KARPOV'S SPORTING ETHICS

As far as I can tell, Karpov is the only World Champion
in the FIDE era to play a title defense with *no* advantage
(twice with Korchnoi, once vs. Kasparov) -- David Kane

How quickly we forget!

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 100)

Korchnoi became the target of Soviet wrath when he defected in 1976.
First they tried to disqualify him from a title shot on the grounds
that he was stateless, but FIDE had the courage to declare that
challengers represented themselves as individuals, not their nations.
FIDE nonetheless bowed to Soviet pressure by forcing Korchnoi to
accept a rematch clause that FIDE had stricken in 1963.

Then the Soviet Union refused to release Korchnoi’s family and
objected to his playing under the flag of his new country,
Switzerland. During his 1978 title match, the Soviet press never
mentioned his name, referring to him only as "the challenger" or
"Karpov’s opponent."

Korchnoi squawked that the deck was stacked against him even in a
neutral country like the Philippines. Two members of his delegation
were denied entry to the auditorium, but a parapsychologist with
Karpov’s entourage was allowed to roam freely in the audience while
trying to hypnotize and unnerve Korchnoi. Try as he might, Korchnoi
could not get Dr. Zukhar removed. When Korchnoi appealed his loss in
the final game of the match on the grounds that the hypnotist had
broken an agreement by moving from the rear of the auditorium to the
fourth row while play was in progress, FIDE not only turned down the
appeal but went on to condemn the challenger for not conforming to
"the sporting ethics of chess and general social obligations."

The matter did not stop there. The Soviet Union suddenly pulled out
two of her players from the Nineteenth Lone Pine Open in America after
learning Korchnoi was competing. Other tournament organizers were
notified that if Korchnoi were invited, no Russians would come. His
name was conspicuously absent from the list of the world’s top ten
grandmasters in 1979 competing at the $110,000 Challenge Cup in
Montreal. Anatoly Karpov, who tied for first there with ex-titleholder
Mikhail Tal, had been able to wield his influence as world champion in
support of the party line,
cabling the organizers, "If I could not refuse to face Korchnoi at
Baguio, I am now entitled to expect organizers to respect certain
conditions. Either they invite Korchnoi or me."

Not all the Russians joined the offensive against the expatriate.
Spassky was one of three (but only three) Soviet grandmasters who
refused to sign a letter of censure against Korchnoi. (Botvinnik and
Bronstein were the other two holdouts.) Korchnoi’s son was imprisoned
in the USSR and beaten on the eve of his next title match with Karpov
in 1981. After Korchnoi lost, his family finally was released.





wrote:
GREG'S BILE

Most of you probably noticed that among the
reasons Greg Kennedy attacked Larry Evans was that
the 5-time U.S. champion's "scolding" of Kasparov
for doublecrossing Shirov "had no effect."

Key-razy stuff from a very bitter man in Indiana.
That would also be a reason for attacking GM Evans
for pointing out Anatoly Karpov's depredations which
also "had no effect."

A few of you also likely caught the reference to
Evans' "puff piece." Greg has a tin ear. Evans was
answering a question from readers in his column,
including Kasparov's manager who took umbrage at
referring to his client's "shabby behavior."
.
That is not a "piece," as the term is commonly used in
journalism. It is an answer from a Q&A column.

Greg is right that GM Evans screamed louder over
several of Karpov's outrages, but that is because
GM Evans could and can distinguish among differing
wrongs, unlike the coulda-been-a-contendah guy who
is a nobody in chess and rarely has a good word to
say about anyone..

Kasparov cheated Shirov outrageously; Karpov played
matches against Korchnoi with the latter's family held
prisoner inside the USSR. On the eve of the second match
in 1981, Korchnoi's son was beaten in a Soviet slave camp --
an event that had a disastrous,though anticipated effect on
Korchnoi's morale.

Kasparov cheated and swerved and tergiversated; Karpov
was, and may remain, a prime Grade AAA bonded rat,
though in sheep's clothing these days.

GM Evans' answer in his Q&A column was strongly
worded and to the point, which is the way he always
answered questions when his views were definite.

In a separate posting I will present a long
COPYRIGHTED article I wrote at the World Chess
Network.It takes note of every sickening curve in
Kasparov's swerving on the Shirov match. It is rather
long and may seem a bit unrelenting to those of you
outside the "coulda been a contendah" bitterness of
our Greg, but it got the issue right -- an issue that
had permutations of which our detail-shy Greg is
blissfully unaware.

Including, I might add, a refutation of a
famous comment by Leo Durocher.

Yours, Larry Parr




help bot wrote:
wrote:

GM Larry Evans has been an objective observer of the chess scene for
decades

In fact, Larry Evans is the most biased "observer"
I know; his spin-zone reminds me of the "fair and
balanced" Fox News channel on TV.


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.


I was a subscriber to Chess Lies at the time that
article appeared. Having become well accustomed to
the "huge bias" (IM John Watson, et al) of Mr. Evans,
I took the article as a token puff-piece-- not anything
like what one would expect if, say, FIDE or Anatoly
Karpov or any of the other, usual whipping boys had
done precisely the same thing.

You see, when FIDE messes up -- and it quite often
does -- Mr. Evans has a cow. He will rant and rave
about the "injustice" or whatever until the day he dies,
guaranteed. Yet when one of his faves -- here, Gary
Kasparov -- blunders, all we can expect from the
hugely biased five-time U.S. Champ is a scolding,
and then silence. It is a double-standard to be sure,
but then, that seems to be the only kind of standard
Mr. Evans knows.

So you see, the fact that Mr. Evans wanted "to be
seen" as having come out in support of Mr. Shirov
does not impress. LE's scolding had no effect, and I
don't mean just on the cheating of Mr. Shirov, but on
his overall favoritism with regard to Mr. Kasparov.

The reason is obvious: supporting GK is conducive
to Larry Evan's FIDE-bashing agenda. That agenda
is so important to LE that he cannot afford to side
with "justice", no matter what it might happen to be.

I couldn't help bot notice that Mr. Parr felt it might
help his ad hominem "cause" to switch threads; so
then, what was it that he was so worried about in
the original thread? I think I know: it was probably
the post in which LP presented Gary Kasparov as
a champion of "justice", who, much like Superman,
fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and
the Kasparov way.

The ploy /could have/ worked, but for making such
a titanic blunder in the area of casting. I cannot say
who is right for the role of champion of justice, but it
is painfully obvious that Gary Kasparov ain't it.


-- help bot