GREG KENNEDY'S BIG LIE

GK's handling of his private world title had selected
GM Shirov as challenger, but instead of, say, giving
GK a rematch clause, Mr. Shirov was simply cheated
out of his shot at the title altogether! ....Instead of arguing
that Gary Kasparov was a champion of "justice", perhaps
Larry Evans should take a good, hard look at what justice
is -- like he did when Bobby Fischer was barking "demands"
at FIDE. -- help bot

GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
decades, yet Greg Kennedy's big lie is that the 5-time U.S. champion
is in Kasparov's pocket -- even though he has been critical of
Kasparov on numerous occasions. I realize that setting the record
straight won't do much good when it comes to the "bots" of this world
because they will just continue inventing new lies

EVANS ON CHESS (Best Question, September 1999)

Answer to a reader who said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the way
"Alexei Shirov got shafted after he was promised a title match."

GM EVANS RESPONDED

I couldn't agree with you more. In my syndicated column (A Debt Of
Honor) I noted: A planned match with Shirov collapsed because backers
got cold feet, fearing the contest might be too one-sided.
Nonetheless, many critics feel that Kasparov is honor-bound to give
Shirov a shot at the title first.

1. In 1998 Kasparov organized a match between Shirov and Kramnik,
pledging to play the winner for $2 million.

2. Shirov won -- but only Kramnik got paid.

3. Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to see that Shirov is fully
compensated and to face him under terms initially paraded by his
defunct World Chess Countil." Kasparov's retaining draw odds is unfair
to Anand and horribly distorted their 1995 tilt which began with eight
straight draws.

In a match of limited duration, each draw inches the champion closer
to victory. Do fans really want that?







As a follow-up, here is SHIROV'S SAD SAGA (Chess Life, April 2000,
page 16).

EVANS ON CHESS

From: Owen Williams (Worldwide Agent for Garry Kasparov, Palm Beach,
Florida)

Q. I decided it was time to answer your oft-repeated line about
"Kasparov's shabby treatment of challenger Alexei Shirov."

The World Chess Council (WCC) under its Chairman and Founder, Luis
Rentero, agreed to put up $2.1 million for a title match plus another
$100,000 for the loser in Kramnik vs. Shirov after Anand withdrew in
1998. Rentero then arbitrarily announced this $100,000 would have to
be deducted from the $2.1 million. In retrospect, it was an early
indication as to how things would be run! The glue began to come
unstuck and as soon as we heard rumors and questioned Rentero, he told
all of us "my word is my bond" and "if necessary I pay the prize money
myself." Coupled with this was a continuous "Trust Me" and another
constant refrain was "the Government will approve the signing this
week."

Garry and I discussed going public but you can imagine the hullabaloo
that would have ensued with him blamed for pulling the plug
prematurely. We started to scramble. I personally made half a dozen
transatlantic trips and spent enough time and dollars to make my case.
Rentero finally ran out of ideas and we were left with no
alternatives. The match backing disappeared and soon thereafter
tragedy struck in the form of a life-threatening auto accident for
Rentero. Garry retains a healthy respect for what he did for chess in
Linares over the years, but Rentero's foray into bigger things was an
unmitigated disaster of his own making.

Eventually a businessman in California agreed to put up $600,000 in
cash plus full airfares and hotel for each player at a value of
$50,000 each. We went to Shirov and he refused. Dr. William Wirth (a
notable chess sponsor and patron himself) agreed to top up the prize
with a further $200,000 of his own money. Shirov said "no." He
repeated to me that there was an offer from Tarrasa near Barcelona,
where he was living at the time for 225 million pesetas (about $1.6
million). The hope of the Catalonian offer was, I believe, the real
reason why Shirov turned down our $800,000 offer. He has since tried
to say that it was not in writing, but the truth is he said "no" so
firmly that we never had time to confirm it in writing.

Meanwhile we kept going from Southern Africa to the Far East without
success while waiting for Tarrasa. My file is full of many Shirov e-
mails saying, "there is a very important meeting next week, and you
will get an offer right away." It never happened. By Christmas of '98
we received no answers and I discovered Shirov had moved from that
area. That, from my viewpoint, was the end of the Tarrasa non-offer.

Now let's come to the interesting question -- why is it so fashionable
to blame Kasparov? He has been World Champion since 1985. He has been
Number 1 on all ratings systems for a decade and more. There is a
general perception that he pulls every string in every deal from start
to finish and he has made the sort of enemies who will make up
stories if they can't find evidence of wrongdoing. LET'S FACE IT.
GARRY WAS THE MOST HARMED PLAYER IN THIS WHOLE FIASCO AND HERE'S WHY:

[The next five points made by Owen Williams are snipped but can be
read by anyone with access to back issues of Chess Life who is
interested in the subject.]

LARRY EVANS' RESPONSE

Mr. Williams, you know where I stand on the major issues swirling
around Kasparov. I believe he is the "real" champion. I believe he is
the strongest player in the world. I believe he is NOT trying to duck
anyone.

I already know the hard facts you outlined about l'affaire Shirov,
though not the lengths to which you endeavored to arrange such a
match. From what you wrote, it is obvious Kasparov felt either a moral
or legal responsibility (perhaps both) to make enormous good-faith
efforts to arrange a match with Shirov under a sanctioning
organization that was clearly his vehicle. Fine. I have no problem
with this because, if nothing else, it was less corrupt than FIDE.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Despite good-faith efforts and
even the challenger's apparent folly, Kasparov is not absolved from
his pledge to give Shirov a title shot for $2 million as announced to
the world at Linares in 1998. Kasparov put his trust in a person who
proved unreliable, but he also put his credibility and prestige behind
the WCC (which went the way of his GMA and PCA). These facts can't be
evaded. It turned out, perhaps, that he unwittingly treated himself
more shabbily than he did Shirov.

I still believe Kasparov has a debt of sporting honor to play Shirov.
If he should do so, you can rely on me to celebrate in bold type and
capital letters. As it stands, however, Shirov never got paid for
beating Kramnik or a title shot -- both are Kasparov's obligation.

I accept your account, though Shirov might take issue with it. After
all, if I had beaten someone eight times and drawn seven out of a
total of 15 games (recent results over a short period) and if I could
arrange a match against the same opponent for big bucks, I would
certainly do so.

Until that happens I will continue to write that Kasparov has treated
Shirov shabbily, just as I will continue to opine that Kasparov
remains the only true champion who is NOT cosseted by playing in elite
events against very strong opponents. (Also see my Best Question in
September 1999).