Chess One wrote:

GM Larry Evans was one of the two most popular writers
in Chess Life according to every CL survey ever taken of the
readership. He was fired because the powers that be
wanted to rid the magazine of its single independent
voice. The editor played ball to get the job and lied to GM Evans.

Used to be most popular. A lot of us got tired of the same old Fischer
rehash.

Can I suppose that these are the same people too tired to write about chess
themselves?


Common ad hominem technique noted. (But why stop here?
Why not "shoot the messenger" outright, and be done with him?)


The 'Fischer rehash' was what shook the mighty Soviets to their core, and
brought chess to the USA in such large numbers that USCF went from 10,000
members says Horrowitz, to 60,000 in 5 years.

Wrong. At the time of the above-mentioned growth surge,
Fischer was anything BUT rehash! His story was fresh, new.
Still in shrink-wrap even. Try to keep up, my boy.


In the four articles that you cite, three were about Fischer
and the other was about a man that hlped a philosphy enslave most of
the world and terrorized the rest. Evans was stuck in the past and
could not break out.

In that case he shares the same opinion as some east-Bloc writers, who
compare all the players around during the Fischer boom, and the quality of
their play with todays drawzzz.

I like that one. Drawzzz. It's high time I started coming up
with new ideas like this one. Maybe I'll patent it. Special
thanks to IM Innes for "inspiring" me. :D


Those were the days when you had to beat most of the other best players in
the world to engage in a match with the world champion, and when the result
wasn't decided by one game of rapid chess.

Yes, but trying to convince someone like
Larry Parr -- who is also stuck in the past --
is like arm-wrestling Arnold Schwartzennegger.

That is not such a specific comment that can be answered, but if the
comparison is the Current World Champion playing Fritzzzz,

As so often happens, IM Innes has lost the thread.

We had been discussing a man called Botvinnik, and
the comment above related to him being the first WC
to have faced frequent, *mandatory* matches against
the most dangerous challengers -- quite unlike his
predecessors. This was all in connection with a
commentary which maintained that MB had no claim
to the status of "best of all time", due to such items
as his drawn matches and ultra-narrow wins.

I veered off into a generalized comment regarding how
it seemed pointless to try and convince Mr. Parr of *any*
rational take on these matters. It had nothing whatever
to do with WC Kramnik voluntarily playing Deep Fritz.
It had to do with trying to convince a braindeader by
using something called reason, which they don't ever
seem to comprehend.

and, say, a match
between Evans and Taimanov with Che Guevarra and Castro looking on; or
Reshevsky vs Tal; or even a chance encounter between Botvinnik v Keene
[Keene won their game, and laugh I think its fair to say scared himself!]
then these are the comparisons.

This makes no sense to me, but then I was on the
original thread, while IM Innes has ventured into the
wild unknown, alone and unarmed.


People like these are blinded to their own
handicap, and perceive the whole world as
being the real problem. In view of the utter
hopelessness of trying to get one of these
guys to snap out of it, I have come to accept
the fact (as I see it), that only time can solve
their problem.

I foresee a similar problem with the USA as
a whole (not just in chess) being superceeded
eventually by China, at least economically.
War is one possibility. Bitter resentment,
moaning and groaning inevitable.

There we are, argue for your limitations and sure enough, they will be
yours.

I see it a bit differently. As I see it, the real limitations
belong to such stubborn nincompoops as LP, and I am
merely noting the fact. :D


I would have thought that the country with the first and towering world
genius of chess, Morphy; then the country with the strongest team at chess
for a decade in the 1930's when international competition became viable; and
then the thunder and lightning of a Fischer, would need reminding that
someone put them all TO SLEEP!

But who? I mainly feel sleepy when replaying the
games of Nimzowitch, who some call a "hyper"-modern.
Yet to me he is dull and boring. His games, I mean.
Not him personally. For all I know, he could have
been a great guy, who simply failed to comprehend
real chess.


And falling asleep in the world is a bad American habit caused by physical
isolation.

Canada? Mexico? Iran? Japan? We have plenty of
next-door neighbors. You seem to vastly underestimate
our dominion! Isolationism is dead; we now practice
world domination (or at least *think* we do).


Let us, for all love, not also engage in intellectual isolation,
evn from our own past.

I don't see the Evans ratpack as being "isolated" from
things intellectual, really; I see them more as being
incapable of rational thought, and that in turn is what
separates them from intelligent thought. (Is this splitting
hairs?)


It is well said that America is the sleeping giant of chess,

Who said this? And why are they not aware of how
silly it sounds, to the better-informed?

My view is that China and India are the most likely
"sleeping giants" of chess, due in part to the size of
their populations relative to others (like us for instance).


and rather than
it being all over, chess here is only newly born ~ and I never heard of a
country that likes games more than this one.

Okay, but one day you may read about a small country
named China, and about how its people *love* games,
and about how this can be capitalized upon by astute
investors. Oh, and I should also mention cellphones;
they love cellphones, and because they outnumber us
a bazillion to one, there is vast opportunity here as well.


-- help bot


PS: Psssst: Buy CHL (cellphones) and NTCY (games).
China is growing three times faster than the USA, and
what's more, they have been "supporting" our record level
national debt by massive buying of U.S. Treasuries. Who
is sleeping here? We are quite "busted", my friends.