WHY LIE?

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn? -- David Kane to Neil Brennen

Greg Kennedy's charge is, as usual, asinine.

What motive would Larry Evans have for lying about
a position that can be checked by every grandmaster
and computer in this galazy?

This Best Question was posed in Evans On Chess
(Chess Life, May 2001, page 16):

FISCHER'S MOST FAMOUS MOVE

Peter Kougasian * Pelham, New York

Q. Undoubtedly the most famous single move played in my
lifetime was 29...Bxh2 in Spassky-Fischer, 1st match game
1972. The popular press described it as a terrible gaffe, and
I even remember a report that Spassky looked up from the
board in disbelief. He trapped the bishop and eventually
Fischer resigned, yet my computer finds nothing wrong with
the pawn grab. Was it indeed the losing move?

A. [GM Evans quotes Frank Brady and Brad Darrach, then
analyzes the critical position after 40 Kh4.]

REUBEN FINE: "Every beginner knows that 29...Bxh2 is a blunder,
and it does lose, so why did Bobby do it? Afterwards he told me
he miscalculated, thinking that after 30 g3 h5 31 Ke2 h4 32 Kf3 h3
he could escape, but overlooking 33 Kg4 which traps the bishop.
I think that a psychological explanation is more in order. Bobby is
out to show that he can make what everybody would consider an
impossible move: caught up in this fantasy, he does not calculate
properly."

"Chess World Championship 1972 by Evans & Smith: 29...Bxh2?!
is a miscalculation, which is not fatal in itself, though most players
attributed Fischer's loss to the capture of the poisoned pawn. Black
is not content to settle for a draw and he wants to keep winning
chances alive. Having demonstrated that the champion could not
achieve the vestige of an advantage with White, Fischer now seems
to be saying, 'You can't draw with me that easily.'"


David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
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.

Huh? There's nothing mysterious about the concept of advantage.
For example, the starting position is almost certainly drawn, but
White has an advantage.

Why do we say that White has an advantage
in the opening position? Because White *wins*
more often from that position. Period.

Err, David, very few chess games, even in your tournaments, are won
from the opening position. Guess again. The more likely explanation is
that White has the first move, and having the first move constitutes an
advantage - I believe it's been compared to having the serve in tennis.


Still not getting it. If White and Black had equal results
from the opening position, would we still say that
White has an advantage? No. We conclude from
empirical evidence (not help bot's drug-induced
hallucinations) that White wins more often than
Black, so say that White has an advantage.

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn?