David Kane wrote:

You don't need to go the Parr/Innes/Brennan
route of distortion and misdirection. Just
admit you blew it (it happens - we'll forgive
you) - then get back on track by savaging
Evans et al. for something they really deserve.


IMO, it is you who are trying (but not succeeding)
to go that route. Some advice: 1) create more anon
identities so you can play their game 2) regarding
misdirection, a task sometimes handled by Mr. Parr
himself, but more often delegated to his lapdog, Innes:
you aren't cutting the mustard; clearly, you have
focused mainly on setting out strawmen, and this
is not working due to being "caught" right out of the
gate.

As for "savaging" Evans and associates, that is
something which only his enemies wish to do. I
consider myself a "friend", the same sort of friend that
Evans was to Fischer, when he attempted to guide
Bobby down the straight and narrow path (but in
vain). *Constructive* criticism is our friend. Our
enemies are ignorance, bias, abd hatred.

I would suggest you put down your textbook on
invalid argument, and stop "testing" us. We easily see
through these things quite easily. A better idea would
be to brush aside the "dead drawn" and "attempting to
win" diversions, and focus in on the real facts. One of
these is the fact that until Spassky agrees to the draw,
he has every right to play on, hoping for a blunder just
like Bxh2. In that single position (right before Bxh2),
there were many variations which might well have caught
any ordinary player for a loss. Fischer was no ordinary
player, yet even so, he erred in his calculations. NOT
agreeing to draws in these kinds of positions is one of
the many reasons Spassky made it to the very top,
while so many others became 2600 also-rans. The
same thing can be said of many of the other world
champs, including Fischer.


"It ain't over, 'till it's over."


-- Vince



















Lombardy :D