"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:


But for Evans to be wrong in this case, you have to


Hold on a sec there, junior! I don't have to argue
anything. Evans' analysis *has already been refuted*
by others. More to the point, his comments require
nothing more than an understanding of chess concepts,
and of course, logic, to properly assess. Ideas like
"backpeddling", "shifting ground" and the like require
no special chess analysis skills to recognise, just
being observant. Take for example, the known fact
that both players refused to shake hands, but instead
played on. Had this been completely "dead drawn", as
one ratpacker had it, somebody would have been forced
to extend his hand out of embarassment, if nothing else.
Or maybe they could have gone until stalemate, ignoring
the cameras and spectators.

In particular, the single biggest problem with Evans' many
comments regarding everything Fischer is his inconsistency,
his persistent ground shifting. At one time, Evans correctly
used a thing called logic to cut through the cr*p and tell us
that Fischer himself was responsible for his own premature
retirement from active play. Not long afterward, GM Evans
began to shuffle and dance, telling everyone who would
listen that the evil Russians (who controlled FIDE) were the
real culprits. Had he simply renounced his earlier position,
this would be called having a change of heart. But holding
dearly to every word he has ever written, our man Evans
has created quake after quake, a new dance style, and a
whole lot of contortion and twisting about.


credibly argue that *Fischer* or other strong GMs
were likely to lose it.


Perhaps you need a refresher course in logical thinking.
This strawman of yours may well be fun, but it has no
bearing on the case. Not one poster here has argued
that Fischer "was likely to lose" w/o Bxh2 -- that is, until
you showed up! LOL

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

You want to make an obviously false claim "Evans
lied in his description of the position", be my guest.

But be aware that making stupid and false arguments
in one case undercuts your credibility in all of your
anti-Evans/Parr arguments.