Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple

Date: 17 Nov 2007 14:48:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple

On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Mr. Kingston,
>
> As I have said before, I believe that all of the published authors in
> this discussion know more about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy than I
> do. On this topic I am happy to accept my role as a member of the
> various author's audiences. So as a 'fan' let me pose a few questions...
>
> 1) Do any of you consider the topic played out? Or is there more to be
> considered?

The topic of Soviet coercion, collusion, and other chicanery? It is
by no means played out, in my opinion. I still hold out some hope,
however slim, that more evidence on the treatment of Keres will
surface. I still don't think we know the full facts of the three
Karpov-Korchnoi world championship matches (1974, 1978, 1981) or of
the first Karpov-Kasparov match (1984-85). Going back further, I still
have questions about Flohr-Botvinnik 1933 (a non-title match in which,
Bronstein alleges, Flohr was bribed), Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, and
the 1953 Candidates Tournament. It's well established that there was
collusion by three Soviet players (Petrosian, Geller, Keres) in the
1962 Candidates; other instances would not surprise me.
Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
IM and GM titles

> 2) Are any of you considering or engaged in new work(s) based on or
> related to it?

I am not, at the present time, and I probably will not be in the
future. I wrote my two articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998
and 2001. Not long after I was offered the chance to write a book on
the subject, by McFarland & Co., a very prestigious publisher of books
on chess history, but I declined because I don't consider my research
at all comprehensive. To take it further would require delving into
Soviet archives, interviewing Russian and Estonian sources, tracking
down the few people still living who might know something relevant (if
there are any - it's been 59 years now), etc. Those things are beyond
my means and abilities.

> 3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
> influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
> approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
> exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
influence of the West on chess." Do you mean the larger prizes that
began with the Fischer era? Until 1972, the financial impact was all
in the other direction. The Soviet GMs were paid professionals,
servants of the state enlisted for one purpose, to play chess, while
almost all Western chess players had to earn a living away from the
game (Fischer and Reshevsky being some of the very rare exceptions).
And the Soviets totally undercut the ket by pricing themselves low
- playing practically for nothing. When the Soviets played abroad,
they asked no appearance fees from tournament organizers. So naturally
organizers would jump at the chance to get a top Soviet GM for free,
rather than pay an American or other non-Soviet player.
As Dutch GM Jan Hein Donner wrote in 1972:

"The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world."

So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.

> <warning, tangent with speculation ahead...>

Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.

> I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
> American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
> mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
> perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
> worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
> makes an excellent hobby.
>
> Beyond that -- what segments of American chess have proven worth that a
> Yankee capitalist would recognize? What is the value of a high quality
> grandmaster game on Wall Street? What is the rationale for professional
> chess in a capitalist society? What is the value of a USCF bureaucrat?
>
> Well, feel free to tune out the previous two paragraphs if you must, but
> I do wonder about these things, and invite comments -- in another thread
> if need be.
> --
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Date: 22 Nov 2007 06:23:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

On Nov 21, 7:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV
> >> ket to bring big bucks into chess.
>
> > I recall the BBC aired a series on chess, The Master Game, during the
>
> In his chess biography of Tony Miles, Ray Keene explained the small tragedy
> of the final, where Tony beat Anatoly Karpov - but the game was never shown
> because of a strike.
>
> Copies of Master Game are very rare - Gm Walter Browne has a set, but Auntie
> sold the rights to another outfit, who then went out of business - so
> whereabouts of original tape is unknown, as are copyright claims to program.

The Master Game books should be available on the second-hand ket. I
have book two, containing annotated games from seasons four, five, and
six. While not a reproduction of the broadcasts, it does give
transcriptions of the players broadcast comments. Byrne on a move from
Short-Byrne, Master Game season six: "At [age] fifteen I would
probably have played [28.] g4 too...."

There's enough of a description of the approach of the programs to
tell why the show worked, and why a recent broadcast of a chess match
with Truong and a puppet as host didn't.

> > 1970s. I've never seen it, but from descriptions of it, it sounds like
> > an ideal treatment of chess on television. A tournament among top
> > players was organized, the games were taped and the tapes edited to a
> > half-hour broadcast length, and the players asked to provide their
> > thoughts on the games. The BBC used some simple techniques involving a
> > glass chessboard and pieces that had their symbols on the bottom to
> > show the position on the board. IM William Hartson was a host of the
> > programs.
>
> Yes, Bill Hartston was also somewhat responsible for the executive
> production, getting chess onto mainstream tv in the first place, and so was,
> I think, Bill Wade [OBE]
>
> Phil Innes
>
> > Such an approach seems to keep chess as chess with minimal concessions
> > to mass audiences. The problem with tinkering with chess for broadcast
> > is that you don't create an audience for the game, you create an
> > audience for your tinkered version. So if you drag some rock band into
> > a chess match, as one failed experiment in chess broadcasting has
> > shown, your audience has come for the band, and not the game. To quote
> > one of the Muppets, "if you put enough sugar in [champagne] it tastes
> > just like ginger ale." Ginger ale outsells champagne; do we want our
> > chess with sugar?
>
> > This discussion reminds me of the hopefully-dead trend of attempting
> > to ket classical music by tarting it up or dumbing it down. It was
> > a failure; there was no 'string quartet boom' because of Bond
> > concerts, and I doubt anyone became an opera fan from listening to
> > Charlotte Church or any of those other 'mockera' singers the big
> > labels pushed.

Date: 22 Nov 2007 13:19:45
From: chocdonuts
Subject: Re: crispy fried bacon..

help bot wrote:

I know 'skip repa' has his own blog, but anyway bot! 'crispy bacon' is
not on the agenda here where I'm living for some strange reason? Perhaps
it's the humidity factor. Just imagine the butter melting in the
white-bread sarnie (sandwich) The salty, crisp, bacon tang combination
permeating the whole affair..

> And remember, eat more broccoli and stay away from
> those choco-donuts.
>
> -- help bot

Date: 21 Nov 2007 12:49:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

On Nov 21, 11:08 am, chocdonuts <[email protected] > wrote:

> Look here lebanese cucumber - it's November already, almost December
> when the snow habitually falls in screes & droves in Moskaw & you have
> the effrontery to harp on about the Sun & how you have influenced the
> Muscovites in their choice of _great_ leader aka Putin, but Gazza is
> there in the waiting. This time. Yeah! I like it. Garry Kasparov -
> supreme leader of the ex-soviet. Yeah baby!..

I can see it now... GK's finger comes down, pressing
the red button and releasing the nukes... but wait! He
has changed his mind, and wants a takeback. Faster
than a speeding bullet, his finger recoils... but it is too
late... .

Gary Kasparov is a psycho freak, who cannot even
lead *himself* without going astray. His attempts at
leadership have already proved to be disasters... or
maybe that was your sinister plan? If you want to
destroy a man, teach him chess; but if you want to
destroy a country, give them Gary Kasparov!

-- help bot

Date: 21 Nov 2007 12:41:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

On Nov 21, 10:08 am, chocdonuts <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Hey Skip. 'Bout time you came back, after all that
> > work on the Fake-Sloan job.
>
> What are you talking about here grebot? I'm nowhere near the geiger
> register of abuse performed by repa.inc. This canook choc-bot who it's
> clear you long & hunger for is engulfed in his _own_ stupid blog. The
> boring abusive git won't be back here for muchas long time! but never
> worry about this sort of stuff - bot. After all you have the corn to
> contemplate the cawing of the sad crows to hear & the devouring of the
> overflowing platter of chocolate dribbled donuts to consider - No?..

I see... you don't want to discuss you work on the Fake
Sloan job, perhaps because of all the lawsuits, etc.
I understand.

So you think Skippy has a blog now, and hangs out there
writing about his many bullet-chess conquests? Too bad.
So long as the bar is held on the ground and creatures
like nearly-an-IMp Innes are posting here, there is a place
for low-life-scum, so he is of course welcome to come
back "home".

Taylor Kingston has asked for several posters to "weigh
in", and I note that you carefully avoided that issue, putting
the blame for the chocolate donut fiasco squarely on me;
thanks, pal. Look, the last time I was at a chess tourney
they had a whole cake sitting out -- free for the taking. I
never touched it... though I did look... and perhaps I
salivated, just a little. 'Twas John Petrison and Don
Urquhart who are to blame -- they are the cake-eaters
who ought to be "weighed in", not me!

Look, tell Skippy that he is immune from prosecution
on account of his, um, condition, so he need no longer
hide his Fake Sloan (or Fake whoever) activity. Mr. Sloan,
unsurprisingly, filed in the wrong state, the wrong country
or perhaps even the wrong planet anyway, so it will very
likely be thrown out on some technicality or other.

And remember, eat more broccoli and stay away from
those choco-donuts.

-- help bot

Date: 22 Nov 2007 02:08:44
From: chocdonuts
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

help bot wrote:
>
> On Nov 20, 10:02 pm, chocdonuts <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Who told you this garbage you chocolate fart-muscle? You really trying
> > to posit that the 99% aren't interested (entertained) by the 1% who have
> > all this garbage you spiel on about - you envious little poofter?..
> >
> > > and do just fine. Now, of course, they are all low-volume,
> > > high-value kets, while chess is relatively low volume and low
> > > value. And that indicates why professional chess players aren't rich
> > > unless they started rich.
> >
> > It also indicates that you're a typical whining, snivelling & swingeing
> > new englunder who seriously needs to get your inbred envies & jealousies
> > well in line. Sadly, for a moron like you that doesn't look like any
> > time soon.. Try to deal with it & try to get of the sound o
>
> Hey Skip. 'Bout time you came back, after all that
> work on the Fake-Sloan job.

What are you talking about here gregbot? I'm nowhere near the geiger
register of abuse performed by repa.inc. This canook choc-bot who it's
clear you long & hunger for is engulfed in his _own_ stupid blog. The
boring abusive git won't be back here for muchas long time! but never
worry about this sort of stuff - bot. After all you have the corn to
contemplate the cawing of the sad crows to hear & the devouring of the
overflowing platter of chocolate dribbled donuts to consider - No?..

FATPIG GIT..

Date: 20 Nov 2007 20:32:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

On Nov 20, 10:02 pm, chocdonuts <[email protected] > wrote:

> Who told you this garbage you chocolate fart-muscle? You really trying
> to posit that the 99% aren't interested (entertained) by the 1% who have
> all this garbage you spiel on about - you envious little poofter?..
>
> > and do just fine. Now, of course, they are all low-volume,
> > high-value kets, while chess is relatively low volume and low
> > value. And that indicates why professional chess players aren't rich
> > unless they started rich.
>
> It also indicates that you're a typical whining, snivelling & swingeing
> new englunder who seriously needs to get your inbred envies & jealousies
> well in line. Sadly, for a moron like you that doesn't look like any
> time soon.. Try to deal with it & try to get of the sound o

Hey Skip. 'Bout time you came back, after all that
work on the Fake-Sloan job.

Remember: while at your age you can get away
with chowing down on chocolate donuts all day
long, there will eventually come a time when old
age will take hold, and make you pay by puffing
out your belly, adding to your weight. The best
strategy is to launch a preemptive attack, giving
up such nasty foods beforehand. Try Ovaltine, or
if that is too much to tackle all at once, adjust
gradually by switching first to pizza, then add a
little Metamusil or broccoli. But then, who am I
to give advice in this area? A failure... a lard-ass...
a bloated pig... an overstuffed, over-fed hippo... .

-- donut bot

Date: 20 Nov 2007 18:23:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

On Nov 20, 12:11 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> If Evans is 'arrogant' then so is Adorjan

Hmm... two GMs are *both* arrogant -- is this really
supposed to be a "defense" of greed?

----

Alleged problem: sandbagging

Proposed by GMs' solution: funnel more money... to GMs!

My point: even further-reduced participation by the peons

Your response: agreement between two GMs that more
money for them sounds tasty, makes LE seem "right".

> But Adorjan certainly asked sardonically if the monied

EW sends you this brief message: *Moneyed*, you dolt!
Even Ray Keene -- a complete imbecile -- spells better than
Phillip Innes. --end of message--

> classes in chess also
> contained all its genius? He went on to ask if we really thought that if the
> top few hundred players were to take part in a 13 round Swiss, that the
> finish result would accord to ELO?

Quite a few published and annotated games betwixt
famous players are rather drab affairs, so I think it is
crazy to even imagine these "top few hundred" might
contain all the genius in chess. The truth is, when
asked, many cannot even explain their moves, or why
they did not play (insert random Fritz improvement)
instead. In sum, if you want /true genius/, you may
need to look a bit higher up. (The more I looked over
a famous GM Spassky vs. GM Fischer game, the
more I realized there was a good reason for both to
play the strange-looking moves they chose.)

> At high levels there is no rating floor, but a celebrity class of player,
> and just 50 of them earn 95% of available chess money.

My comments referred priily to the state of
chess here in the USA; it was not any attempt
at discussing what you seem to want to discuss.
See those comments regarding "class prizes",
if you are still confused. My understanding was
that we were talking about Swiss tourneys in
which money is already funneled up to the top
finishers, and GM Evans wanted still more for
his own buddies, the GMs. My experience
from talking to many players around here is that
this would only make matters worse than they
already are. (Perhaps things are different where
there are many GMs, and money can be made
from the spectators themselves.)

> To add just one more name, the year before he became world champ [by
> something of a fluke] Khalifman of Petersburg said the same - that it was
> nigh on impossible to get into that top group, because they rarely played
> the level below it.

I see. You are obviously talking about FIDE chess,
while the subject here had been USCF open Swiss
style tourneys, where entries are taken and divvied
up something like this:

1st: 25%

2nd: 15%

Expert: 5%

Class A: 5%

Class B: 4%

Class C: 4%

Class D/E/Unr: 3%

Organizer: all the rest

The idea of taking more from the lowly peons and
funneling it up to the top-place finishers could kill off
their participation, which is counterproductive. What
is need is to increase participation, and as a matter
of course, the prizes would increase proportionately.

-- help bot

Date: 21 Nov 2007 10:34:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple thread)

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4e15f271-e295-4078-8398-042ea695b05c@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 12:11 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If Evans is 'arrogant' then so is Adorjan
>
> Hmm... two GMs are *both* arrogant -- is this really
> supposed to be a "defense" of greed?

they are 'arrogant', which is your term, about their ability to look at
something, by virtue of their chessic insight, and also because they know of
what in situ pressures there are, at the top, and especially playing big
hairy russians!

do you corn-fed know any of that? i mean, you offer us your opinions, even
your judgement of people, but not of any topical matter as such

you wrote a lot below, but in the same mood as above. as if you were
auditing everything by who says what, not what is said

phil innes

Date: 20 Nov 2007 06:09:07
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

On Nov 20, 8:30 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
> >> like any other sport/etc.
>
> >***>> To its niche ket, <<***
>
> >> it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess
> >> economy' on anything other than its entertainment value.
>
> > Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass
> > TV ket to bring big bucks into chess.
>
> I tried. They insinuated that I somehow wanted to hold chess back and
> deny it its place in the sun.
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Edible Crystal Book (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel but it's completely
> transparent and you can eat it!

Welcome to the conspiracy, David!

Date: 20 Nov 2007 05:19:36
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

On Nov 20, 7:09 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> > Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
> > like any other sport/etc.
>
> ***>> To its niche ket, <<***
>
> > it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
> > anything other than its entertainment value.
>
> Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV
> ket to bring big bucks into chess.

I recall the BBC aired a series on chess, The Master Game, during the
1970s. I've never seen it, but from descriptions of it, it sounds like
an ideal treatment of chess on television. A tournament among top
players was organized, the games were taped and the tapes edited to a
half-hour broadcast length, and the players asked to provide their
thoughts on the games. The BBC used some simple techniques involving a
glass chessboard and pieces that had their symbols on the bottom to
show the position on the board. IM William Hartson was a host of the
programs.

Such an approach seems to keep chess as chess with minimal concessions
to mass audiences. The problem with tinkering with chess for broadcast
is that you don't create an audience for the game, you create an
audience for your tinkered version. So if you drag some rock band into
a chess match, as one failed experiment in chess broadcasting has
shown, your audience has come for the band, and not the game. To quote
one of the Muppets, "if you put enough sugar in [champagne] it tastes
just like ginger ale." Ginger ale outsells champagne; do we want our
chess with sugar?

This discussion reminds me of the hopefully-dead trend of attempting
to ket classical music by tarting it up or dumbing it down. It was
a failure; there was no 'string quartet boom' because of Bond
concerts, and I doubt anyone became an opera fan from listening to
Charlotte Church or any of those other 'mockera' singers the big
labels pushed.

Date: 21 Nov 2007 07:26:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV
>> ket to bring big bucks into chess.
>
> I recall the BBC aired a series on chess, The Master Game, during the

In his chess biography of Tony Miles, Ray Keene explained the small tragedy
of the final, where Tony beat Anatoly Karpov - but the game was never shown
because of a strike.

Copies of Master Game are very rare - Gm Walter Browne has a set, but Auntie
sold the rights to another outfit, who then went out of business - so
whereabouts of original tape is unknown, as are copyright claims to program.

> 1970s. I've never seen it, but from descriptions of it, it sounds like
> an ideal treatment of chess on television. A tournament among top
> players was organized, the games were taped and the tapes edited to a
> half-hour broadcast length, and the players asked to provide their
> thoughts on the games. The BBC used some simple techniques involving a
> glass chessboard and pieces that had their symbols on the bottom to
> show the position on the board. IM William Hartson was a host of the
> programs.

Yes, Bill Hartston was also somewhat responsible for the executive
production, getting chess onto mainstream tv in the first place, and so was,
I think, Bill Wade [OBE]

Phil Innes

> Such an approach seems to keep chess as chess with minimal concessions
> to mass audiences. The problem with tinkering with chess for broadcast
> is that you don't create an audience for the game, you create an
> audience for your tinkered version. So if you drag some rock band into
> a chess match, as one failed experiment in chess broadcasting has
> shown, your audience has come for the band, and not the game. To quote
> one of the Muppets, "if you put enough sugar in [champagne] it tastes
> just like ginger ale." Ginger ale outsells champagne; do we want our
> chess with sugar?
>
> This discussion reminds me of the hopefully-dead trend of attempting
> to ket classical music by tarting it up or dumbing it down. It was
> a failure; there was no 'string quartet boom' because of Bond
> concerts, and I doubt anyone became an opera fan from listening to
> Charlotte Church or any of those other 'mockera' singers the big
> labels pushed.

Date: 22 Nov 2007 03:25:18
From: chocdonuts
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

Chess One wrote > I think, Bill Wade [OBE]
>
> Phil Innes

Really? clearly Mr. Wade wasn't game enough to throw his useless 'order'
in the faeces of the Queen's flunkies (ala the beatles). Now a (CBE) for
exam. <smirk >..

Date: 19 Nov 2007 14:03:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

On Nov 19, 10:43 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> "As long as we have the goofy system of paying large class prizes we
> will have sandbagging. Reward excellence and just maybe there will be
> more of it," said an idealistic official, a voice in the wilderness.
> --
>
> GM Larry Evans in a chapter about sandbagging in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF
> CHESS (page 143),

Coming from a grandmaster, this comes off as
greed. IMO, the top players are already getting
the lion's share of prize money, so grasping for
even more is selfish and worse, it ignores the
inevitable result: less participation overall by the
lowly masses, the peons GM Evans and his ilk
hold in disdain. If arrogance could be replaced
by a sweeter attitude, the result might be more
akin to the work of Zorro, and less like that seen
in a famous quote:

"...let them [the peons] eat cake."

-- help bot

Date: 20 Nov 2007 17:11:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple thread)

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 19, 10:43 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "As long as we have the goofy system of paying large class prizes we
>> will have sandbagging. Reward excellence and just maybe there will be
>> more of it," said an idealistic official, a voice in the wilderness.
>> --
>>
>> GM Larry Evans in a chapter about sandbagging in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF
>> CHESS (page 143),
>
> Coming from a grandmaster, this comes off as
> greed. IMO, the top players are already getting
> the lion's share of prize money, so grasping for
> even more is selfish and worse, it ignores the
> inevitable result: less participation overall by the
> lowly masses, the peons GM Evans and his ilk
> hold in disdain. If arrogance could be replaced
> by a sweeter attitude, the result might be more
> akin to the work of Zorro, and less like that seen
> in a famous quote:
>
> "...let them [the peons] eat cake."

O come on! That is a "Morphy's Shoes" anecdote, based on missunderstanding
of Creole, and ie's was to misunderstand what she said, which was to give
the people who asked for bread, [cake-] bread. Or simple round loaves.

---

If Evans is 'arrogant' then so is Adorjan, who recently addressed the same
issue with the same sentiment. In fact I had to water down his comments in
order to present them to another GM in a form of question that would be
answered.

But Adorjan certainly asked sardonically if the monied classes in chess also
contained all its genius? He went on to ask if we really thought that if the
top few hundred players were to take part in a 13 round Swiss, that the
finish result would accord to ELO?

At high levels there is no rating floor, but a celebrity class of player,
and just 50 of them earn 95% of available chess money.

To add just one more name, the year before he became world champ [by
something of a fluke] Khalifman of Petersburg said the same - that it was
nigh on impossible to get into that top group, because they rarely played
the level below it.

This sort of 'fixing' is not Soviet, its our capitalistic version, no?

Phil Innes

>
> -- help bot
>
>
>

Date: 19 Nov 2007 13:58:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

On Nov 19, 8:50 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >> [Rating floors are aimed against sandbagging.]
>
> > Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors.
> > Given this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the
> > rating system.
>
> If preventing sandbagging was the only reason for rating floors, it
> would have been much better to just say that nobody can win a class
> prize in a class more than 200 below their highest ever rating, or
> something similar.

Do not forget that there are some players who, from
day one, were advised to never allow their OTB rating
to get very high, lest they later be unable to win money.

And of course there are those who cross borders,
with the sole intention of either winning lots of class
prize money, or else grooming their ratings to enable
future reaping of harvests.

In my area, a few of the players I have known for
many years are sitting on their floors, apparently on
account of a gradual deflation process. Years ago,
many of these same players were hitting new all-time
highs, apparently as the result of ratings inflation.

It seems to me that inflation, while mathematically a
bad thing, was helpful in promoting tournament
participation, while deflation should yield the opposite
effect.

-- help bot

Date: 19 Nov 2007 11:34:48
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

> On Nov 18, 5:00 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Also see: Did the Soviets Collude?: A Statistical Analysis of
> > > Championship Chess 1940-64

> > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905612

> > Taylor Kingston wrote:

>> Yes, a good article, adding some mathematical support to the
>> collusion thesis. It was very gratifying to see several ChessCafe.com
>> writers cited in it. Didn't see the supposedly seminal, scholar-
>> acclaimed Evans mentioned at all.

On Nov 18, 5:35 pm, artichoke <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The paper is interesting but not conclusive. It says that if Soviets
> colluded their clean sweep was a 75% probably event but if they did
> not collude it was a 25% probably event. That isn't proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt.

The paper is not intended as conclusive proof that there was
collusion. Its main point is to show, through probability models, that
collusion would in fact *_increase_* the Soviets' overall chance for
success. Some have thought otherwise; the paper deflates that argument.

Date: 19 Nov 2007 07:43:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

SANDBAGGING

"As long as we have the goofy system of paying large class prizes we
will have sandbagging. Reward excellence and just maybe there will be
more of it," said an idealistic official, a voice in the wilderness.
--

GM Larry Evans in a chapter about sandbagging in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF
CHESS (page 143),

David Richerby wrote:
> J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >> [Rating floors are aimed against sandbagging.]
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors.
> > Given this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the
> > rating system.
>
> If preventing sandbagging was the only reason for rating floors, it
> would have been much better to just say that nobody can win a class
> prize in a class more than 200 below their highest ever rating, or
> something similar.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Poisonous Impossible Robot (TM): it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-tech robot but it can't
> exist and it'll kill you in seconds!

Date: 18 Nov 2007 17:32:33
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Since I have returned to the chess world after a 25 year absence (a
> chessic Rip van Winkle) I have learned about ratings floors instituted
> by the USCF. Apparently the idea is that after players spend a bunch of
> money to travel and play in lots of tournaments that they should be
> rewarded with a false sense of stability even if their current standard
> of play is abysmal. IMHO the ratings and the titles have all been
> corrupted under the stewardship of the USCF and FIDE.

The idea behind rating floors is rather different. There are players
who "sandbag," that is they value money over Elo rating, and purposely
lose games they would normally win so that their ratings will dip to a
lower class. Their aim is to enter a lower class section in a big-
money tournament such as the New York Open, and win a hefty cash prize
against players actually well below their real strength. The idea
behind the rating floors was to deter sandbagging. A player with, say,
a 1900 floor, would not be allowed to enter a Class C section
(sub-1600) even if he'd lost 100 games in a row by sandbagging.

> I won't get into the self-appointed arbiters of "title purity" at this
> point.
>
> >>> 3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
> >>> influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
> >>> approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
> >>> exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?
> >> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
> >> influence of the West on chess."
>
> I do not have the quotes ready at hand as to precisely what the Russian
> GMs said. Moreover, I do not know what was really on their minds behind
> the comments. That could be a subject for interviews.
>
> >> ... Do you mean the larger prizes that
> >> began with the Fischer era?
>
> No, I am trying to get at something more fundamental. I will try to
> explain below. I wonder if the Fischer "bubble" was more like the hula
> hoop craze amplified by Cold War tensions...
>
> <snip of interesting material to make room>
>
> >> So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
> >> impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.
>
> >>> <warning, tangent with speculation ahead...>
> >> Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
> >> chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.
>
> I suspect that to tackle the questions I have in mind would require an
> author with expertise in sociology, economics, and chess history. The
> most basic question I pose is: Does the professional chess player
> produce anything of worthy substance by the harsh standards of American
> capitalism?
>
> It is a fundamental question.

Indeed it is. Well, I know a thing or two about chess history, I
work in the banking business, and I have a degree in sociology, but
I'm afraid this is way beyond me. It sounds like you need a
combination of Talcott Parsons, John Kenneth Galbraith, and (take your
pick) H.J.R. Murray, Ken Whyld, David Hooper, Edward Winter, Jeremy
Gaige, D.J. Richards, Andrew Soltis and/or I-don'tknow-who.

> We see a number of chess fans asking about sponsorship, asking about
> televising chess, comparing chess to poker etc, etc...
>
> To my mind, seeking sponsorship resembles the feudal practice of seeking
> patronage from the lords in power. It is not a sign of inherent
> economic worth. State support, on the other hand, is likely to be
> dismissed as socialism. In todays climate it might be possible to get
> funding as a faith based initiative! :^) But these options are all
> forms of beggary.
>
> On the television scene, I see no way that chess as it is currently
> practiced can become popular entertainment. Television poker on the
> other hand is quite watchable. The rules are simple. The practice is
> complex. One can see the hole cards in the popular Texas Hold'em
> variant, thus knowing more about the circumstances than the players.
> Chess cannot compete with poker as general entertainment.
>
> If sponsorship beggary and entertainment are not sufficient then what
> else is there? If the product of the work is considered we see that
> GM's do not own the game scores. If they did, perhaps some few of them
> could generate enough income to survive by selling them. Many others
> would fall by the wayside and the field of competition would shrink.
>
> I will leave it there for now. Sumizing: where is the economic
> legitimacy of professional chess in a capitalist society?
>
> >>> I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
> >>> American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
> >>> mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
> >>> perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
> >>> worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
> >>> makes an excellent hobby.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not an author, sociologist, nor economist. My opinions
> are my own, and I make no claim to have a special channel to absolute
> truth.
>
> I am making an attempt to kick start a topic for discussion that I am
> interested in. If one of our worthy authors decided to take this on, I
> would be quite pleased.
> --
>
> Cheers,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 18 Nov 2007 19:48:45
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Since I have returned to the chess world after a 25 year absence (a
>> chessic Rip van Winkle) I have learned about ratings floors instituted
>> by the USCF. Apparently the idea is that after players spend a bunch of
>> money to travel and play in lots of tournaments that they should be
>> rewarded with a false sense of stability even if their current standard
>> of play is abysmal. IMHO the ratings and the titles have all been
>> corrupted under the stewardship of the USCF and FIDE.
>
> The idea behind rating floors is rather different. There are players
> who "sandbag," that is they value money over Elo rating, and purposely
> lose games they would normally win so that their ratings will dip to a
> lower class. Their aim is to enter a lower class section in a big-
> money tournament such as the New York Open, and win a hefty cash prize
> against players actually well below their real strength. The idea
> behind the rating floors was to deter sandbagging. A player with, say,
> a 1900 floor, would not be allowed to enter a Class C section
> (sub-1600) even if he'd lost 100 games in a row by sandbagging.
>

Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors. Given
this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the rating
system. If the priy rationale of rating play is to measure playing
strength for the purposes of tournament pairings, invitations, and the
awarding of titles, then ratings floors, tilt the rating system in a
much different direction and are at cross purposes.

Stepping back a bit, it seems that what caused the ratings floors were
the institution of class prizes. And before that, class prizes were
instituted because it was thought that class players might participate
more and bring their entry fees, and membership dollars if they thought
they had a chance at a prize. So it is about money, not playing
strength. Where can one get an honest game and an honest rating these
days? ICC?

>> I suspect that to tackle the questions I have in mind would require an
>> author with expertise in sociology, economics, and chess history. The
>> most basic question I pose is: Does the professional chess player
>> produce anything of worthy substance by the harsh standards of American
>> capitalism?
>>
>> It is a fundamental question.
>
> Indeed it is. Well, I know a thing or two about chess history, I
> work in the banking business, and I have a degree in sociology, but
> I'm afraid this is way beyond me. It sounds like you need a
> combination of Talcott Parsons, John Kenneth Galbraith, and (take your
> pick) H.J.R. Murray, Ken Whyld, David Hooper, Edward Winter, Jeremy
> Gaige, D.J. Richards, Andrew Soltis and/or I-don'tknow-who.

Feel free to tackle the subject if you want. It won't be popular with
those that are configured to profit from the current structure. Maybe
we need some star, investigative, chess reporters to rescue US chess
from corruption and fantasy economics...

And again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 19 Nov 2007 13:50:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple

J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>> [Rating floors are aimed against sandbagging.]
>
> Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors.
> Given this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the
> rating system.

If preventing sandbagging was the only reason for rating floors, it
would have been much better to just say that nobody can win a class
prize in a class more than 200 below their highest ever rating, or
something similar.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Poisonous Impossible Robot (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-tech robot but it can't
exist and it'll kill you in seconds!

Date: 18 Nov 2007 22:13:10
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple

J.D. Walker wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors.

It's not the only motivation for floors, and many deny that it's even
the priy motivation - but, you don't go too far wrong by assuming
that it *is* the major motivation.

> Given
> this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the rating
> system.

Well, duh!

Of course it does. Floors are completely unjustified from a
mathematical point of view. Alas, the mathematicians only get to advise
- the politicians make the decisions.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

Date: 18 Nov 2007 14:50:19
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mr. Kingston,
>>
>> As I have said before, I believe that all of the published authors in
>> this discussion know more about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy than I
>> do. On this topic I am happy to accept my role as a member of the
>> various author's audiences. So as a 'fan' let me pose a few questions...
>>
>> 1) Do any of you consider the topic played out? Or is there more to be
>> considered?
>
> The topic of Soviet coercion, collusion, and other chicanery? It is
> by no means played out, in my opinion. I still hold out some hope,
> however slim, that more evidence on the treatment of Keres will
> surface. I still don't think we know the full facts of the three
> Karpov-Korchnoi world championship matches (1974, 1978, 1981) or of
> the first Karpov-Kasparov match (1984-85). Going back further, I still
> have questions about Flohr-Botvinnik 1933 (a non-title match in which,
> Bronstein alleges, Flohr was bribed), Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, and
> the 1953 Candidates Tournament. It's well established that there was
> collusion by three Soviet players (Petrosian, Geller, Keres) in the
> 1962 Candidates; other instances would not surprise me.
> Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
> faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
> IM and GM titles
>
>> 2) Are any of you considering or engaged in new work(s) based on or
>> related to it?
>
> I am not, at the present time, and I probably will not be in the
> future. I wrote my two articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998
> and 2001. Not long after I was offered the chance to write a book on
> the subject, by McFarland & Co., a very prestigious publisher of books
> on chess history, but I declined because I don't consider my research
> at all comprehensive. To take it further would require delving into
> Soviet archives, interviewing Russian and Estonian sources, tracking
> down the few people still living who might know something relevant (if
> there are any - it's been 59 years now), etc. Those things are beyond
> my means and abilities.
>
>> 3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
>> influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
>> approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
>> exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
> influence of the West on chess." Do you mean the larger prizes that
> began with the Fischer era? Until 1972, the financial impact was all
> in the other direction. The Soviet GMs were paid professionals,
> servants of the state enlisted for one purpose, to play chess, while
> almost all Western chess players had to earn a living away from the
> game (Fischer and Reshevsky being some of the very rare exceptions).
> And the Soviets totally undercut the ket by pricing themselves low
> - playing practically for nothing. When the Soviets played abroad,
> they asked no appearance fees from tournament organizers. So naturally
> organizers would jump at the chance to get a top Soviet GM for free,
> rather than pay an American or other non-Soviet player.
> As Dutch GM Jan Hein Donner wrote in 1972:
>
> "The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
> world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
> by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
> allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
> all over the world."
>
> So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
> impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.
>
>> <warning, tangent with speculation ahead...>
>
> Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
> chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.
>

I am sorry Taylor. I completely missed this message as I usually read
from the rec.games.chess.politics newsgroup. Thank you for the answers.
Tis appreciated. Now, let me catch up with the other responses.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
--
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society."

-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Date: 18 Nov 2007 14:35:29
From: artichoke
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

On Nov 18, 5:00 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> KINGSTON AGREES WITH EVANS
>
> <The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
> world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
> by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
> allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
> all over the world." So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two
> very negative
> impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.> -- Taylor
> Kingston
>
> In addition to finally agreeing with GM Evans' theory that Keres was
> coerced into throwing his first four games to Botvinnik in the 1948
> world championship ("the Commies did it") Tayor Kingston also concurs
> with the following assessment:
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 99)
>
> To most of us chess is only a game. But to the Soviet Union it
> showcased the glories of communism.
>
> Chess is still as popular in Russia as baseball is in America. This
> tradition extends from the czars to Lenin, an avid player whose
> brother composed chess problems. Revolutionary leaders used the game
> as a political pawn to divert and educate the masses. For the first
> time in history, chess pros were subsidized by the state and Soviet
> stars were treated like royalty. But prize money was kept low to
> discourage competition from outsiders, mostly amateurs who had to earn
> a living from real jobs.
>
> When the American team visited Russia in 1955 our interpreter quipped:
> "When we have troubles we play chess to forget our troubles. When we
> have no troubles, we play chess because there's nothing better to do."
>
> While I was there, a dissident told me Russia was only good for two
> things: chess and ballet. In 1972, after Bobby Fischer trounced Boris
> Spassky in Reykjavik, a
> Soviet grandmaster told me: "At home they don't understand. They think
> it
> means there's something wrong with our culture." You can just imagine
> the
> shock waves.
>
> Max Lerner wrote in the New York Post: "The Russians are in despair,
> as they should be. There were suspicions that Spassky might defect to
> the corrupt monied
> West. Their run of champions has been broken. Worst of all, it was
> done by a flamboyant, neurotic, authentic individual, against all the
> collective balderdash which says the individual is a cipher."
>
> Also see: Did the Soviets Collude?: A Statistical Analysis of
> Championship Chess 1940-64
>
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905612
>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Kingston,
>
> > > As I have said before, I believe that all of the published authors in
> > > this discussion know more about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy than I
> > > do. On this topic I am happy to accept my role as a member of the
> > > various author's audiences. So as a 'fan' let me pose a few questions...
>
> > > 1) Do any of you consider the topic played out? Or is there more to be
> > > considered?
>
> > The topic of Soviet coercion, collusion, and other chicanery? It is
> > by no means played out, in my opinion. I still hold out some hope,
> > however slim, that more evidence on the treatment of Keres will
> > surface. I still don't think we know the full facts of the three
> > Karpov-Korchnoi world championship matches (1974, 1978, 1981) or of
> > the first Karpov-Kasparov match (1984-85). Going back further, I still
> > have questions about Flohr-Botvinnik 1933 (a non-title match in which,
> > Bronstein alleges, Flohr was bribed), Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, and
> > the 1953 Candidates Tournament. It's well established that there was
> > collusion by three Soviet players (Petrosian, Geller, Keres) in the
> > 1962 Candidates; other instances would not surprise me.
> > Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
> > faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
> > IM and GM titles
>
> > > 2) Are any of you considering or engaged in new work(s) based on or
> > > related to it?
>
> > I am not, at the present time, and I probably will not be in the
> > future. I wrote my two articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998
> > and 2001. Not long after I was offered the chance to write a book on
> > the subject, by McFarland & Co., a very prestigious publisher of books
> > on chess history, but I declined because I don't consider my research
> > at all comprehensive. To take it further would require delving into
> > Soviet archives, interviewing Russian and Estonian sources, tracking
> > down the few people still living who might know something relevant (if
> > there are any - it's been 59 years now), etc. Those things are beyond
> > my means and abilities.
>
> > > 3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
> > > influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
> > > approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
> > > exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?
>
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
> > influence of the West on chess." Do you mean the larger prizes that
> > began with the Fischer era? Until 1972, the financial impact was all
> > in the other direction. The Soviet GMs were paid professionals,
> > servants of the state enlisted for one purpose, to play chess, while
> > almost all Western chess players had to earn a living away from the
> > game (Fischer and Reshevsky being some of the very rare exceptions).
> > And the Soviets totally undercut the ket by pricing themselves low
> > - playing practically for nothing. When the Soviets played abroad,
> > they asked no appearance fees from tournament organizers. So naturally
> > organizers would jump at the chance to get a top Soviet GM for free,
> > rather than pay an American or other non-Soviet player.
> > As Dutch GM Jan Hein Donner wrote in 1972:
>
> > "The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
> > world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
> > by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
> > allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
> > all over the world."
>
> > So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
> > impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.
>
> > > <warning, tangent with speculation ahead...>
>
> > Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
> > chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.
>
> > > I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
> > > American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
> > > mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
> > > perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
> > > worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
> > > makes an excellent hobby.
>
> > > Beyond that -- what segments of American chess have proven worth that a
> > > Yankee capitalist would recognize? What is the value of a high quality
> > > grandmaster game on Wall Street? What is the rationale for professional
> > > chess in a capitalist society? What is the value of a USCF bureaucrat?
>
> > > Well, feel free to tune out the previous two paragraphs if you must, but
> > > I do wonder about these things, and invite comments -- in another thread
> > > if need be.
> > > --
>
> > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

The paper is interesting but not conclusive. It says that if Soviets
colluded their clean sweep was a 75% probably event but if they did
not collude it was a 25% probably event. That isn't proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.

To me, common understanding of corporate and political behavior is
stronger proof than that!

Date: 18 Nov 2007 14:29:59
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

Date: 18 Nov 2007 14:00:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's

KINGSTON AGREES WITH EVANS

<The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
all over the world." So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two
very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial. > -- Taylor
Kingston

In addition to finally agreeing with GM Evans' theory that Keres was
coerced into throwing his first four games to Botvinnik in the 1948
world championship ("the Commies did it") Tayor Kingston also concurs
with the following assessment:

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 99)

To most of us chess is only a game. But to the Soviet Union it
showcased the glories of communism.

Chess is still as popular in Russia as baseball is in America. This
tradition extends from the czars to Lenin, an avid player whose
brother composed chess problems. Revolutionary leaders used the game
as a political pawn to divert and educate the masses. For the first
time in history, chess pros were subsidized by the state and Soviet
stars were treated like royalty. But prize money was kept low to
discourage competition from outsiders, mostly amateurs who had to earn
a living from real jobs.

When the American team visited Russia in 1955 our interpreter quipped:
"When we have troubles we play chess to forget our troubles. When we
have no troubles, we play chess because there's nothing better to do."

While I was there, a dissident told me Russia was only good for two
things: chess and ballet. In 1972, after Bobby Fischer trounced Boris
Spassky in Reykjavik, a
Soviet grandmaster told me: "At home they don't understand. They think
it
means there's something wrong with our culture." You can just imagine
the
shock waves.

Max Lerner wrote in the New York Post: "The Russians are in despair,
as they should be. There were suspicions that Spassky might defect to
the corrupt monied
West. Their run of champions has been broken. Worst of all, it was
done by a flamboyant, neurotic, authentic individual, against all the
collective balderdash which says the individual is a cipher."

Also see: Did the Soviets Collude?: A Statistical Analysis of
Championship Chess 1940-64

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905612

Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Kingston,
> >
> > As I have said before, I believe that all of the published authors in
> > this discussion know more about the Keres-Botvinnik controversy than I
> > do. On this topic I am happy to accept my role as a member of the
> > various author's audiences. So as a 'fan' let me pose a few questions...
> >
> > 1) Do any of you consider the topic played out? Or is there more to be
> > considered?
>
> The topic of Soviet coercion, collusion, and other chicanery? It is
> by no means played out, in my opinion. I still hold out some hope,
> however slim, that more evidence on the treatment of Keres will
> surface. I still don't think we know the full facts of the three
> Karpov-Korchnoi world championship matches (1974, 1978, 1981) or of
> the first Karpov-Kasparov match (1984-85). Going back further, I still
> have questions about Flohr-Botvinnik 1933 (a non-title match in which,
> Bronstein alleges, Flohr was bribed), Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951, and
> the 1953 Candidates Tournament. It's well established that there was
> collusion by three Soviet players (Petrosian, Geller, Keres) in the
> 1962 Candidates; other instances would not surprise me.
> Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
> faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
> IM and GM titles
>
> > 2) Are any of you considering or engaged in new work(s) based on or
> > related to it?
>
> I am not, at the present time, and I probably will not be in the
> future. I wrote my two articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998
> and 2001. Not long after I was offered the chance to write a book on
> the subject, by McFarland & Co., a very prestigious publisher of books
> on chess history, but I declined because I don't consider my research
> at all comprehensive. To take it further would require delving into
> Soviet archives, interviewing Russian and Estonian sources, tracking
> down the few people still living who might know something relevant (if
> there are any - it's been 59 years now), etc. Those things are beyond
> my means and abilities.
>
> > 3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
> > influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
> > approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
> > exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
> influence of the West on chess." Do you mean the larger prizes that
> began with the Fischer era? Until 1972, the financial impact was all
> in the other direction. The Soviet GMs were paid professionals,
> servants of the state enlisted for one purpose, to play chess, while
> almost all Western chess players had to earn a living away from the
> game (Fischer and Reshevsky being some of the very rare exceptions).
> And the Soviets totally undercut the ket by pricing themselves low
> - playing practically for nothing. When the Soviets played abroad,
> they asked no appearance fees from tournament organizers. So naturally
> organizers would jump at the chance to get a top Soviet GM for free,
> rather than pay an American or other non-Soviet player.
> As Dutch GM Jan Hein Donner wrote in 1972:
>
> "The Russian hegemony had an appalling effect on prices in chess
> world. The Russians were the best and they were cheap. They were sent
> by their federation and required no starting fee, as they weren't
> allowed to ask for one - to the extreme delight of chess organizers
> all over the world."
>
> So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
> impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.
>
> > <warning, tangent with speculation ahead...>
>
> Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
> chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.
>
> > I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
> > American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
> > mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
> > perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
> > worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
> > makes an excellent hobby.
> >
> > Beyond that -- what segments of American chess have proven worth that a
> > Yankee capitalist would recognize? What is the value of a high quality
> > grandmaster game on Wall Street? What is the rationale for professional
> > chess in a capitalist society? What is the value of a USCF bureaucrat?
> >
> > Well, feel free to tune out the previous two paragraphs if you must, but
> > I do wonder about these things, and invite comments -- in another thread
> > if need be.
> > --
> >
> > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Date: 18 Nov 2007 16:09:13
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Soviet cheating and other topics (transferred from Devil's Disciple

[email protected] wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 4:25 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Another related and interesting topic is title fabrication, i.e. the
>> faking of tournament and/or match results to earn phony norms for FIDE
>> IM and GM titles

As a fan, I would love to see someone take on the V. Afromeev phenomena
in a well researched article or book! With regard to the mass
production of FIDE titles, I personally think it is extremely
embarrassing for chess.

Since I have returned to the chess world after a 25 year absence (a
chessic Rip van Winkle) I have learned about ratings floors instituted
by the USCF. Apparently the idea is that after players spend a bunch of
money to travel and play in lots of tournaments that they should be
rewarded with a false sense of stability even if their current standard
of play is abysmal. IMHO the ratings and the titles have all been
corrupted under the stewardship of the USCF and FIDE.

I won't get into the self-appointed arbiters of "title purity" at this
point.

>>> 3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
>>> influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
>>> approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
>>> exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?

>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
>> influence of the West on chess."

I do not have the quotes ready at hand as to precisely what the Russian
GMs said. Moreover, I do not know what was really on their minds behind
the comments. That could be a subject for interviews.

>> ... Do you mean the larger prizes that
>> began with the Fischer era?

No, I am trying to get at something more fundamental. I will try to
explain below. I wonder if the Fischer "bubble" was more like the hula
hoop craze amplified by Cold War tensions...

<snip of interesting material to make room >

>> So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
>> impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.
>>
>>> <warning, tangent with speculation ahead...>
>> Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
>> chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.

I suspect that to tackle the questions I have in mind would require an
author with expertise in sociology, economics, and chess history. The
most basic question I pose is: Does the professional chess player
produce anything of worthy substance by the harsh standards of American
capitalism?

It is a fundamental question.

We see a number of chess fans asking about sponsorship, asking about
televising chess, comparing chess to poker etc, etc...

To my mind, seeking sponsorship resembles the feudal practice of seeking
patronage from the lords in power. It is not a sign of inherent
economic worth. State support, on the other hand, is likely to be
dismissed as socialism. In todays climate it might be possible to get
funding as a faith based initiative! :^) But these options are all
forms of beggary.

On the television scene, I see no way that chess as it is currently
practiced can become popular entertainment. Television poker on the
other hand is quite watchable. The rules are simple. The practice is
complex. One can see the hole cards in the popular Texas Hold'em
variant, thus knowing more about the circumstances than the players.
Chess cannot compete with poker as general entertainment.

If sponsorship beggary and entertainment are not sufficient then what
else is there? If the product of the work is considered we see that
GM's do not own the game scores. If they did, perhaps some few of them
could generate enough income to survive by selling them. Many others
would fall by the wayside and the field of competition would shrink.

I will leave it there for now. Sumizing: where is the economic
legitimacy of professional chess in a capitalist society?

>>> I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
>>> American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
>>> mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
>>> perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
>>> worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
>>> makes an excellent hobby.
>>>

Disclaimer: I am not an author, sociologist, nor economist. My opinions
are my own, and I make no claim to have a special channel to absolute
truth.

I am making an attempt to kick start a topic for discussion that I am
interested in. If one of our worthy authors decided to take this on, I
would be quite pleased.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 19 Nov 2007 17:18:33
From: David Richerby
Subject: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sumizing: where is the economic legitimacy of professional chess
> in a capitalist society?

I don't see why you're singling out chess. Where is the economic
legitimacy of professional sport as a whole in a capitalist society?

But isn't it just that people are prepared to pay for entertainment?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Sadistic Widget (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ thingy but it wants to hurt you!

Date: 19 Nov 2007 12:35:41
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

David Richerby wrote:
> J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sumizing: where is the economic legitimacy of professional chess
>> in a capitalist society?
>
> I don't see why you're singling out chess. Where is the economic
> legitimacy of professional sport as a whole in a capitalist society?
>
> But isn't it just that people are prepared to pay for entertainment?
>
>
> Dave.
>
I single out chess because I care about it, and because it is topical
here. As for entertainment, my point was that chess makes poor
entertainment for the masses, thus basing a chess economy on the
entertainment dollar is not sensible.

--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 20 Nov 2007 11:33:05
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Sumizing: where is the economic legitimacy of professional chess
>>> in a capitalist society?
>>
>> I don't see why you're singling out chess. Where is the economic
>> legitimacy of professional sport as a whole in a capitalist society?
>>
>> But isn't it just that people are prepared to pay for entertainment?
>
> I single out chess because I care about it, and because it is topical
> here.

OK but I don't think that chess is in a significantly different
position to other sports/games/whatever-you-want-to-call-them-s.

> As for entertainment, my point was that chess makes poor
> entertainment for the masses, thus basing a chess economy on the
> entertainment dollar is not sensible.

It's poor entertainment for the masses, yes. But fine wine, haute
couture, supercars and luxury yachts are also poor entertainment for
the masses and do just fine. Now, of course, they are all low-volume,
high-value kets, while chess is relatively low volume and low
value. And that indicates why professional chess players aren't rich
unless they started rich.

Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
like any other sport/etc. To its niche ket, it's very
entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
anything other than its entertainment value.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Natural Impossible Bulb (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a light bulb but it can't exist
and it's completely natural!

Date: 21 Nov 2007 14:02:29
From: chocdonuts
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

David Richerby wrote:

> > David Richerby wrote:

> >> J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Sumizing: where is the economic legitimacy of professional chess
> >>> in a capitalist society?
> >>
> >> I don't see why you're singling out chess. Where is the economic
> >> legitimacy of professional sport as a whole in a capitalist society?

ket share dumbkoff - witness coke-snorter Angelica Hingis quits
celeb. swiss + Adidas Fed. triumphs again! Really, my long held
suspicions about this 'Dave' character being nothing more than an
overeducated moron have proved correct..
> >>
> >> But isn't it just that people are prepared to pay for entertainment?
> >
> > I single out chess because I care about it, and because it is topical
> > here.
>
> OK but I don't think that chess is in a significantly different
> position to other sports/games/whatever-you-want-to-call-them-s.
>
> > As for entertainment, my point was that chess makes poor
> > entertainment for the masses, thus basing a chess economy on the
> > entertainment dollar is not sensible.
>
> It's poor entertainment for the masses, yes. But fine wine, haute
> couture, supercars and luxury yachts are also poor entertainment for
> the masses

Who told you this garbage you chocolate fart-muscle? You really trying
to posit that the 99% aren't interested (entertained) by the 1% who have
all this garbage you spiel on about - you envious little poofter?..

> and do just fine. Now, of course, they are all low-volume,
> high-value kets, while chess is relatively low volume and low
> value. And that indicates why professional chess players aren't rich
> unless they started rich.

It also indicates that you're a typical whining, snivelling & swingeing
new englunder who seriously needs to get your inbred envies & jealousies
well in line. Sadly, for a moron like you that doesn't look like any
time soon.. Try to deal with it & try to get of the sound o
>
> Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
> like any other sport/etc.

Really? I was under the impression 'chess' was more about huge ideas in
life & the affairs of _man_ somewhat like War (for keeps) but maybe I'm
mistaken here. Oh well, pompous one, as an Englunder you're doubtless a
<yawn > cricket fanatic..

>To its niche ket, it's very
> entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
> anything other than its entertainment value.

More inane flummery & received god-oath 25th hand asininity from one of
our regular hole digging idiotic morons..

>
> Dave.

Date: 21 Nov 2007 11:59:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

chocdonuts <warm'[email protected] > wrote:
> ket share dumbkoff

That's `Dummkopf', Dummkopf.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Umbrella (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an umbrella but it doesn't work
in the dark!

Date: 22 Nov 2007 01:09:43
From: chocdonuts
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

David Richerby wrote:
>
> chocdonuts <warm'[email protected]> wrote:
> > ket share dumbkoff
>
> That's `Dummkopf', Dummkopf.

Heh, a pedant - or something equally as derogatory. I thought so all
along..

Date: 21 Nov 2007 13:26:11
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

chocdonuts wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> chocdonuts <warm'[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ket share dumbkoff
>> That's `Dummkopf', Dummkopf.
>
> Heh, a pedant - or something equally as derogatory. I thought so all
> along..

Zweisprachig Buchstabierflamme!

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

Date: 20 Nov 2007 04:09:41
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

David Richerby wrote:

> Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
> like any other sport/etc.

*** >> To its niche ket, <<***

> it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
> anything other than its entertainment value.

Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV
ket to bring big bucks into chess.

Date: 20 Nov 2007 16:44:49
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Richerby wrote:
>
>> Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
>> like any other sport/etc.
>
> ***>> To its niche ket, <<***
>
>> it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
>> anything other than its entertainment value.
>
> Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV ket
> to bring big bucks into chess.

Define "big"

99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?

Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
tournaments. It lists 7 major international
tournaments, with a winner's purse
totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.

The world checkers title was recently defended.
The prize fund was $3740.

It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
ketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
and obvious flaws as virtues.

Date: 20 Nov 2007 17:18:40
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

David Kane wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>
>>> Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
>>> like any other sport/etc.
>> ***>> To its niche ket, <<***
>>
>>> it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
>>> anything other than its entertainment value.
>> Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV ket
>> to bring big bucks into chess.
>
> Define "big"

e.g. NFL, NBA, MLB all have a major media presence. BTW, I detest the
NFL, and the NBA. Such a poor American am I...

>
> 99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
> tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?
>

I do not see how this relates...

> Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
> tournaments. It lists 7 major international
> tournaments, with a winner's purse
> totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
> events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
> well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
> seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.
>

Do you have a measure of the size of the fan base of Go enthusiasts in
Japan? I suspect that percentage-wise it is far higher than that of
chess in the USA. I once was an amateur san-dan at Go. It is a great
game.

Heh, I once purchased some books on Go from Ishii Press. I knew nothing
of Sam Sloan then.

> The world checkers title was recently defended.
> The prize fund was $3740.
>

Goodbye checkers...

> It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
> of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
> to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
> ketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
> world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
> and obvious flaws as virtues.
>

Care to explain your analysis and make suggestions?
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 20 Nov 2007 18:45:22
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Kane wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> David Richerby wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
>>>> like any other sport/etc.
>>> ***>> To its niche ket, <<***
>>>
>>>> it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
>>>> anything other than its entertainment value.
>>> Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV
>>> ket
>>> to bring big bucks into chess.
>>
>> Define "big"
>
> e.g. NFL, NBA, MLB all have a major media presence. BTW, I detest the NFL,
> and the NBA. Such a poor American am I...
>
>>
>> 99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
>> tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?
>>
>
> I do not see how this relates...

There are two points. First, it attracts a much bigger portion of
the entertainment pie than chess. Second, it's a sport that is often criticized
for being "boring". I suspect if the hundredth best chess player in the world
could make even 1% of what his golf counterpart makes, there would
be a lot more people working to get better at chess.

>
>> Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
>> tournaments. It lists 7 major international
>> tournaments, with a winner's purse
>> totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
>> events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
>> well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
>> seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.
>>
>
> Do you have a measure of the size of the fan base of Go enthusiasts in Japan?
> I suspect that percentage-wise it is far higher than that of chess in the USA.
> I once was an amateur san-dan at Go. It is a great game.
>

Sorry, I don't. In fact, I don't even have comparable purse numbers for chess.
For various reasons, I believe they are quite a bit lower, but don't know by how
much. But no matter how you count, there are a very large number of
Americans with some interest in chess.

> Heh, I once purchased some books on Go from Ishii Press. I knew nothing of
> Sam Sloan then.
>
>> The world checkers title was recently defended.
>> The prize fund was $3740.
>>
>
> Goodbye checkers...

Checkers still has enthusiasts - as will chess after it's high level game
is completely ginalized by the ketplace. That doesn't
mean that this trend is good for the game.

>
>> It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
>> of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
>> to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
>> ketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
>> world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
>> and obvious flaws as virtues.
>>
>
> Care to explain your analysis and make suggestions?
> --

Look in the archives and you'll find that I've gone
on at great length about some of my pet peeves, but
in broad terms I see the main obstacles as being the slavish
worship of the status quo coupled with a culture that
is out of step with the mainstream in many significant
ways.

Date: 20 Nov 2007 21:02:02
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Economic Legitimacy

David Kane wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> David Kane wrote:
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> David Richerby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
>>>>> like any other sport/etc.
>>>> ***>> To its niche ket, <<***
>>>>
>>>>> it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
>>>>> anything other than its entertainment value.
>>>> Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV
>>>> ket
>>>> to bring big bucks into chess.
>>> Define "big"
>> e.g. NFL, NBA, MLB all have a major media presence. BTW, I detest the NFL,
>> and the NBA. Such a poor American am I...
>>
>>> 99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
>>> tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?
>>>
>> I do not see how this relates...
>
> There are two points. First, it attracts a much bigger portion of
> the entertainment pie than chess. Second, it's a sport that is often criticized
> for being "boring". I suspect if the hundredth best chess player in the world
> could make even 1% of what his golf counterpart makes, there would
> be a lot more people working to get better at chess.
>
>>> Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
>>> tournaments. It lists 7 major international
>>> tournaments, with a winner's purse
>>> totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
>>> events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
>>> well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
>>> seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.
>>>
>> Do you have a measure of the size of the fan base of Go enthusiasts in Japan?
>> I suspect that percentage-wise it is far higher than that of chess in the USA.
>> I once was an amateur san-dan at Go. It is a great game.
>>
>
> Sorry, I don't. In fact, I don't even have comparable purse numbers for chess.
> For various reasons, I believe they are quite a bit lower, but don't know by how
> much. But no matter how you count, there are a very large number of
> Americans with some interest in chess.
>
>> Heh, I once purchased some books on Go from Ishii Press. I knew nothing of
>> Sam Sloan then.
>>
>>> The world checkers title was recently defended.
>>> The prize fund was $3740.
>>>
>> Goodbye checkers...
>
> Checkers still has enthusiasts - as will chess after it's high level game
> is completely ginalized by the ketplace. That doesn't
> mean that this trend is good for the game.
>
>>> It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
>>> of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
>>> to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
>>> ketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
>>> world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
>>> and obvious flaws as virtues.
>>>
>> Care to explain your analysis and make suggestions?
>> --
>
> Look in the archives and you'll find that I've gone
> on at great length about some of my pet peeves, but
> in broad terms I see the main obstacles as being the slavish
> worship of the status quo coupled with a culture that
> is out of step with the mainstream in many significant
> ways.

I am going to mull this subject over for a few days and see if I can
come up with a better approach. I will see what I can find in the
archives, as you suggest, at the same time. Maybe I will have something
after the turkeys last gobble... :^)
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 20 Nov 2007 13:30:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
>> like any other sport/etc.
>
>***>> To its niche ket, <<***
>
>> it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess
>> economy' on anything other than its entertainment value.
>
> Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass
> TV ket to bring big bucks into chess.

I tried. They insinuated that I somehow wanted to hold chess back and
deny it its place in the sun.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Edible Crystal Book (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel but it's completely
transparent and you can eat it!

Date: 22 Nov 2007 03:08:19
From: chocdonuts
Subject: Re: Economic legitimacy (was Re: Soviet cheating and other topics)

David Richerby wrote:

> >> it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess
> >> economy' on anything other than its entertainment value.
> >
> > Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass
> > TV ket to bring big bucks into chess.
>
> I tried. They insinuated that I somehow wanted to hold chess back and
> deny it its place in the sun.

Look here lebanese cucumber - it's November already, almost December
when the snow habitually falls in screes & droves in Moskaw & you have
the effrontery to harp on about the Sun & how you have influenced the
Muscovites in their choice of _great_ leader aka Putin, but Gazza is
there in the waiting. This time. Yeah! I like it. Garry Kasparov -
supreme leader of the ex-soviet. Yeah baby!..