| |
Main
THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED by GM Larry Evans (Chess Life, March
2008)
<During the time when bogus rationales were discussed
at length in a vain attempt to "justify" the multitude of
Fischer demands, Larry Evans wrote a nice piece
pointing out that they were not fair, and Chess Lies
published it. That was too much "sunlight" for Mr.
Fischer to handle. > -- Greg Kennedy
Needless to say, our Greg has changed his tune but consistencey was
never his strong suit. In his first incarnation on this forum (when he
signed his real name) Greg repeatedly alleged that GM Evans had
"brainwashed" America into accepting Bobby's conditions vs. Karpov in
1975. Over the years, as new information emerged, GM Evans did place
some of the blame, GM Evans did place some of the blame on the USSR.
But he never changed his basic thesis that the main fault rested with
Bobby himself, as he noted once again after Bobby's death in a recent
issue of Chess Life.
Bobby finally wrested the title at age 29, but his refusal to defend
it against Anatoly Karpov in 1975 was utterly disastrous. Most fans
expected him to crush the darling of the Kremlin and they wondered if
he was crazy for spurning millions to play him in the Philippines.
Everyone was disappointed. His colleagues were bitter because he did
nothing to promote chess during his self-imposed exile in the
California sun.
A mathematician claimed that Bobby's demands against Karpov -- 10 wins
but he keeps the title on a 9-9 tie -- gave his challenger a better
break than a 24-game tilt where the champion had draw odds.
A French playwright depicted our hero as "a persecuted poet who
defends human dignity." A psychiatrist pontificated: "A paramount
theme is his refusal to compromise his principles." Diehards blamed it
all on a Commie plot. Benko claimed, "Bobby was afraid that if he
defeated Karpov the Russians would kill him."
This claptrap only encouraged Bobby to dig his own grave. I tried to
persuade him to set a shining example by not seeking any advantage,
yet reasoning with him was absolutely futile.
"You didn't think the champ should have any edge when you were the
challenger," I argued.
"That's besides the point! The Russkies always made the rules and got
away with it. Let's give 'em a dose of their own medicine," he
replied.
Bobby promised not to seek any edge in future matches if he got his
way just this once. I DON'T THINK HE EVER QUITE FORGAVE ME FOR TRYING
TO GET HIM TO DO THE RIGHT THING [emphasis mine].
Why he didn=92t play again for 20 years until his rematch with Spassky
in 1992 is a mystery. He blamed it all on a Jewish conspiracy. In his
later years he even claimed in a radio rant that Jews were telling me
what to write about him. I told friends that paranoia is the state
with the prettiest name.
In Bobby Fischer Goes to War (2004) Edmonds and Eidenow note: "[In
1972] Fischer stated that he would not shrink from defending his
title; on the contrary, he would regularly take on challengers. Few
expected him to be knocked off his throne for a decade or more. One
exception was his former second, Larry Evans, who explained to The New
York Times , 'I probably have more influence on him than anybody else,
and that's exactly zero. I just had the feeling he would never play
competitive chess again.=92"
In 1973 or '74 Bobby asked me to compose a challenge on his behalf,
offering a match against anyone in the world who was willing to put up
a million dollar purse in gold. But he never released this document.
In 1975 Marcos offered $5 million to host the title match with Karpov
in Manila, but Bobby wouldn't budge until FIDE agreed to every last
one of his demands. KARPOV WAS PROBABLY EAGER TO PLAY BUT WAS
PRESSURED BY THE KREMLIN TO MAKE NO CONCESSIONS [my emphasis].
Some fans called Bobby=92s refusal to defend his title cowardice, but I
think that's too simplistic. He sacrificed his youth for chess and now
was discovering girls and all the things he had missed along the way.
Whatever the reason =96 real or imagined =96 abdication was a tragedy for
him as well as a tragedy for chess. Alas, his selfmate returned the
title to the Soviets without a fight.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2008 06:56:10
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
MUNCHIES DEVOURED COMMUNISM
Here is a typed-out copy of one of my NY City
Tribune articles from 1990. It also appeared in
Glasnost News & Review and a couple of other
newspapers that picked it up.
IT WAS AN ATTACK OF THE MUNCHIES THAT DEVOURED COMMUNISM
By Larry Parr
Communism had a lot going for it -- a
totalitarian political doctrine, a utilitarian ethical
code and a brutalitarian leadership. There was even
something called, as in the title of Edward Luttwak's
book "The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union."
Surely, nothing could stand against a country and
a movement which were blessed with a "grand strategy."
Nothing, that is, except the munchies. Over the
centuries men, women and children got hooked on eating
food. Then they started dressing in non-burlap shirts
and wearing shoes instead of wrapped rags. This
nascent consumerism served human beings well, while
doing the dirty on feudalism and, more recently, on communism.
In the United States the munchies struck citizens
at movies and at celebrations following office softball
games. The German economist, Werner Sombart,
hit it just right. "Socialism," he wrote when
explaining the failure of the doctrine in the United
States, "has always foundered on the shores of roast
beef and apple pie." Bon appetit!
The shores of Sovietland have not been teeming
with steaming roast beef and apple pie these past
seven decades, and the munchies eventually became a
threat. "Eventually," because for several decades
Western intellectuals and even a small percentage of
Soviet citizens believed that roast beef and apple pie
were cooking in the kitchen-of-the-near-future and
were soon to be served.
And, too, back in the 1930s, belt-tightening was
felt to be a progressive thing. It was bracing to
nerve oneself against the munchies and other symptoms
of capitalist slackness.
Beatrice and Sidney Webb, two British Fabians,
enthused about socialism eliminating "capitalist
waste." There would be only one brand of fountain pen
and one lunch menu for working men -- boiled Brussels
sprouts, seasoned with lemon juice and washed down by
weak tea. It was this healthy fare that nourished the
slender and ascetic Webbs until they shuffled off
permanently in their late 80s. The problem was not
merely that the Brussels sprouts (and lemon juice)
were absent but that in the 1950s people stopped
believing that there was anything on the stove in the
kitchen-of-the-near-future. Weak tea, maybe. Roast
beef and apple pie, no.
Today, the munchies dominate the hearts and minds
of Soviet citizens in accord with the principle that
the best way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
The munchies are devouring communism, and
belt-tightening on behalf of a future generaton is
tout passe. People want to eat now.
"Grub first, then ethics," wrote the Marxist
playwright Bertolt Brecht, when explaining the
priorities of the proletariat and, therefore, the
objective necessity of communism. This crimson
materialism, this communist grub-love remains as
distasteful as ever. Yet one cannot help savoring a
delicious irony.
"Gurb first, then ethics" is precisely what
capitalism promises and delivers. It subdues the
munchies and accommodates behavior as diverse as the
charity of Mother Teresa and the rapacity of Michael Milken.
Brecht was a moral gumboil, but he put the point
of his East German, single-brand fountain pen on why
capitalism is historically inevitable. The proletariat
has gotten into the eating habit.
J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "J?rgen R." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> [...]
> >>>
> >>> After the wall came down I spent some time with a physicist from East
> >>> Berlin.
> >>>
> >>> He told me of a Czech bath manufacturing facility, whose foundry
> >>> produced iron baths for the entire Soviet Union.
> >>>
> >>> No other baths were on offer anywhere [that is to say, without *specia=
l*
> >>> people importing them from West Germany] despite the demand for cerami=
c
> >>> ones, and indeed, for the new plastic shower-tubs wieghing one tenth o=
f
> >>> the bath units.
> >>
> >> Don't you realize that you weaken your case when you grasp at
> >> straws like this. Your 'physicist' was obviously having fun pulling
> >> your leg: Go out and try to buy a ceramic bathtub sometime.
> >
> > I have written 2,000 e-mails on chess subjects alone with people who wer=
e
> > behind the curtain. That's a hell of a lot of straws. But I don't want t=
o
> > convince you of anything J?rgen, I want to speak of my /experience/ not
> > belief.
> >
> > If its convincing you want, have you written extensively with anyone fro=
m
> > the old SU? Or even know them?
>
> Well, since I was born there (in Tallinn) and since the place (Munich) whe=
re
> I am now is inhabited by thousands of recent emigrants from the former USS=
R
> I don't need to write to communicate with 'them'.
>
> >
> >>> I shall call Bernd
> >>
> >> Needless to say, you must protect his privacy...
> >
> > Needless to say any physicist could identify him by his first name ;)
> > But truly needless to say anyone's surname to you - who doubt all, anywa=
y.
>
> These anecdotes are never traceable to the source. You surely
> wouldn't be betraying anyone by naming the apocryphal bathtub
> factory in Tchechoslovakia? The factories in these stories
> never do have a name, do they?
>
> Remember the radio factory that was given norms to fulfill by weight?
> And the 10kg bottom plates they put in the radios. That factory
> was also nameless.
>
> >
> >>>] worked in a photodiode semiconductor factory in East Berlin as its he=
ad
> >>>scientist,
>
> I see - the world famous photodiode scientist whose name
> everybody knows.
>
> >>> and his unit produced for the entire Soviet 'Aerospace' Industry - but=
> >>> that is natural - you don't need lots of electro-optical facilities
> >>> making silicon detectors.
> >>>
> >>> But he drove a Trabant car - a 'trabi', which was not the only car
> >>> produced behind the curtain, but the only one ordinary people could ge=
t.
> >>> The black market in trabi parts was enormous, and actually far more
> >>> expensive than the officially manufactured ones, which... you are
> >>> guessing right... were in limitied supply, despite massive demand from=
> >>> Trabant owners ...
> >>
> >> Shall I tell you a story or two about 3 automobile manufacturers that
> >> operate
> >> from a formerly great U.S. city that now looks like Berlin did in 1945
> >> and has
> >> been abondoned by Whitey?
> >
> > I see!
>
> No, you don't see. You are missing the point: The
> Trabi was, indeed, a joke and became
> a symbol for East German industrial backwardness.
>
> The Chrysler Corporation, e.g., is also a joke, one that survives today
> only because the state bailed it out. Nor are the cars it makes
> much better than a Trabant. The point? Absurdities of this kind
> are easily found on both sides of the divide.
>
> > This is a competition. Things were not as I say in the SU because of
> > instances of Western failure. Where do you live, BTW? But if you must
> > believe things, let me quote you Russians instead:-
>
> I have no reason to believe anything you say, unless you
> can give a reliable source.
>
> >
> > Please put it in a bank... Please, let's put it in a foreign bank.
> >
> > //Vladimir Putin advising the relatives of those who died on the
> > nuclear submarine /Kursk/ on what to do with their compensation.
>
> Invariably the same game. Why do you misrepresent what
> is being said? What does it accomplish?
>
> Putin: "Please, put it in the bank. Banks are not safe. Please, put it in =
a
> foreign bank. That doesn't mean you need to deposit this money
> outside the country. Here, in Russia. It is safe. And the bank will
> operate according to Russian law. And the money will be in Russia..."
>
> So the poor guy is thoroughly confused in the middle of an
> extremely emotional meeting.
>
> >
> > [hint; try Kommersant-Vlast, August 29, 2000]
> >
> > Surely The Leader can't be wrong?
> >
> > But maybe you can find this one by yourself:
> >
> > We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
> >
> > //Victor Chernomyrdin,
> > //Russian prime minister, 1992-1998.
> >
> > But the main issues here are chessic ones - to the general degree that t=
he
> > State leaned on Soviet-era players, and the degree to which individuals
> > complied with it. Did you have views on either of these subjects?
>
> Yes, my view is that neither you nor Parr knows a thing about it, and that=
> there is no way that you can verify your conspiracy theories.
>
> >
> >
> > Vykhod est! Phil Innes
> >
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2008 21:18:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 12, 12:55 pm, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> > But the main issues here are chessic ones - to the general degree that t=
he
> > State leaned on Soviet-era players, and the degree to which individuals
> > complied with it. Did you have views on either of these subjects?
>
> Yes, my view is that neither you nor Parr knows a thing about it, and that=
> there is no way that you can verify your conspiracy theories.
In fact, neither brown-noser Phil IMnes nor parrot Larry
Parr can take the "credit" for inventing those theories. In
some cases, the theories were invented by Larry Evans
and in others it seems that Mr. Evans himself mindlessly
adopted theories crafted by the notorious hack writer
Raymond Keene or even Gary Kasparov. (For further
information, see various and sundry articles by Edward
Winter, which meticulously debunked much of their
lunacy.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2008 21:48:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 10, 10:27 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
DAWN OF THE UNDEAD
> But it is clear that it was a channel for
> unfiltered Cold War jibberish, news reports such as 'Russian
> ballpoints are even splotchier than ours'. -- Juergen on Larry Parr
As for me, I have no desire to see Cold War gibberish
"filtered", nor watered-down. It is what it is, and rather
than try to filter or dilute it, we merely have to expose
the stuff to a little "sunlight", much like a vampire.
> The problem is that societies that organize
> from above to produce single-brand economies leave
> people living like dogs.
After being exposed in a non sequitur, Mr. Parr
now changes over to rambling on about planned
societies. Well, there has been plenty of such
planning, or organizing "from above" right here in
the USA. Which reminds me... one fellow, whose
initials are FDR -- you may remember him from
your college days, LP -- had quite a plan; indeed,
some called him a communist or a socialist.
But back to ball-point pens, and how amazingly
well capitalism works. When I was in school, the
darned things had a tendency to dry up, or come
apart. I might have preferred a fountain pen-- so
long as it *worked*. To bad that competition did
not have the desired effect-- that of driving out of
business those who produced inferior products.
> Juergen, our pro-Soviet Gherkin, is right that
> the NY City Tribune was connnected
What did I tell you? The man is slipping as he
ages. Soon, when Mr. Parr tops age 100, there is
no telling what his blather will look like. Well,
actually there is; I predict it will look something
like Larry Evans' stuff, but with a lot more beating
up on Josef Stalin-- a particular fave of LP.
> with the Rev. Moon,
> just as the highly respected Washington Times is owned
> but not managed, by the Rev. Moon.\
And you thought that every media outlet was
controlled by the Jews.
> As for Glasnost News & Review, which I
> edited, roughly 300+ members of the U.S. Congress
> subscribed. Current Demo. House Whip Steny Hoyer was
> on our board of advisers, as was Sen. Robert Dole,
> Jeane Kirkpatrick and Rep. Tom Lantos. Among those
> who contributed generously to the Center for Democracy
> was -- strangely enough, I guess you could say -- I.
> F. Stone, who early in his career wrote tracts
> excusing the Soviet attack on Hungary. To give Izzy
> Stone some credit, he was notably contrite when we
> discussed his early years on a number of occasions.
> The difference is that our Juergen never learned and
> still seethes with hatred of the hundreds of millions
> of people who threw off communism.
Um, that must be another "typo". The Soviet
people did not simply "throw off" communism,
from what I've read. They had some outside
help. I don't want to steal anyone's thunder, but
it so happens that "we" -- which is to say the
folks who actually control what goes on in this
country (think Bill Goichberg with the USCF) --
helped. (Was that top secret? I didn't know...
someone should have informed me, and I would
have kept the "secret".)
> Sorry, Juergen, good Gherkin. I know it
> hurts. Gawd, how it must hurt a Soviet apologist.
I had the impression that Mr. Jeurgen is a
Russian-- not some outsider who took it upon
himself to become an apologist for Russians.
Indeed, Mr. Juergen's comment about who
"fruitcake" Larry Parr is, would be even the
more obvious if it weren't for the recent
activities of Vladimir Putin. In effect, the old
Cold War propaganda has been given new
"life", much like a vampire. Not real life, but
more of an un-deadness.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2008 19:27:28
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
OUR PRO-SOVIET GHERKIN
<Just to put in perspective who this fruitcake is: NY Times: January
5, 1991
The New York City Tribune, a Monday-through-Friday newspaper founded
by the
Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 1976, suspended publication yesterday. The
paper's
paid circulation, which reached a peak of 400,000 during the
newspaper
strike of 1978, had dwindled to 12,000, said Thomas D. Zumbo, the
associate
editor. News World Communications, which owns The Tribune, described
the
suspension as a temporary "rest" forced by a poor economy. The other
'Journal', 'Glasnost News & Review', rated no mention when it began,
nor when it went broke. But it is clear that it was a channel for
unfiltered Cold War jibberish, news reports such as 'Russian
ballpoints are even splotchier than ours'. -- Juergen on Larry Parr
It was not I but the Fabian Webbs who told us
that under socialism there would be only one brand of
fountain pen. Greg Kennedy begs to differ. And, too,
Greg's duplication of effort notion is what the Webbs
had in mind.
The problem is that societies that organize
from above to produce single-brand economies leave
people living like dogs.
And those fountain pens will be produced so
that every family can have a new one (one pen for
family, to be sure) every five years or so. In his
bitterness at his own failure in life, Greg imagines
he coulda been THAT contendah had he grown
up in Moscow and been trained by a Soviet master.
Juergen, our pro-Soviet Gherkin, is right that
the NY City Tribune was connnected with the Rev. Moon,
just as the highly respected Washington Times is owned
but not managed, by the Rev. Moon.
As for Glasnost News & Review, which I
edited, roughly 300+ members of the U.S. Congress
subscribed. Current Demo. House Whip Steny Hoyer was
on our board of advisers, as was Sen. Robert Dole,
Jeane Kirkpatrick and Rep. Tom Lantos. Among those
who contributed generously to the Center for Democracy
was -- strangely enough, I guess you could say -- I.
F. Stone, who early in his career wrote tracts
excusing the Soviet attack on Hungary. To give Izzy
Stone some credit, he was notably contrite when we
discussed his early years on a number of occasions.
The difference is that our Juergen never learned and
still seethes with hatred of the hundreds of millions
of people who threw off communism.
Sorry, Juergen, good Gherkin.
Among the contributors to the magazine I
edited were Boris Yeltsin (when he was mayor of
Moscow) Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov, his
wife Elena Bonner, the late U.S. ambassador to the
U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Father Gleb Yakunin, etc.
Sorry, Juergen, good Gherkin. I know it
hurts. Gawd, how it must hurt a Soviet apologist.
Now, just toddle off there.
The Historian wrote:
> On May 10, 5:04 am, J?rgen R. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I will post an article that I wrote a year or so
> > > before the collapse of the Soviet Union that appeared
> > > in the old NY City Tribune as well as Glasnost News
> > > & Review dealing with the single-brand-fountain-pen-no-
> > > capitalist-waste type of economic logic.
> >
> > Just to put in perspective who this fruitcake is:
> >
> > NY Times: January 5, 1991
> > The New York City Tribune, a Monday-through-Friday newspaper founded by the
> > Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 1976, suspended publication yesterday. The paper's
> > paid circulation, which reached a peak of 400,000 during the newspaper
> > strike of 1978, had dwindled to 12,000, said Thomas D. Zumbo, the associate
> > editor. News World Communications, which owns The Tribune, described the
> > suspension as a temporary "rest" forced by a poor economy.
> >
> > The other 'Journal', 'Glasnost News & Review', rated no
> > mention when it began, nor when it went broke. But it
> > is clear that it was a channel for unfiltered Cold War
> > jibberish, news reports such as 'Russian ballpoints are
> > even splotchier than ours'.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Parr
>
> From a 1990 article in Whole Earth Review:
> Glasnost: Larry Parr, US. Editor. $24/year (6 issues) from Center for
> Democracy in the USSR, 358 W 30th Street/Suite 1-A, New York, NY
> 10001; 212/967-2027.
>
> The Center for Democracy in the USSR shut down in 1991.
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2008 07:47:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OUR PRO-SOVIET GHERKIN
> It was not I but the Fabian Webbs who told us
> that under socialism there would be only one brand of
> fountain pen. Greg Kennedy begs to differ. And, too,
> Greg's duplication of effort notion is what the Webbs
> had in mind.
>
> The problem is that societies that organize
> from above to produce single-brand economies leave
> people living like dogs.
After the wall came down I spent some time with a physicist from East
Berlin.
He told me of a Czech bath manufacturing facility, whose foundry produced
iron baths for the entire Soviet Union.
No other baths were on offer anywhere [that is to say, without *special*
people importing them from West Germany] despite the demand for ceramic
ones, and indeed, for the new plastic shower-tubs wieghing one tenth of the
bath units.
So the factory was closed down since it already had 5-years worth of
inventory of iron baths, that is, for those people who presumably still
wanted an iron bath.
This guy [who I shall call Bernd] worked in a photodiode semiconductor
factory in East Berlin as its head scientist, and his unit produced for the
entire Soviet 'Aerospace' Industry - but that is natural - you don't need
lots of electro-optical facilities making silicon detectors.
But he drove a Trabant car - a 'trabi', which was not the only car produced
behind the curtain, but the only one ordinary people could get. The black
market in trabi parts was enormous, and actually far more expensive than the
officially manufactured ones, which... you are guessing right... were in
limitied supply, despite massive demand from Trabant owners ...
Phil Innes
> As for Glasnost News & Review, which I
> edited, roughly 300+ members of the U.S. Congress
> subscribed. Current Demo. House Whip Steny Hoyer was
> on our board of advisers, as was Sen. Robert Dole,
> Jeane Kirkpatrick and Rep. Tom Lantos. Among those
> who contributed generously to the Center for Democracy
> was -- strangely enough, I guess you could say -- I.
> F. Stone, who early in his career wrote tracts
> excusing the Soviet attack on Hungary. To give Izzy
> Stone some credit, he was notably contrite when we
> discussed his early years on a number of occasions.
> The difference is that our Juergen never learned and
> still seethes with hatred of the hundreds of millions
> of people who threw off communism.
>
> Sorry, Juergen, good Gherkin.
>
> Among the contributors to the magazine I
> edited were Boris Yeltsin (when he was mayor of
> Moscow) Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov, his
> wife Elena Bonner, the late U.S. ambassador to the
> U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Father Gleb Yakunin, etc.
>
> Sorry, Juergen, good Gherkin. I know it
> hurts. Gawd, how it must hurt a Soviet apologist.
>
> Now, just toddle off there.
>
>
>
>
> The Historian wrote:
>> On May 10, 5:04 am, J?rgen R. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > I will post an article that I wrote a year or so
>> > > before the collapse of the Soviet Union that appeared
>> > > in the old NY City Tribune as well as Glasnost News
>> > > & Review dealing with the single-brand-fountain-pen-no-
>> > > capitalist-waste type of economic logic.
>> >
>> > Just to put in perspective who this fruitcake is:
>> >
>> > NY Times: January 5, 1991
>> > The New York City Tribune, a Monday-through-Friday newspaper founded by
>> > the
>> > Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 1976, suspended publication yesterday. The
>> > paper's
>> > paid circulation, which reached a peak of 400,000 during the newspaper
>> > strike of 1978, had dwindled to 12,000, said Thomas D. Zumbo, the
>> > associate
>> > editor. News World Communications, which owns The Tribune, described
>> > the
>> > suspension as a temporary "rest" forced by a poor economy.
>> >
>> > The other 'Journal', 'Glasnost News & Review', rated no
>> > mention when it began, nor when it went broke. But it
>> > is clear that it was a channel for unfiltered Cold War
>> > jibberish, news reports such as 'Russian ballpoints are
>> > even splotchier than ours'.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Parr
>>
>> From a 1990 article in Whole Earth Review:
>> Glasnost: Larry Parr, US. Editor. $24/year (6 issues) from Center for
>> Democracy in the USSR, 358 W 30th Street/Suite 1-A, New York, NY
>> 10001; 212/967-2027.
>>
>> The Center for Democracy in the USSR shut down in 1991.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 May 2008 16:26:36
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
[...]
>
> After the wall came down I spent some time with a physicist from East
> Berlin.
>
> He told me of a Czech bath manufacturing facility, whose foundry produced
> iron baths for the entire Soviet Union.
>
> No other baths were on offer anywhere [that is to say, without *special*
> people importing them from West Germany] despite the demand for ceramic
> ones, and indeed, for the new plastic shower-tubs wieghing one tenth of
> the bath units.
Don't you realize that you weaken your case when you grasp at
straws like this. Your 'physicist' was obviously having fun pulling
your leg: Go out and try to buy a ceramic bathtub sometime.
What I don't understand is why, in view of the innumerable real flaws
and idiocies of the lamented 'Social Democracies', you need to
tell such apocryphal anecdotes.
Of course, some such anecdotes, though completely unbelievable,
turned out to be true. Remember the one about the $1000 toilet seats
and the $600 hammers?
>
> This guy [who
I expect you meant to say 'whom', I suppose.
> I shall call Bernd
Needless to say, you must protect his privacy...
>] worked in a photodiode semiconductor factory in East Berlin as its head
>scientist, and his unit produced for the entire Soviet 'Aerospace'
>Industry - but that is natural - you don't need lots of electro-optical
>facilities making silicon detectors.
>
> But he drove a Trabant car - a 'trabi', which was not the only car
> produced behind the curtain, but the only one ordinary people could get.
> The black market in trabi parts was enormous, and actually far more
> expensive than the officially manufactured ones, which... you are guessing
> right... were in limitied supply, despite massive demand from Trabant
> owners ...
Shall I tell you a story or two about 3 automobile manufacturers that
operate
from a formerly great U.S. city that now looks like Berlin did in 1945 and
has
been abondoned by Whitey?
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 May 2008 10:55:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"J�rgen R." <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [...]
>>
>> After the wall came down I spent some time with a physicist from East
>> Berlin.
>>
>> He told me of a Czech bath manufacturing facility, whose foundry produced
>> iron baths for the entire Soviet Union.
>>
>> No other baths were on offer anywhere [that is to say, without *special*
>> people importing them from West Germany] despite the demand for ceramic
>> ones, and indeed, for the new plastic shower-tubs wieghing one tenth of
>> the bath units.
>
> Don't you realize that you weaken your case when you grasp at
> straws like this. Your 'physicist' was obviously having fun pulling
> your leg: Go out and try to buy a ceramic bathtub sometime.
I have written 2,000 e-mails on chess subjects alone with people who were
behind the curtain. That's a hell of a lot of straws. But I don't want to
convince you of anything J�rgen, I want to speak of my /experience/ not
belief.
If its convincing you want, have you written extensively with anyone from
the old SU? Or even know them?
> What I don't understand is why, in view of the innumerable real flaws
> and idiocies of the lamented 'Social Democracies', you need to
> tell such apocryphal anecdotes.
Its true that this may seem to be apochrypha, and any single comment on a
bath or availability of car parts can /seem/ the same...
> Of course, some such anecdotes, though completely unbelievable,
> turned out to be true. Remember the one about the $1000 toilet seats
> and the $600 hammers?
>
>>
>> This guy [who
>
> I expect you meant to say 'whom', I suppose.
Et in America ego ; (
>> I shall call Bernd
>
> Needless to say, you must protect his privacy...
Needless to say any physicist could identify him by his first name ;)
But truly needless to say anyone's surname to you - who doubt all, anyway.
>>] worked in a photodiode semiconductor factory in East Berlin as its head
>>scientist, and his unit produced for the entire Soviet 'Aerospace'
>>Industry - but that is natural - you don't need lots of electro-optical
>>facilities making silicon detectors.
>>
>> But he drove a Trabant car - a 'trabi', which was not the only car
>> produced behind the curtain, but the only one ordinary people could get.
>> The black market in trabi parts was enormous, and actually far more
>> expensive than the officially manufactured ones, which... you are
>> guessing right... were in limitied supply, despite massive demand from
>> Trabant owners ...
>
> Shall I tell you a story or two about 3 automobile manufacturers that
> operate
> from a formerly great U.S. city that now looks like Berlin did in 1945 and
> has
> been abondoned by Whitey?
I see! This is a competition. Things were not as I say in the SU because of
instances of Western failure. Where do you live, BTW? But if you must
believe things, let me quote you Russians instead:-
Please put it in a bank... Please, let's put it in a foreign bank.
//Vladimir Putin advising the relatives of those who died on the
nuclear submarine /Kursk/ on what to do with their compensation.
[hint; try Kommersant-Vlast, August 29, 2000]
Surely The Leader can't be wrong?
But maybe you can find this one by yourself:
We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
//Victor Chernomyrdin,
//Russian prime minister, 1992-1998.
But the main issues here are chessic ones - to the general degree that the
State leaned on Soviet-era players, and the degree to which individuals
complied with it. Did you have views on either of these subjects?
Vykhod est! Phil Innes
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 May 2008 18:55:01
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J�rgen R." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>>
>>> After the wall came down I spent some time with a physicist from East
>>> Berlin.
>>>
>>> He told me of a Czech bath manufacturing facility, whose foundry
>>> produced iron baths for the entire Soviet Union.
>>>
>>> No other baths were on offer anywhere [that is to say, without *special*
>>> people importing them from West Germany] despite the demand for ceramic
>>> ones, and indeed, for the new plastic shower-tubs wieghing one tenth of
>>> the bath units.
>>
>> Don't you realize that you weaken your case when you grasp at
>> straws like this. Your 'physicist' was obviously having fun pulling
>> your leg: Go out and try to buy a ceramic bathtub sometime.
>
> I have written 2,000 e-mails on chess subjects alone with people who were
> behind the curtain. That's a hell of a lot of straws. But I don't want to
> convince you of anything J�rgen, I want to speak of my /experience/ not
> belief.
>
> If its convincing you want, have you written extensively with anyone from
> the old SU? Or even know them?
Well, since I was born there (in Tallinn) and since the place (Munich) where
I am now is inhabited by thousands of recent emigrants from the former USSR
I don't need to write to communicate with 'them'.
>
>>> I shall call Bernd
>>
>> Needless to say, you must protect his privacy...
>
> Needless to say any physicist could identify him by his first name ;)
> But truly needless to say anyone's surname to you - who doubt all, anyway.
These anecdotes are never traceable to the source. You surely
wouldn't be betraying anyone by naming the apocryphal bathtub
factory in Tchechoslovakia? The factories in these stories
never do have a name, do they?
Remember the radio factory that was given norms to fulfill by weight?
And the 10kg bottom plates they put in the radios. That factory
was also nameless.
>
>>>] worked in a photodiode semiconductor factory in East Berlin as its head
>>>scientist,
I see - the world famous photodiode scientist whose name
everybody knows.
>>> and his unit produced for the entire Soviet 'Aerospace' Industry - but
>>> that is natural - you don't need lots of electro-optical facilities
>>> making silicon detectors.
>>>
>>> But he drove a Trabant car - a 'trabi', which was not the only car
>>> produced behind the curtain, but the only one ordinary people could get.
>>> The black market in trabi parts was enormous, and actually far more
>>> expensive than the officially manufactured ones, which... you are
>>> guessing right... were in limitied supply, despite massive demand from
>>> Trabant owners ...
>>
>> Shall I tell you a story or two about 3 automobile manufacturers that
>> operate
>> from a formerly great U.S. city that now looks like Berlin did in 1945
>> and has
>> been abondoned by Whitey?
>
> I see!
No, you don't see. You are missing the point: The
Trabi was, indeed, a joke and became
a symbol for East German industrial backwardness.
The Chrysler Corporation, e.g., is also a joke, one that survives today
only because the state bailed it out. Nor are the cars it makes
much better than a Trabant. The point? Absurdities of this kind
are easily found on both sides of the divide.
> This is a competition. Things were not as I say in the SU because of
> instances of Western failure. Where do you live, BTW? But if you must
> believe things, let me quote you Russians instead:-
I have no reason to believe anything you say, unless you
can give a reliable source.
>
> Please put it in a bank... Please, let's put it in a foreign bank.
>
> //Vladimir Putin advising the relatives of those who died on the
> nuclear submarine /Kursk/ on what to do with their compensation.
Invariably the same game. Why do you misrepresent what
is being said? What does it accomplish?
Putin: "Please, put it in the bank. Banks are not safe. Please, put it in a
foreign bank. That doesn't mean you need to deposit this money
outside the country. Here, in Russia. It is safe. And the bank will
operate according to Russian law. And the money will be in Russia..."
So the poor guy is thoroughly confused in the middle of an
extremely emotional meeting.
>
> [hint; try Kommersant-Vlast, August 29, 2000]
>
> Surely The Leader can't be wrong?
>
> But maybe you can find this one by yourself:
>
> We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
>
> //Victor Chernomyrdin,
> //Russian prime minister, 1992-1998.
>
> But the main issues here are chessic ones - to the general degree that the
> State leaned on Soviet-era players, and the degree to which individuals
> complied with it. Did you have views on either of these subjects?
Yes, my view is that neither you nor Parr knows a thing about it, and that
there is no way that you can verify your conspiracy theories.
>
>
> Vykhod est! Phil Innes
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 May 2008 09:58:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"J�rgen R." <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> If its convincing you want, have you written extensively with anyone from
>> the old SU? Or even know them?
>
> Well, since I was born there (in Tallinn) and since the place (Munich)
> where
> I am now is inhabited by thousands of recent emigrants from the former
> USSR
> I don't need to write to communicate with 'them'.
It was a question to learn your age and origin; thus ability to assess
information at first hand, and by study.
Another Russian, Solzenhitsyn emigrated to where I am. I really don't think
he made very much up about how it was in the SU. [and btw, also another
Russian friend was from Baku who was a chess partner for a time - he says he
remembers young Garry, but was 'too old' to play him].
>>>> I shall call Bernd
>>>
>>> Needless to say, you must protect his privacy...
>>
>> Needless to say any physicist could identify him by his first name ;)
>> But truly needless to say anyone's surname to you - who doubt all,
>> anyway.
>
> These anecdotes are never traceable to the source. You surely
> wouldn't be betraying anyone by naming the apocryphal bathtub
> factory in Tchechoslovakia? The factories in these stories
> never do have a name, do they?
But Jurgen, what is the point of identifying anything to someone who already
says 'apocryphal'. And do you think I remember names of defunct Czech
foundaries from the date the Wall came down? What happens for you if you did
know the name? What exactly are you contesting here? That this is atypical?
That market forces actually operated in the SU? If so, I would agree, but
that is what we call the black market, which operated in league with the
official system, tacitly permitted, otherwise everything would stop!
> Remember the radio factory that was given norms to fulfill by weight?
> And the 10kg bottom plates they put in the radios. That factory
> was also nameless.
Ah! So you make an inference of what is not explicit, that all which is not
explicit, is untrue? It is propaganda you think, for me to cite a situation
known /after/ the Wall came down? Why would I need to be creative with facts
then?
>>
>>>>] worked in a photodiode semiconductor factory in East Berlin as its
>>>>head scientist,
>
> I see - the world famous photodiode scientist whose name
> everybody knows.
>
>>>> and his unit produced for the entire Soviet 'Aerospace' Industry - but
>>>> that is natural - you don't need lots of electro-optical facilities
>>>> making silicon detectors.
>>>>
>>>> But he drove a Trabant car - a 'trabi', which was not the only car
>>>> produced behind the curtain, but the only one ordinary people could
>>>> get. The black market in trabi parts was enormous, and actually far
>>>> more expensive than the officially manufactured ones, which... you are
>>>> guessing right... were in limitied supply, despite massive demand from
>>>> Trabant owners ...
>>>
>>> Shall I tell you a story or two about 3 automobile manufacturers that
>>> operate
>>> from a formerly great U.S. city that now looks like Berlin did in 1945
>>> and has
>>> been abondoned by Whitey?
>>
>> I see!
>
> No, you don't see. You are missing the point: The
> Trabi was, indeed, a joke and became
> a symbol for East German industrial backwardness.
>
> The Chrysler Corporation, e.g., is also a joke, one that survives today
> only because the state bailed it out. Nor are the cars it makes
> much better than a Trabant. The point? Absurdities of this kind
> are easily found on both sides of the divide.
But do you really think that Chrysler cars are equivalent of Trabi's? How
fast could a Trabi go without bits falling off, 50k? OK - maybe a new one
could do 65k. But these American cars do 120k without bits coming off. I
drove a big Plymouth [same as Chrysler] for 120 years, and in fact it was an
excellent car.
But sure, governments play in the market to control it - often with basis of
'national interest.'
>> This is a competition. Things were not as I say in the SU because of
>> instances of Western failure. Where do you live, BTW? But if you must
>> believe things, let me quote you Russians instead:-
>
> I have no reason to believe anything you say, unless you
> can give a reliable source.
>
>>
>> Please put it in a bank... Please, let's put it in a foreign bank.
>>
>> //Vladimir Putin advising the relatives of those who died on the
>> nuclear submarine /Kursk/ on what to do with their compensation.
>
> Invariably the same game. Why do you misrepresent what
> is being said? What does it accomplish?
But here Jurgen, is where your game is bust. You see - this is not about my
memory of an obscure bath foundry - you challenged me for specifics, but
when you have specifics provided to you, as here you don't even believe
Putin. Then you say 'misrepresent'. This is, I suggest, not a very credible
polemic ;)
> Putin: "Please, put it in the bank. Banks are not safe. Please, put it in
> a
> foreign bank. That doesn't mean you need to deposit this money
> outside the country. Here, in Russia. It is safe. And the bank will
> operate according to Russian law. And the money will be in Russia..."
And of course, you are not allowed to put the money 'outside the country,'
so that was never any implication of the statement.
> So the poor guy is thoroughly confused in the middle of an
> extremely emotional meeting.
But if this policy level decision is the basis of activity, are we not now
on the same side of things?
>> [hint; try Kommersant-Vlast, August 29, 2000]
>>
>> Surely The Leader can't be wrong?
>>
>> But maybe you can find this one by yourself:
>>
>> We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
>>
>> //Victor Chernomyrdin,
>> //Russian prime minister, 1992-1998.
>>
>> But the main issues here are chessic ones - to the general degree that
>> the State leaned on Soviet-era players, and the degree to which
>> individuals complied with it. Did you have views on either of these
>> subjects?
>
> Yes, my view is that neither you nor Parr knows a thing about it, and that
> there is no way that you can verify your conspiracy theories.
He lived in Bloc countries. I merely wrote thousands of e-mails with Russian
chess people.
For myself, these 'misrepresentations' are the direct reports of people I
have written with, supplemented by broader reading of Russian authors and
other reports by people who seem to be otherwise respectable.
At the political level of chess in Bloc countries it is very hard for you, I
think, to argue with Mark Taimanov's own report on it. But I suppose you
could do that - and then you could argue with his source, which was the
contents of his KGB dossier. Then maybe you could move on to Boris Gulko who
also wrote a testimony of his treatment, and manipulations [being beaten up,
his wife too, and other 'deselecting' activities from chess placed upon him]
by KGB and not-so-good chess officials.
Did you ever read of these sorts of things? The Taimanov book is even in
Russian language! If you didn't read anything like this I excuse you as an
innocent. But if you chose not to read such things, then that is not
innocence, that is a wilful ignorance.
So when the question arises of 'influence' over chess by the SU, you may be
tempted to forgive Larry Parr and myself, since what we represent is the
direct witness of Russians themselves. And given this as the background
context of chess in the SU, the questions are not 'if pressure existed?',
but rather to what degree did individual players go along with various
degrees of control over individuals within the system?
It is not for me, and after reading Larry Parr for 10 years, I do not think
it is for him either, any dislike for Russian people. It is dislike for that
horrible system and what it does to individual people.
Cordially, Phil Innes
>>
>>
>> Vykhod est! Phil Innes
>>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 May 2008 10:02:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But do you really think that Chrysler cars are equivalent of Trabi's? How
> fast could a Trabi go without bits falling off, 50k? OK - maybe a new one
> could do 65k. But these American cars do 120k without bits coming off. I
> drove a big Plymouth [same as Chrysler] for 120 years, and in fact it was
> an excellent car.
Laugh! Better correct that one myself - for 12 years. Even I am not that
old! Phil
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2008 15:00:44
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
[...]
> Juergen, our pro-Soviet Gherkin, is right that
> the NY City Tribune was connnected with the Rev. Moon,
> just as the highly respected Washington Times is owned
> but not managed, by the Rev. Moon.
Inconveniently, the FATHER spoke as follows:
(Words of Rev. Sun Myung Moon
Everyday Workshop
Notes from Father's Talks Given on His South American
Tour, November 29-December 6, 2000)
<Quote >
Our movement is not just a religion, but is a worldwide civil
movement. We have to move in every direction in life and
provide proper directions. Therefore the WMA
(World Media Association) and WUF (World University
Federation) should work together.
We even have to utilize the media for the sake of church development.
The church is the mind and the media is the body, to reach the
external world. We should begin that movement and activity in
the United States, because the Washington Times and UPI
are headquartered there. Once we establish our organization
in the United States, it can be expanded to the world
without much alteration. We need the formula and the model.
Build a model from the formula that provides the directions on how to unite.
<Quote >
It should be more widely known that UPI is also owned
by these Champions of Liberty and Democracy.
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2008 16:40:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 10, 6:04 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I will post an article that I wrote a year or so
> > before the collapse of the Soviet Union that appeared
> > in the old NY City Tribune as well as Glasnost News
> > & Review dealing with the single-brand-fountain-pen-no-
> > capitalist-waste type of economic logic.
> Just to put in perspective who this fruitcake is:
>
> NY Times: January 5, 1991
> The New York City Tribune, a Monday-through-Friday newspaper founded by th=
e
> Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 1976, suspended publication yesterday. The paper's
> paid circulation, which reached a peak of 400,000 during the newspaper
> strike of 1978, had dwindled to 12,000, said Thomas D. Zumbo, the associat=
e
> editor. News World Communications, which owns The Tribune, described the
> suspension as a temporary "rest" forced by a poor economy.
>
> The other 'Journal', 'Glasnost News & Review', rated no
> mention when it began, nor when it went broke. But it
> is clear that it was a channel for unfiltered Cold War
> jibberish, news reports such as 'Russian ballpoints are
> even splotchier than ours'.
Just to put things into even better perspective...
I just happened to look at my latest issue of Chess
Lies magazine-- just the first few pages, mind you.
In the letters to the editor section there was quite a
long-winded rant about Bobby Fischer and Jews, and
a piece in which one eye-witness named names in
the old (very old, in fact) story about the so-called
game of the century, between Robert Byrne and
Bobby Fischer.
Now, before revealing any names, let me remind
readers of rgc that it was none other than Larry
Evans who claimed that he -- and he alone -- was
smart enough and strong enough a chess player
to "see" what he imagined he saw in a game in
which, he insisted, the moves themselves tell a tale
of cheating.
So, we have the, um, world's strongest, smartest
chess player, Larry Evans, and we can now continue
to place things into their proper perspective... .
The eye-witness account named two players, who
he insisted, were quite clueless as to what was
really happening on the chess board in the game of
the century. He claimed that a Mr. Rossolimo set
up the pieces, while a certain grandmaster -- who
shall remain nameless -- excitedly claimed that
Robert Byrne was beating Bobby Fischer! Now, I
don't want to ruin the story by naming names, but
perhaps a few of the "smartest, strongest" folks in
rgc can figure out who the clueless fellow was, all
the same. Just something to ponder... for a better
perspective on things.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2008 08:02:11
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 10, 5:04 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I will post an article that I wrote a year or so
> > before the collapse of the Soviet Union that appeared
> > in the old NY City Tribune as well as Glasnost News
> > & Review dealing with the single-brand-fountain-pen-no-
> > capitalist-waste type of economic logic.
>
> Just to put in perspective who this fruitcake is:
>
> NY Times: January 5, 1991
> The New York City Tribune, a Monday-through-Friday newspaper founded by th=
e
> Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 1976, suspended publication yesterday. The paper's
> paid circulation, which reached a peak of 400,000 during the newspaper
> strike of 1978, had dwindled to 12,000, said Thomas D. Zumbo, the associat=
e
> editor. News World Communications, which owns The Tribune, described the
> suspension as a temporary "rest" forced by a poor economy.
>
> The other 'Journal', 'Glasnost News & Review', rated no
> mention when it began, nor when it went broke. But it
> is clear that it was a channel for unfiltered Cold War
> jibberish, news reports such as 'Russian ballpoints are
> even splotchier than ours'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Parr
=46rom a 1990 article in Whole Earth Review:
Glasnost: Larry Parr, US. Editor. $24/year (6 issues) from Center for
Democracy in the USSR, 358 W 30th Street/Suite 1-A, New York, NY
10001; 212/967-2027.
The Center for Democracy in the USSR shut down in 1991.
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2008 04:02:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 10, 2:28 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> They assailed the number of different fountain
> pen brands and called it capitalist waste. Under
> socialism, there would be only one brand of fountain
> pen.
/Non sequitur/. Under either system, there can be
any number of different pen factories. This is the
sort of muddled "thinking" which is the hallmark of
the Evans ratpack; indeed, their minds loudly creak
as they /attempt/ to think.
> And so, the Soviets had fountain pens and only
> adopted ball-points in the final years of their imperium.
It looks as though Mr. Parr has confounded
communism with socialism. If he wants a handy
example of socialism, he need look no further than
Canada.
I think what Mr. Parr has missed is the simple
concept of /duplication of effort/. In any business,
needless duplications which can be eliminated
lead to more profits for the wealthy shareholders.
This is why, for instance, many companies buy
other companies out-- to streamline operations
or to increase the volume of production, thereby
gaining in something called "efficiency".
Now, the idea of /competition/ sounds good.
But look at the real-life results: neither of the two
kitty-corner drugstores goes out of business;
neither of the corner gas stations goes under.
Even when, say, a company comes along that
can mop up the floor with its competition, folks
at Ford, General Motors and Chrysler keep
right on truckin'! They don't care who makes
the best cars-- "we", Americans that is, will buy
junk, so long at somebody gets to wave a red,
white and blue flag.
Funny thing is, that "American" car you just
bought may well have been made in Mexico...
or Canada-- a socialist state. And that other
car-- the one you didn't buy because it had a
foreign name? Possibly made in your home
state... assembled by capitalists who eat too
much and don't exercise enough. (The last
breakdown I saw published listed the name
Toyota more than any other, under which cars
were made here in the USA. Weird, huh?)
Ah, but back to the mindless dregs, whose
agenda is Commie-bashing; sometimes they
have trouble keeping everything straight and
they get confused, lashing out at socialists
or what have you. As luck would have it, even
though the Cold War ended, these dregs can
take comfort in the fact that Mr. Putin has
been causing trouble lately. Russia -- a term
which now means something very different
from what it used to -- has oil and NG, and
you know what that means. That's right: the
dregs can still find suitable employment.
I take a bit of a different approach to such
things, not bothering about the politically-
correct rhetoric, the Commie-bashing hype.
To me, waste is simply waste. Paying folks
at fast-food restaurants minimum wage to
stand and talk just wastes everyone's time.
It makes no difference whatever if this
happens in a socialist, a communist or a
capitalist state. Those low-paid, jabbering
slackers need to get with the program, and
their employers need to smarten up. (Hey,
we're gonna pay you exactly the same as
we're paying you now, but instead of just
talking to each other, you have to work a
little; then you can make full time wages
working part time hours, and we will not
have idle bodies cluttering up the place. If
we wanted folks who just stand around, we
could go to Antarctica and hire some very
smartly-dressed penguins for half what we
pay you idiots.)
I imagine that competition can be a good
thing... when it works the way it's supposed
to. But big government so often interferes,
that I can't think of a good example of that
right now. Banks? They are supposed to
be failing right now; but instead, Uncle Sam
stepped in, saving Bear Stearns. See what
I mean? Instead of hard times weeding out
the weak, things are working out differently;
that's capitalism?!! The taxpayers will pay
for it all, sooner or later.
Another common problem with the Commie-
bashers (there sure are a lot of 'em) is
wanting to have everything both ways. Yup,
I keep reading about how awful communism
is, but then they try to account for what's
happening in China, economically, they have
to flippity-flop and claim that they are not
Commies at all, when we don't want 'em to
be. But when it comes to human rights
they're Commies all the way! More of the
tell-tale muddled "thinking"... the self-
contradictions and transparent, huge bias.
Anyway, Libertarians like LP can snicker at
the fact that their man "won" a Fox News poll,
which was supposed to determine which
Republican candidate was the "true
conservative", based on Fox's own definition
of the term. More tell-tale signs of "issues"
with thinking skills... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2008 23:28:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
CAPITALIST WASTE
Greg Kennedy's objections to business
competition recalls the argument made by the two
British Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, during the
1930s. They assailed the number of different fountain
pen brands and called it capitalist waste. Under
socialism, there would be only one brand of fountain
pen. The "savings" would go to the people, etc, etc.
And so, the Soviets had fountain pens and only
adopted ball-points in the final years of their imperium.
Of course, one had all of those fountain-pen ink
makers and the factories that produced bottles for the
fountain-pen ink and the companies that provided the
rubber sacs for the ink in the fountain pens, and the
factories that produced the various penpoints for the
fountain pens and the foundries that provided the
metal levers for the fountain pens and the corporations
that produced ink removers for spills on paper while writing.
Ai, yah. There will always be types like our
Greg who will decry the marketplace and imagine
that a benevolent regime will make decisions that
are more rational.
I will post an article that I wrote a year or so
before the collapse of the Soviet Union that appeared
in the old NY City Tribune as well as Glasnost News
& Review dealing with the single-brand-fountain-pen-no-
capitalist-waste type of economic logic. After all, the
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Khmer Rouge Cambodia
(its leaders eliminated capitalist waste nearly in toto)
and current North Korea were and, in the case of the
latter country, are still run on that logic.
Our Greg: always looking to blame someone other
than himself for the life he has led in that Indiana factory.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On May 9, 8:30 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
> > > that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
> > > intellect. As such, the weaker you may be
>
> > When you can't excel at something, put it down. By his own admission
> > the Indiana Kid coulda been a contendah if only he had lived in
> > Brooklyn like Bobby.
>
>
> It must have been the term "imbecilic" that drew
> Mr. Parr in, like a fly to rotting flesh. One might
> just as well have called the man by name, so
> fitting is this term.
>
>
> > "Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find
> > outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond Chandler.
>
>
> Indeed, while I read /every day/ about the many
> virtues of capitalism and the evils of disliked
> Commie dictators, the sad truth is that there are
> evils among us, among capitalists. I noted long
> ago the fact of needless duplications, such as
> two "struggling" gas stations on nearby corners,
> each of them splitting the limited business, half
> and half. Here in the Midwest, nearly every
> corner "drugstore" has a copycat rival situated
> kitty-corner, again splitting the business such
> that each store may struggle to make a decent
> profit, their respective employees, naturally being
> less productive in this situation, are paid less to
> suit.
>
> But what really galls is the way that our federal
> government is set up. Nearly everything seems
> to revolve more around the two-party war that is
> ongoing, than about any other issues which may
> pertain. It reminds me a little of the Hatfields and
> the McCoys -- two clans who fought for years
> over the right way to face one's Knights on the
> chess board (or some other "crucial" issue).
>
> The fact remains that from where I stand, the
> very idea that one's chess rating is indicative of
> self-worth tells a very revealing tale about these
> imbecilic projectionists; about how they think
> (or rather, are simply unable to think). From my
> perspective, getting roped into an obsession with
> the game of chess reveals a character flaw; it
> shows an inability to put life into its proper
> perspective. It reminds me of the poor fellow
> whose last act in life was to warn viewers, on
> camera, to not dare try what he and he alone
> had done and was capable of doing: filming
> grizzlies with no protection from being mauled
> and eaten. That was his last act because, well,
> you can probably guess. To such imbeciles I
> have but one word: bear mace. Okay, that's
> two words... .
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2008 12:04:01
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
> I will post an article that I wrote a year or so
> before the collapse of the Soviet Union that appeared
> in the old NY City Tribune as well as Glasnost News
> & Review dealing with the single-brand-fountain-pen-no-
> capitalist-waste type of economic logic.
Just to put in perspective who this fruitcake is:
NY Times: January 5, 1991
The New York City Tribune, a Monday-through-Friday newspaper founded by the
Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 1976, suspended publication yesterday. The paper's
paid circulation, which reached a peak of 400,000 during the newspaper
strike of 1978, had dwindled to 12,000, said Thomas D. Zumbo, the associate
editor. News World Communications, which owns The Tribune, described the
suspension as a temporary "rest" forced by a poor economy.
The other 'Journal', 'Glasnost News & Review', rated no
mention when it began, nor when it went broke. But it
is clear that it was a channel for unfiltered Cold War
jibberish, news reports such as 'Russian ballpoints are
even splotchier than ours'.
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2008 19:05:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 9, 8:30 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
> > that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
> > intellect. As such, the weaker you may be
> When you can't excel at something, put it down. By his own admission
> the Indiana Kid coulda been a contendah if only he had lived in
> Brooklyn like Bobby.
It must have been the term "imbecilic" that drew
Mr. Parr in, like a fly to rotting flesh. One might
just as well have called the man by name, so
fitting is this term.
> "Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find
> outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond Chandler.
Indeed, while I read /every day/ about the many
virtues of capitalism and the evils of disliked
Commie dictators, the sad truth is that there are
evils among us, among capitalists. I noted long
ago the fact of needless duplications, such as
two "struggling" gas stations on nearby corners,
each of them splitting the limited business, half
and half. Here in the Midwest, nearly every
corner "drugstore" has a copycat rival situated
kitty-corner, again splitting the business such
that each store may struggle to make a decent
profit, their respective employees, naturally being
less productive in this situation, are paid less to
suit.
But what really galls is the way that our federal
government is set up. Nearly everything seems
to revolve more around the two-party war that is
ongoing, than about any other issues which may
pertain. It reminds me a little of the Hatfields and
the McCoys -- two clans who fought for years
over the right way to face one's Knights on the
chess board (or some other "crucial" issue).
The fact remains that from where I stand, the
very idea that one's chess rating is indicative of
self-worth tells a very revealing tale about these
imbecilic projectionists; about how they think
(or rather, are simply unable to think). From my
perspective, getting roped into an obsession with
the game of chess reveals a character flaw; it
shows an inability to put life into its proper
perspective. It reminds me of the poor fellow
whose last act in life was to warn viewers, on
camera, to not dare try what he and he alone
had done and was capable of doing: filming
grizzlies with no protection from being mauled
and eaten. That was his last act because, well,
you can probably guess. To such imbeciles I
have but one word: bear mace. Okay, that's
two words... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2008 14:02:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:32fc0568-1503-4f4e-9e2d-1058acc59e9b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> "Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find
>> outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond Chandler.
WELCOME TO AMERICA
> Indeed, while I read /every day/ about the many
> virtues of capitalism and the evils of disliked
> Commie dictators,
Let's split hairs, any dictators, or just Commie ones? I wonder where Greg
Kennedy reads this stuff every day, and if maybe the Commie dictators are
rather less odorous than the other kinds?
> the sad truth is that there are
> evils among us, among capitalists. I noted long
> ago the fact of needless duplications, such as
> two "struggling" gas stations on nearby corners,
> each of them splitting the limited business, half
> and half.
ROFL! Imagine one gas store in every town, and what then regulates the price
of gas?
Let's pity poor Mobil and EXXON, Greg tells us, especically Mobil who made
$17 billion extra bucks recently.
> Here in the Midwest, nearly every
> corner "drugstore" has a copycat rival situated
> kitty-corner, again splitting the business such
> that each store may struggle to make a decent
> profit, their respective employees, naturally being
> less productive in this situation, are paid less to
> suit.
I rarely shop at corner drug-stores, and in fact, no many locals here in
Vermont do. Those places are for people who don't know where the supermarket
is. But at least the corner stores sell papers where our Greg reads every
day about evil commie dictators, and never about evil Wall-Street; such
information being, we must suppose, heavily repressed in the Mid-West.
> But what really galls is the way that our federal
> government is set up. Nearly everything seems
> to revolve more around the two-party war that is
> ongoing, than about any other issues which may
> pertain. It reminds me a little of the Hatfields and
> the McCoys -- two clans who fought for years
> over the right way to face one's Knights on the
> chess board (or some other "crucial" issue).
Who could argue with that anecdote?
But who could not have noticed that at least one candidate is addressing
more than appearances of things? Perhaps this too is heavily repressed
information in the Mid-West.
> The fact remains that from where I stand, the
> very idea that one's chess rating is indicative of
> self-worth tells a very revealing tale about these
> imbecilic projectionists;
Laugh - one must return again to who's obsession ratings are? Let me see...
Who actually writes most about that in newsgroups, well, for sure Brennan
does assess it as of evident worth, and protests it for 5 years straight,
and he addresses it to others who feel the same about their worth.
Naturally, it is all a joke, albeit a bitter 5 year struggle against 'them'.
Other people seem content to evaluate ratings as a basis of chess skill,
rather than self-worth. This means that [no offence intended] the views of
1500 players about the games of 2700 players are usually not as valuable as
those of strong players.
Now, if farmer-Kennedy had a GM in his corn-field, and watched his pathetic
plowing attempts, then he would recognise that real farmers /aughta/ feel
good about 'the cut worm forgives the plow', and that is entirely natural.
Unclear if those sentiments are in our Greg's corner store newspaper, but if
not, then he could write a letter tot he editor pointing it out, or not buy
the newspaper at all, since it is censored by Those Who Must Be Obeyed.
> about how they think
> (or rather, are simply unable to think). From my
> perspective, getting roped into an obsession with
> the game of chess reveals a character flaw; it
> shows an inability to put life into its proper
> perspective. It reminds me of the poor fellow
> whose last act in life was to warn viewers, on
> camera, to not dare try what he and he alone
> had done and was capable of doing: filming
> grizzlies with no protection from being mauled
> and eaten.
It reminds you of that? Have you ever played chess?
You sound like Pravda on a slow news day.
Phil Innes
> That was his last act because, well,
> you can probably guess. To such imbeciles I
> have but one word: bear mace. Okay, that's
> two words... .
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2008 17:30:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
HE COULDA BEEN A CONTENDAH
> Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
> that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
> intellect. As such, the weaker you may be
> (and I expect you are mediocre, at best), the
> better off you are, for you will be less likely to
> get sucked in and waste your pitiful lives away
> on a silly board game. -- Greg Kennedy
When you can't excel at something, put it down. By his own admission
the Indiana Kid coulda been a contendah if only he had lived in
Brooklyn like Bobby.
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 292)
"Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you can find
outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond Chandler.
help bot wrote:
> On May 9, 2:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > It seems likely that this particular blather was a
> > > response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
> > > but by others.
> >
> > Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.
> >
> > > One of these others was of course,
> > > Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
> > > adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
> > > not very long ago.
> >
> > 'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?
>
> Got issues with not always being parroted or
> your speculations not just being swallowed whole,
> every time? Then this is not the place for you, my
> friend; why not go to the USCF forum, and hire
> "moderators" to shield your speculations from
> sunlight?
>
>
> > What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
> > that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have done
> > this in writing.
>
> Indeed. And what I wrote is that I believe he
> wrote that /in response to/ the innumerable
> attacks on him. In sum, I don't buy it, any
> more than I "buy" the lies and fabrications of
> Mr. Karpov's nemesis, Gary "I never touched it"
> Kasparov. (At least, I don't think I touched it.
> Somebody else must have moved it! You can't
> prove anything. Top of the world, Ma!)
>
>
> > Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]
>
> Alas, the nearly-an-IM legend-in-his-own-mind
> Phil Innes has forgotten that Mr. Fischer -- who
> one poster asserted was likely a fine investor
> and manager of money -- was swindled out of
> much of his 1972 winnings... like a child.
>
> As I recall, Mr. Fischer desired a big house,
> built in the shape of a Rook. He wanted to be
> paid big money, like Muhammed Ali was. But
> he was too scared to write books, on account
> of everyone being out to get him, see?
>
>
> > As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
> > was only the chess hero.
>
> You are talking about the mindless fans here
> in the USA. But there are others who read
> English... who were not so obsessed, or
> deluded about BF. In fact, David Levy wrote
> a book about Mr. Fischer, which, far from
> going over the top, was as they say on the
> Fox TV channel, /fair and balanced/.
>
> Some subjects upon which BF might have
> "safely" written were the Sicilian Defense, the
> "Roy" Lopez, and the endgame. None of
> these entail /personal/ issues, nor even hero
> worship. People would buy them because
> they believed BF to be a very strong chess
> analyst (think of GM Huebner or Fritz-- two
> powerful analysts who never made it to the
> pinnacle).
>
>
> > And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
> > the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.
>
> Even so, it is possible for the "hero" to help
> promote chess -- and make lots of money from
> it -- by writing books and such without having
> to compete. (Think of how many Raymond
> Keene hack-jobs the world could have been
> saved! Eric Schiller could have been a taxi
> driver or something, and we would all have
> /real/ chess books to pore over.)
>
>
> > The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done here
> > with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
> > situations
>
> I keep getting the feeling that some of the hacks
> here in rgc are a tad frustrated; that they feel a
> need to /project/ upon me their hearts' greatest
> unfulfilled desires of greatness in chess. (Why
> me, I wonder? Is it my innumerable wins at
> GetClub? My good looks, or amazing charm or
> wit? Who knows... .)
>
>
> > neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
> > situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though Fischer
> > is dead.
>
> More ad hom. stuff, as always.
>
> Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
> that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
> intellect. As such, the weaker you may be
> (and I expect you are mediocre, at best), the
> better off you are, for you will be less likely to
> get sucked in and waste your pitiful lives away
> on a silly board game.
>
> Now then, what constitutes something more
> worthwhile? The easy answer is the field of
> medicine, or science, or even sharpening
> pencils for that matter. What might be worse
> than wasting one's life away on chess? Well,
> there is politics, lawyering, the advertising
> business, and the /ad hominem/ trade.
>
> Now, I hope you learned something from all
> this. Stop your puerile projections, and face
> your "issues" head-on, like men. (Well, just
> *pretend* to be men then.)
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2008 15:16:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 9, 2:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > It seems likely that this particular blather was a
> > response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
> > but by others.
>
> Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.
>
> > One of these others was of course,
> > Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
> > adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
> > not very long ago.
>
> 'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?
Got issues with not always being parroted or
your speculations not just being swallowed whole,
every time? Then this is not the place for you, my
friend; why not go to the USCF forum, and hire
"moderators" to shield your speculations from
sunlight?
> What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
> that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have done
> this in writing.
Indeed. And what I wrote is that I believe he
wrote that /in response to/ the innumerable
attacks on him. In sum, I don't buy it, any
more than I "buy" the lies and fabrications of
Mr. Karpov's nemesis, Gary "I never touched it"
Kasparov. (At least, I don't think I touched it.
Somebody else must have moved it! You can't
prove anything. Top of the world, Ma!)
> Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]
Alas, the nearly-an-IM legend-in-his-own-mind
Phil Innes has forgotten that Mr. Fischer -- who
one poster asserted was likely a fine investor
and manager of money -- was swindled out of
much of his 1972 winnings... like a child.
As I recall, Mr. Fischer desired a big house,
built in the shape of a Rook. He wanted to be
paid big money, like Muhammed Ali was. But
he was too scared to write books, on account
of everyone being out to get him, see?
> As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
> was only the chess hero.
You are talking about the mindless fans here
in the USA. But there are others who read
English... who were not so obsessed, or
deluded about BF. In fact, David Levy wrote
a book about Mr. Fischer, which, far from
going over the top, was as they say on the
Fox TV channel, /fair and balanced/.
Some subjects upon which BF might have
"safely" written were the Sicilian Defense, the
"Roy" Lopez, and the endgame. None of
these entail /personal/ issues, nor even hero
worship. People would buy them because
they believed BF to be a very strong chess
analyst (think of GM Huebner or Fritz-- two
powerful analysts who never made it to the
pinnacle).
> And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
> the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.
Even so, it is possible for the "hero" to help
promote chess -- and make lots of money from
it -- by writing books and such without having
to compete. (Think of how many Raymond
Keene hack-jobs the world could have been
saved! Eric Schiller could have been a taxi
driver or something, and we would all have
/real/ chess books to pore over.)
> The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done here
> with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
> situations
I keep getting the feeling that some of the hacks
here in rgc are a tad frustrated; that they feel a
need to /project/ upon me their hearts' greatest
unfulfilled desires of greatness in chess. (Why
me, I wonder? Is it my innumerable wins at
GetClub? My good looks, or amazing charm or
wit? Who knows... .)
> neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
> situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though Fischer
> is dead.
More ad hom. stuff, as always.
Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
intellect. As such, the weaker you may be
(and I expect you are mediocre, at best), the
better off you are, for you will be less likely to
get sucked in and waste your pitiful lives away
on a silly board game.
Now then, what constitutes something more
worthwhile? The easy answer is the field of
medicine, or science, or even sharpening
pencils for that matter. What might be worse
than wasting one's life away on chess? Well,
there is politics, lawyering, the advertising
business, and the /ad hominem/ trade.
Now, I hope you learned something from all
this. Stop your puerile projections, and face
your "issues" head-on, like men. (Well, just
*pretend* to be men then.)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2008 10:19:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 9, 2:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > It seems likely that this particular blather was a
>> > response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
>> > but by others.
>>
>> Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.
>>
>> > One of these others was of course,
>> > Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
>> > adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
>> > not very long ago.
>>
>> 'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?
>
> Got issues with not always being parroted or
> your speculations not just being swallowed whole,
> every time? Then this is not the place for you, my
> friend; why not go to the USCF forum, and hire
> "moderators" to shield your speculations from
> sunlight?
Let me take that as a 'no'. Furthermore, it regrets other people who do
nominate a topic, and recommends they go elsewhere.
>> What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
>> that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have
>> done
>> this in writing.
>
> Indeed. And what I wrote is that I believe he
> wrote that /in response to/ the innumerable
> attacks on him.
Well, let us grant you your belief, at least inasmuch as making your beliefs
the topic of this interchange.
> In sum, I don't buy it, any
> more than I "buy" the lies and fabrications of
> Mr. Karpov's nemesis, Gary "I never touched it"
You don't buy what? What is 'it?'
You first posit your 'belief' that the confessio was indicated by public
sentiment, then you don't 'buy it?' But immediately switch to someone else,
as if there was any cogency to even your own argument.
> Kasparov. (At least, I don't think I touched it.
> Somebody else must have moved it! You can't
> prove anything. Top of the world, Ma!)
In his passion Greg Kennedy once more upends his /own/ argumet. This time
messing up 'touching it' with 'releasing it'.
But isn't the point the same as with Karpov, that he didn't think he did it,
didn't intend to release it, but at length admitted that he actually did?
What Greg Kennedy does not seem to understand is that the very point of what
I wrote is admission of wrong. Kennedy cannot address this at all, and
continues just as if these players had not admitted anything. Just being
wrong condemns them for ever, in his opinion. Since that seems pretty well
established, then let that be his personal opinion. For myself, I have more
a sense of people changing over time, which may not be his own experience of
himself or of others. But <shrug > that is merely to argue the paucity and
lack of generosity of his observations - he doesn't want any relievo, he
needs constant villains to be a little parano about, and fallen heroes like
Fischer to be sceptical of.
Such are the perils of a chess-life lived vicariously.
>> Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]
>
> Alas, the nearly-an-IM legend-in-his-own-mind
> Phil Innes has forgotten that Mr. Fischer -- who
> one poster asserted was likely a fine investor
> and manager of money -- was swindled out of
> much of his 1972 winnings... like a child.
>
> As I recall, Mr. Fischer desired a big house,
> built in the shape of a Rook. He wanted to be
> paid big money, like Muhammed Ali was. But
> he was too scared to write books, on account
> of everyone being out to get him, see?
The last people to contact Fischer were Ed Trice and myself. Actually I
dealt mostly with Saemi P. So I must excuse myself from speculation and seek
my refuge in actual knowledge and direct experience.
>> As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
>> was only the chess hero.
>
> You are talking about the mindless fans here
> in the USA. But there are others who read
> English... who were not so obsessed, or
> deluded about BF. In fact, David Levy wrote
> a book about Mr. Fischer, which, far from
> going over the top, was as they say on the
> Fox TV channel, /fair and balanced/.
You denude your reference by its publisher, no? Unfortunately you cite an
exception to the norm, which was out-and-out Fischer worship.
> Some subjects upon which BF might have
> "safely" written were the Sicilian Defense, the
> "Roy" Lopez, and the endgame. None of
> these entail /personal/ issues, nor even hero
> worship.
How absurd to think Fischer would need to teach oepning systems while he was
still very active creating them!
But Kennedy skips his own attachment, as if he were not here uttering his
opinions. He is plainly fixated on strong players, and a demonstration of my
point that the person is invisible for those fixated on the hero role.
> People would buy them because
> they believed BF to be a very strong chess
> analyst (think of GM Huebner or Fritz-- two
> powerful analysts who never made it to the
> pinnacle).
>
>
>> And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
>> the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.
>
> Even so, it is possible for the "hero" to help
> promote chess -- and make lots of money from
> it -- by writing books and such without having
> to compete. (Think of how many Raymond
> Keene hack-jobs the world could have been
> saved! Eric Schiller could have been a taxi
> driver or something, and we would all have
> /real/ chess books to pore over.)
You merely suggest a different punishment - that these best in the world
players shoould write materials to entertain you - whereas you are quite
content to be entertained by me! And still cannot talk chess ~ you seem to
have no other orientation than to public persona, and what you don't like
about the /presentation/ of other people.
>
>> The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done
>> here
>> with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
>> situations
>
> I keep getting the feeling that some of the hacks
> here in rgc are a tad frustrated; that they feel a
> need to /project/ upon me their hearts' greatest
> unfulfilled desires of greatness in chess. (Why
> me, I wonder? Is it my innumerable wins at
> GetClub? My good looks, or amazing charm or
> wit? Who knows... .)
I suppose you constant support of GetClub is a primary dumbing-down of the
chess thread, to levels which are truly imbecilic, and therefore the 'hacks'
as you call them, being the general chess readership, consider you to have
attained your proper level of contribution. Indeed, you achieve the height
of dumbth.
>
>> neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
>> situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though
>> Fischer
>> is dead.
>
> More ad hom. stuff, as always.
>
> Note to imbecilic "projectionists": my view is
> that chess is a horrible *waste* of the human
> intellect.
And here is your confession... though you did not intend it to be such
> As such, the weaker you may be
> (and I expect you are mediocre, at best), the
> better off you are, for you will be less likely to
> get sucked in and waste your pitiful lives away
> on a silly board game.
And these comments are from someone who takes no joy in playing the game,
and only writes to tell others they don't either.
> Now then, what constitutes something more
> worthwhile? The easy answer is the field of
> medicine, or science, or even sharpening
> pencils for that matter. What might be worse
> than wasting one's life away on chess? Well,
> there is politics, lawyering, the advertising
> business, and the /ad hominem/ trade.
>
> Now, I hope you learned something from all
> this. Stop your puerile projections, and face
> your "issues" head-on, like men. (Well, just
> *pretend* to be men then.)
You don't have to pretend anything if you just stick to your experience of
things, playing chess would be on-topic here, and stop living other people's
lives instead of your own.
Otherwise you will become like Mr. Kennedy, who cannot achieve that modest
state, and regrets that you do to the extent that he must always suppose
what enjoying chess is like.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2008 21:30:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
GREG FINALLY AGREES WITH US
Greg Kennedy has reached dulcet accord with us.
He also now appears to agree with John Hillery.
Namely, if as Greg argued, FIDE's title is that
organization's property to dispense and dispose of,
then Bobby Fischer was indeed still world champion
in 1975. Larry Evans' account and, indeed, his use
of the term "selfmate" was both accurate and
contained a nice referential, low-key pun.
It is fine that Greg is now in agreement with
yours truly and John Hillery. He required a bit of
prodding, and he never knew that FIDE still considered
Bobby champion even after his letter of resignation.
History, which is Greg's much-hated great conspiracy
of knowledge, has stabbed him in the back once again.
Finally, Greg has been going on and on about the
Karpov-Polugaevsky game from Tilburg. Juergen and he
dislike the on-the-scene testimony of Yasser Seirawan.
I warrant that most of you realize that Seirawan
was not discussing a single move made by Polu but
the evident disdain and facial gestures and Karpov's
weasel-like embarrassment during the entire endgame.
In short, Polu was doing his duty but letting everyone
who watched know what was happening.
As for Spassky, he was punished by Soviet
authorities after finishing ahead of Karpov in a
Spanish international tournament. Polugaevsky more
or less acted as ordered; Spassky, whom Fischer beat
badly, finished ahead of Tolya at a time when such a
result was deemed anti-Soviet. He received sanctions
and eventually moved to France and became what
wascalled a one-legged dissident -- one foot inside
Russia and one foot outside..
.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On May 4, 4:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > You can argue this one either way. In June of 1974, when FIDE wouldn't
> > agree to his match conditions, Fischer wrote the letter resigning his
> > "FIDE title." In September of 1974, Karpov won the final Candidates
> > Match. In that sense, Kennedy's quibble is correct. However, in May-
> > June 1975, FIDE held another meeting and agreed to _almost_ all of
> > Fischer's conditions. They then sent Fischer a request to play, more
> > or less ignoring the "resignation" letter. When Fischer refused to
> > rely, Karpov was declared the winner by forfeit. Looked at that way,
> > Evans's account is fairly accurate -- by declining to play, Fischer
> > "gave" the title to his (known) opponent.
>
>
> In 1975, Bobby Fischer was not in possession of
> the FIDE title, so he was in no position to do any
> such thing. The FIDE title, you see, is controlled
> by *FIDE* (go figure), and it is *they* who do the
> giving (or not). There is a thing called a "world
> championship cycle", and so you see, the old
> days wherein a single person gives "his" title or
> refuses to defend it, are over and done with.
>
> The real reason the Larry Evans account tries to
> involve Anatoly Karpov is self-evident; Mr. Evans
> has for decades been bashing AK as a supposed
> villain; he seems to know only the mystery-
> suspense-thriller genre, and no other. (IMO, this
> was more of a Dr. Strangelove style tragi-comedy.)
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2008 14:55:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 5, 8:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> But the effect of other players on Karpov, who can be said to have an
> artistic temperament to chess, was that he said he could never really get
> excited [artistically] at the prospect of playing Kasparov - but Korchnoi
> provided him a huge stimulus - and he quantified that, by saying something
> like 85% of his creative energies.
>
> He then continued on this theme, in Karpov on Karpov, to state that Fischer
> would have been his greatest challenge, in the 90th percentiles.
>
> That is an artistic tribute and a sincere one to Fischer-the-player.
It seems likely that this particular blather was a
response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
but by others. One of these others was of course,
Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
not very long ago.
The ploy was to suggest that GK was unworthy,
or that AK had not necessarily tried his darnedest
to excel against him; a rather obvious cop-out or
lie. To me, this is no different from the multitude
of lies and fabrications told by master story-teller
Gary Kasparov, many of which targeted Anatoly
Karpov, casting him as the main villain in twisted
plots which virtually always contained serious
flaws and self-contradictions, not to mention
casting errors (GK as the hero??!).
> Far better if Fischer-the-player had continued to believe in pawns rather
> than suffer the fate of the [self] abandoned celebrity.
Another possibility was for Bobby Fischer to
refuse to compete, but at the same time craft
numerous works on the game, which quite
naturally would have been best-sellers. That
would have solved his financial woes, while at
the same time affording him an outlet in which
to critique the play of other grandmasters, and
bash the FIDE, the USCF, and most of all, the
Russians and the Jews who were all "out to get
him". (Hey, if /I Was Beaten in a Pasadena
Jailhouse/ sold, then why not /The World Wide
Plot to Get Bobby Fischer/?)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 May 2008 14:02:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:34289645-ffaa-4ae6-908e-83d0cc6d7f6f@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 8:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But the effect of other players on Karpov, who can be said to have an
>> artistic temperament to chess, was that he said he could never really get
>> excited [artistically] at the prospect of playing Kasparov - but Korchnoi
>> provided him a huge stimulus - and he quantified that, by saying
>> something
>> like 85% of his creative energies.
>>
>> He then continued on this theme, in Karpov on Karpov, to state that
>> Fischer
>> would have been his greatest challenge, in the 90th percentiles.
>>
>> That is an artistic tribute and a sincere one to Fischer-the-player.
>
> It seems likely that this particular blather was a
> response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
> but by others.
Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.
> One of these others was of course,
> Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
> adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
> not very long ago.
'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?
What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have done
this in writing.
He also admitted a personal element about his own creativity in respect of
specific opponents. I do not understand from greg Kennedy who can't even
admit his own name, what the hell he knows or thinks or speculates upon - or
even what his opinion is, never mind how informed it is.
> The ploy was to suggest that GK was unworthy,
> or that AK had not necessarily tried his darnedest
> to excel against him; a rather obvious cop-out or
> lie.
In what way, even in a general sense, are people who like Bach but not
Beethoven deploying cop-out tactics or lying?
> To me, this is no different from the multitude
> of lies and fabrications told by master story-teller
> Gary Kasparov, many of which targeted Anatoly
> Karpov, casting him as the main villain in twisted
> plots which virtually always contained serious
> flaws and self-contradictions, not to mention
> casting errors (GK as the hero??!).
These strong players are all of a muchness to Greg Kennedy, who BTW, had not
admitted reading the chess bio I quote from, or anything else to inform his
opinions. Maybe all GMs look and act the same to him?
>> Far better if Fischer-the-player had continued to believe in pawns rather
>> than suffer the fate of the [self] abandoned celebrity.
>
> Another possibility was for Bobby Fischer to
> refuse to compete, but at the same time craft
> numerous works on the game, which quite
> naturally would have been best-sellers. That
> would have solved his financial woes, while at
Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]
> the same time affording him an outlet in which
> to critique the play of other grandmasters, and
> bash the FIDE, the USCF, and most of all, the
> Russians and the Jews who were all "out to get
> him". (Hey, if /I Was Beaten in a Pasadena
> Jailhouse/ sold, then why not /The World Wide
> Plot to Get Bobby Fischer/?)
Because that would be a completely trite response to the issues in his life,
and address issues as if written by a persona created by the public, not an
actual person.
As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
was only the chess hero. And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.
The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done here
with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
situations, neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though Fischer
is dead.
This is why Taimanov said that he pitied all these Russian kids whose only
route out of their drab regional futures was their chess, and that he
thought was too brittle a base to withstand much of life.
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2008 14:38:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 5, 6:07 am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Fischer sent him a cable congratulating
> > him on his defection in 1976.
> And Korchnoi sent Fischer a cable congratulating him on
> his defection in 1992.
While Bobby Fischer may well have ranted and
raved about other issues -- including his treatment
at the hands of the Pasadena police department,
an agency of the state of California -- his real beef
in 1992 was over money. The IRS would have
eaten a big chunk of his winnings, and so too
would his state of residence within the USA. I
don't think that is exactly comparable to whatever
reasons Victor Kortchnoi may have had for
defecting.
> > In a statement to the press shortly after his defection, Korchnoi
> > expressed his pleasure in knowing the predicament Soviet authorities
> > will face when forced to report his results in the Candidates Matches
> > next year. That is the time, he noted, when the millions of Russian
> > chess players will learn of his defection."
> Nonsense. Korchnoi's defection occurred while the Interzonal in Biel
> was going on. I was there, playing in a side tournament, and
> remember hearing the news, which spread like wild fire before it ever
> hit the newspapers.
> The Russian players Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Geller and Gulko and
> the Russian crowd of seconds and functionaries heard of
> the defection on the day it happened. Considering how efficiently
> information spread by word of mouth in those days in the USSR,
> every Russian chess player will have known about it the day
> after all these people returned from Biel.
Perhaps it was the readers of Chess Lies magazine
who did not find out until the following year? That
would hardly surprise me... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2008 06:04:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 5, 7:54 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi=92s family
I have always had questions about this point.
Korchnoi's adopted non-biological son was drafted into the Army and
sent to Siberia. It seems doubtful that Korchnoi had a valid claim.
How did Korchnoi come to adopt this son? Do you know?
Korchnoi's wife sued him as soon as she was allowed to immigrate and
arrived in Switzerland. Do you know what happened to that case?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2008 05:54:57
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"KARPOV'S OPPONENT"
<The Russian players Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Geller and Gulko and
the Russian crowd of seconds and functionaries heard of
the defection on the day it happened. Considering how efficiently
information spread by word of mouth in those days in the USSR,
every Russian chess player will have known about it the day
after all these people returned from Biel. > -- Jurgen
THIS CRAZY WORLD O F CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)
Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.
Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi=92s family and
objected to his playing under the flag of his new country,
Switzerland. During his 1978 title match, the Soviet press never
mentioned his name, referring to him only as "the challenger" or
"Karpov=92s opponent."
Chess always was regarded as an extension of Soviet diplomacy. After
World War II, their chess masters were sent on goodwill tours of
neighboring states where Russia planned to increase her sphere of
influence. Team matches with Hungary and Czechoslovakia preceded the
actual takeovers of those nations. Where chess went, tanks followed.
J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> [...]
> > Fischer sent him a cable congratulating
> > him on his defection in 1976.
>
> And Korchnoi sent Fischer a cable congratulating him on
> his defection in 1992.
>
> >
> > In a statement to the press shortly after his defection, Korchnoi
> > expressed his pleasure in knowing the predicament Soviet authorities
> > will face when forced to report his results in the Candidates Matches
> > next year. That is the time, he noted, when the millions of Russian
> > chess players will learn of his defection."
>
> Nonsense. Korchnoi's defection occurred while the Interzonal in Biel
> was going on. I was there, playing in a side tournament, and
> remember hearing the news, which spread like wild fire before it ever
> hit the newspapers.
> The Russian players Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Geller and Gulko and
> the Russian crowd of seconds and functionaries heard of
> the defection on the day it happened. Considering how efficiently
> information spread by word of mouth in those days in the USSR,
> every Russian chess player will have known about it the day
> after all these people returned from Biel.
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2008 05:09:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GREG
<Harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
silly. Well, sillier. > -- John Hillery
>Calling me "silly" is well, just plain silly; it's name-calling...
Saying that Larry Evans' account is accurate, is akin to
saying that Sanny's program plays according to the rules.
You can't put lipstick on a pig. > -- Greg Kennedy.
Greg can dish it out but he can't take it.
The Indiana Kid frequently calls other people names.
He called Kasparov a "cheater" (which Guy Macon
refuted by quoting the pertinent rule) and falsely attributed
to "Evans ratpackers" an eyewitness account by Seirawan
(who played at Tilburg 1983) that Karpov induced Polugaievsky
to throw an easily drawn ending to him AFTER adjournment.
It was just "an ordinary mistake" claims Greg who, like Jurgen,
seems to think Karpov can do no wrong. Greg's enemies list
is headed by Evans, Kasparov and Keene who, according to
him, can do no right.
John Hillery accurately notes that FIDE asked Fischer
to defend that organization's world title as the reigning
champion in 1975, so FIDE itself evidently still regarded
Fischer as its champion. Even FIDE's own records list
him as its official titleholder from 1972-1975, but facts
seldom interfere with Greg's distortion of history.
Given Greg Kennedy's logic that FIDE's title is
its to dispense and dispose as that organization so
deems, then our Greg proves Hillery's case that Evans
got it right that Fischer, in effect, defaulted the world title
to Karpov. For Bobby still possessed it IF, as Greg says,
the title resides with the person FIDE so deems.
Greg was obviously unaware of FIDE's position.
The universal experience with Greg is that history is
to him terra incognita -- whether the subject under
discussion is the political borders of Europe
("Bismarck who or Poland what?" as he might ask) or
the number of American world chess champions. (In his
innocence, Greg did not even know that Steinitz was an
American world chess champion.)
In the current discussion Greg did not realize that
FIDE continued to recognize Bobby Fischer as its
champion after he wrote his resignation letter in 1974.
Greg is not just silly. He's obtuse.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On May 5, 1:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > FIDE apparently didn't think so.
> > In June of 1975, they asked Fischer
> > to play Karpov _as World Champion_.
>
> Losing the thread; we all agree that the winner of
> the previous FIDE world championship cycle was
> Bobby Fischer, and that if he had played, he
> would have been given pretty nearly anything he
> wanted, just as in 1972.
>
>
> > Fischer's refusal to play that
> > match -- as he and everyone else knew -- had the _effect_ of making
> > Karpov World Champion.
>
> Indeed. So, what is your point?
>
>
> > There are plenty of reasons for criticizing
> > Evans, but harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
> > silly. Well, sillier.
>
> In my view, you look rather daft in that you
> can't get past this freaky ratpacker bias thing.
>
> It's 2008 AD, and yet some folks are akin to
> frozen cadavers from the Cold War era; hence
> the observation by Jurgen that their biases are
> "antiquated"; the fact is, we have moved well
> beyond the old biases and are now bashing
> Russia's Mr. Putin, Venezuela's Mr. Chavez
> and *China*. Life goes on, with or without the
> frozen cadaver mindset.
>
> Calling me "silly" is well, just plain silly; it's
> name-calling, and most folks will conclude --
> rightly or wrongly -- that you abandoned
> reason in favor of /ad hominem/ because you
> must have not had any other choice.
>
> The organization known as FIDE controlled
> the FIDE title-- whether the Evans ratpackers
> like it or not. Nothing can change that-- not
> even stubbornness and denial (regardless of
> quantity). In much the same way, the USCF
> controlled Chess Lies magazine; it may be
> unpalatable, but it remains a fact of life.
>
> As for criticizing Larry Evans, it appears
> that others have beaten me to it; when the
> old man "had a cow" over some pedantic
> corrections to a couple of his gaffes, he
> poured gasoline on the flames, spurring Mr.
> Winter to do a write-up in which numerous
> such errors were laid out, side by side. I can
> not even hope to compete with such work as
> that, since it would require too much time
> and effort. Besides, I only have a few of all
> the issues of Chess Lies magazine, so it
> would be a piecemeal job.
>
> Saying that Larry Evans' account is accurate,
> is akin to saying that Sanny's program plays
> according to the rules. You can't put lipstick
> on a pig.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2008 23:36:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 5, 1:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
> FIDE apparently didn't think so.
> In June of 1975, they asked Fischer
> to play Karpov _as World Champion_.
Losing the thread; we all agree that the winner of
the previous FIDE world championship cycle was
Bobby Fischer, and that if he had played, he
would have been given pretty nearly anything he
wanted, just as in 1972.
> Fischer's refusal to play that
> match -- as he and everyone else knew -- had the _effect_ of making
> Karpov World Champion.
Indeed. So, what is your point?
> There are plenty of reasons for criticizing
> Evans, but harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
> silly. Well, sillier.
In my view, you look rather daft in that you
can't get past this freaky ratpacker bias thing.
It's 2008 AD, and yet some folks are akin to
frozen cadavers from the Cold War era; hence
the observation by Jurgen that their biases are
"antiquated"; the fact is, we have moved well
beyond the old biases and are now bashing
Russia's Mr. Putin, Venezuela's Mr. Chavez
and *China*. Life goes on, with or without the
frozen cadaver mindset.
Calling me "silly" is well, just plain silly; it's
name-calling, and most folks will conclude --
rightly or wrongly -- that you abandoned
reason in favor of /ad hominem/ because you
must have not had any other choice.
The organization known as FIDE controlled
the FIDE title-- whether the Evans ratpackers
like it or not. Nothing can change that-- not
even stubbornness and denial (regardless of
quantity). In much the same way, the USCF
controlled Chess Lies magazine; it may be
unpalatable, but it remains a fact of life.
As for criticizing Larry Evans, it appears
that others have beaten me to it; when the
old man "had a cow" over some pedantic
corrections to a couple of his gaffes, he
poured gasoline on the flames, spurring Mr.
Winter to do a write-up in which numerous
such errors were laid out, side by side. I can
not even hope to compete with such work as
that, since it would require too much time
and effort. Besides, I only have a few of all
the issues of Chess Lies magazine, so it
would be a piecemeal job.
Saying that Larry Evans' account is accurate,
is akin to saying that Sanny's program plays
according to the rules. You can't put lipstick
on a pig.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2008 22:06:35
From:
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
help bot wrote:
> On May 4, 4:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > You can argue this one either way. In June of 1974, when FIDE wouldn't
> > agree to his match conditions, Fischer wrote the letter resigning his
> > "FIDE title." In September of 1974, Karpov won the final Candidates
> > Match. In that sense, Kennedy's quibble is correct. However, in May-
> > June 1975, FIDE held another meeting and agreed to _almost_ all of
> > Fischer's conditions. They then sent Fischer a request to play, more
> > or less ignoring the "resignation" letter. When Fischer refused to
> > rely, Karpov was declared the winner by forfeit. Looked at that way,
> > Evans's account is fairly accurate -- by declining to play, Fischer
> > "gave" the title to his (known) opponent.
>
>
> In 1975, Bobby Fischer was not in possession of
> the FIDE title, so he was in no position to do any
> such thing. The FIDE title, you see, is controlled
> by *FIDE* (go figure), and it is *they* who do the
> giving (or not). There is a thing called a "world
> championship cycle", and so you see, the old
> days wherein a single person gives "his" title or
> refuses to defend it, are over and done with.
>
> The real reason the Larry Evans account tries to
> involve Anatoly Karpov is self-evident; Mr. Evans
> has for decades been bashing AK as a supposed
> villain; he seems to know only the mystery-
> suspense-thriller genre, and no other. (IMO, this
> was more of a Dr. Strangelove style tragi-comedy.)
>
>
> -- help bot
FIDE apparently didn't think so. In June of 1975, they asked Fischer
to play Karpov _as World Champion_. Fischer's refusal to play that
match -- as he and everyone else knew -- had the _effect_ of making
Karpov World Champion. There are plenty of reasons for criticizing
Evans, but harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
silly. Well, sillier.
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2008 08:15:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9975df24-79c3-4875-8ca4-85ab190bfbec@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> FIDE apparently didn't think so. In June of 1975, they asked Fischer
> to play Karpov _as World Champion_. Fischer's refusal to play that
> match -- as he and everyone else knew -- had the _effect_ of making
> Karpov World Champion. There are plenty of reasons for criticizing
> Evans, but harping on this semantic quibble is just making you look
> silly. Well, sillier.
In 1991 we saw a new Karpov.
Some clouds had lifted from the scene, and there he was in his own words
talking not very differently on things that Western journalists, including
Evans, had mentioned. Perhaps he is the first W Ch to spontaneously admit
that he did things wrong as champion - stuff he was not proud of.
But the effect of other players on Karpov, who can be said to have an
artistic temperament to chess, was that he said he could never really get
excited [artistically] at the prospect of playing Kasparov - but Korchnoi
provided him a huge stimulus - and he quantified that, by saying something
like 85% of his creative energies.
He then continued on this theme, in Karpov on Karpov, to state that Fischer
would have been his greatest challenge, in the 90th percentiles.
That is an artistic tribute and a sincere one to Fischer-the-player.
Sure enough, after following Fischer round the world, the fateful moment
came when Fischer actually held the pen to sign the match agreement, but
fatally added one more issue to the array, that the title be called the
professional world chess championship. Apparently all else had been agreed
between the players - but Karpov said right then that they were never going
to buy that back in Moscow, and he knew the effort was doomed.
Why the Moscow/Fide would have baulked at adding one word to the title is
perhaps explained by the 40 years of pretence that Soviet GMs were not
state-supported professionals. Indeed, consciously admitted or not, I think
Fischer knew his condition would be the deal-breaker, and by then he was
sick of talking chess with anyone, East or West.
Far better if Fischer-the-player had continued to believe in pawns rather
than suffer the fate of the [self] abandoned celebrity.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2008 21:23:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 4, 4:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> You can argue this one either way. In June of 1974, when FIDE wouldn't
> agree to his match conditions, Fischer wrote the letter resigning his
> "FIDE title." In September of 1974, Karpov won the final Candidates
> Match. In that sense, Kennedy's quibble is correct. However, in May-
> June 1975, FIDE held another meeting and agreed to _almost_ all of
> Fischer's conditions. They then sent Fischer a request to play, more
> or less ignoring the "resignation" letter. When Fischer refused to
> rely, Karpov was declared the winner by forfeit. Looked at that way,
> Evans's account is fairly accurate -- by declining to play, Fischer
> "gave" the title to his (known) opponent.
In 1975, Bobby Fischer was not in possession of
the FIDE title, so he was in no position to do any
such thing. The FIDE title, you see, is controlled
by *FIDE* (go figure), and it is *they* who do the
giving (or not). There is a thing called a "world
championship cycle", and so you see, the old
days wherein a single person gives "his" title or
refuses to defend it, are over and done with.
The real reason the Larry Evans account tries to
involve Anatoly Karpov is self-evident; Mr. Evans
has for decades been bashing AK as a supposed
villain; he seems to know only the mystery-
suspense-thriller genre, and no other. (IMO, this
was more of a Dr. Strangelove style tragi-comedy.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2008 20:06:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
FISCHER'S SELFMATE
The reason why several readers caught the
evident point of selfmate is the common use of
sui-mate, with the "sui" meaning in many minds
"suicide." One therefore creates a referential pun.
As for the FIDE world title, it was Bobby's to give
away which he finally did AFTER resigning it.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> FISCHER'S SELFMATE
>
> Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
> Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
> fight..
>
>
> On May 2, 1:05?pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On May 2, 8:39?am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> > >wrote:
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
> > >> >> is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
> > >> >> sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
> > >> >> to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
> > >> >> the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=94
> >
> > >> > As I recall, the exact quote was ?"Do you see the kind of idiocy up
> > >> > *_with_* which I have to put.=94
> >
> > >> Clearly the `with' is necessary. ?But it's not, in fact, clear that
> > >> Churchill ever said or wrote anything of the sort.
> >
> > >> ?http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
> >
> > >The version I heard was "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I
> > >shall not put."
> >
> > >John Savard
> >
> > A grammar text? ?Why do you bring that book I don't want to be
> > preached to out of up for ?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2008 15:56:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
GREG IS ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH
<This nonsense about Bobby Fischer handing "his" title off to Anatoly
Karpov is wrongheaded. > -- Greg Kennedy
<Evans's account is fairly accurate -- by declining to play, Fischer
"gave" the title to his (known) opponent." -- John Hillery
As I recall, Korchnoi said he'd accept all Fischer's conditions if he
became the next challenger. Fischer sent him a cable congratulating
him on his defection in 1976.
In September 1976 (page 506) Chess Life & Review reported: "Viktor
Korchnoi, officially the world's second ranked player (having lost to
Anatoly Karpov in a match that turned out to have been for the world
championship title), became the latest in a growing list of
intellectuals and sports figures to have left the Soviet Union
permanently. Following his tie for first place (with Anthony Miles) at
the 1976 IBM tournament in Amsterdam, Korchnoi failed to show up at
the airport for his flight home. Instead he reported to police
headquarters in Amsterdam and asked for political asylum. The Dutch
government granted him a six-month permit to remain in Holland while
his request is being considered....
In a statement to the press shortly after his defection, Korchnoi
expressed his pleasure in knowing the predicament Soviet authorities
will face when forced to report his results in the Candidates Matches
next year. That is the time, he noted, when the millions of Russian
chess players will learn of his defection."
[email protected] wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > On May 3, 1:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
> > > Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
> > > fight..
> >
> > This nonsense about Bobby Fischer handing "his"
> > title off to Anatoly Karpov is wrongheaded.
> >
> > In fact, Mr. Fischer resigned the FIDE title, and it
> > was only later given to the winner of the final playoff
> > match, by FIDE (not BF). Mr. Fischer's battles
> > were with or against the FIDE assembly, not AK.
> > And I wouldn't say that BF did not put up a fight; it
> > is perhaps more accurate to say that he lost by
> > TKO, after winning nearly every round but the last.
> >
> >
> > -- help bot
>
>
> You can argue this one either way. In June of 1974, when FIDE wouldn't
> agree to his match conditions, Fischer wrote the letter resigning his
> "FIDE title." In September of 1974, Karpov won the final Candidates
> Match. In that sense, Kennedy's quibble is correct. However, in May-
> June 1975, FIDE held another meeting and agreed to _almost_ all of
> Fischer's conditions. They then sent Fischer a request to play, more
> or less ignoring the "resignation" letter. When Fischer refused to
> rely, Karpov was declared the winner by forfeit. Looked at that way,
> Evans's account is fairly accurate -- by declining to play, Fischer
> "gave" the title to his (known) opponent.
|
| | |
Date: 05 May 2008 12:07:13
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
[...]
> Fischer sent him a cable congratulating
> him on his defection in 1976.
And Korchnoi sent Fischer a cable congratulating him on
his defection in 1992.
>
> In a statement to the press shortly after his defection, Korchnoi
> expressed his pleasure in knowing the predicament Soviet authorities
> will face when forced to report his results in the Candidates Matches
> next year. That is the time, he noted, when the millions of Russian
> chess players will learn of his defection."
Nonsense. Korchnoi's defection occurred while the Interzonal in Biel
was going on. I was there, playing in a side tournament, and
remember hearing the news, which spread like wild fire before it ever
hit the newspapers.
The Russian players Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Geller and Gulko and
the Russian crowd of seconds and functionaries heard of
the defection on the day it happened. Considering how efficiently
information spread by word of mouth in those days in the USSR,
every Russian chess player will have known about it the day
after all these people returned from Biel.
|
| |
Date: 04 May 2008 01:34:07
From:
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
help bot wrote:
> On May 3, 1:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
> > Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
> > fight..
>
> This nonsense about Bobby Fischer handing "his"
> title off to Anatoly Karpov is wrongheaded.
>
> In fact, Mr. Fischer resigned the FIDE title, and it
> was only later given to the winner of the final playoff
> match, by FIDE (not BF). Mr. Fischer's battles
> were with or against the FIDE assembly, not AK.
> And I wouldn't say that BF did not put up a fight; it
> is perhaps more accurate to say that he lost by
> TKO, after winning nearly every round but the last.
>
>
> -- help bot
You can argue this one either way. In June of 1974, when FIDE wouldn't
agree to his match conditions, Fischer wrote the letter resigning his
"FIDE title." In September of 1974, Karpov won the final Candidates
Match. In that sense, Kennedy's quibble is correct. However, in May-
June 1975, FIDE held another meeting and agreed to _almost_ all of
Fischer's conditions. They then sent Fischer a request to play, more
or less ignoring the "resignation" letter. When Fischer refused to
rely, Karpov was declared the winner by forfeit. Looked at that way,
Evans's account is fairly accurate -- by declining to play, Fischer
"gave" the title to his (known) opponent.
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2008 13:41:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 3, 1:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
> Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
> fight..
This nonsense about Bobby Fischer handing "his"
title off to Anatoly Karpov is wrongheaded.
In fact, Mr. Fischer resigned the FIDE title, and it
was only later given to the winner of the final playoff
match, by FIDE (not BF). Mr. Fischer's battles
were with or against the FIDE assembly, not AK.
And I wouldn't say that BF did not put up a fight; it
is perhaps more accurate to say that he lost by
TKO, after winning nearly every round but the last.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2008 13:32:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 3:09 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Despite Steven Dowd's malicious hair-splitting, most readers
> > understand that Fischer's selfmate means suicide. Manyplayers don't
> > even know what a helpmate is.
>
> So anytime anyone corrects Evans, it is malice?
Precisely; and arrogance as well. I recall a spat
in which Edward Winter submitted a correction of
one or two of Larry Evans' innumerable gaffes,
whereupon the old man began his response by
fuming that EW had "an exaggerated sense of
self-importance". Apparently, some people have
secretly anointed themselves gods, and we, the
humble multitude, only find out about it when we
commit blasphemous acts like correcting any of
their innumerable human-like gaffes.
What I found amusing was where Mr. Evans took
the time in his article to explain to us ignoramuses
exactly what Pal Benko does; unfortunately, LE
appears to be about as clueless as the masses
he looks down his nose upon-- if not more so. Mr.
Parr's quotations revealed a certain inconsistency
that I was not already aware of. Apparently, Mr.
Benko is not satisfied unless there is *only one*
way to (help)mate, while Mr. Evans is lost in a
forest, searching for the "shortest" mate.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2008 13:10:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 10:30 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <Doesn't Evans at least know how to use chess language properly?> --
> SBD
>
> Despite Steven Dowd's malicious hair-splitting, most readers
> understand that Fischer's selfmate means suicide. Manyplayers don't
> even know what a helpmate is.
I think Mr. Parr is getting off on the wrong track.
In fact, in order to understand why KNN vs. K is
not winnable, all decent chess players need to be
familiar with the difference between a helpmate
and a forcible checkmate. This sort of thing is
discussed in the rules of chess, and it relates to
draws, to how to win and to what can be won.
> Benko no longer competes very often. Today he is a major problem
> composer whose specialty is "helpmates" where both sides collaborate
> to find the shortest way to mate. In other words, Black must help
> White to checkmate the Black king.
Note here that Larry Evans is quoted (by Larry
Parr) as saying the *shortest* way to mate.
> These unusual exercises are ingenious and infuriating. Solving them
> forces us to think backwards to envisage a mating pattern and then
> reach it the shortest possible way.
Again, LP quotes LE as saying the *shortest*
way to mate.
> Here=92s how Benko explains this strange art form:
>
> "The helpmate does not conflict with existing rules of play. The
> solver must find the only variation leading to mate
But now, Pal Benko is quoted (by Larry Parr) as
saying the *only* way to mate.
> =97 which should be
> cleverly hidden by the composer! =97 and do this with the cooperation of
> both sides. Black always moves first and must
> cooperate in finding the only sequence leading to checkmate."
Once again, LP quotes PB as saying what he
does is construct problems where there is *only
one* way to (help) mate.
I think this is ample demonstration that some
folks are simply not very astute when it comes to
such things as the difference between selfmate,
helpmate or what have you. But there is no doubt
that in Bobby Fischer's case, Mr. Evans would not
be willing to share any of the credit with the
Soviets, so the term "helpmate" would have
seemed out of place. Remember that the ploy
has always been that BF did everything all by
himself... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2008 13:01:43
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 1:05=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 2, 8:39=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticis=
m
> >> >> is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
> >> >> sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wron=
g
> >> >> to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see=
> >> >> the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=3D94
>
> >> > As I recall, the exact quote was =A0"Do you see the kind of idiocy up=
> >> > *_with_* which I have to put.=3D94
>
> >> Clearly the `with' is necessary. =A0But it's not, in fact, clear that
> >> Churchill ever said or wrote anything of the sort.
>
> >> =A0http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
>
> >The version I heard was "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I
> >shall not put."
>
> >John Savard
>
> A grammar text? =A0Why do you bring that book I don't want to be
> preached to out of up for ?
Some grammar "rules"are insignificant and niggling. The dangling prep
is one of them.
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2008 12:53:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 9:36 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> > >. Alas, his selfmate returned the title to the Soviets without a fight.
> > That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
> > how to use chess language properly?
> I believe Evans is using "selfmate" as a word-play on "suicide", the
> old name for such problems. He means Fischer killed himself as
> Champion through his actions. I think it's hair-splitting to argue
> over the subtleties of the term as used here. But you appear to be
> correct. Technically a self-mate requires White to force Black to mate
> him against Black's will - the moves are forced. I don't think the
> Soviets were unwilling to take the Championship title.
Can you explain the part about "against his will"?
What sort of opponent in chess would have the will
to not win? In a chess problem, how is there any
"will" involved whatever?
One other term which springs to mind is a "duck";
this term may be even older than "suicide", and it
certainly applies in many cases with regard to the
world chess championship. Just look, for instance,
at the real reason BF never wrote any more chess
books: *fear* of getting caught in an analytical error.
This kind of irrationality and exaggerated fear may
have been the true culprit; the silly demands and
antics merely the visible signs.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2008 10:36:13
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
FISCHER'S SELFMATE
Several readers said they understood "selfmate" to mean only that
Fischer mated himself by handing the title to Karpov without a
fight..
On May 2, 1:05=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 2, 8:39=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticis=
m
> >> >> is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
> >> >> sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wron=
g
> >> >> to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see=
> >> >> the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=3D94
>
> >> > As I recall, the exact quote was =A0"Do you see the kind of idiocy up=
> >> > *_with_* which I have to put.=3D94
>
> >> Clearly the `with' is necessary. =A0But it's not, in fact, clear that
> >> Churchill ever said or wrote anything of the sort.
>
> >> =A0http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
>
> >The version I heard was "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I
> >shall not put."
>
> >John Savard
>
> A grammar text? =A0Why do you bring that book I don't want to be
> preached to out of up for ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 12:43:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 8:39=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
> >> is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
> >> sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
> >> to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
> >> the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=3D94
>
> > As I recall, the exact quote was =A0"Do you see the kind of idiocy up
> > *_with_* which I have to put.=3D94
>
> Clearly the `with' is necessary. =A0But it's not, in fact, clear that
> Churchill ever said or wrote anything of the sort.
>
> =A0http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
The version I heard was "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I
shall not put."
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 13:05:25
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On May 2, 8:39�am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
>> >> is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
>> >> sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
>> >> to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
>> >> the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=94
>>
>> > As I recall, the exact quote was �"Do you see the kind of idiocy up
>> > *_with_* which I have to put.=94
>>
>> Clearly the `with' is necessary. �But it's not, in fact, clear that
>> Churchill ever said or wrote anything of the sort.
>>
>> �http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
>
>The version I heard was "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I
>shall not put."
>
>John Savard
A grammar text? Why do you bring that book I don't want to be
preached to out of up for ?
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 12:09:49
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 9:30 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Despite Steven Dowd's malicious hair-splitting, most readers
> understand that Fischer's selfmate means suicide. Manyplayers don't
> even know what a helpmate is.
So anytime anyone corrects Evans, it is malice?
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 12:25:05
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0e2a254a-57dd-498a-a0bc-c5a695757c09@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 9:30 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Despite Steven Dowd's malicious hair-splitting, most readers
>> understand that Fischer's selfmate means suicide. Manyplayers don't
>> even know what a helpmate is.
>
> So anytime anyone corrects Evans, it is malice?
>
Just be glad it doesn't qualify you for "fellow traveler" status.
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 12:07:07
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 8:36 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I believe Evans is using "selfmate" as a word-play on "suicide", the
> old name for such problems. He means Fischer killed himself as
> Champion through his actions. I think it's hair-splitting to argue
> over the subtleties of the term as used here. But you appear to be
> correct. Technically a self-mate requires White to force Black to mate
> him against Black's will - the moves are forced. I don't think the
> Soviets were unwilling to take the Championship title.
Exactly. If you are going to write a chess book, shouldn't you use
chess terms properly?
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 12:05:22
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 8:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> STEN DOWD'S PETTINESS
Who is this Sten? He sounds like a pretty bright guy and worthy of the
Dowd name.
Actually, Larry, if most players don't know the difference, maybe the
analogy is imperfect.... Doesn't GM Evans believe in using chess
language correctly? No matter what you say, it is not the correct use
of the word. The Soviets were not forced to take the title, it was
given to them.
Neil, just as you were a bit of a stickler with "Rookhouse" (and with
good reason) I believe that chess problem terms are not just to be
thrown around... they should be used correctly.
PS - Steven Dowd never forged Parr's name on any university website,
despite Parr's assertions to the contrary. It's really sad he has to
lie about this in order to try to smear me. But it is his usual mode
of operation.
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 07:38:01
From:
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 9:37=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
> is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
> sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
> to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
> the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=94
The best example of I've ever seen of ending a sentence with a
preposition, in this case five of them, yet being perfectly
comprehensible, involved a little boy whose father brought a book the
boy didn't like for his bedtime story. The boy said "Daddy, what did
you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 16:19:13
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> The best example of I've ever seen of ending a sentence with a
> preposition, in this case five of them, yet being perfectly
> comprehensible, involved a little boy whose father brought a book
> the boy didn't like for his bedtime story. The boy said "Daddy, what
> did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"
The boy didn't like it because it contained stories from all the
countries of the world but dad liked the boring Australian ones the
best. ``Daddy, what did you bring that book I didn't want to be read
to out of about Down Under up for?''
Dave.
--
David Richerby Aquatic Devil Umbrella (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an umbrella that's possessed by Satan
but it lives in the sea!
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 07:30:28
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
SELFMATE IS THE RIGHT WORD
<Doesn't Evans at least know how to use chess language properly? > --
SBD
Despite Steven Dowd's malicious hair-splitting, most readers
understand that Fischer's selfmate means suicide. Manyplayers don't
even know what a helpmate is.
Here's what Larry Evans wrote in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS in an
article called Help, Mates! (page 38).
Benko no longer competes very often. Today he is a major problem
composer whose specialty is "helpmates" where both sides collaborate
to find the shortest way to mate. In other words, Black must help
White to checkmate the Black king.
These unusual exercises are ingenious and infuriating. Solving them
forces us to think backwards to envisage a mating pattern and then
reach it the shortest possible way.
Here=92s how Benko explains this strange art form:
"The helpmate does not conflict with existing rules of play. The
solver must find the only variation leading to mate =97 which should be
cleverly hidden by the composer! =97 and do this with the cooperation of
both sides. Black always moves first and must
cooperate in finding the only sequence leading to checkmate."
P.S. Thanks to Mr. Kingston for the correctionl. <As I recall, the
exact quote was "Do you see the kind of idiocy up
*_with_* which I have to put.? > --
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 2, 9:37?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > STEN DOWD'S PETTINESS
> >
> > SBD wrote:
> > >. Alas, his selfmate returned the
> > > title to the Soviets without a fight.
> > > That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
> > > how to use chess language properly?
> >
> > Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
> > is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
> > sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
> > to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
> > the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.?
>
> As I recall, the exact quote was "Do you see the kind of idiocy up
> *_with_* which I have to put.?
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 06:40:23
From:
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 9:37=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> STEN DOWD'S PETTINESS
>
> SBD wrote:
> >. Alas, his selfmate returned the
> > title to the Soviets without a fight.
> > That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
> > how to use chess language properly?
>
> Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
> is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
> sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
> to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
> the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=94
As I recall, the exact quote was "Do you see the kind of idiocy up
*_with_* which I have to put.=94
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 15:39:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
>> is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
>> sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
>> to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
>> the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=94
>
> As I recall, the exact quote was "Do you see the kind of idiocy up
> *_with_* which I have to put.=94
Clearly the `with' is necessary. But it's not, in fact, clear that
Churchill ever said or wrote anything of the sort.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Chocolate Hat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a hat that's made of chocolate but it
doesn't work!
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 06:37:34
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
STEN DOWD'S PETTINESS
SBD wrote:
>. Alas, his selfmate returned the
> title to the Soviets without a fight.
> That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
> how to use chess language properly?
Dr. Dowd's once forged my name on a university website. His criticism
is reminiscent of a cable that Winston Churchill once sent ending a
sentence with "of." When a subordinate reminded him that it was wrong
to end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill replied: "Do you see
the kind of idiocy up which I have to put.=94
SBD wrote:
> On May 2, 8:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >. Alas, his selfmate returned the
> > title to the Soviets without a fight.
>
> That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
> how to use chess language properly?
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 06:36:11
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 8:15 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 2, 8:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >. Alas, his selfmate returned the
> > title to the Soviets without a fight.
>
> That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
> how to use chess language properly?
I believe Evans is using "selfmate" as a word-play on "suicide", the
old name for such problems. He means Fischer killed himself as
Champion through his actions. I think it's hair-splitting to argue
over the subtleties of the term as used here. But you appear to be
correct. Technically a self-mate requires White to force Black to mate
him against Black's will - the moves are forced. I don't think the
Soviets were unwilling to take the Championship title.
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2008 06:15:19
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The Match That Wasn't
|
On May 2, 8:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>. Alas, his selfmate returned the
> title to the Soviets without a fight.
That is not a selfmate, it is a helpmate. Doesn't Evans at least know
how to use chess language properly?
|
|
