On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, "David Kane" wr "help
bot" wrote in message

It's hard to imagine anyone so dense as to believe
that scholastic members would actually want to
read a column by Evans.

What a silly comment! Scholastic players will
hardly be able to tell the difference between a
column by GM Evans and one by any other
random GM, for the content is focused upon
basic chess, not politics or any of the other
areas in which GM Evans frequently stumbles.
(Please tell me if I'm wrong, and his kiddie
column is filled with attacks on Botvinnik, etc.)

One of the things I liked about GM Evans was
his insistence upon grabbing material when you
cannot "see" the reason not to; this not only
leads to winning when the sac was unsound --
it also leads to quickly learning about tactics
when it *was* sound, and the loss of a single
game is well worth the valuable lesson learned.


This leads to the explanation
that the column was continued for the Evans' own
benefit.

No, it doesn't. If you would learn to think, you
would be able to see that if the column was in
fact "continued", as you say, then all that means
is that the editors were either not redoing the
children's mag. at that time, or else they saw no
reason to replace GM Evans column, as it was
not flawed in the same way or to the same extent
as his political ranting column in CL. There may
also be a difference in supply/demand of authors
in the two different mags. I seriously doubt that
kids were writing in complaining about GM Evans,
the way adults would do.


As Sloan's own post reveals, this doesn't
seem to placate the Evans' clique who are
presumably looking for his commentary
(aka ravings) on some grave injustice that
took place during his first US Championship
victory - in 1951.

Although it probably has happened at some
point, I don't think it is fair to attack GM Evans
as though his ranting were on his own behalf.
On the contrary, his biggest issue seems to
be anything and everything relating to GM
Fischer -- issues which in fact are a tad more
current than your figure (1951). Valid criticism
of GM Evans and his ratpack in no way requires
*any* exaggeration or invention.


So doling out something
to the old favorite strikes me as a reasonable
speculation for giving him the column.

Me too. But speculation is merely that; one of
the things which plagues GM Evans' own work is
too much in the way of speculation, and too little
in the way of facts and reason.


I guess one could debate whether Evans' column
does more damage to American chess in Chess
Life or CL for Kids. I'll pass on that debate.

I haven't seen GM Evans' column for kids, but if
I had to guess, I would assume that his ranting
and raving in CL is *in a class by itself*. :D


I was just pointing out that his QA column has been
restored - and is so uninteresting that the readers
apparently aren't even sending in questions.

This may or may not be GM Evans' fault. It is quite
possible that children simply aren't inclined to write
letters anymore. Send emails, yes. Carry cell phones,
yes. Play video games, yes. But write with pen and
paper? So five minutes ago... .

-- help bot