help bot wrote:
David Kane wrote:

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.

And this has what to do with your having gotten confused,
just as I said?

Incidentally, where have I defended anything you've written about the
endgame in question? My only interest in this thread was trying to
explain a basic law of chess to Mr. Kane. It's as fruitless a labor as
trying to correct Innes' Spanish.

Admitting an error is a good thing, yet it is
far from having not made the error in the first place. Example:
I admitted I made many calculation errors at GetClub, yet
all those games have yet to be *erased* by Sanny. Why
are not my rating points restored to me? :D




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


How about a nice cup of coffee? You need to wake
up your mind, clear out the fog.

Another poster has *already* provided a crystal-clear
example of just such an advantage, in a theoretically
drawn endgame position.

Thank you.

A piece ahead gives the
superior side a big advantage, yet he cannot win
without some defensive mistake by his opponent.

I don't know, maybe you just aren't equipped to play
ball with the big boys. Maybe your thinking skills
are such that no matter how clearly a concept is
explained, and no matter how clear an example is
given to refute your mistaken ideas, you just can't
see anything but your preconceived falsehoods.

At any rate, that is one possible explanation of your
clinging to your pet straw men. The introduction of
the phrase "dead drawn" is telling; not only was that
particular game *not* drawn, but both world champions
erred, converting a draw to a win to a draw to a win.
Just how many times must such a conversion take
place before Fischer apologists will admit the game
was hardly "dead"? A thousand, perhaps? Or ten
thousand? Nay -- even then, these imbeciles would
stay dug into their mental trenches, firing off rounds
consisting of straw men and other schrapnel!

It boils down to an inability to admit Fischer's
human weakness, his fallibility, and what followed is
a plethora of "alternative explanations" for a simple
blunder, such as Evans' "Fischer trying too hard to win"
idiocy. Strange that even Fischer has admitted his
miscalculation, yet his staunch apologists reject the
truth in favor of their fictional stories, partly out of
ignorance, and partly out of long-standing habit.

--------------

My own "projection" of what Fischer most likely
was thinking when he reached this endgame is:

"Spassky was lucky to draw White in the first game,
but now he has wasted it and will face me -- the
greatest player who ever lived -- as Black! I've flat
busted his King's Gambit, so he was forced to try
this stupid QG line which netted him nothing more
than a draw -- Bwhahahaha!"


-- Fischer bot