On Nov 13, 8:08 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

All very good points, Larry T. In the same vein, one point I'd like
to add here is that "forensic analysis" a la Evans is obviously
worthless without certain assumptions derived from context. Just given
raw game scores, with nothing about who played whom, when, where etc,
no one could possibly say with the least certainty that "34...Rd6
proves coercion." If Keres made a bad move in, say, a British
tournament where he was the only Soviet player, no one would dream of
saying he was throwing a game to let a Brit win. If Joe Smith made the
same move in the same position in a weekend Swiss, the notion of
conspiracy would be laughed at. But put the same move in Hague-Moscow
1948, and people are all too eager to say "You see, the fix is in!"
with no more factual basis than they have in the other contexts.
My point is that it takes far more than mere analysis to prove any
sort of fix. Evidence from sources other than the board is required.


In the article by Hans Ree, it became necessary for
him to grossly distort the facts in order to fit the
conspiracy theory under examination.

In essence, HR made a case that no strong GM
would *ever* play a stupid Rook maneuver where he
retreats the Rook, and then places it behind a weak
pawn on the edge of the board. However, instead of
showing us that this in fact happened, he gives some
in-between moves that change everything, that show
it was not the "elementary maneuver" in question.
If this was not grossly dishonest, then it was
grotesquely incompetent, analysis.

I also found the analysis taken from S&L to be
very lame here. Instead of the obviously-correct
strategy adopted by GM Botvinnik, Hans Ree has
S&L -- endgame experts -- giving ridiculous moves
as supposed evidence of a draw. My guess is that
were it possible to enter such "theory" into any top
chess program, GMs Smyslov Levenfish, and Ree
would all three bite the dust here in short order.
One does not draw such endings by merely huffing
and puffing that it is a theoretical draw; it is
necessary for the inferior side to find the best move
or plan at every turn, and you must not avoid facing
the best tries for the opponent via self-deceit.

Mr. Kingston observed that a strategy for losing
believably might entail getting oneself into time
pressure. Well, in that same vein, the last thing
you would want to do is get into a simple Rook
ending before blundering intentionally, for this
could arouse suspicion. Also note the wasted
energy, which might well have been conserved by
erring early in the opening, like GM Reshevsky
did repeatedly.

For me, the final blow was when Mr. Ree quoted
"hapless victim" GM Bronstein making excuses for
his own fixing of games; you cannot have it both
ways -- whining of being cheated and yet being one
of the many cheaters yourself. The fact that the
Evans ratpackers have decided to support one
cheater over all other such cheaters does not
arouse my sympathy in the least; rather, I am just
disgusted.


-- help bot