"help bot" wrote in message
...
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),

the so-forth being a commitment to a 4 year program, so that Morozevich
already called it ridicoulous, and dropped out

while old-timers like GM Adorjan
are interested in reminiscing about the
good old days.

does it seem so? I thought Adorjan was asking 2 questions about these days -
are players as creative and how so, and also if these days the top several
hundred players were put into a tournament, would the results accord to
world rankings and ELOs?

neither of those seem 'reminiscing' in any /sentimental/ sense. people after
all say that if Capablanca or Lasker and susch champions were around they
would cream everybody. Adorjan's questions were difficult for any single
player to answer [from an objective point of view] since the means of
measurement are not the same now as then, and suffered varieties of changes
in between

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.

That is not a strictly sensible sentence. Of course they were they greatest
generation in that era - ipso facto they were world champion candidates! I
wonder what else strains opinion from the corn-belt?

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.

Which they of the 2 groups do you refer to as popularizing? Really - you
might learn to name your nouns, or submit to reading books as Larry and I
highly recommend.

Would you mean at all that by popularizing these ideas, they made them a
real force at the GM level, which they were not before?

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.

Listen, I like a 99% democracy as well as the next Khan. When a woman
journalist gets offed, and she is a hard line communist, then let us not
talk about journalism as we know it in the West.

Since I actually know Mickey Adams from [his] childhood, what actually
passes between us, or me and others, is sometimes representable in public.

But what actually is the matter with Adorjan's views on chess subjects? He
certainly beefed up Kasparov's performance with black, and didn't do so bad
for Peter Leko. Does help-snot not grant him this?

Perhaps Our Greg has a hidden reservation which he is too shy to name?

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).

What exactly is Our Greg asking for? Does he think Mickey Adams has the same
orientation as Nigel Short? [ROFL]

Is he suggesting that I should have asked Mickey 7 questions about Fide?

Did I ask Paul Truong any questions about Fide?

Of course I had to ask PT questions about USCF's politics, since he is
embroiled in them and we have heard one side of it only, and that by proxy.
Is Our Greg suggesting I should have asked PT less questions about USCF?

Who knows what this person means, he who criticises other's chess
credentials, and even their journalism - but who can't write strighter than
a rattler?

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,

That is ALWAYS the last Chessville Question. Its what we call an 'open'
question, you see, and is not what we also call 'lead-directing'.

whereas the uncooperative MA
got just one such opportunity.

The same question?

What is Kennedy at now? Does he insist that Adams must address Fide issues?

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.

How 'ell put.

Likewise, it is obvious to the
sane

IF it is obvious, then you yourself need not rest on that crutch - since by
continuosly leading the reader with what they must observe in order to be
'sane', renders the sense of some desperate plea, rather than what is of
self-evidential merit.

that any idea with real merit has
no /need/ of propping up via celebrity
endorsements. Get it?

Having read all the above I have no idea what the rather abstract criticism
means, neither, I suspect, does its own author.

Phil Innes

-- help bot