Main Date: 26 Apr 2008 15:28:25 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Shirov's Sad Saga 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. <jurg...@web.de > 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   Date: 05 May 2008 06:33:25 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga 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" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:2072ef3b-ff70-4fae-a7e6-52b6e9f1a5cd@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On May 1, 6:26 pm, J?rgen R. <jurg...@web.de> 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 <parrthenon@cs.com > 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. <jurg...@web.de > 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" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2072ef3b-ff70-4fae-a7e6-52b6e9f1a5cd@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On May 1, 6:26 pm, Jürgen R. <jurg...@web.de > 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, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com > 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   Date: 01 May 2008 19:03:20 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga 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: > <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message > news:7d5c235f-3a11-440c-a9e2-0c7eed7f24fe@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > 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 <parrthenon@cs.com > wrote in message news:ed44199e-0a2c-4276-8b61-aa6c64dce71d@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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.   Date: 01 May 2008 14:34:46 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga 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. parrthenon@cs.com 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: > > <parrthenon@cs.com> 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, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com > 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, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com > 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 <samhsl...@gmail.com > 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 ober 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   Date: 01 May 2008 05:52:20 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga 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.   Date: 01 May 2008 03:44:02 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga 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: > <parrthenon@cs.com> 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 <parrthenon@cs.com > wrote in message news:7d5c235f-3a11-440c-a9e2-0c7eed7f24fe@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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" <davidek...@comcast.net > 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   Date: 30 Apr 2008 17:10:52 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga 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. parrthenon@cs.com 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" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cf446a4b-fa7f-457d-a27f-b85628557007@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> 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 <parrthenon@cs.com > 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" <davidekane@comcast.net > wrote in message news:S8SdnU9l4eaUsYTVnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@comcast.com... > > <parrthenon@cs.com> 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" <OneCh...@comcast.net > 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, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com > 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" <OneCh...@comcast.net > 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" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:145ba7b3-6bbb-4ff0-82b9-0a4042af024a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> 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   Date: 30 Apr 2008 06:26:52 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Re: Shirov's Sad Saga 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" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:cf446a4b-fa7f-457d-a27f-b85628557007@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 29, 4:52 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> 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