Bobby that he must
> beat the Russians for America," Dubeck said. "Fischer's face
> suddenly took on a determined look, like he was going into
> combat." Bobby went on his mission.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> It is clear from the above quote that the intervention of a
> British finacier and his boosting the pot by 50,000 British
> pounds was deliberately omitted here. Other accounts
> pointed to this event, and especially the challenge which
> noted fear of Boris Spassky as a possible key obstacle,
> as the cattle-prod which sent GM Fischer hopping to his
> plane.
>
> As I pointed out before, it is insane to try and point to
> any phone calls from Mr. Kissinger, or anyone else for
> that matter, made to BF after he was already in Iceland
> as the proof of his going there in a heroic gesture. One
> cannot go *to* Iceland, if one is already *in* Iceland.
>
> > It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong.
>
> No, this is mistaken. The attack by GM Suba was
> simply wrongheaded; he failed to comprehend the facts,
> and was grasping at straws out of desperation. This is
> obvious if you read the posts carefully.
>
> GM Suba:
>
> > "You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
> > 'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
> > offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
> > fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
> > alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
> > Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
> > the contrary of what you said."
>
> As can be seen, GM Suba has no clue what he is talking
> about; the article in Chess Life clearly referred to a phone
> call taken (or not, depending on source) in *New York*, not
> Iceland. Some accounts state that GM Fischer refused
> this call. Even if true, this reinforces my complaint that
> the facts were misconstrued or deliberately omitted in order
> to lend the impression of a selfless, heroic act. If the call
> was taken, as the account in Chess Life indicates, the
> failure to mention the doubling of the prize fund is obviously
> dishonest.
>
> Larry Parr chimes in:
>
> > "Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
> > convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
> > was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
> > losing the first two games to Spassky.
> > "Sheesh."
>
> It is plainly evident that neither GM Suba nor his
> "temporary friend", Larry Parr, has even the slightest
> clue what they are talking about. My complaint was
> in regard to the omission of vital facts from an article
> in the September 2007 issue of Chess Life, which I
> suspect neither has ever laid eyes upon. That leaves
> only their innate abilities to read and comprehend my
> postings. (In short, utterly hopeless.)
>
> > I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
> > Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer.
>
> What Taylor Kingston has mistaken for confusion,
> is a desperate need to attack my person. These are
> two very different things.
>
> > Checking the well-
> > researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War"
>
> Some critics have pointed out that this work is not
> so well-researched as indicated above, suggesting
> that the Russian aspects contained therein may be
> more reliably reported than the American ones, which
> are flawed. The fellow who claims to have been
> personally responsible for getting GM Fischer from
> Los Angeles to New York spotted some errors, for
> instance; this is the same fellow at whose house
> the call from Mr. Kissinger came in -- and that, as I
> seem to recall, was just one of the factual errors he
> spotted.
>
> > 3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds =A350,000
> > to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
> > I have removed the element of money."
>
> I can just imagine GM Fischer reading this headline in
> the New York Times as he sat down to eat his breakfast.
>
> > So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
> > to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
> > York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
> > and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14
>
> No, they will not do that. You need to understand how
> ad hominem works; it is not about the facts; it is about
> the person you "need" to attack.
>
> > and if Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then nei=
ther
> > side is completely correct.
>
> "Taylor Kingston has no quote of me ever doing that",
> as Dr.Blair would say. Obviously, any phone calls
> made *after the fact* are immaterial here.
>
> > I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
> > readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.
>
> You need to get a clue, as they say. There is no
> dispute over the facts; ad hominists are not interested
> in facts, except when they may be of some use in their
> "work".
>
> My complaints about the contents of Chess Life are
> quite separate from any such ad hominist "work"; one
> focus of mine has been the quality of game annotations
> in CL, which I find disappointing. But this last was in
> regard to a propaganda piece which was all editorial
> rehash of the Fischer phenomenon. Some of what was
> not "deliberately left out" I found interesting, such as
> discussion of the financial risks involved in betting on
> GM Fischer playing for the world title, accounts of just
> how difficult that was to push through, and of course
> the aftermath.
>
> -- help bot
So, Bot, concerning the first Kissinger call, the one on July 1st or
2nd, while Fischer was still in New York -- are you saying it did or
did not actually take place?
BTW, I'm not trying to attack you, Parr, or anyone in this thread.
Just trying to understand the point(s) under dispute and contribute
some relevant information.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 09:59:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 10:35 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
> point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
> haven't seen.
> Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
> clarify matters?
The article in question appears in Chess Life's September
2007 issue, page 25, lower right-had side. The author is Al
Lawrence, who wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
Even the Nixon White House helped. When Fischer wouldn't
get on a plane to Reykjavik, his friends and advisors implored
him to no avail. Finally, it was a phone call from President
Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, that brought
Fischer to attention. "Dr. Kissinger told Bobby that he must
beat the Russians for America," Dubeck said. "Fischer's face
suddenly took on a determined look, like he was going into
combat." Bobby went on his mission.
---------------------------------------------------
It is clear from the above quote that the intervention of a
British finacier and his boosting the pot by 50,000 British
pounds was deliberately omitted here. Other accounts
pointed to this event, and especially the challenge which
noted fear of Boris Spassky as a possible key obstacle,
as the cattle-prod which sent GM Fischer hopping to his
plane.
As I pointed out before, it is insane to try and point to
any phone calls from Mr. Kissinger, or anyone else for
that matter, made to BF after he was already in Iceland
as the proof of his going there in a heroic gesture. One
cannot go *to* Iceland, if one is already *in* Iceland.
> It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong.
No, this is mistaken. The attack by GM Suba was
simply wrongheaded; he failed to comprehend the facts,
and was grasping at straws out of desperation. This is
obvious if you read the posts carefully.
GM Suba:
> "You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
> 'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
> offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
> fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
> alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
> Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
> the contrary of what you said."
As can be seen, GM Suba has no clue what he is talking
about; the article in Chess Life clearly referred to a phone
call taken (or not, depending on source) in *New York*, not
Iceland. Some accounts state that GM Fischer refused
this call. Even if true, this reinforces my complaint that
the facts were misconstrued or deliberately omitted in order
to lend the impression of a selfless, heroic act. If the call
was taken, as the account in Chess Life indicates, the
failure to mention the doubling of the prize fund is obviously
dishonest.
Larry Parr chimes in:
> "Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
> convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
> was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
> losing the first two games to Spassky.
> "Sheesh."
It is plainly evident that neither GM Suba nor his
"temporary friend", Larry Parr, has even the slightest
clue what they are talking about. My complaint was
in regard to the omission of vital facts from an article
in the September 2007 issue of Chess Life, which I
suspect neither has ever laid eyes upon. That leaves
only their innate abilities to read and comprehend my
postings. (In short, utterly hopeless.)
> I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
> Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer.
What Taylor Kingston has mistaken for confusion,
is a desperate need to attack my person. These are
two very different things.
> Checking the well-
> researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War"
Some critics have pointed out that this work is not
so well-researched as indicated above, suggesting
that the Russian aspects contained therein may be
more reliably reported than the American ones, which
are flawed. The fellow who claims to have been
personally responsible for getting GM Fischer from
Los Angeles to New York spotted some errors, for
instance; this is the same fellow at whose house
the call from Mr. Kissinger came in -- and that, as I
seem to recall, was just one of the factual errors he
spotted.
> 3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds =A350,000
> to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
> I have removed the element of money."
I can just imagine GM Fischer reading this headline in
the New York Times as he sat down to eat his breakfast.
> So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
> to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
> York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
> and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14
No, they will not do that. You need to understand how
ad hominem works; it is not about the facts; it is about
the person you "need" to attack.
> and if Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neith=
er
> side is completely correct.
"Taylor Kingston has no quote of me ever doing that",
as Dr.Blair would say. Obviously, any phone calls
made *after the fact* are immaterial here.
> I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
> readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.
You need to get a clue, as they say. There is no
dispute over the facts; ad hominists are not interested
in facts, except when they may be of some use in their
"work".
My complaints about the contents of Chess Life are
quite separate from any such ad hominist "work"; one
focus of mine has been the quality of game annotations
in CL, which I find disappointing. But this last was in
regard to a propaganda piece which was all editorial
rehash of the Fischer phenomenon. Some of what was
not "deliberately left out" I found interesting, such as
discussion of the financial risks involved in betting on
GM Fischer playing for the world title, accounts of just
how difficult that was to push through, and of course
the aftermath.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 08:57:33
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Suba, Parr and Helpbot: Dispute over Kissinger-Fischer phone calls
|
On Oct 11, 11:35 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> Over the last few days a rancorous discussion has been going on
> between Helpbot (aka Greg Kennedy), GM Mihai Suba, and Larry Parr on
> the subject of telephone conversations between Bobby Fischer and Henry
> Kissinger (then National Security Advisor) pertaining to Fischer's
> 1972 world title match with Spassky. There is obviously strong
> disagreement, between Helpbot on one side, and Suba and Parr on the
> other. However, I'm having trouble making out exactly what is the real
> point at issue, partly because it involves a Chess Life article I
> haven't seen.
> Perhaps a reader, or one of the principals in the dispute, can
> clarify matters?
>
> It may be that both sides here are partly right and partly wrong. A
> search for the word "Kissinger" among these three posters brings up
> these recent quotes:
>
> Helpbot, 6 ch 2007:
>
> "It remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry Kissinger
> telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question, pleading him to
> uphold the honor of his country, etc."
>
> Mihai Suba, 4 October 2007:
>
> "You wanted to proof Fischer was 'after money' and nothing of
> 'patriotism.' Your 'proof' consisted in time mismatching the Slater
> offer with a Kissinger plead. The Slater offer, to double the prize
> fund, was BEFORE the start of the match in Rejkjavik, while the
> alledged phone call of Kissinger was AFTER the second game, when
> Fischer intended to leave. Without your acronia, the two things proof
> the contrary of what you said."
>
> Larry Parr, 5 October 2007:
>
> "The word here [in Reykjavik -- not New York] is that Bobby Fischer
> received an 11th-hour phone call from Henry Kissinger persuading him
> to play the third game of his match with Boris Spassky. America's
> honor was at stake as well as political relations with Iceland."
>
> Helpbot, 10 October 2007:
>
> "Speaking of gutless wonders, anybody notice what happened to Mr.
> Parr when it was pointed out that the phone call described in the
> recent pages of Chess Life was made from New York (not Iceland)?
> That's right: he groaned and then ran away!
> "The quote from an old article by GM Evans mentioned a call made to
> Iceland during the match, but of course logic dictates that it is to
> convince our hero to fly to a place when he is there playing already.
> Mr. Parr seems to have grave difficulties with logic, but his research
> skills are commendable in that he managed to dredge up /something/."
>
> Parr in reply, 10 October 2007:
>
> "Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
> convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
> was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
> losing the first two games to Spassky.
> "Sheesh."
>
> (end quotes from rgc posts)
>
> I wonder if part of the confusion here stems from the fact that
> Kissinger made more than one call to Fischer. Checking the well-
> researched book "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (2004), the chronology
> seems to be about like this:
>
> 1 July 1972: Opening ceremony in Reykjavik, Iceland. Fischer not in
> attendance -- still in New York.
> 1 or 2 July 1972: Theodore Tremblay, US Ambassador to Iceland,
> telegraphs Kissinger and Secretary of State Wiiliam Rogers, detailing
> his concerns about Fischer's refusal to play.
> 1 or 2 July 1972: Kissinger (probably in Washington DC?),
> telephones Fischer in Douglaston, NY, saying among other things
> "America wants you to go over there and beat the Russians."
>
> 3 July 1972: Wealthy British businessman James Slater adds =A350,000
> to the prize fund, saying "If [Fischer] isn't afraid of Spassky, then
> I have removed the element of money."
>
> 3 July 1972, 10:04 PM: Fischer takes off from JFK airport, arriving
> early July 4 in Iceland.
>
> 14 July 1972: After losing the first game of the match, and
> forfeiting the second, Fischer is threatening to walk out, objecting
> to the presence of cameras filming the match. Kissinger calls from San
> Clemente, California, encouraging Fischer to continue playing.
>
> So it seems well-established that there were TWO calls by Kissinger
> to Fischer, one *_before_* the match while Fischer was still in New
> York, and one to Reykjavik *_after_* game 2 but before game 3. If Suba
> and/or Parr insist there was only the one call on July 14, and if
> Helpbot insists there was only a call before the match, then neither
> side is completely correct.
> I welcome comments from the three principals, as well as informed
> readers, in hopes of clarifying what this dispute is about.
An addendum to the above. Searching further, I noticed this post by
Helpbot, from September 2007:
"Once again, there is simply a stunning lack of objectivity regarding
this matter, or any matter involving GM Fischer, from what I have
seen. Even a separate article in this same issue, by another author,
*deliberately* misconstrued the facts to favor the American hero; Al
Lawrence recounted the events leading up to the 1972 match in detail,
but one detail was not- so-cleverly omitted: the fact that GM Fischer
did not go and would not go based on Henry Kissenger's "patriotic"
plea; to the contrary, accounts by others state clearly that he only
changed his mind after a British financier intervened, offering to
*double the prize money*. Money, not patriotism, was the prime
motivator; Al Lawrence is not *that* stupid as to have simply
forgotten this crucial detail."
Helpbot's view is contradicted on page 144 of "Bobby Fischer Goes to
War," which describes the report of American attorneys who were
present when Fischer (in Douglaston, NY) received the first call from
Kissinger, on (I believe) 1 or 2 July 1972:
"They were in the room with Fischer when Kissinger phoned. Kissinger
had said to Fischer, 'America wants you to go over there and beat the
Russians.' And Fischer changed, becoming like a young soldier going to
war. When they asked him later, why did you change your mind, he said
something like 'I have decided that the interests of my nation are
greater than my own.'"
|
|
