TOUCH MOVE!

From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 267)

Since the rules specify that a protest must be lodged during play,
nothing could be done after the game was over. "I didn't want to cause
unpleasantness during my first invitation to such an important event,"
she [Judith Polgar] explained. "We were both in severe time pressure.
I was also afraid I would be penalized on the clock if my protest was
rejected."

"Kasparov did not take his hand off the knight, so he had a perfect
right to change his move," said the chief arbiter. "My conscience is
clear. I have the feeling my hand was still on it," added Kasparov.

Yet we all know the naked eye can be fooled. A camera crew was filming
the game and a replay revealed that Kasparov removed his hand for
exactly 1/4 of a second! Deliberate foul or did he try to change his
grip in order to reverse direction? Who can say for sure?

His enemies promptly called it cheating. But Robert Solso, a noted
cognitive psychologist, said that a time span of 250 milliseconds
might be too short to make such a conscious decision.




Chess One wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 7:51 am, "Chess One" wrote:

A picture of GK appeared in Investors Business Daily,
December 4, 2007 as well. It is very strange to see him
grumble about honor and whatnot, as he never even
apologized for his shameless cheating against Ms.
Polgar -- as caught on videotape.

What a nonsense - its my understanding that JP accepts his explanation to
her.

You will no doubt understand if "your understanding"
is not taken seriously here, due to your abysmal
record.

At least I AM someone, cowardy pants! If you can't write your own name, what
a massive hypocrite you are to obsess over those who can - always putting
them down!

..

"Um, er, what I meant to say was that I, um, did
not realize that my hand (the wicked dog!) had
released the Knight. So you see, it was the hand,
not I."

invented dialog by corn-bot! enough of this subject! he doesn't want to hear
anything else so that he can continue to dislike a famous strong player...
whats new about that?


Garry Kasparov has been risking rather more than his opinion on usenet,
some
say risking his life. Certainly the US government are concerned about
coercion of votes, threats issued, and a goverment controlled media
auditing
the news.

The question is, in what way is taking such risks
beneficial to "democracy" in Russia? As far as I
have seen, the result was a loss. It reminds me
of the split with FIDE over money and power; in
fact, GK specifically mentioned control over
Russia's money in his rant, just as Sam Sloan
does when complaining about the USCF. One
has to wonder, what is the /real motive/ here?

I expect you would have a clearer idea if you got to stand around in a
frozen square with the riot police looking on. What you wonder is not nearly
enough since you never lived in a country where the knock on the door comes
at 2am, and the rubber truncheons... Orwell wrote that in 1941 about just
such a defence of the West against dictators.

You may not appreciate your freedom to express yourself, in which case at
the next election vote for English George, rather than President Washington,
since you won't appreciate his time in the wilderness either.

In the past, GK has expounded upon some
democratic ideals in chess, but when the voters
preferred Jan Timman, he showed his true colors
via a cut-and-run, leaving the "democrats" to
twist in the wind. Is that the sort of man you
wish to lead Russia, instead of Mr. Putin?

Laugh! Certainly!

And because I am no True Believer, and would back anyone anyday who can
answer for themselves, saint or sinner, than prefer the product of the KGB
in a "100%" democracy

Kasparov may not be the best proponent of democracy in Russia

You got that right.


but he /is/ credible

No, he's not. But like Sam Sloan, he does get
a lot of attention out of this.

Unlike Sam Sloan, he commits himself to considerable risk for something far
beyond his personal interest.

and in consideration of who else represents the issue, he is the
leader of something now very important to something in the modern world -
not just in Russia, but in the USA too - at least the US President seems
to
think so.

What follows seems to be on another topic, and is 'net-wisdom' rather like
urban legends, but here we see how the third estate would be if issued from
a cornfield:-

One day, Mr. Innes, you will perhaps learn to
/think for yourself/, and not rely upon the likes of
GB or LP to do it for you. A good start would be
to reevaluate positions which are not supported
by the facts. Here's a fact you might want to
consider, once you make the decision to start
/thinking for yourself/: Yuri Averbakh was used
by LE in support of one of his rants, but when
the book finally appeared, it turned out that LE
was just blowing hot air: YA stated that Vassily
Smyslov was the Kremlin's favorite, not GM
Botvinnik! LOL As a chess player of nearly-
an-IM strength, you surely can do simple
pattern recognition? Try this on for size: in
another article by LE, the dishonest kook used
TK in support of his position, but it turned out
that TK had reversed himself, and no longer
supported LE.

What a passion!

Now, this is not overly complex:
what is the pattern here? That's right, bucko:
the simple pattern is one of deception and lies
emanating from Larry Evans. Food for thought.

Corn-mush, in fact?

And thereby rests the defence of free speech of the modern epoch - by
innocently quoting Averbakh, the agent who even Taylor Kingston knows may
not be entirely truthful about his own role in the secret world of Soviet
chess manipulations.

Pravda, anyone? It reads pretty much the same, then and now.

Phil Innes


-- help bot