"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"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

"Yes, I did, and found it a poor example." But this is a great example
of a David Foster Kane falsehood.

Translation. You wanted to misstate my position,
but my example (which is inconsistent with
your misstatement) made that difficult. So without
comment you snipped it, later describing it
as a "poor" example, again without reason.
But your "brilliant" discovery that R vs. R+B
might be hard to draw in practice, somehow
refutes my arguments. How? Because I've said
that it's "dead drawn". Except ... that I haven't!
So it's a complete straw man, arguing against
a position I've never taken.

To put things simply for the simpletons, if you're
playing a position that you don't have a chance
to win, then you can't claim to have an advantage.

My White King is on a1. Your Black pawn is
on a4, your Black king is on a5.

You have a material advantage! You have a passed
pawn! You have an advanced King! You have,
according to an obscure 1886 Steinitz' treatise,
some other advantage, known only to the erudite
and multilingual!

But ... my King can stay near the corner. All of your
"advantage" can't get it out. You can make me
"prove the draw" and move your pieces around
for 50 moves. But you can't win -
against anyone who knows the drawing method.

Sure, there are people in the world who are so
bad at chess that they *don't* know about
keeping the King in the corner. Those people might
move it away, and in that case you would win
from that position.

So back to the issue of honesty and truthfulness.
(the Historian brags that he "doesn't have a
dog in that fight" Perhaps he should.) Does
Fischer know how to draw the position in
question? If so, Evans is correct. If not,
he's wrong. If he's wrong, he could be
misstaken, or he could be lying.

Well no one can ever really know.
But Larry Evans concluded that the
position was an easy draw (hence not
giving Spassky any advantage) Maybe
he saw the even material, the symmetrical
pawn structure, the fact that Black's
Bishop is good. Maybe he's played
similar positions - lots of times- and knows
that players of Fischer's calibre don't have
any trouble coming up with a drawing method.
Seems reasonable to me, but apparently
not to help bot, who claims that Evans is
not just wrong, he's lying. But here's the
thing - help bot doesn't provide an argument
to support that assertion. Amidst all the
verbiage, and there has been a lot,
his lone piece of supporting evidence
is "there were many variations which
might well have caught any ordinary
player for a loss". Well I suppose
we can concede that fact, but do
we upset him by telling him that that
doesn't make Evans a liar?


..