On Mar 10, 6:33 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Now showing

http://www.chessville.com:80/Editori...ions/Adams.htm


It looks like those players who dream of
"getting back into the top ten" are mainly
interested in things relating to that (like
FIDE's fumbling with time-controls and so
forth), while old-timers like GM Adorjan
are interested in reminiscing about the
good old days.

Having read complaints about the
"current" lack of creativity from as far
back as I can remember, it comes off as
a bit strained when modern old-timers
suggest that *they* were indeed the
greatest generation in that area. It
reminds me a bit of the hoopla with
regard to "hyper-modern" chess; nine
times out of ten, credit for invention of
this style of play is given primarily to a
generation far removed from its true
inventors, when all they really did,
perhaps, was /popularize/ it.

Back to the subject of "journalism" for
a moment: will we see the viewpoints
of GM Adams "incorporated" into
future interviews? I expect not; I rather
expect that our nearly-journalist will
keep on hammering away with his all-
Adorjan, all-the-time slant and his
anti-FIDE-president agenda.

One thing I have noticed when
watching a certain TV station is its
*systematic* tendency to shut up or
interrupt those with different viewpoints,
so they cannot be heard. I bring this up
only because I recall that certain folks
were asked lots of questions about
FIDE when they agreed with the party
line, while GM Adams was not; he was
/not/ cooperative in attacking FIDE, and
so he was /not/ afforded the same
opportunities as former interviewees,
like the last one (Paul Truong). For
instance, "the question he wished he
had been asked, but wasn't" gave PT
something like three or four chances to
slam away at FIDE or other mutual pet
peeves, whereas the uncooperative MA
got just one such opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
GM Adorjan was also afforded the
benefit of multiple answers in this vein.

So, what is my beef? I simply want
"interviews" to be what they claim:
interviews; not disguised attempts to
lend some celebrity-based imaginary
credibility to ideas which could better
be discussed in an op-ed piece. It is
obvious to any sane person that a
celebrity cannot lend credibility to any
idea which cannot stand up on its own
merits. Likewise, it is obvious to the
sane that any idea with real merit has
no /need/ of propping up via celebrity
endorsements. Get it?


-- help bot