GREG CAN'T ADMIT HE BLEW IT

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....You don't need to
go the Parr/Innes/Brennan route of distortion and
misdirection. -- David Kane to Greg Kennedy (help bot)

One always enjoys those rare moments when the
stinkers fall out. Despite a mountain of words, friend
Greg Kennedy won't retract his bogus charge that GM
Evans "lied" about Spassky-Fischer, game 1, 1972.

For the record, Spassky himself later said he
would have simply offered a draw or accepted an offer
if Fischer had not played ... Bxh2, a move that shows
the reason for, if not an example of, Bobby's strength.

As for Fischer's behavior at the board -- and
Greg Kennedy truly hates Bobby for his greatness --
Spassky himself considered it impeccable. He stated
that Bobby won normally, convincingly, because he was
stronger. He stated repeatedly -- over and over -- that
Bobby's demands were never directed against him,
but against the authorities.


David Kane wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:

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


Poor, poor David Kane. He keeps getting confused, even
on the simplest of issues. SpamScone has not attacked
Evans in this thread, Mr. Kane;

I've already owned up to mischaracterizing The Historian's
mindless defense of your attacks.

nor was it GM Evans who
introduced the term "dead drawn" here -- that was Larry Parr.

OK.

snipped.

Your statement that I take issue with now (and shortly
after you posted it) is:

"One example of an Evans lie is where he claimed that
White had no advantage (not even the vestige of one) in the
position where Fischer made his most famous blunder."

Technically, Evans' claim is weaker than Parr's.
Neither side can have an "advantage" in any
"dead drawn" position, but it is possible for a
position to not be "dead drawn" yet still equal.
The statements are close in meaning in the
context of this particular position. (Even you can't
think so little of Evans to believe that he was
claiming that the position had a dynamic equality
where both sides had equal winning chances.)

So is it your new position that Evans was "lying"
because he didn't go as far as Parr???
That's a far cry from your earlier post when you
were listing all of these meaningless "advantages"
Spassky had.

Or are you just engaging in some irrelevant
chatter to change the subject?


I knew when I wrote that Evans had lied that this could be
nitpicked. Even so, it was a handy example for the moment.

Trueness as well as handiness should be considered in
examples, Mr. bot.

What all too often happens is, say, a broad claim that Evans
has lied is challenged, and then the first such example given
is picked apart, ignoring that there are numerous others to
take its place.

You've actually stumbled on a very important point.
It's important to give *good* examples. Giving
false and bad examples undercuts the credibility
of all your evidence and arguments.

Louis Blair, for instance, has documented a
substantial number of such lies here, and because Evans
and Parr (another such liar) are reluctant to admit mistakes,
these cannot be ignored as mere flubs.

So your excuse for making a clearly false
claim is that there might be similar claims that are true?

How persuasive.