GREG KENNEDY'S LIE

The editor received numerous letters blasting his decision to fire GM
Evans.

Parr continues to repeat this lie. GM Larry Evans continues
to write for the USCF, only now his boring and factually
inaccurate answers appear in Chess Life for Kids. The
crime is the same - only the victims have changed.

I became interested in this, because despite warnings that we have read it
all before, apparently Kids still ask the same questions, and still need
answers.

Here is some of the recent output of GM Evans writing
for the USCF: (Questions are from the readers. Answers are from
GM Evans himself. Source: Chess Life for Kids Dec. 2006)

"Q. I have never been rated. How can I get a rating?

A. [Evans]You must compete in an official USCF tournament
to be assigned a number of based on your performance..."

This is, of course, false. There are half a dozen ratings that
would likely answer a reader's questions about how
good he is,

Half a dozen services that provide OTB ratings? I know of one alternate.

some of which he could obtain more easily
than the method Evans suggests.

'More easily'? How? I hope the writer isn't mixing up all sorts of ratings,
including on-line ones. I play on a server, eg, where there are dozens of
3000+ 'ratings'.

Moreover, the
target reader for the magazine, scholastic
players, might be 7 years old. Possibly the very worst
advice for such a player would be to seek out a non
kid-friendly USCF tournament where everyone will
outrate him by 1000 points.

A real 7 year old from out club just took part in a USCF rated tournament,
and came second in the under-9 year old section, which was one by a
900-rated player.

Not only would he *not*
learn much about his strength, he'd likely
have a horrible time in the process.

I don't understand this - are USCF tournaments so much more horrible than
others?

Later in the answer, Evans plugs one of his Cardoza books
and repeats a paragraph from it.

"Q. I'm an avid player but not very good. I've long been
interested in signficantly improving my ability, but how
does one go about finding a reputable instructor? They
aren't exactly listed in the Yellow Pages. What's the going
rate for chess lessons?

A. [Evans] Good teachers charge anywhere from $25
to $100 for a lesson. The best way to find one is at
your local chess club. Or phone the USCF and ask
if they know of someone in your area. ..."

Another barrage of innacurracy and bad advice.
Possibly the scholastic player's "local chess club"
(which he attends at school) consists of his fellow
1st graders and one instructor - who might not be
counted on to give impartial answers being himself
an instructor.

Who could be counted on to give impartial advice? I note that Evans himself
didn't use the word impartial, and since some amount of money is involved,
let us credit whoever is spending it with some level of discrimination.

The suggestion to call an office
worker 2000 miles away to learn about local
chess coaches, most with little or no connection
to Tennessee, is not helpful.

Wouldn't the office worker ask where the would-be-student was located, and
try to fit mentor-student together?

"Q. We know that White has the advantage of the first move.
Just how big of an advantage is it?

A. [Evans]The first move gives White the initiative. It can be compared
to having the serve in tennis. A summary of results by color
of 6000 games in 45 tournaments from 1851 ot 1932 shows that
White won 38%, Black won 31% and 31% were drawn. Over the
years it has been increasingly harder to win with Black, but somewhat
easier to draw.

The better player will win with either color - it just takes longer
with Black. ..."

It is noteworthy that Evans refers to statistics covering
the period 1851-1932, ignoring the last 74 years of chess
and reminding us all of his distance from the modern game.

I have some statistics from Adorjan on current play, which is not so very
different than heretofore - and Evans indicates the general percentage rates
then which are as true today. Why is this queried?

His claim that the "better player" will win with either color is
not supported by the evidence. Kasparov won 35% of
his games as Black. Who were these "equal-or-better-
than-Kasparov" players in the other 65% of his games?

This is most misleading. There are several aspects, including the rating
level of the players: the differential between 2099 and 2700 being huge
with white eg, but also substantial with black.

But Adorjan quotes extensive statistics for top players over time, and also
the specific match records of some dozen players, so they can be contrasted
with the background average. Furthermore! Data samples are skewed by
recorded black and win games:

He says that the highest /share/ of recorded Black games is the recently
deceased Bronstein, who scored 50.2%, but in the case of Capablanca and
Alekhine this rate is below 35%

In Kasparov's case: AA gives specifics for scores with both black and white
and also cites the percentages these represent from his data sample; so...

Share of Black games: 41.0% W 40.8, D 47.3, L 11.8
Share of White games: 59% W 65.2, D 30.8, L 4.0

The background of white/black WDL over time is much more interesting,
substantiates Evan's comments, though there is some very recent changes -
only at the top of the scale [ie, GMs]

Phil Innes