David Kane wrote:

But the question is whether *the position in game one that
we are discussing* is one of those positions. So far, neither
you nor help bot in your rush to attack Evans have given
any evidence to support that. So when GMs argue from
authority that the position is dead drawn, those
arguments carry the day.


Apparently, David Kane is not only too weak to recognise
what an advantage is, he also is an authority man, who
likes the Truth handed to him on a silver platter by some
father (or authority) figure. Here is my response to that
approach: 1) Evans' own analysis of this particular endgame
has already been refuted by his betters. And 2) The question
arises as to why Mr. Kane is so eager to accept the opinion
of just one particular GM (Evans), rather than seek out the
assessment of the very strongest of GMs? Case in point:
Fischer himself has been quoted as describing his play (i.e.
the Bxh2 blunder) like so: "I played like a fish." Even Dr.
Fine, who is often quoted by Evans ratpackers when it suits
their fancy, has noted that Fischer admitted to him that this
move was the result of an oversight -- not any attempt to
play for a win, as the Evans ratpack has presented it. Thus,
we can see that in fact Fischer overlooked his Bishop being
trapped (still!) in the sub-line where White plays K-g4, after
....h3. All this was forseen by Spassky a half-move earlier,
which is one reason I believe he deserves more credit for
this win than the Evans ratpack is willing to allow. Evans'
contortions are in the main, the result of his own personal
biases, which have nothing whatever to do with the real
reasons for blunders in chess.

-- help bot