"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:



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

That red-herring had nothing to do with the point.
Though the "other poster" could not recall arguments
made a few minutes prior which made the debate
rather pointless, we actually *agreed* that there
could be winning chances in a theoretically
drawn game. The point is that a "dead drawn"
position gives neither side winning chances.
Neither side has an advantage.

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!

1. You are talking about the position *after* Bxh2, which
I have not referred to as dead drawn. At issue is
your claim that Evans lied about the position *before*
Bxh2. Think, man, think!

2. I am not by any stretch of the imagination
a Fischer apologist. I think he's human scum.
But I suspect that Fischer (and many other GMs
for that matter) played chess well enough
to draw the position before Bxh2 blindfolded.


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.

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

There is no harm in making speculations, just
as you have. I don't place much stock in them,
including my own "pronking gazelle" theory.
Fischer's own statements aren't worth
much as evidence either - anything he says can be
expected to be self serving. Evans' speculations
about Fischer have been proven wrong time and
time again - they are as worthless as anybody's.

But Evans' assessment of the position before Bxh2?
Well, he's an experienced GM, commenting on
a chess position, giving an assessment that seems
to be universally shared except for someone calling
himself help bot and who is seemingly incapable of
arguing the contrary position. And Evans'
assessment is consistent with what little I know
about the game. Conclusion: he's not lying, you are.

But I'm open to being proved wrong. To
make your case you have to provide
evidence that players of Fischer's calibre
would have had trouble drawing the position.
Whenever you're ready!